44 North
Senior Member
"Rapid transit" has now devolved into a fairly useless term. A mixed traffic bus with wifi can be considered rapid transit. And LRT has gotten pretty useless too, so I can't agree that there's such thing as "actual LRT". Look at the Line 3 upgrade plan. Was 100% separate from traffic, using 100m trains, automated, local-ish station spacing, very high capacity, low fares, ~2-5min frequency day and night. That's a subway. Split hairs and call it a light metro, but whatevs still a subway by most metrics. Nowhere did I hear those terms in any debate or report. No light metro, no intermediate capacity system, no subway, no light subway, etc. Very little underscoring of its traits. Just "LRT".
But then we have Harbourfront LRT, Spadina LRT, new Watefront LRT. And I guess St Clair too. All in the roadway stopping at traffic lights every 50m, all great upgrades, but all 'actual LRT'. That famous Matlow debate where he supposedly schooled Ford, IMO he just added confusion to an already confusing concept. If a line running with a slow order next to a sidewalk is an LRT, and Line 3 upgrade is LRT, then there's clearly no such thing as "actual LRT". It's such a broad and vague term.
This is the main reason I'm supportive of continuing with the current plans for Eglinton West. We already firmly chose 10yrs ago that the line must have an "LRT" monicker no questions asked, and skipped any opportunity to re-analyze when we had the chance (even if it could've saved us subsequent issues namely SSE). We made our bed. May as well just continue with it.
