News   Nov 26, 2024
United BLDG Gets Height Bump While Rising Behind Heritage Walls
 939     1 
News   Nov 26, 2024
UrbanToronto at The Buildings Show: The Challenges of Supertalls
 700     0 
News   Nov 26, 2024
Three Towers Up to 44 Storeys Proposed Near Bloor and Hwy 427
 1.4K     0 

Finch West Line 6 LRT

ARG1 said:
It's not like we're calling them "Line 5" and "Line 6" or anything...
Click to expand...

The name doesn't include the word subway. I have only ever heard them referred to as rapid transit/LRT lines. Nevertheless, it's important to set our expectations based on what the project actually is rather than whatever marketing wank Metrolinx trots out.

That being said, a vehicle operating in its own right way of is inherently faster than the status quo, which is a bus without private lanes. And if expecting a local transit vehicle to outpace a car is the parameter by which the success of a transit project is judged, there are many transit lines that could be considered failures.
 
T3G said:
The name doesn't include the word subway. I have only ever heard them referred to as rapid transit/LRT lines. Nevertheless, it's important to set our expectations based on what the project actually is rather than whatever marketing wank Metrolinx trots out.

That being said, a vehicle operating in its own right way of is inherently faster than the status quo, which is a bus without private lanes. And if expecting a local transit vehicle to outpace a car is the parameter by which the success of a transit project is judged, there are many transit lines that could be considered failures.
Click to expand...
On the subway map, and branding, it's being advertised as "Line 6." Thinking of mode differences is probably going too deep into the transit advocacy side - people will see this as an extension of the Rapid Transit network ... unless we screw this up.

I don't see why we should accept that transit vehicles shouldn't go as fast as possible on their ROWs. Are the subway slow zones acceptable? Should we accept that it's "faster than a streetcar [the Yonge streetcar it replaced in 1954]," and therefore a great success? If the parameter by the success of a billion-dollar transit investment is judged is "faster than a bus without private lanes" (ie. mixed flow), something's gone horribly wrong with planning and operations.

If we want to saddle our suburban LRTs with stupid operational practices as we have on the 510/512, we may as well have called this the "536 Finch West" streetcar, and set those expectations low.
 
DirectionNorth said:
On the subway map, and branding, it's being advertised as "Line 6." Thinking of mode differences is probably going too deep into the transit advocacy side - people will see this as an extension of the Rapid Transit network ... unless we screw this up.

I don't see why we should accept that transit vehicles shouldn't go as fast as possible on their ROWs. Are the subway slow zones acceptable? Should we accept that it's "faster than a streetcar [the Yonge streetcar it replaced in 1954]," and therefore a great success? If the parameter by the success of a billion-dollar transit investment is judged is "faster than a bus without private lanes" (ie. mixed flow), something's gone horribly wrong with planning and operations.

If we want to saddle our suburban LRTs with stupid operational practices as we have on the 510/512, we may as well have called this the "536 Finch West" streetcar, and set those expectations low.
Click to expand...
"It goes faster than buses stuck in traffic."

That's not good enough.
 
Just to add to the perceived confusion Crosstown is listed as a Rapid Transit LRT project but the Crosstown West Extension is listed as a Subway project on Metrolink's website. It is of course, completely grade separated as an individual project in and of itself.

Does it matter what power train set is used for such a project to call it a subway if this is the case (forgetting the fact that CWE will become one with Crosstown)?

Line 6 is a tram/LRT IMO. Line 5 is a strange one, Reminds me a little bit of the Metrolink I used to take in Manchester (which was really good).
 
T3G said:
Who is branding them as subway lines? I have only ever heard them referred to as LRTs.
Click to expand...
TTC has always branded them as subways, as far as I know. As they did with Line 3 (Scarborough RT).

Oddly, Metrolinx is calling the Line 5 extension a subway, but not the original phase - https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/subways

The original 4 LRT lines (Line 5, 6, 10, and Hamilton) are all part of rapid transit instead - https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/rapid-transit
 
grammin said:
Just to add to the perceived confusion Crosstown is listed as a Rapid Transit LRT project but the Crosstown West Extension is listed as a Subway project on Metrolink's website. It is of course, completely grade separated as an individual project in and of itself.

Does it matter what power train set is used for such a project to call it a subway if this is the case (forgetting the fact that CWE will become one with Crosstown)?

Line 6 is a tram/LRT IMO. Line 5 is a strange one, Reminds me a little bit of the Metrolink I used to take in Manchester (which was really good).
Click to expand...
The issue isn't so much the rolling stock as it is the speed of the line. 60km/h is too slow. If we're trying to entice people to get out of their cars, then transit has to go faster. Especially with the amount of money we spent on this project.

