ehlow
Senior Member
LOL
Yes, Pembina doesn't use "pre-metro" in their classification. And perhaps like you've said the Crosstown may not qualify as a technical pre-metro because the at-grade portion won't ever be upgraded. But the takeaway is that it's not a subway/metro, so my post where I said that it's not an expansion of our subway system is apt. And yes, $6bn for a line that can be easily lumped into the same category as St Clair or Spadina is a lot of money.
Having said that, I really don't get the problem with the term "pre-metro", nor why it needs derision. It's actually a fairly smart concept and IMO worthy of being a quasi-classification of its own. If we're spending subway-level amounts of money for something that's not a subway, I think it would've been wise to have left the door open for a conversion at a later date, and/or when ridership warrants it. Obviously "some LRT advocates" might not like the idea, but that means nothing.
*I may be wrong on this, and I'm only going on memory, but during the TC days I thought a component of the Crosstown was to have the SLRT and central tunnel connected by the at-grade portion - which would've/could've been upgraded/grade-separated when ridership on the line grew. Obviously that turned out to be an operational impossibility, but was that ever considered?
I think it's pretty inaccurate to say that Eglinton "can be easily lumped into the same category as St Clair or Spadina", considering for one thing Eglinton is more than half underground.
There are also many other differences such as stop spacing, vehicle size, and the environment it runs on at surface.
People love categorizing, but in reality there are lots of shades of grey and multiple factors involved.