I'm well aware of what you're referring to when you're whining about "LRT". And I still will call you out for how ridiculous it is to claim in-median isn't effective or useful, or that it's some political ploy from non-suburb ppl (really?). Seems like EWLRT will have less riders by being underground vs in median so that kinda rejects your assertion about no one using it bc it's not grade separate.
If you think my take on at grade LRTs in suburbs is wrong, then why don't you explain why I'm wrong rather than just exclaiming that I'm wrong. I've explained why I dislike median LRTs, why I think they're ineffective, and backed it up with real world examples and comparisons. If you think my interpretation of the data is wrong, or you can come up with an alternative explanation, I'm all ears.
So you support elevated but only if the gov't does, but since they don't really then you don't. tl; dr, you don't actually support elevated (except for a section in Leslieville for some reason).
What kind of mental gymnastics does one need to twist someone's words this much...
I support an elevated alignment, end of story. You're not me, and you're nobody to dictate to me what I do and do not support. Sometimes however you have to come to a compromise and choose the lesser of two evils, welcome to modern day politics. If I start fighting the underground alignment, and if my fighting succeeds, we're getting a median alignment, which would be even worse. The government proposed an at grade alignment in Leslieville (its not elevated, its at grade, its running on a preexisting rail corridor/ROW, not on an elevated viaduct), and its a good proposal so I support it. If a politician came in with a plan for an elevated Eglinton West, I would support that politician, however nobody is proposing that so I have to support the next best thing. That's how politics works, welcome to reality.
And over 100% increase in capacity + modernized stations for Line 3 sounds "beefed up" to me. Not exactly different infrastructure for what's proposed on Eg West.
Yes, the capacity will be higher with the SLRT but, you know what would have more capacity, while costing even less? Modernizing the line with newer ICTS Rolling Stock and extending the platforms (like you would with the SLRT) without pointlessly modifying the stations to be Low Floor which by definition have worse capacity and worse internal circulation than a High Floor train, while costing more in terms of upkeep.
And the way you're going on about SLRT seems contradictory to your support for tunneling Eg West, or even elevating it. Trains built and chosen for being on the street, put underground when there's ample room not to, with seemingly less ridership, with stations that would require significant work in the future to upgrade into a high-floor subway, with massive tunnels for a panto (a feature for street use), when the east half if already on the street... You're about 10yrs too late for having Eglinton be a light metro. What you're supporting is more like a dolled up frankenstein's monster.
First, when have I ever supported modifying the Eglinton Line to High Floor? Yes High Floor is objectively better than low floor, have more capacity, have better internal circulation, and are less expensive to maintain (The maintanance cost of these low floor LRVs within 30 years will be higher than the Toronto Subway rolling stock over the same time period). Despite this I do not believe that it makes sense to spend millions if not billions of dollars remodeling the stations to be high floor despite these improvements. We chose the wrong rolling stock and the wrong technology, now we have to deal with it and make the best use of what we have, which means more grade separations and less median running segments. Ottawa made the same mistake making their LRT low floor despite being completely grade separated which will definitely be a long term capacity constraint, however these Low Floor LRVs do support ATC and can theoretically run at 90s headways (if we remove the at grade street running segments) so it will be a while for both Toronto and Ottawa before the idea of converting to High Floor becomes an actual option or concern. The fact that the line will become a Frankenstein's monster of a line should not be a concern for anyone unless you have OCD. Yes it will be a very weird line, however it will still be more reliable and more effective at what its supposed to do compared to an at grade alignment. This extension will A) extend the line to Pearson Airport, one of the largest and fastest growing employment centers in the region, and the Mississauga Transitway, a
fully grade separated busway that would allow for an easy to transfer to the Mississauga City Centre, a busway that was designed to be easily convertible to rail at any point, so its possible in the future we might see the line, or at least a branch travel from midtown Toronto all the way to MCC, and if we built this extension at grade, we would have this 8km pinch point where you can't have ATC to counteract the low vehicle capacity, and you'd be stuck in trains that make frequent stops with a huge risk of delays due to unruly pedestrians or drivers. This is a crosstown line that is currently planned to span from the Airport to UTSC, literally from the western border of the city to the eastern border, and reliability is a massive issue. Imagine Malvern or UTSC having to wait for their trains because some hot headed driver in Etobicoke ran into an LRV. It would be the reliability problem that Line 1 has but worse tenfold.
