Finch West Line 6 LRT

[Steve X]

30 minutes flat is unbelievable. My trips ranged from 49 to 53 minutes. I don't see how a trip could be that fast given the TTC's speed restrictions are programmed in the LRV. If the train exceeds the programmed speed limit, the emergency brakes come on. The one exception I noticed is that some intersections are programmed as 35 km/h, but operators slow to 25 at all intersections regardless of whether they're programmed as 25 or 35. So driving 35 instead of 25 could be one way your operator saved some time. But that alone wouldn't save 15-20 minutes compared to the trips the rest of us experienced.

This massive travel time difference could potentially support my theory that the Transit Signal Priority is not calibrated correctly. If they designed the TSP based on the original travel times and then the TTC came in later with their 25 km/h limits, then LRVs will often just miss the green light that TSP intended them to use, and have to sit through the entire red light duration. A poorly calibrated TSP system isn't just worse than a well-calibrated system, it can actually be even worse than not having TSP at all. At least with no TSP, trams will only need to wait through half the red light duration on average. If TSP is consistently underestimating the LRT travel times, they will frequently need to wait through the entire red duration.

If the operators are driving at the speed they are suppose to drive at and the TSP are functional along with a properly programmed green wave, it won't take so long to transverse the line. If the operator gets held up at a stop, that would just push them to the next green wave which is 1-1.5 minutes behind. Then the train would able to continue get sequential greens for the next 5-10 lights. There will be some reds as they can't get the green waves to sync in both directions. The traffic coordinators can actual program the green wave to give priority to the busier "peak" demand direction if they want.

I doubt TO actually employs these advance traffic programing cause you often see traffic waiting a whole minute to pass just to arrive at a red on the following side street just for one car or person to cross the road. This actually causes drivers to aggressively speed to beat these stupidly design lights cause you can get stuck in multiple lights like this adding 5-10 minutes to any drive.

I don't ride the line often to know if the mid block crossing between Tobermory and Sentinel would turn red for pedestrians while a train is approaching. Something tells me the city's stupid programming does stop trains like this.

 

[reaperexpress]

If the operators are driving at the speed they are suppose to drive at and the TSP are functional along with a properly programmed green wave, it won't take so long to transverse the line. If the operator gets held up at a stop, that would just push them to the next green wave which is 1-1.5 minutes behind. Then the train would able to continue get sequential greens for the next 5-10 lights. There will be some reds as they can't get the green waves to sync in both directions. The traffic coordinators can actual program the green wave to give priority to the busier "peak" demand direction if they want.

Getting pushed to the next green wave (about 2 minutes behind) is a pretty substantial delay in addition to whatever delay caused it to miss the green wave in the first place. Then if you're depending on coordination to achieve the high speeds, there's no way for the train to ever catch up to the schedule. This is the main reason that transit signal coordination (a.k.a. "passive TSP") is not a good solution for lines with frequent stops. There are too many opportunities for longer-than-expected dwell times. The Waterloo LRT makes extensive use of dynamic green waves (customised for each train) but that works because they have long strings of signals without any tram stop in between. The Finch LRT has a stop at about every second signal so the green wave woud be at most two intersections long.

I doubt TO actually employs these advance traffic programing cause you often see traffic waiting a whole minute to pass just to arrive at a red on the following side street just for one car or person to cross the road. This actually causes drivers to aggressively speed to beat these stupidly design lights cause you can get stuck in multiple lights like this adding 5-10 minutes to any drive.

The City does have active transit signal priority installed at 440 signals. As far as I'm aware the only place they use passive TSP (i.e. signal coordination for streetcars) is between the minor intersections on King Street.

I don't ride the line often to know if the mid block crossing between Tobermory and Sentinel would turn red for pedestrians while a train is approaching. Something tells me the city's stupid programming does stop trains like this.

It does turn red as they're approaching, which suggests that the TSP is set up incorrectly. If it was accurately estimating the arrival time of LRVs, it would have extended the LRT green so the pedestrian phase doesn't start until the LRT has passed.

