Finch West Line 6 LRT

[Rainforest]

The stop spacing should be tailored to the role of each route. A city of Toronto size needs several trunk, high capacity subway routes, that help people get across the city faster. They cannot be fully substituted by GO trains, because in many cases there is no rail line in the right place and going in the desired direction. I don't know any modern city of Toronto size that functions well without having several of such trunk routes.

For the trunk routes, like Line 1 and 2, Sheppard subway, future OL, 1-km spacing is a good rule of thumb, with a parallel local bus. Tighter spacing in the downtown core is expected because the big destinations are close to each other.

The next tier should be mid-capacity LRT / BRT routes, such as Finch, Steeles, Jane etc. For those, 500-700 m spacing seems reasonable, parallel local bus is not needed. I think the same goes for the ordinary suburban bus routes that have no dedicated lanes.

For the downtown streetcars, even when they run in dedicated lanes like Spadina, 300-500 m spacing is reasonable, because the destinations are placed close to each other and every stop is well used.

 

[Northern Light]

Let me clarify something since it seems you overlooked this part...

Ie, I was specifically excluding downtown/city centre tramways like Spadina. My Point was RT in less dense/more sfh land use areas such as what you'd find along Finch or York Mills or whatever.

Fair.

 

[ARG1]

The "wider stop spacing" side of this debate is biased to that opinion because we are arguing in the context of our shared experience - living in the GTA. Here, we built sprawling, car-oriented suburbs where all jobs and culture are 25 km away in downtown Toronto. Of course you want long stop spacing, you commute 90 minutes every morning into another city. You want any little thing to speed up your ride.

I think we need to address this in a few ways:

1. Put more jobs and other amenities in the suburbs. NOT in random locations in suburbs, but in well-connected regional centres.

2. Stop this foolish unlimited suburban sprawl making our urban areas bigger and bigger, forcing longer commute distances. All new population growth should be accommodated by building more densely in existing built-up areas.

3. Improve regional transit. You wouldn't get from Newmarket to downtown Toronto by driving down Yonge or Bayview, you would take the 404/DVP. Similarly, you shouldn't take the subway for those long distances either. The subway is not regional transit, that's what GO transit is for. Let the subway be the subway and let GO be GO.

The good news is, we're already doing all of these steps.

The bad news is, specifically in the context of Yonge North, the Richmond Hill line sucks and will actually be slower than an extended subway for most trips. That's a tricky one.

I mean its great that we are doing things to improve situations, but fact of the matter is we have to work with what we got, and what we got is car oriented sprawl that won't be going away anytime soon. Making sure we don't make new subdivisions is great and all but it doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.

As for your other points:
1) I'm someone who is extremely skeptical of 15m cities. It sounds great on paper that we can alleviate much of infrastructure woes by making it so that people don't commute long distances, but in a metro area as large as ours I fear that it can cause a lot of undesired side effects, more importantly be used as an excuse to underfund transit. People will still want to go downtown Toronto to go to concerts or to watch the Raptors game, 15m cities doesn't really address any current travel patterns beyond employment and commerical (and even then depending on your career specialization, you might not have suitable employment near where you live). Whilst implementing 15m city policies could alleviate some problems, it absolutely does not eliminate or even make negligible the need for region wide commutes (we could talk about how it at least decreases overall demand, but I'm afraid going down this logical road leads to an argument favouring Car Infrastructure).

3) The subway is not the GO train, and nobody is claiming otherwise. The subway acts as medium speed transit, right in the middle between lower forms of transit like local busses, streetcars, and LRTs, and higher order forms like GO trains (although its worth mentioning that on a 4 track GO corridor you could justify having local services with 1-2km stop spacing which would have it comparable to a subway). Like no, its not reasonable to take the subway from Newmarket to Downtown, but its not unreasonable to take the subway from North York Centre or frankly even RHC downtown. These more medium spaced trips is what subways specialize at and what they exist to serve.

