News   Apr 18, 2024
 752     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 1.6K     3 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 394     0 

Finch West Line 6 LRT

Marginally? At peak?

Go back to the foundational Transit City documents.

This was never about high speed RT.

If it is not about high speed, then it should not be labeled as "rapid", right? Or the label becomes misleading.

We can debate the definitions of course, but for most of people, "rapid" transit is something that runs faster than local most of the time, not just during the peak hours when everything is jammed.

Btw that does not mean local transit is a bad idea, nor that LRT is a bad idea. Just needs to be described according to its actual function.

Even the Bloor-Danforth night bus is faster than the subway!

And yet, we do not call the night buses "rapid night transit", despite them being faster than the regular buses, LRTs, or subways.
 
We can debate the definitions of course, but for most of people, "rapid" transit is something that runs faster than local most of the time, not just during the peak hours when everything is jammed.
In the example above, I believe, the LRT was still about 10%faster than the bus late night (and I'd assume that the LRT, like the subway, will actually be faster at night).

Also midday and evenings on the bus will presumably be slower than late night.

As for the R in LRT. You are going to be disappointed in seeing the average speed in the upcoming BRTs, compared to the Mississauga transit way.
 
In the example above, I believe, the LRT was still about 10%faster than the bus late night (and I'd assume that the LRT, like the subway, will actually be faster at night).

Hard to predict if that's the case. The speed will depend on the number of stops served (and many stops will be skipped at night), plus the traffic priority if any exists.

My guess would be: Night LRT = Night Bus > Daytime LRT > (a bit) Daytime Off-peak Bus >> Peak-time Bus.

Also midday and evenings on the bus will presumably be slower than late night.

As for the R in LRT. You are going to be disappointed in seeing the average speed in the upcoming BRTs, compared to the Mississauga transit way.

Mostly depends on the design, BRT is not inherently faster then LRT if both are designed with the same stop spacing and the same number of intersections.

My take is that "Bus Rapid Transit" is something like Mississauga Transitway or the future 407 Transitway, an express with a wide stop spacing. A bus route in the dedicated central lanes, but with local stop spacing, is not "rapid", it is just an upgraded local service. Which may be perfectly suitable, just needs the correct label.
 
A bus route in the dedicated central lanes, but with local stop spacing, is not "rapid", it is just an upgraded local service. Which may be perfectly suitable, just needs the correct label.
I'd assume that BRT would be less stops as well as dedicated lanes. There's a lot less stops on VIVA than on regular routes. Though more than you see than on some of the TTC 900-series express routes (which I've really come to appreciate recently).
 
The buses on Finch were unreliable because they were getting clogged in traffic, but also they were jammed full of people. The 36 runs EVERY TWO MINUTES at peak periods at Jane going EB, for example, and it was leaving people behind, in areas that are classified as some of the poorest in the city. The Finch West brings capacity and reliability, without having to remove all the stops that the community needs.

Speed is not always important; not waiting forever because your transit is stuck in traffic or is rammed with people is also really important, especially with many in this area not being "choice" riders, like those in more affluent areas of the city.
I find it very hard to believed this LRT project was the only solution to fix the issue you are mentioning. At the end of day if the residents are happy, I am happy but more could have been done particularly if it’s that busy. And hopefully Toronto will try to find ways to improve travel time, over time because it’s very slow. This is what I am hoping for. Rome wasn’t build in one day, same for transit.
 
In the example above, I believe, the LRT was still about 10%faster than the bus late night (and I'd assume that the LRT, like the subway, will actually be faster at night).

Also midday and evenings on the bus will presumably be slower than late night.

As for the R in LRT. You are going to be disappointed in seeing the average speed in the upcoming BRTs, compared to the Mississauga transit way.
I mean the R in LRT is not equivalent to the R in BRT. Semantics, but only BRT describes speed.
 
This is a poor take.

Just because it doesn't meet whatever fantastical definition of "rapid transit" that you have arbitrarily come up with, other people - who will actually use the service, let's remember - must suffer?

Dan
Where do I say peoples should suffer? I said finding ways to have an express route ALSO. Or do a mix of LRT and buses. Or do bigger grade separation over time to increase speed. Transit win when both short and long distance are part of the equation. Both are important.
 
In the example above, I believe, the LRT was still about 10%faster than the bus late night (and I'd assume that the LRT, like the subway, will actually be faster at night).

Also midday and evenings on the bus will presumably be slower than late night.

As for the R in LRT. You are going to be disappointed in seeing the average speed in the upcoming BRTs, compared to the Mississauga transit way.
Mississauga BRT is faster than an LRT because very few riders used the stations in the first place. Most times, buses fly by the stations at full speed when they are supposed to slow down to 30K (?). Even if they slow down to 30K, they just drive by the station. The ridership predicted back in 2004 has yet to be seen so far.

Where it gains more speed is between Mavis and Ern Mills using the 403 when it's wide open. It loses speed at peak time and the shoulder of the road is too slippery.
 