 

[wheelloader]

Quote from M. Lindsay's post:
"... we decided with the TTC to keep bus service ready in parallel for this ramp up phase ..."

Strange for this information to come from Metrolinx, not from TTC. Or was there another communication about this from TTC, which I missed? Not quite sure what "bus service ready" means. As of today, TTC maps and schedules do not show any bus running in parallel with Line 6. So is there a bus service there, or are only buses ready in case they are needed?

If I read the lines behind correctly, it means Metrolinx is going to pay TCC, which TCC didn't plan originally, extra for having some bus service standby. So other than the tax payer, every one is happy.

 

[hawc]

It's almost like Streetcars/LRT is some romantic notion we fell in love with years ago that we still try and justify today and it never really works.

We'd be way better served by less cool buses and underground subways.

It's a lesson we're going to be taught time and time again I'm sure.

 

[hw621]

View attachment 708265

It's almost like Streetcars/LRT is some romantic notion we fell in love with years ago that we still try and justify today and it never really works.

We'd be way rather served by less cool buses and underground subways.

It's a lesson we're going to be taught time and time again I'm sure.

How is this even remotely acceptable for a brand new line?!

 

[nfitz]

How is this even remotely acceptable for a brand new line?!

How was opening it with massive switch problems remotely acceptable. Someone at TTC screwed up this by accepting such a shoddy system.

 

[urbanclient]

If I read the lines behind correctly, it means Metrolinx is going to pay TCC, which TCC didn't plan originally, extra for having some bus service standby. So other than the tax payer, every one is happy.

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. They're going to be running buses for the next 30 years:

A near 3 hour outage due to what appears to be a stuck switch.

 

[hw621]

FFS

 

[Railrunner]

View attachment 708265

It's almost like Streetcars/LRT is some romantic notion we fell in love with years ago that we still try and justify today and it never really works.

We'd be way better served by less cool buses and underground subways.

It's a lesson we're going to be taught time and time again I'm sure.

At the very least completely grade separated rapid transit is the bare minimum at 100s of millions of dollars per mile.

Having conversations about traffic conflict at that price point is ridiculous. The problem has been solved even in Toronto subways or even the technology the Line 3 in Scarborough was using from the 80s is far superior to the antiqued implantation of LRT tech in FWLRT.

 

[lastcommodore]

Double point or double blade switches are generally considered more reliable for winter operations than the antiquated single point switches on the streetcar network. Leave it to Metrolinx and Co. to somehow flip this though. We live in bizarro world in almost every sense of the word. Transit mode choice for past and upcoming Metrolinx projects. Rolling stock choice and platform length underbuilt for the future. Astronomical overbuilding in other areas @lastcommodore please post what you know about Line 6 vs. T9 here. The list goes on.

Beyond the longer post I made focused purely on the shelters of 6FW vs. ION, when compared to Paris' T9, which is nearly identical length, stop wise, and median-running tramway,
- CBTC is used on 6FW. T9 and ION both use far simpler signalling systems
- 6FW having massively overbuilt and excavated terminal stations- T9 has on-ground transfers
- 6FW MSF is actually 71% larger than T9s (6.5 Ha vs 3.8 Ha by my sat image)
- 6FW has multiple next-destination signs at some stops? I'm not even sure why on a 50m platform
- Massively overbuilt yet less effective shelters (see post linked above)
- Overbuilt catenary systems- both in general and the solid rail around the Humber turn
- Underground turns compared to T9's at-grade turns (and IONs. Interestingly, from my sat estimates the 6FW takes the Humber turn at 40m radius and 10kmh, while the T9 handles 30m radius turns at 15kmh.)

Frankly, it amazes me with how overbuilt the project is, they still are having issues with things like the switches. I suspect there was some poor design/construction wrt some of the heating systems for the switches. I don't want to believe someone just forgot that winter exists here in Toronto.

 

[rbt]

- 6FW having massively overbuilt and excavated terminal stations- T9 has on-ground transfers

IIIRC the excavated portions of Finch were expected to be around 40% of the total project capital cost despite their small portion of total length; though that was back when TTC was still in charge of the project.