And personally, I wouldn't take so much issue with Finch West's stop spacing if it branded itself as the 536. If the planners wanted it to be a local service for purely local mobility, then I'd be fine (heck, feel free to add even more stops, and just keep the 936 express route for faster trips). However that's not what they did. Calling it Line 6 carries a strong message, that this is meant to be a higher order line comparable to the subway, and the lack of connection to any other high order services other than Line 1 (not to mention the discontinuation of the 936) strongly implies that the planners want this line to be used as a longer distance service where its expected people to travel end to end. In practice it feels like double dipping, trying to be both a longer distance northern crosstown style service for Humber students and Rexdale area residents to reach Line 1 with, whilst at the same also being a local mobility tool, and in the end its not great at either. If I was someone who had a car, lived in the area/attended humber, and I looked at the travel time numbers for this line? I absolutely would not use this service unless I absolutely had to. This wouldn't make me second guess myself and consider using transit instead, and I certainly wouldn't move there for the transit access unlike {insert almost any part of Yonge Street}.

 

[Rainforest]

And personally, I wouldn't take so much issue with Finch West's stop spacing if it branded itself as the 536. If the planners wanted it to be a local service for purely local mobility, then I'd be fine (heck, feel free to add even more stops, and just keep the 936 express route for faster trips). However that's not what they did. Calling it Line 6 carries a strong message, that this is meant to be a higher order line comparable to the subway, and the lack of connection to any other high order services other than Line 1 (not to mention the discontinuation of the 936) strongly implies that the planners want this line to be used as a longer distance service where its expected people to travel end to end. In practice it feels like double dipping, trying to be both a longer distance northern crosstown style service for Humber students and Rexdale area residents to reach Line 1 with, whilst at the same also being a local mobility tool, and in the end its not great at either. If I was someone who had a car, lived in the area/attended humber, and I looked at the travel time numbers for this line? I absolutely would not use this service unless I absolutely had to. This wouldn't make me second guess myself and consider using transit instead, and I certainly wouldn't move there for the transit access unlike {insert almost any part of Yonge Street}.

I agree with much of your post, except the last paragraph:

1) Wouldn't generalize that Finch LRT is completely unsuitable as a replacement for car trips. If you live near Finch & Kipling, then sure it sucks to spend 30 min on LRT just getting to the subway. But if you live somewhere between Jane and Weston near Finch, then your travel time to subway will be in the 10-15 min range, and frankly that's not bad.

2) 936 express does not exist today. The Finch West construction was under way when they began expanding the 9xx express network, and they omitted the 936 because they assumed it will be stuck in traffic regardless of the stop spacing.

3) I don't think 936 express would be useful when LRT is in place. Express in mixed traffic would be faster than LRT off-peak, but same speed or slower than LRT during the peak, when most of people travel. Meanwhile, the operating expenses would be up quite a bit.

Agreed that calling Finch LRT "route 536" would be more descriptive than calling it Line 6.

 

[Northern Light]

How about we take some of the passion out of this discussion, on both sides, and instead do the deep dive together on stop spacing.

Let's begin by looking at the stops as they are; the distance between each.

Source: https://www.toronto.com/news/7-fact...le_5895fc61-41cf-5952-acdd-98b585a503e5.html?

I will show this as stop name, distance, next stop name

* Note, I am not going to nitpick farside/nearside stops, as that is time I don't have, I'll go intersection to intersection on centre.

In (Brackets), the distance btw 2 stops if that one is removed. (does not apply to Terminals, obviously)

Finally, I have marked each stop that crosses a TTC bus connection with a T

Keele T

750M

Sentinel (1.4km) T

667M

Tobermory (1.1.km)

454M

Driftwood (807M) T

353M

Jane (801M) T

548M

Norfinch (1.5km) T

1km

Signet (1.5km) T

501M

Weston (1.3km) T

825M

Milvan (1.3km) T

451M

Duncan Woods (853M)

402M

Pearldale (930M)

528M

Islington (1.4km) T

1.1KM

Kipling (1.5km) T

420M

Stevenson (696M)

276M

Albion (836M) T

560M

Martin Grove (1.35km) T

788M

Westmore (988M) T

200M

Highway 27 (900M)

~700M

Humber College

*********

There are other considerations than the above; including:

Distance to nearest trip generator/distance if stop removed from same

Distance from high density residential node, and same if stop removed.

