>>18157791. They are higher capacity than busses
2. They are zero emission
3. The quality of the ride is much better than a bus
4. They are cheaper than subways as long as they are built mostly above ground
5. They create the opportunity to create transit malls and denser walkable/bikable neighbourhoods around them
Overall they are "good" as long as it's the right type of light rail.
You don't want it to be stuck in traffic like a streetcar or trolleybus, so ideally it has dedicated lanes and isn't stuck in traffic with cars. You don't want it to be heavily tunneled because then you are spending a similar amount of money to what it would cost to build a proper subway/metro line but without being as fast or as high capacity - by making it too premium you are losing significant value for money.
The 510 Spadina Line is an example of it being done correctly. It connects with the main arterial metro lines allowing for a seemless transfer between types of trains and services a long medium density corridor that needs more than a bus but doesn't need it's own metro line. The car traffic has been reduced so the corridor is much more pedestrian and bike friendly.
The Eglington Crosstown is an example of it being done incorrectly.
1. It's a light rail service on a corridor that could easily support a metro line (especially if/when it goes to the airport and links up to new GO RER stations)
2. It's mostly tunneled except to come above ground for a bit and and wait at an intersection with car traffic before continuing on its own traffic-independent line again.
3. The tunneling that was done is not wide enough to support a metro so if/when it needs to be upgraded to a proper metro line it will cost a fortune.
4. It's taken forever to build because of all the political football around it (except the actual people who live in Toronto and that area have always just wanted it to be a new subway line)
>>1815800Yeah we have retards in charge all across the spectrum