 

[JSF-1]

Frankly, it amazes me with how overbuilt the project is, they still are having issues with things like the switches. I suspect there was some poor design/construction wrt some of the heating systems for the switches. I don't want to believe someone just forgot that winter exists here in Toronto.

That's just Metrolinx's incompetence on display, after all they were the ones in charge of overseeing the construction of the line. Makes you wonder just what they are going to screw up with the Ontario Line.

 

[urbanclient]

At the very least completely grade separated rapid transit is the bare minimum at 100s of millions of dollars per mile.

Having conversations about traffic conflict at that price point is ridiculous. The problem has been solved even in Toronto subways or even the technology the Line 3 in Scarborough was using from the 80s is far superior to the antiqued implantation of LRT tech in FWLRT.

To use the logic of a pro-tram contributor:

If something [LRT] doesn't work well then the solution is to make it work well.

If metros cost at least $1 billion per km to build in Toronto in 2026, which doesn’t work well because it’s so expensive, then the solution is to make it work well i.e. make it cheaper. Instead, many of us here are ok with Metrolinx just throwing their hands up, saying “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”. Instead of trying to build metros at <$250 million USD per km like Spain, South Korea, Turkey [1], or what the misguided might call the third-world socialist nightmare next-door, Montréal, we give up on trying to make Toronto projects cost less. Instead, we default to building $250 to 500 million USD per km mixed grade LRTs and then pat ourselves on the back for “saving money” while actually losing money for society in the longer term.

Again this is bizarro world, Finch West did not desperately need an upgrade to tram, especially in hindsight. It was chosen mostly because it happens to be the only high ridership bus corridor wide enough (and just barely) and it also connects a post-secondary institution to the wider rail network (I support the latter idea). Unfortunately, in-person Humber College attendance has tanked since COVID and there are only 3 active apartment/condo developments along the corridor [2]. So barring Humber pulling a Conestoga, Line 6 ridership will be awful now [3] and in the foreseeable future. If pre-COVID Finch East could survive with the 39 and 939 being packed, then so could have the 36.

The Line 2 Scarborough extension will cost $10 billion and increase subway boardings by 105,000, with 52,000 boardings that wouldn't have otherwise used transit. A $3.7 billion dollar Line 6 will increase corridor transit ridership by very little, if any in the short term. And consequently, it will capture 0 latent demand. $10 billion for 52,000 extra compared to now is very expensive, but $3.7 billion for close to 0 extra compared to 2019 is infinitely worse. Given that Line 6's supplanting of the bus is not even a certainty at this point, it can only get worse from here before the area densifies by 20XX. $10 billion for Line 2 at least replaces the bus for 53,000 out of 105,000 [4]. What does $3.7 billion get us in the short term? Shuttle buses 24/7? 50,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent?

People often forget that transit projects have a huge carbon footprint to start and only become carbon negative after decades of use, if ever. If Line 6 manages only marginally better ridership than the 36 bus, the carbon payback period could be as long as a century.

In its current state, you can forget about environmental benefits from this line, even societal benefits look dubious right now. Years of worsened traffic on Finch due to construction, economic losses to individuals and businesses, all for what. As has been pointed out by others, TSP might not be the golden bullet I thought it would be, given the lack of two-stage pedestrian crossings.

1. https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/...nstruction-Costs-in-Canada_Feb-2025_FINAL.pdf
2. https://svnrock.ca/apartment-crane-watch-2/
3. https://stevemunro.ca/2025/08/12/ttc-surface-route-stats-2019-2024/
4. https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/scarborough-subway-extension

Finch West circled in black, image source: https://stevemunro.ca/2024/02/15/overcrowding-on-ttc-bus-routes/

 

[mikey7767]

K I'll take that at face value, that you're apparently pro subway, but you clearly just strawmanned @mikey7767 .

He never said that Line 6 should've been a subway. Line 6 bad =/= Line 6 should've been a subway.

