Finch West Line 6 LRT

[Rainforest]

I went out earlier this week to ride the LRT again. Though the eastbound trip took 49 minutes, the westbound trip took 15 minutes linger than that - 1 hour, 4 minutes.

It isn't just the slow speeds, it's the inconsistency that's awful.

Still waiting for the Finch West LRT

There’s not one easy fix for the Finch West LRT. Not only does it need transit signal priority, but it needs tighter schedules and better operations to live up to early promises.

seanmarshall.ca

20 min to get from the terminal (at Keele) to Jane? With only 2 stops in between? That's insane.

The good old St Clair streetcar covers the same 2 km, from Yonge to Bathurst, faster than in 20 min. While crossing Yonge St at grade, serving countless local stops, and making a detour via the St Clair West underground loop.

 

[crs1026]

Billions spent on a transit line, and they have to resort to bringing out guys with brooms to clear the tracks. More excessive labour and "man hours" to keep the line running in the winter. Not to mention they probably have to shut the line down temporarily to allow these guys to do this work.

Or we could do it the TTC way: Scrimp on maintenance crews, leave it to the operators to sweep themselves, and let passengers wait thru a light cycle or two while the operator does the job.

I was surprised that nobody spoke up about the gas snow blowers in that video. In Toronto, Councillors would spend more time debating whether to ban the TTC's use of gas powered tools than asking how to speed up the service.

- Paul

PS: You'd be surprised how little snow or ice it takes to clog the points and risk something picking the switch. When sweeping switches, they have to be immaculate or they won't close properly.

 

[urbanclient]

Rob Ford wanted a subway. So did Georgio Mammoliti. They realized the due to the way Toronto is - there would be no way that the LRT would actually be Rapid. Unfortunately, they were not smart enough to propose something else.
Circa 2010, the cost estimate for the FWLRT was about $1.2M for an 11 km line.
That was immediately after the Canada Line in Vancouver was just completed for $2B for a 19km line - that was half elevated and half underground.
If someone was thinking - they would have proposed an elevated line along Finch - maybe 40m trains.
Basically, the same cost as the on-street LRT but with only 10 stops and takes 20 minutes.

Yeah a lot of people are forgetting how cheaply the Canada Line was built compared to Eglinton, Finch or Hurontario, even adjusting for inflation The presumption that LRT will be cheaper for the same corridor cannot be empirically tested, unless both modes are built at the same time at the same place. It's always an educated prediction, not an irrefutable fact.

 

[JSF-1]

Yeah a lot of people are forgetting how cheaply the Canada Line was built compared to Eglinton, Finch or Hurontario, even adjusting for inflation The presumption that LRT will be cheaper for the same corridor cannot be empirically tested, unless both modes are built at the same time at the same place. It's always an educated prediction, not an irrefutable fact.

It does need to be pointed out though that part of the reason why the Canada Line was built cheap is because it was underbuilt. It's the main criticism thrown at the line and its already become a problem since TransLink had to purchase 12 new trains in 2018 to increase capacity by 35%; its a fundamental flaw with the line and sooner or later Vancouver will have to invest a lot of money too make the stations longer and that includes the underground stations. That lines whole M.O. was to built as quickly and as cheaply as possible to be ready in time for the 2010 Olympics and as a result questionable choices were made. Its like the UP here, it too was designed to be cheap and quick and ready for the 2015 Pan-Ams and as a result its electrification was cut and you could argue ridership has grown enough that we maybe should have invested in designing the line with larger trains in mind. I have no doubt if they could do it over again without the pressure of the Olympics, Vancouver would have built the Canada Line to the same standard and spec as the rest of the SkyTrain network.

 

[urbanclient]

It does need to be pointed out though that part of the reason why the Canada Line was built cheap is because it was underbuilt.

And you're willing to wager it's not the same for Eglinton's capacity? Even if we order new rolling stock to run 90 metre trains in 3-4 years time, latent transit demand through Eglinton and Midtown is very high. Ironically, the only thing I see holding back Line 5 demand is abysmally slow travel times à la Line 6.

 

[TRONto]

I don't think there would be a crazy amount of latent demand even in the best running LRT scenario. All new finished and under construction development on Eglinton is near Yonge. All those new development proposals won't see anyone move in until 2033. The Ontario Line will open a few years later which leaves capacity available. There are a few GO stations on the line which offer a better ride downtown and rush hour service (at least).

 

[urbanclient]

I don't think there would be a crazy amount of latent demand even in the best running LRT scenario. All new finished and under construction development on Eglinton is near Yonge. All those new development proposals won't see anyone move in until 2033. The Ontario Line will open a few years later which leaves capacity available. There are a few GO stations on the line which offer a better ride downtown and rush hour service (at least).

What about the Golden Mile? And seriously find a comparable city with 3.3 million+ in 630 sqkm or 8.3 million+ in 8200 sqkm that has a mixed grade LRT running 4 km from downtown.