I find it very hard to believed this LRT project was the only solution to fix the issue you are mentioning. At the end of day if the residents are happy, I am happy but more could have been done particularly if it’s that busy. And hopefully Toronto will try to find ways to improve travel time, over time because it’s very slow. This is what I am hoping for. Rome wasn’t build in one day, same for transit.
As I argued for longer stop spacing on Eglinton, I will argue for shorter stop spacing on Finch.

Finch West LRT is not rapid transit. It’s a high capacity, high(er) reliability replacement for a local bus service that left riders behind with 15+ trips/hour.

I don’t disagree that the route could be faster - the TTC sucks at optimizing for higher speeds, but the stop spacing is not the issue here.

Less stops and grade separation would only increase costs and decrease ridership. TSP and better operating procedures would save money and increase speeds. For local trips like on Finch West, the latter is enough.

This is not a regional transit line (in comparison to Eglinton; hence my dislike of that regional-local project, but that train left the platform years ago).
Where do I say peoples should suffer? I said finding ways to have an express route ALSO. Or do a mix of LRT and buses. Or do bigger grade separation over time to increase speed. Transit win when both short and long distance are part of the equation. Both are important.
Before proposing something, always ask what the cost/benefit ratio is. The regional travel demand is not high enough to warrant a high capacity transit line, in addition to the very high ridership local service.

The ridership here is mostly local. Regional trips should go on the Highway 7 Rapidway or the 407 GO buses.
 
I believe it was a mistake to market Finch LRT as "rapid" transit, when its speed is only marginally better than the bus it replaces. That label creates unrealistic expectations, followed by disappointment. Disappointing the riders who will actually use the service, not just the blog posters.
Is it more rapid than what exists there today?

If the answer is yes, then it's rapid transit. And the answer with this line will be yes.

A lot of people (here and elsewhere) get hung up on the terminology being absolute. It's not. It's relative.

Dan
 
Is it more rapid than what exists there today?

If the answer is yes, then it's rapid transit. And the answer with this line will be yes.

A lot of people (here and elsewhere) get hung up on the terminology being absolute. It's not. It's relative.

Dan

No big harm calling Finch LRT "rapid", but I feel it leads to the expectations-vs-reality mismatch.

The 9xx express buses are more rapid than all-stop buses. Dependent on the stop spacing, the 9xx might even be more rapid than the LRT. The blue night buses are more rapid than the daytime buses. Yet, we do not call them "rapid 9xx network" or "rapid blue night network", because those services do not have the main features people are used to associate with rapid transit.
 
I'd assume that BRT would be less stops as well as dedicated lanes. There's a lot less stops on VIVA than on regular routes. Though more than you see than on some of the TTC 900-series express routes (which I've really come to appreciate recently).

I like the 9xx expresses, too.

VIVA is an odd duck with a very variable stop spacing pattern. Some stops are 2+ km apart (RHC and Bathurst), some sections have stops every 500 m or less (west and east of Leslie). That probably makes sense for York Region, they went for connecting the highest-usage stops and skipped everything in between (the in-between areas have some minimal YRT local service).

But the VIVA pattern will not be repeated anywhere in the TTC service area. If TTC proceeds to build on-street bus lanes, it will be designed very similar to Finch LRT, except using the rubber wheels intead of rails.
 
I mean the R in LRT is not equivalent to the R in BRT. Semantics, but only BRT describes speed.
It's literally the same thing.

BRT is similar speeds for similar stop spacing, with similar grade seperation. The difference is capacity and comfort.
Mississauga BRT is faster than an LRT because very few riders used the stations in the first place.
Subway and streetcar speeds would be faster if there was almost no riders. Ditto for roads!

I was never quite sure why they expected significant ridership on the BRT, given the forecast Line 5 ridership is so low between Jane and Renforth. It has no receptors and doesn't make most trips to the subway any faster.

It serious be interesting to revisit the original EA and ridership forecast assumptions
 
It's literally the same thing.

BRT is similar speeds for similar stop spacing, with similar grade seperation. The difference is capacity and comfort.
Subway and streetcar speeds would be faster if there was almost no riders. Ditto for roads!

I was never quite sure why they expected significant ridership on the BRT, given the forecast Line 5 ridership is so low between Jane and Renforth. It has no receptors and doesn't make most trips to the subway any faster.

It serious be interesting to revisit the original EA and ridership forecast assumptions
I was referring to the fact that LRT stands for Light Rail Transit and BRT stands for Bus Rapid Transit :p
 
Part of the problem is the tendency for politicians and agencies to try to sell their projects by calling them Rapid Transit when what they really mean is the less sexy Higher Order Transit.

In the earlier days of planning the suburban LRTs, planners were saying speeds could be 26-27 kph with wider spacing, or about 23 with more stops. If those speeds are no longer possible, someone needs to say why. Math and engineering haven't changed that much in 12 years. If the difference is that they have given up on wringing signal priority out of the car enablers, I mean traffic engineers, which is the most evident explanation, someone needs to say out loud "We're going to run a multi-billion dollar rail system like a streetcar in order not to annoy drivers." And see how that sits with the new mayor.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top