Major barrier between stops such as steep hills/valleys, or unpleasantness of crossing a major highway interchange.

Have at it everyone, play nicely.

 

[ARG1]

How about we take some of the passion out of this discussion, on both sides, and instead do the deep dive together on stop spacing.

Let's begin by looking at the stops as they are; the distance between each.

View attachment 541293
Source: https://www.toronto.com/news/7-fact...le_5895fc61-41cf-5952-acdd-98b585a503e5.html?

I will do show this as stop name, distance, next stop name

* Note, I am not going to nitpick farside/nearside stops, as that is time I don't have, I'll go intersection to intersection on centre.

In (Brackets), the distance btw 2 stops if that one is removed. (does not apply to Terminals, obviously)

Finally, I have marked each stop that crosses a TTC bus connection with a T

Keele T

750M

Sentinel (1.4km) T

667M

Tobermory (1.1.km)

454M

Driftwood (807M) T

353M

Jane (801M) T

548M

Norfinch (1.5km) T

1km

Signet (1.5km) T

501M

Weston (1.3km) T

825M

Milvan (1.3km) T

451M

Duncan Woods (853M)

402M

Pearldale (930M)

528M

Islington (1.4km) T

1.1KM

Kipling (1.5km) T

420M

Stevenson (696M)

276M

Albion (836M) T

560M

Martin Grove (1.35km) T

788M

Westmore (988M) T

200M

Highway 27 (900M)

~700M

Humber College

*********

There are other considerations than the above; including:

Distance to nearest trip generator/distance if stop removed from same

Distance from high density residential node, and same if stop removed.

Major barrier between stops such as steep hills/valleys, or unpleasantness of crossing a major highway interchange.

Have at it everyone, play nicely.

I've talked with quite a few people about this, and in general we came to one general conclusion.

1) Stevenson should be cut
2) Driftwood as well
3) Out of Milvan, Pearldale, and Duncanwood, choose 2/3 (Probably Milvan and Pearldale).

Its worth noting however that the map is outdated, as I'm pretty sure they nixed the stop at Highway 27 long ago,

 

[Northern Light]

I've talked with quite a few people about this, and in general we came to one general conclusion.

1) Stevenson should be cut
2) Driftwood as well
3) Out of Milvan, Pearldale, and Duncanwood, choose 2/3 (Probably Milvan and Pearldale).

Its worth noting however that the map is outdated, as I'm pretty sure they nixed the stop at Highway 27 long ago,

So, I haven't drawn any conclusions as I type this first line; but I will look at the map, to see if I can discern why the stops you note above were inserted, and what impact, if any, is obvious.

Stevenson:

Chosen likely for 3 factors, the mall to the south, but this, as noted prior is served by 2 other stops.

But the stop also directly serves these 2 residential towers:

It also serves a Junior High just up the street that is ~290M from Finch.

So the impact of removing the stop is taking the distance for the residential ~ 25M and the Junior High and considering the distance w/o that stop.

Distance to Kipling : ~710M (school); 430M for apartments.

Distance to Albion: ~560M (school); 332M for apartments.

***

I think there's a reasonable case for removal here, the primary impact is on the middle school which is material, but likely represents a fairly low portion of any potential ridership.


****************

Now lets' look at Driftwood:

Serves the east end of the Jane Finch Mall.

The only significant density currently is San Romanoiway which is under 300M to the Jane-Finch intersection.

There is the vast proposed densification of the Jane-Finch Mall site to consider here; where I would note, I have proposed moving Driftwood closer to Jane, which would definitively remove any justification for a stop.

The only knocks on removal here are:

Removes a connecting bus route and stop, creating a walking transfer.

Also, with future density, I don't believe the current platform design at Jane would carry sufficient capacity. (there is, however, room, for now, to widen those platforms, albeit with some expensive changes to curbs/roads/streetscape etc.

*******

I think I'll leave it there for now.

 

[FW36]

If we had unlimited money there could have been a better way to design the Finch West LRT which would have improved speed but still serve the local community.