Calgary C-train hits an average speed of 80km/h
 
Amare said:

TTC: Major Operational Issues (Various)

Given the state of disrepair that the TTC has been in over the past few years, and the increased amount of construction taking place throughout the system I figured it's time to create a separate thread to keep track of all of it and separate it from the catch all thread. I'll start things off...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
Click to expand...
Even before all this crap they were doing 50-60 km/h beside the Allen. They couldn’t even build the stretch for 80 km/h.
 
Bojaxs said:
The issue isn't so much the rolling stock as it is the speed of the line. 60km/h is too slow. If we're trying to entice people to get out of their cars, then transit has to go faster. Especially with the amount of money we spent on this project.

Calgary C-train hits an average speed of 80km/h
Click to expand...
C-train stations are usually 2km apart in the suburbs similar to North Yonge. It’s a lot easier to hit 80 but access is quite difficult. Most people drive to the stations and park there.

The downtown corridor is also stupid in rush hour. It’s like dwelling with crush load on Yonge plus waiting for traffic signals.
 
DirectionNorth said:
don't see why we should accept that transit vehicles shouldn't go as fast as possible on their ROWs.
Click to expand...
One major reason why this may be is because, on a local transit line (which this is), there is only so much speed you can attain, before you have to slow down again for the next stop. And the higher the top speed is, the longer the braking distance will be, and, paradoxically, the less time the vehicle will spend operating at top speed before it has to start braking.

And no (this is not directed specifically at you, but to anyone who reads this and wants to reply): cutting stops is not an option. This is a local transit project. Transit is not a failure because it serves local needs and isn't a super super fast cross regional super express. People who live along minor roads also deserve higher order transit and not to be stuck in bumpy, uncomfortable buses.

DirectionNorth said:
Are the subway slow zones acceptable? Should we accept that it's "faster than a streetcar [the Yonge streetcar it replaced in 1954]," and therefore a great success? If the parameter by the success of a billion-dollar transit investment is judged is "faster than a bus without private lanes" (ie. mixed flow), something's gone horribly wrong with planning and operations.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a 1 on 1 comparison, because the subway slow zones are artificial speed restrictions caused by infrastructure decay. A much fairer point of comparison would be the design speed of line 1. From Bloor to Eglinton West, even in times of good maintenance, it is still relatively slow for a subway, due to the timers and curves on the line. Or, here's the original comment which set off the discussion:

Bojaxs said:
These trains need to be seen outpacing cars.
Click to expand...

On Allen Road, do you see the line 1 trains outpacing cars? If somehow they managed to get up to highway speed, they soon have to stop for the next station. Should we remove line 1 from the transit map?

Transit outpaces cars during rush hour in the peak direction, or otherwise in incredibly dense areas with constant, all way, all day traffic congestion like Manhattan. On a suburban stroad like Finch West, this was never a realistic expectation, and is therefore an unreasonable metric by which to judge whether a project is well designed. To have trams outpace cars on Finch West, you'd need to run a super express with little to no stops from Finch West to Humber College.

DirectionNorth said:
If we want to saddle our suburban LRTs with stupid operational practices as we have on the 510/512, we may as well have called this the "536 Finch West" streetcar, and set those expectations low.
Click to expand...
What operational practices are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone refer to this. All we're talking about is how the line will have the same speed limit as the street it's on, which, if Google streetview imagery is still accurate, is 60 km/h. How is this a problem?

Bojaxs said:
The issue isn't so much the rolling stock as it is the speed of the line. 60km/h is too slow. If we're trying to entice people to get out of their cars, then transit has to go faster. Especially with the amount of money we spent on this project.

Calgary C-train hits an average speed of 80km/h
Click to expand...
I don't want this to sound offensive, but to me it sounds like your expectations for transit are entirely too high.

Taking transit (especially in the suburbs) because you want to save time as compared to the car is like expecting every passenger on transit to conform to your own personal behavioural standards. In both cases, you want to take the car to satisfy these expectations, because you are asking something of transit it can never deliver. Unless, again, it's rush hour in the peak direction, or you're in Manhattan or similarly dense urban areas. It is rarely faster to even take the GO train, never mind a local transit line.
 
Bojaxs said:
The issue isn't so much the rolling stock as it is the speed of the line. 60km/h is too slow. If we're trying to entice people to get out of their cars, then transit has to go faster. Especially with the amount of money we spent on this project.

Calgary C-train hits an average speed of 80km/h
Click to expand...
I agree transit speed definitely can affect whether people use it, at least for myself. I live right downtown by several streetcar lines right by me, however they are so painfully slow that for shorter distances I choose to cycle and for longer (more than 8 km ish) I usually drive as it's faster. Out of cycling, driving and taking the TTC, the TTC is almost never faster sadly, and usually the slowest.

I am sure this line will at least be faster than a bicycle, unlike my local King streetcar. But if not, I am happy they are adding bicycle lanes along Finch as part of the project.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top