Can we please move on from this persistent logical fallacy to the point where every time anyone makes a post remotely critical of trams in Toronto that they have to make a disclaimer that they don't think Finch West deserved a subway? Just because someone is critical of Line 6 does not mean they think it should've been a subway.

The cost difference between LRT and Subways in Toronto is 4.7x, Finch LRT per km compared to the Ontario Line per km, The Ontario line is using a lot of elevated sections and and GO right of way so most likely the difference is 5x+ to build a subway instead of an LRT. Finch West costs 3.7Billion as an LRT and would cost around 17.5 Billion as a Subway at the same per km as the Ontario line..

Exactly! I've actively mentioned that I do not think a subway would be a good idea here. At the same time, building LRTs in Toronto is also a bad idea. And a costly bad idea.

As someone else pointed out, LRTs are 10 times more expensive than a BRT. So why some people here think they have the moral high ground to think it is okay to spend $350 million per kilometre on LRTs and not on BRTs at less than one tenth of the cost and also on metros at maybe two to three times the cost (if done elevated or grade separated on a corridor) is beyond me. These obnoxious people think only their version of upgrading makes sense, and anything cheaper or more expensive is out of the question even if cheaper options like BRT or just a RapidTO lane would be faster and better transit.

And it goes to show, nobody sees the FWLRT and is like "I'm gonna ditch my car and take the LRT today because it's better than driving".

A BRT would have been less than one tenth the cost and a lot faster to operate, especially with signal priority. But no, we must build something more expensive, but not too expensive, only up to their (whomever supports these dumb ass LRTs) level of expensive. Even if it takes us backwards, and even if the intended goals can be done at one tenth the cost, and when we can use that money to actually build subways elsewhere where it is needed, because let's face it, we still do need subways in many parts of the city.

 

[Amare]

Exactly! I've actively mentioned that I do not think a subway would be a good idea here. At the same time, building LRTs in Toronto is also a bad idea. And a costly bad idea.

As someone else pointed out, LRTs are 10 times more expensive than a BRT. So why some people here think they have the moral high ground to think it is okay to spend $350 million per kilometre on LRTs and not on BRTs at less than one tenth of the cost and also on metros at maybe two to three times the cost (if done elevated or grade separated on a corridor) is beyond me. These obnoxious people think only their version of upgrading makes sense, and anything cheaper or more expensive is out of the question even if cheaper options like BRT or just a RapidTO lane would be faster and better transit.

And it goes to show, nobody sees the FWLRT and is like "I'm gonna ditch my car and take the LRT today because it's better than driving".

A BRT would have been less than one tenth the cost and a lot faster to operate, especially with signal priority. But no, we must build something more expensive, but not too expensive, only up to their (whomever supports these dumb ass LRTs) level of expensive. Even if it takes us backwards, and even if the intended goals can be done at one tenth the cost, and when we can use that money to actually build subways elsewhere where it is needed, because let's face it, we still do need subways in many parts of the city.

It's not that building LRT in Toronto is a bad idea, it isnt.

The problem is more that we dont know how the hell to implement LRT to it's actual full potential. For starters we implement low-floor where it makes absolutely no sense to do so, which costs us capacity space.

Then we choose vehicles that are flawed for one reason or another (ie: the Flexity Freedoms and their shorter 5 car-modules vs longer 7-car modules, Alstom Cidatis and their problematic wheel hub assembly design).

The TSP problems have been well documented, so that's another issue.

Then the TTC and their idiotic SOPs is another issue, that's literally ingrained into the software of the vehicles so there's another issue.

So as you can see we have an LRT that was/is being sabotaged by: Metrolinx, the TTC, and the city collectively. Metrolinx came up with a sub-optital design and chose a flawed vehicle, the city screwed the implementation by not optimizing signals, and the TTC is compounding it by idiot SOPs. Not to mention Mosaic which cant properly ensure that track switches are functioning properly. Tee whole thing is a cluster*$** with 4 parties involved, each one of them which have/are screwing up immensely.