1. LRT should have resurfaced after passing Romfield Lane. It would allow the LRT to bypass traffic lights and avoid unnecessary delays. From here the LRT would run surface level to serve the local community,

2. The next big and expensive change would be to remove the Driftwood Ave stop and bury the Finch West LRT between Jane and Weston. The LRT could have entered a trench before driftwood to avoid that traffic light. My logic here is Finch West during rush hour is packed with cars and having the train run surface level here increases the chances of delays due to traffic and accidents. If the LRT ran unground in this section the trains could travel fast. The stops would remain the same with stops at Jane, Norfinch/ Oakdale, Signet/ Arrow, and Weston. The LRT could have resurfaced after passing Jayzel Dr, avoiding another traffic light, and run surface level to serve the local community.

3. Now for a smaller change I would have removed the stop at Duncunwoods Dr.

4. After passing through Pearldale Ave. the LRT could have gone through an above-ground section with an above-ground station at Islington. Between Islington and Kipling the lrt would run along the surface

4. lastly the LRT would go below grade between Kipling and Albion to avoid those busy intersections. It could have been built similarly to the Mississauga Transitway to keep costs down. Also, Stevenson station would be removed. After Albion, the LRT would resurface and run above ground.

*************************
My logic overall is the LRT would run separately at busy intersections, but serve more local trips between the major intersections. You would get both speed and convenience. hopefully satisfying both parties in this debate.

 

[dowlingm]

The one thing this maps based approach to determining underground sections misses is underground utilities. While some would have been moved, others were likely deep enough to remain with a surface LRT - more tunnels, more likelihood of encountering such. Suddenly not so cheap. Maybe the EA has that info.

Additionally, there has been reference to the LRT going faster when underground, and certainly one advantage would be during snow/heavy rain. For short duck-under tunnels at busy intersections, line of sight would be sufficient as on the streetcar system. However, at what length of tunnel would it be necessary to add signals in order to run at “high” speed? Finch is pretty straight so there would be decent line of sight for sighting vehicle lights ahead, but how easy is it to judge stopping distance at speed?

 

[chrisw]

LRT scope creep. If you have unlimited money just build light metro.

 

[turbanplanner]

The "wider stop spacing" side of this debate is biased to that opinion because we are arguing in the context of our shared experience - living in the GTA. Here, we built sprawling, car-oriented suburbs where all jobs and culture are 25 km away in downtown Toronto. Of course you want long stop spacing, you commute 90 minutes every morning into another city. You want any little thing to speed up your ride.

I think we need to address this in a few ways:

1. Put more jobs and other amenities in the suburbs. NOT in random locations in suburbs, but in well-connected regional centres.

2. Stop this foolish unlimited suburban sprawl making our urban areas bigger and bigger, forcing longer commute distances. All new population growth should be accommodated by building more densely in existing built-up areas.

3. Improve regional transit. You wouldn't get from Newmarket to downtown Toronto by driving down Yonge or Bayview, you would take the 404/DVP. Similarly, you shouldn't take the subway for those long distances either. The subway is not regional transit, that's what GO transit is for. Let the subway be the subway and let GO be GO.

The good news is, we're already doing all of these steps.

The bad news is, specifically in the context of Yonge North, the Richmond Hill line sucks and will actually be slower than an extended subway for most trips. That's a tricky one.

Honestly just mandate partial WFH to be the default unless a company can prove they need people in. I know this doesn't apply to every single job but it would really help.

Everyone here sees suburbs/sprawl as bad but nobody seems to care why someone is willing to drive from Barrie or Oshawa every day. Some people don't want dense housing. Personally I only have bad experiences in shared housing and if I had kids I would want them to have a backyard!

 

[Northern Light]

If we had unlimited money there could have been a better way to design the Finch West LRT which would have improved speed but still serve the local community.

I'm inclined to agree with @chrisw above; if we're wandering off into wild fantasy territory by vastly increasing the budget, then it suddenly becomes why not a subway to every door?

1. LRT should have resurfaced after passing Romfield Lane. It would allow the LRT to bypass traffic lights and avoid unnecessary delays. From here the LRT would run surface level to serve the local community,
View attachment 541423

You're looking at adding ~250M of tunnel, so probably an added 250M; that's a big chunk of change; I'd have to see how substantial the delays caused by this light are; and whether one might not be better off removing the light, and making the intersection right-in, right-out for a lot less money.

