Finch West Line 6 LRT

[T3G]

Something is incomplete about those MDBF statistics. I can't fathom what it is about subways that makes the TTC expect a much higher MDBF out of them than from anything else; they're still subject to wear, tear, and breakdowns. And the average age of the subway fleet is much higher than that of the surface vehicles.

@smallspy any thoughts on why this might be?

Platform screen doors might stop delays due to trespassers on the tracks, but they won't do anything for mechanical failures.

 

[christiesplits]

A few thoughts from my first ride, Monday, December 29, around noon:

- Parked the car by the Westmore stop (first stop east of Humber College) and departed on the LRT to Finch West Station.
- Total travel time was around 39 minutes westbound. Note that this was the Monday after Christmas so car traffic was light with few passengers onboard.
- Echoing others, the ride was very smooth and fairly quiet.
- Good wayfinding at the stops and Finch West Station.
- I didn’t time my return trip, as I was stopping midway for lunch at the amazing Plaza Latina. However, the two return legs definitely felt longer than the first. We had an extra-long stop at Stevenson, which included a recorded message about signal issues, that lasted about 7 minutes.
- Overall, I thought the trip was adequate given that it is less than one month into operation. I’ll reserve my final judgment until signal priority is adopted and the kinks are worked out.

 

[urbanclient]

Something is incomplete about those MDBF statistics. I can't fathom what it is about subways that makes the TTC expect a much higher MDBF out of them than from anything else; they're still subject to wear, tear, and breakdowns. And the average age of the subway fleet is much higher than that of the surface vehicles.

@smallspy any thoughts on why this might be?

Platform screen doors might stop delays due to trespassers on the tracks, but they won't do anything for mechanical failures.

Is it all that surprising that internal combustion and electric road vehicles are less reliable than mostly tunnelled grade separated railways? Road vehicles tend to accelerate and decelerate harder in practice, are more prone to brake failure, internal combustion engines and their transmissions are less reliable than electric motors etc... Not to mention buses can get flat tires. I myself have been on a natural gas bus that caught on fire due to a catastrophic engine failure in the GTA. The likelihood of the traction motors on a subway catching fire is much lower.

So it's no wonder that buses have 10 to 20 times more "mechanical road calls" per km than subways have "equipment incidents resulting in delays of five minutes or more". Even streetcars are more exposed to the elements than the subway, and streetcar tracks are further subject to wear and tear from road vehicles running over them. Not to mention the antiquated streetcar single point switches.

 

[T3G]

The streetcars may also be more exposed to the elements than the subway, but what percentage of road calls for streetcars are failures due to inclement weather? Maybe in the days of the CLRVs with the air brakes, I could see that being an issue, but I don't see that being exposed to the elements should be that significant of a factor for the streetcars these days - and especially when one considers that the subways are also stored outside. Is there an epidemic of subway consists that were stored outside on a weekend during a cold snap breaking down when they're pressed into service on Monday morning?

A track failure wouldn't (or at least, shouldn't) be considered a road call for a streetcar problem.

 

[Voltz]

4 minutes away? That doesn't sound practical. Is that how TSP typically works?

In some cases "4 minutes away" could put the LRV two intersections or two stops away from the signal.

The train control system knows where each train is, a smart signal priority system should be able to learn the typical travel times and start adjusting signal phase lengths to give a train a green light by the time it gets there. Such as if it might decide that knocking ten seconds off each signal phase would give a green light to a train that has been detected four minutes ahead of the intersection.

 

[FW36]

As someone who lives along and uses the line, I wanted to make a comprehensive list of both the good and the bad.

First, the good
1. Smooth and comfortable ride
It feels nice knowing there is a good chance of finding a seat when tired or running errands. There is no more stress wondering if buses will be too full to get on. Once riding the LRT, the trip is very smooth, with no bumps that knock passengers into each other.
2. Clean vehicles
Maybe because the line is new, but the LRT feels cleaner than the buses. They also smell much better.

Now for the bad — and sadly, it’s a longer list
1. Slow speeds and long dwelling times
The LRT always seems to crawl past intersections, running at about half the speed that cars travel. It is painfully slow, especially on the segment between Westmore and Humber College Station. The dwell times also add to travel time. Usually, the LRT is stopped at a station for about 30 seconds, or sometimes longer.
2. Lack of signal priority
Too often, the LRT gets stuck behind single vehicles making left turns or is held up at traffic lights for a minute or more. This is very frustrating as a passenger.
3. Spacing between stops
Many locals are complaining that the LRT has too many stops that are too close together. One experience I had was the LRT stopping at Stevenson. No one got on or off, but the LRT still had to stop. It dwelled at the station for 40 seconds, and what made it worse was that the light turned red, adding an additional minute.
4. Lack of shelter
It is very cold waiting for the LRT in the winter. Wait times are usually 10 minutes or more, which is very uncomfortable in cold weather.

From my perspective the LRT needs to be improved, right now it feels like a gimmick.

 

[GenerationW]

The relief line was not part of Transit City, and Transit City was not some all encompassing exclusive plan, the DRL was proceeding separately and did until Doug stopped it for the Ontario Line.

Transit City WAS an all-encompassing exclusive plan to the point where Adam Giambrone went on record (2009?) saying that a DRL would not even be considered until Transit City was completed. The only substantial action taken by Miller and Giambrone on the DRL was asking that it be moved up on the Metrolinx project list so that the Yonge extension would not be a higher priority. In other words it was meant to block Yonge, which was gaining momentum at the time.

Miller also asked staff to study the DRL. No report was ever issued as far as I know. Only after Rob Ford had his powers stripped did council name the DRL as the city's #1 transit priority, which was when actual work began.

