News   Jun 18, 2024
 536     0 
News   Jun 18, 2024
 507     0 
News   Jun 18, 2024
 1.5K     4 

Finch West Line 6 LRT

I think we safely say that we can both go on in endless circles on this debate. I dont know if there is a right or wrong answer. For example, your looking hwy 27 to Keele. I could cite as example a student or teacher going home from Humber college to somewhere in the city whereby they will connect to a subway line. Are that many stops with the potential time spent of half a hour or 45 mins on that line going to encourage someone to give up driving or not long to get a car?. Hmmm. I suppose we will have to see. But i dont think so.

Personally, i have no objection to walking 5-7 minutes to get to my transit station or stop. In that time i could cover 1/2 a kilometer. I believe very confidently that adding just two stops and factoring in reduced speeds due to decelation arriving at stops on my route will match that 5-7 mins. If you add more than two stops than that, then my overall commute times increases. Obviously i have not gone out there and measured this :) .

PS.: in regards to those models or studies. One needs to remember one importnt thing about studies and models. That is that the input values/factors/ assumptions will affect the output values.. And that the principle that "The one who pays the piper gets to call the tune" applies. In other words i can make a study or model say anything or come up with anything you want me to if you pay me for it. I see this in every place of work that i have been at. You could apply this to the decsions in regards to how many stops you should have on a transit line. Behind the scenes, you can be sure there were politicians ultimately deciding this.


Are you claiming that adding two stops will increase the travel time on the LRT by 5-7 minutes?

And I don't see where you are getting this idea from that politicians fudged the speed estimates, what reason could they have for preferring closer stop spacing? Especially to the point of interfering with such basic calculations such as speed estimates.
 
Are you claiming that adding two stops will increase the travel time on the LRT by 5-7 minutes?

And I don't see where you are getting this idea from that politicians fudged the speed estimates, what reason could they have for preferring closer stop spacing? Especially to the point of interfering with such basic calculations such as speed estimates.
Holy cow. Talk misreading a post. I said the politicians fudged estimates? No i actaully meant that klingons conspired with vulcans to fudge the estimates :) . And the government is keeping secret from the public by hiding the estimate in hangar 57. :).

But seriously, no offense intended but it would help if you re read my posts again. I am the new guy here but thats teh second time i have had to state that in this thread. And in regards to the 5-7 minutes bit, i did say "obviously i havent measured it". And i did say adding stops increases travel times. Thats common sence. I took a gestimate that two extra stops increases travel times by 5-7 minutes. Is that accurate? I dont know. But it could be. Or it could be that it increases them by 6-8 mins or maybe 2-3. I dont know, but the i point made stands. Increasing stops on route increases travel times and in my opinion, there are too many stops on that Finch route to makes it unattractive and frustrating for commuters.
 
Last edited:
Definitely think both sides in this argument are valid, and both have their pros and cons. Grade-separating the entire route provides higher speeds, higher capacity, more reliability; but costs significantly more and offers less local service. Tram-style offers more local service and costs considerably less; but has slower speeds, less reliability, and lower capacity. As for development, both have their benefits (one being higher-density but more nodal around stations, the other being more low/midrise stretched along the arterial)...both great, with the latter being a bit more realistic IMO.

This is why I think an Eglinton Crosstown-style premetro/stadtbahn solution can work in this instance. We get tram-style in the outer ends, but grade-separate the central portion. I also think over the decades we should do the same with our legacy streetcar system (501, 504, 505, 506), and attempt the same for waterfront transit. Nothing as exorbitantly costly like the Crosstown (with a whopping 10km of deep bore tunnel, and some very costly stations that no doubt will remain underused for centuries). Rather a few km of tunnel, cut/cover, or trenched.

Already posted this map in this thread, but since BurlOak brought up the Hydro Corridor I thought it'd be fitting to post again. I think it's a fantasy map that's worth pursuing. We get the best of both types of transit, grade-separation can be done affordably, and we fix the Sheppard Stub once and for all (by converting it for LRVs). The only change to the SELRT and FWLRT would be to use high-floor LRVs (and stops) in place of the low-floor Flexity Freedom.

rect3908-png.66716

rect3898-png.66717
Why not head down Bathurst instead of going beside all the buildings? It will generate more demand than having the richer neighbour complain about the construction.
 
It should be noted that the average stop spacing for the Phase I of Finch West line, west of Keele, will be (11 km / 17 distances) = 650 m.

Compared to the idealized modeling the TTC performed for SELRT, where they modelled lines with stops every 400 m and every 800 m, Finch West will be closer to the higher end.

Thus, we can expect it to operate at about 25 kph average speed, rather than 22-23 kph.
 
How much time can be saved by cutting out 1 LRT stop? I will use the numbers from the above mentioned TTC model; speed = 22-23 kph for stops every 400 m, and 26-27 kph for stops every 800 m.

An idealized 16-km LRT line will have 40 stops in the first case, or 20 stops in the second case. The travel time will be (16 / 22.5) x 60 = 42.7 min in the first case, or (16 / 26.5) x 60 = 36.2 min in the second case.

Thus, elimination of 20 stops can save 6.5 min, or 390 seconds. Elimination of 1 stop should save about 20 seconds on average.

For the Phase I of Finch West LRT (17 stops in total), it does not look like any noticeable time saving can be achieved by cutting some of the minor stops. If the locals want those stops, let them have those stops.

PS: It is true that on long trips, abundance of stops is by itself an annoyance for the riders, in addition to causing the trip to be longer. If / when Finch West is extended and becomes a true Crosstown line, I would not rule out introducing wider stop spacing and parallel bus service on the future sections of the line. This particularly applies to sections like Hwy 27 to Woodbine, where a parallel bus (#191 ?) will be needed anyway to connect to Kipling Stn.
 
Will the light rail vehicles actually stop at each and every stop, or will there be either a "stop request", unless there is a passenger waiting at each and every stop.

It'll be by stop request for surface stations; though obviously that simple rule could be changed at any time if customers demanded it.

Eglinton will be making all stops in the tunnel (argued on visibility, driver may not see waiting passengers near the train entrance portal).
 
Will the light rail vehicles actually stop at each and every stop, or will there be either a "stop request", unless there is a passenger waiting at each and every stop.
What has been stated at TTC Meetings, cars will only stop when to pickup someone or requested like they do today on the current fleet. Underground will operate like a subway, making all stops.

In time, it will be the rider responsibility to push the button both inside and outside to open the door and not much a deal in the first place.
 
Yes, the models that predict 15-20 seconds added to the travel time with each extra potential stop, probably assume that only some of those extra stops will actually be called.

Another factor they put in the model, is that wider stop spacing results in more passengers boarding / alighting at major stops, and hence longer dwell time at major stops; that somewhat reduces the benefit of stopping less frequently.
 

Back
Top