Taking this over to Eglinton, there is a case to be made for complete grade separation (when we were in design, not now); based on the scale of density now set to be approved on Eglinton.

 

[TRONto]

What about the Golden Mile?

I was specifically thinking about the Golden Mile. No construction yet and the decision to start sales until people move in is a really long time. 2033 is optimistic. Also, think about 7 years into the future, how much better will GO service be?

 

[Northern Light]

I was specifically thinking about the Golden Mile. No construction yet and the decision to start sales until people move in is a really long time. 2033 is optimistic. Also, think about 7 years into the future, how much better will GO service be?

The demand at Golden Mile that is concerning is not the latent demand, which while real, is well within the capacity currently set to be offered.

The concern is approved density nearing 40,000 people.

That will certainly take some time to build out, how much depends on lots of future policies on immigration, and subsidies for rental construction and so on. I don't think, currently, with the condo market in the toilet, there is not a huge worry between now and 2035; but sometime thereafter, maybe by 2040, maybe a bit later, more capacity will likely be required. You certainly don't want to build a major transit line where a very realistic scenario has it over capacity in less than 20 years.

 

[TRONto]

The demand at Golden Mile that is concerning is not the latent demand, which while real, is well within the capacity currently set to be offered.

The concern is approved density nearing 40,000 people.

That will certainly take some time to build out, how much depends on lots of future policies on immigration, and subsidies for rental construction and so on. I don't think, currently, with the condo market in the toilet, there is a huge worry between now and 2035; but sometime thereafter, maybe by 2040, maybe a bit later, more capacity will likely be required. You certainly don't want to build a major transit line where a very realistic scenario has it over capacity in less than 20 years.

Just thought of this; CityPlace may be a good to compare to. It's taken over 25 years to build out the whole thing. If Golden Mile were to be similar, you'd be looking at 2060 for the last buildings to be completed.

 

[Westey]

It does need to be pointed out though that part of the reason why the Canada Line was built cheap is because it was underbuilt. It's the main criticism thrown at the line and its already become a problem since TransLink had to purchase 12 new trains in 2018 to increase capacity by 35%; its a fundamental flaw with the line and sooner or later Vancouver will have to invest a lot of money too make the stations longer and that includes the underground stations. That lines whole M.O. was to built as quickly and as cheaply as possible to be ready in time for the 2010 Olympics and as a result questionable choices were made. Its like the UP here, it too was designed to be cheap and quick and ready for the 2015 Pan-Ams and as a result its electrification was cut and you could argue ridership has grown enough that we maybe should have invested in designing the line with larger trains in mind. I have no doubt if they could do it over again without the pressure of the Olympics, Vancouver would have built the Canada Line to the same standard and spec as the rest of the SkyTrain network.

As far as I understand the P3 delivered what was requested. It was the design requirements that were set wrong, not the P3 contractor not delivering the capacity required.
I don't think the capacity of Canada Line is underbuilt for what is needed on Finch. 10k ppdph seems more than enough there. I also don't think Finch residents would complain about the 4 years it took to build that line.
When Canada Line was used as a template for Eglinton - I think they would have needed 80m stations to design for 20k. So am sure that would have cost more than the $100M/km that Canada Line cost.

 

[Northern Light]

Just thought of this; CityPlace may be a good to compare to. It's taken over 25 years to build out the whole thing. If Golden Mile were to be similar, you'd be looking at 2060 for the last buildings to be completed.

Not to quibble greatly, but 25 years from today is actually 2051, not 2060.

Even if, for argument's sake, you didn't push up against capacity constraints til near then......say 2048 just to pick a number.......I would argue that building a line that will reach its absolute capacity limit within 22 years is problematic given the cost here initially and the cost of solution when the time comes.

Its not a near-term problem, but it may be a medium term problem, TBD.

 

[T-Bor]

Presumably if we're looking 25 years out, the cars will need to be replaced. The TTC could always get Line 1-style cars instead of 2 or 3 cars stretched out, which would increase capacity. Plus running more trains. If we're talking about overcapacity in 30 years, STC will be largely built out as well, so there could be a more equal share going in each direction

 

[TRONto]

Not to quibble greatly, but 25 years from today is actually 2051, not 2060.

Even if, for argument's sake, you didn't push up against capacity constraints til near then......say 2048 just to pick a number.......I would argue that building a line that will reach its absolute capacity limit within 22 years is problematic given the cost here initially and the cost of solution when the time comes.

Its not a near-term problem, but it may be a medium term problem, TBD.

I wrote it as 25 years from 2035. Sorry, that wasn't clear.

 

[A 6264]

Not to quibble greatly, but 25 years from today is actually 2051, not 2060.

Nope, the answer is 2050. You're thinking like it's next month already.