News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 612     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
News Roundup for April 25, 2024
 512     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
How It Started
 757     0 

Finch West Line 6 LRT

gweed123 said:
Not sure if this is even legal or not, but one of the conditions for the approval of the Woodbine Casino that Council could potentially impose is paying for a percentage of the construction of the LRT extension. Perhaps under the guise of having a viable alternative method of accessing the site, and to help mitigate some of the increased vehicular traffic that would be sure to arise from a casino there. I don't think that would fall under Section 37, but maybe there's something similar that Council can use.
Click to expand...

Legislative change is going to allow traditional development charges to be applied to capital expenses for transit expansion. In much the same way that dev charges would pay for widened roads due to increased traffic, it can now instead pay for improved transit.
 
Markster said:
Legislative change is going to allow traditional development charges to be applied to capital expenses for transit expansion. In much the same way that dev charges would pay for widened roads due to increased traffic, it can now instead pay for improved transit.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! In that case, yes, I think that would be the best way to go to get the Woodbine extension built. I mean, we all know that a casino is a contentious issue, so it's likely that developers would be willing to chip in to related projects (i.e. LRT extension) if it improved their chances of landing the casino approval. They could use PR BS like "We listened to community concerns about increased car traffic as a result of the casino, and we have decided to donate $X million to help extend the Finch West LRT, in order to help alleviate those concerns. Nearby residents will also enjoy the increased access to transit that comes with the LRT extension."
 
Edward Skira said:
Funny about the casino issue considering there already is a casino there. 1000 slot machines signifies a casino in my mind.
Click to expand...

It's weird, isn't it? Slot machines are ok, but as soon as you put in gaming tables you need a different license. Rideau Carleton Racetrack Slots had the same issue when they wanted to add gaming tables to their operations. They had to go to the City to get approval as a casino, instead of whatever they already were.
 
Markster said:
Legislative change is going to allow traditional development charges to be applied to capital expenses for transit expansion. In much the same way that dev charges would pay for widened roads due to increased traffic, it can now instead pay for improved transit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is digressing into the Revenue tools thread..... but....I attended a town hall meeting this past week held by MPP Peter Milczyn, who spoke directly to this. He was very clear that the legislative change was intended to allow the Province to force (he was that strong in emphasis) municipalities to impose higher development charges for projects which are adjacent to transit lines, as a source of capital for transit construction. He mentioned waste facilities as the other intended use of the higher levies. Apparently to this point, Toronto has resisted imposing a higher development charge based on proximity to transit.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
11th said:
Half true. I believe two thirds of that block is ravine/reservoir. Only the few blocks to the west of Bathurst can be consider trip generators.
Click to expand...

On the south, it has: several highrises around the Wilmington intersection; the North York General Hospital; a plaza east of Bathurst. On the north: the Torresdale / Robert Hicks neighborhood, it is low-rise but it has no access to any other transit lines and hence can generate some ridership; then a secondary school; and a few shops east of Bathurst.

That block does not have particularly high density, but it makes sense to serve with the LRT that will be a direct continuation of the already funded section.
 
Having lived in the Robert Hicks/Goldfinch neighbourhood I can tell you that the Goldfinch and Finch intersection is a large transit generator. There are several high rise-apartment buildings and a condo, plus there is a library and a hockey rink nearby. The stretch between Dufferin and Bathurst has a lot of riders who work or go to school nearby. Many transfer to and from the Dufferin and Bathust buses. The LRT to Yonge would definitely be well used. While there aren't many trip generators between Bathurst and Yonge, the LRT should also not have that many stops. One thing that currently slows down the 36 is that there are too many stops on this stretch and its usually 1 person getting on at a small stop. It would be much more efficient to consolidate them to every 400-500m.

Rainforest said:
On the south, it has: several highrises around the Wilmington intersection; the North York General Hospital; a plaza east of Bathurst. On the north: the Torresdale / Robert Hicks neighborhood, it is low-rise but it has no access to any other transit lines and hence can generate some ridership; then a secondary school; and a few shops east of Bathurst.

That block does not have particularly high density, but it makes sense to serve with the LRT that will be a direct continuation of the already funded section.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the LRT should go 300m north, through the hydro corridor (and south of reservoir). Just cross the street to Willmington. 350m walk to Goldfinch.
 
I missed the open house they had for the Finch West LRT at the Banquet Hall by Finch and Arrow Rd. Wish I had been there.

Is there any detailed drawings of how Finch and Arrow Rd intersection will be configured to accommodate the LRT? Some aspects of this intersection will be really tight to build properly IMO. Will the intersection be moved? Will they have to acquire land close by to add more lanes?

Also, you have a ton of trucking traffic coming off highway 400 and making left and right hand turns to Arrow and Signet from Westbound Finch. How do you accommodate left hand turning trucks and cars with a dedicated ROW lane for the LRT also in the equation. Really tight turn if you look at that intersection now. Lastly, to complicate matters this intersection has had some really bad accidents.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Edllguy said:
I missed the open house they had for the Finch West LRT at the Banquet Hall by Finch and Arrow Rd. Wish I had been there.

Is there any detailed drawings of how Finch and Arrow Rd intersection will be configured to accommodate the LRT? Some aspects of this intersection will be really tight to build properly IMO. Will the intersection be moved? Will they have to acquire land close by to add more lanes?

Also, you have a ton of trucking traffic coming off highway 400 and making left and right hand turns to Arrow and Signet from Westbound Finch. How do you accommodate left hand turning trucks and cars with a dedicated ROW lane for the LRT also in the equation. Really tight turn if you look at that intersection now. Lastly, to complicate matters this intersection has had some really bad accidents.

Thanks
Click to expand...

As mentioned previously, see:
Finch



Click to expand...
See the EA Report, where this image came from...

400 Finch.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 400 Finch.jpg
    400 Finch.jpg
    277.5 KB · Views: 1,199
The Finch-400 bridge was built in 1968 - so it is 47 years into its 50 year design life. This doesn't mean it needs to be replaced, but the bridge is due for a major rehabilitation in the next 5 to 10 years. It may be worth biting the bullet and spending the $15M or so and just replace the bridge with a longer one that will allow the necessary number of lanes under it for Finch Ave.
 
BurlOak said:
The Finch-400 bridge was built in 1968 - so it is 47 years into its 50 year design life. This doesn't mean it needs to be replaced, but the bridge is due for a major rehabilitation in the next 5 to 10 years. It may be worth biting the bullet and spending the $15M or so and just replace the bridge with a longer one that will allow the necessary number of lanes under it for Finch Ave.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Not making the 400/Finch overpass longer/wider now would be a missed opportunity. An example would be the overpass at 400 and Steeles that was reconstructed to accommodate more lanes and a (possible) future Hwy 400 southbound exit at Steeles when the 407 was built. That was forward thinking IMO.
 
Now that Finch West LRT is moving forward I feel that it would make good sense and planning to have it extended to Pearson Airport. It could take off a lot of traffic pressure at 400/401 and other traffic arteries.

If ever the Finch West LRT would be extended to Woodbine and then Pearson Airport, out curiosity, what would be the best terminus end point for the Pearson Airport stop so that people could have the best and quickest connection time to Terminals 1 and 3?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top