Absolutely not. We also have a right to be heard and push for what we want. And that's in line with what most of Torontonians want. We wasted money on a system that should have never been built in Toronto, and it's people like me that organized and pushed to kill any consideration of more LRTs on Sheppard and continues to push for no more of these slow overpriced streetcars that do not have place in Toronto that are only wanted by short sighted geezers who are fine with snail like travel times at half the cost of a subway, but not even close to 10% the value of a subway. And quite frankly, the public agrees and the political sentiment is leaning in the same direction. So no, Absolutely Not.
We certainly should push for better than what was delivered.
However, it is important not to conflate different things.
The vehicles/rolling stock here are perfectly capable of being speedy. It is a choice to operate them slowly. You can operate subways at different speeds too, Toronto runs subways in regular rather than high-rate motor operation which would provide more speed. We've also had issues w/extended or delayed door opening/closing times, particularly on Line 1.
Again, choices. Now there are reasons for said choices, its not just whimsy, but that doesn't mean the TTC got it right.
****
In respect of Finch, we need to be clear, a subway was not ever going on this route. Period. So litigating that would be silly. The alternatives were 'Do nothing'; some variant of BRT, or simply a modified version of what was built.
Lets review what is pure 'choice', in other words reversible now, without major cap-x.
1) Schedules
2) Permitted operating speeds mid-stop (between stops) and through intersections.
3) Transit Priority signalling that is more aggressive.
4) Lagging lefts and/or left turn prohibitions at some intersections.
In varying degrees, these could be delivered, in part, as soon as March; while some changes would require longer, perhaps until late this year.
****
Now lets look at major changes that could be made that do require cap-x, but are realistic and feasible.
1) Really this is removing and/or relocating some surface stops, that's pretty much it.
2) We truly should fix that completely unacceptable turning radii in the Humber tunnel, but that would be expensive and profoundly disruptive.
****
I think BRT and 'Do Nothing' are straight forward as alternatives.
IF we were designing this as LRT, from the start, there are different choices we could have made.
1) We could have trenched or elevated over select intersections, depending on method, depth etc. maybe add 150M per intersection.
2) We could have had open-ballast track (this would allow better heating for switches in the winter.)
3) We could have chosen different rolling stock, considered running to the side of the road, rather than the middle, and certainly build a better portal at Humber.
Of the above, only 1 (and the portal issue) would have represented faster travel times in a material way.
****
Subject to different design choices, there is no inherent reason an LRT can't perform as fast as a subway, but to be clear, that would mean far fewer stops, which would likely necessitate a residual local bus service.
****
To sum up, LRT could be fine here, it just isn't because of bad design and operating choices.
Fixing the operations part will make this much better, but not ideal.
The point of any other discussion really ought to be on insuring whatever choices we make in the future we do better than we did here, significantly so.
That may well mean subway in some cases, but will not mean subway in every case.
The problem with McGrath's piece is not that LRT is inherently evil; its that he wrote a throw-away column in which he failed to address the failures on Finch and with the Miller era plans more broadly in an effort to
simply say 'Miller was right' and people who don't like this are wrong.
On that, he's out to lunch.
Finch is not ok, as operated today.
His defense of that was poorly considered.