 

[nfitz]

Transit City WAS an all-encompassing exclusive plan to the point where Adam Giambrone went on record (2009?) saying that a DRL would not even be considered until Transit City was completed. The only substantial action taken by Miller and Giambrone on the DRL was asking that it be moved up on the Metrolinx project list so that the Yonge extension would not be a higher priority. In other words it was meant to block Yonge, which was gaining momentum at the time.

Miller also asked staff to study the DRL. No report was ever issued as far as I know. Only after Rob Ford had his powers stripped did council name the DRL as the city's #1 transit priority, which was when actual work began.

Recall that the Don Mills LRT study of how to get from Eglinton to Bloor was (at least according to the discussion we had at the time) was showing that there could be capacity issues using LRT to Danforth, before the about face on the DRL.

Also recall that in 2007 that Transit City was planned to be finished by 2020 - so it was hardly a huge delay. The 2007 switch from subways to LRT occurred after 15 to 20 years of the city prioritizing subways, and not getting any funding - including by Miller in his first term until 2006. When the province suddenly started getting generous around 2009, they pivoted quickly.

 

[EnviroTO]

I find the recent article which basically is saying that LRTs are somehow by design meant to underperform and let's blame everything on David Miller and transit city to be complete nonsense. There is no law of physics (Miller's law) that says objects labelled as LRT must travel at 0.5 times the speed of bus. There is no law of LRT related to capacity, frequency, or speed. If the capacity, frequency, or speed is not what it needs to be it is because they procured a lemon or requested the wrong specs.

 

[Westey]

Recall that the Don Mills LRT study of how to get from Eglinton to Bloor was (at least according to the discussion we had at the time) was showing that there could be capacity issues using LRT to Danforth, before the about face on the DRL.

Also recall that in 2007 that Transit City was planned to be finished by 2020 - so it was hardly a huge delay. The 2007 switch from subways to LRT occurred after 15 to 20 years of the city prioritizing subways, and not getting any funding - including by Miller in his first term until 2006. When the province suddenly started getting generous around 2009, they pivoted quickly.

They also wanted to connect SRT to the Eglinton LRT, but their studies showed that too many people would want to take the line through from STC to Yonge (not Don Mills, because they knew the LRT there could not handle it and the DRL was not on anyone's radar). Their solution was not to improve capacity, it was to add in inconvenience to force passengers to do a route they otherwise wouldn't want to.
I suspect they would have done something similar and forced the solution to be LRT from Eglinton to Pape.

 

[smallspy]

Something is incomplete about those MDBF statistics. I can't fathom what it is about subways that makes the TTC expect a much higher MDBF out of them than from anything else; they're still subject to wear, tear, and breakdowns. And the average age of the subway fleet is much higher than that of the surface vehicles.

@smallspy any thoughts on why this might be?

There are a lot of moving parts which explain this.

Part of it is the subways are specifically designed for a purpose or set of purposes (constant use and ease of maintenance) that are harder to meet with other vehicles due to other constraints inherent with their design.

Part of it is that due to their design, there is a lot more redundancy built into the system. If a door fails on a subway, it doesn't need to immediately be removed from service. Same goes for a traction motor or HVAC unit. That's not the case for the other modes.

Part of it is due to the TTC prioritizing proactive maintenance procedures on the subway, and they have for a long time. They're getting better at this on the bus side, but still have a little ways to go.

And then there is where they run. Subways run in a completely closed system, isolated from interference. All the vehicles are the same, so they all perform the same. The operators are all subject to far more training. And because they are rail-bound, they are not subject to certain types of vibration-based failure that buses are.

But the final reason may be the hardest to fathom - the metrics themselves. The TTC seems to use different standards between the different modes.

Dan

 

[smallspy]

They also wanted to connect SRT to the Eglinton LRT, but their studies showed that too many people would want to take the line through from STC to Yonge (not Don Mills, because they knew the LRT there could not handle it and the DRL was not on anyone's radar). Their solution was not to improve capacity, it was to add in inconvenience to force passengers to do a route they otherwise wouldn't want to.
I suspect they would have done something similar and forced the solution to be LRT from Eglinton to Pape.

I was at those presentations. I've talked to TTC's planners. This is not true at all.

The number of people taking the SRT north in every single potential potential system permutation was so much higher than the numbers taking Eglinton from the west that it never, ever made sense to connect the two.

The final EA designs reflect this, with the projection that 3-car LRT trains would have been required on day 1 of the SRT replacement service.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

New post by @Steve Munro

6 Finch West Delay Logs December 2025​

 

[max]

New post by @Steve Munro

6 Finch West Delay Logs December 2025​

From Steve's article, this cause of delays jumped out at me:

Washroom and work breaks for operators.

I assume this means they aren't operating with step-back crewing, but can anyone confirm that?

EDIT: Nevermind, I have my answer from the PDF. On December 29 @ 5:51pm the description notes that, "One train stepback mode instituted."

Apparently they have the capability to do so, but have elected not to unless circumstances dictate it necessary. Unfortunate in my opinion, and hopefully that will change.

 

[afransen]

3. Spacing between stops
Many locals are complaining that the LRT has too many stops that are too close together. One experience I had was the LRT stopping at Stevenson. No one got on or off, but the LRT still had to stop. It dwelled at the station for 40 seconds, and what made it worse was that the light turned red, adding an additional minute.

This triggered a thought about a benefit of button-actuated doors on Line 6. Not only does it avoid unnecessarily allowing unconditioned air into the vehicles, but if a stop has no passengers exiting or boarding, none of the doors will open and the dwell time at a station can be shorter, as the driver does not need to wait for the doors to cycle.