Its not a great piece by John Michael.
He completely ignores the question of what people want (speed as example); and how you do or don't get there.
His entire thesis amounts to Finch was never going to be a subway and LRT is better than a bus.
Except, in this case, as operated, it is not.
Facts matter.
He's right to pillory the way in which transit was handled by various pols, both municipal and provincial.
He'd be on solid ground if he said its possible to do LRT better. (it is)
But he just gives the Miller era plan, such as it was (lines on a map) a free pass, ignoring that it didn't set any real technical standards to achieve that align with public expectations.
It reads a bit as though one were saying..... we proposed and 1/2 built this terrible public housing with prison-like architecture, terrible layout and unit sizes and poor neighbourhood plan, because we can't give everyone a Bridle Path address; as if there isn't something between those two points.
Finch wasn't going to be a subway (agreed), equally we can't do subways to everywhere. But we have to ask why are we building this transit? To which the answer ought to be, some variation of to better connect people to the places they need and want to go, faster, more frequently ,with greater comfort and ease.
Any number of choices of rolling stock , power , platform heights etc. may help achieve these goals at various price points. We certainly need to be judicious w/the dollars in question. But in saying as much, that means not spending money on projects that don't serve ALL of the above goals.