2. The next big and expensive change would be to remove the Driftwood Ave stop and bury the Finch West LRT between Jane and Weston. The LRT could have entered a trench before driftwood to avoid that traffic light. My logic here is Finch West during rush hour is packed with cars and having the train run surface level here increases the chances of delays due to traffic and accidents. If the LRT ran unground in this section the trains could travel fast. The stops would remain the same with stops at Jane, Norfinch/ Oakdale, Signet/ Arrow, and Weston. The LRT could have resurfaced after passing Jayzel Dr, avoiding another traffic light, and run surface level to serve the local community.

View attachment 541427

2.5 km of tunnel/trench is going to literally double the project budget.

A trench is not viable and/or hugely expensive, in many sections along the route; every road that crosses said trench would sit on a bridge, in essence; and going under the 400 would mean rebuilding the entire interchange; stations/platforms add width beyond the core trench, and now that you're underground, you would need elevators and stairs to get back to the surface, and those can't come up in the middle of a traffic lane; so there's a big land take for this idea.

3. Now for a smaller change I would have removed the stop at Duncunwoods Dr.

That's probably viable, and a modest cost savings.

4. After passing through Pearldale Ave. the LRT could have gone through an above-ground section with an above-ground station at Islington.

So you want a grade-change, and to run the line elevated here? Add several hundred million.

4. lastly the LRT would go below grade between Kipling and Albion to avoid those busy intersections. It could have been built similarly to the Mississauga Transitway to keep costs down. Also, Stevenson station would be removed. After Albion, the LRT would resurface and run above ground.

More tunnel? We're now tripling the budget.

View attachment 541429

*************************
My logic overall is the LRT would run separately at busy intersections, but serve more local trips between the major intersections. You would get both speed and convenience. hopefully satisfying both parties in this debate.

Overall, your version of the project would be no less than 6B. Not sure that solves much as I don't think project would have been approved at that price point.

 

[T3G]

Honestly just mandate partial WFH to be the default unless a company can prove they need people in. I know this doesn't apply to every single job but it would really help.

Everyone here sees suburbs/sprawl as bad but nobody seems to care why someone is willing to drive from Barrie or Oshawa every day. Some people don't want dense housing. Personally I only have bad experiences in shared housing and if I had kids I would want them to have a backyard!

Of course, there are many ways to do SFH and the post-war North American way is the most appalling and repulsive of them all.

It's not that SFH is in itself a problem - a healthy city has many housing options to serve a variety of needs - but that the neighbourhoods are not walkable, lack amenities, you have to walk or drive long distances to get to services or employment, they are flanked by hideous, inhumane stroads, and they are generally sterile and cookie cutter. There are pre-war "streetcar suburbs" even here in Toronto where this is not true, like Riverdale, but present day zoning laws make mixing many residential and commercial interests illegal. The people who designed these communities and continue to design them today must have been misanthropes who hate all living things, and what they have done is a crime against humanity.

 

[Undead]

T3G you must be taking a rhetoric class, lol.

Personally, I find the streetcar suburbs too dense. They're not intended to host the numbers of cars they do today. I find the street parking and lack of garages really make those areas feel cramped as people are forced to store their cars curbside.

 

[FW36]

Overall, your version of the project would be no less than 6B. Not sure that solves much as I don't think project would have been approved at that price point.

As of now the LRT would pass through 22 intersections with traffic lights. My fear is the LRT would end up like the ion LRT ,which is a great project, but runs at a snail pace. The section between weston and jane is already packed with cars entering and exiting the 400, with drivers regularly blocking interactions during rush hour. I don't have faith in toronto drivers and I worry this section will prove tricky espicelly with the developments planned at Jane st and weston Rd.

********

The only realistic change I would do is remove the stop at Stevenson, Duncan woods, and driftwood. At major intersections trains should be given priory over cars to not be delayed by traffic.

*******
Also I agree It would easier to remove light at Romfield Lane and make it right-in /right out.