LeonSKennedy
New Member
Update:
Finch Ave. being looked at regarding utilities that might cause conflicts.
Finch Ave. being looked at regarding utilities that might cause conflicts.
|
|
|
Finch West Line 6 LRT
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
lead82
Senior Member
Seems this project is quite stalled. I would have thought we would be able to move on to the next round of public consultations or public open houses by now. This project is eerily quiet compared to the progress of SELRT and Eglinton.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
It's quiet compared to other lines because Finch West wasn't slated for a subway line/extension.
Also, as soon as they finish it, the road will wash away again, so they might as well solve that problem first.
Fresh Start
Banned
No, I think it's quiet because the-powers-that-be have finally started to wake up on how ridiculous this LRT line proposal is, especially when the Hydro Corridor sits idle only 300m to the north. Why disrupt pedestrians and motorists' ability to freely use the corridor for years, when construction through F.H.C. would have relatively minimal impact? The locals along Finch too lazy to walk it two blocks up are better off just using the existing 36 Finch West bus to get around. The expectation here is that long-haulers coming over from Rexdale (and Malton) would opt to ride a F.H.C BRT with fewer intermediate stops than what's physically permitable along Finch proper. Realistically, BRT from Finch/Martin Grove to Finch/Weston then following the F.H.C. to Finch/Yonge could be done in as little as 25 minutes with proper queue-jumps and dedicated ROW whole length. This would then free up seats on the 36 bus for locals, and make even their commute times less cause less people overall actually need the service to get across North York.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I'm not sure what to think about this.
On one hand, Finch is an excellent route for LRT, no doubt about it. It experiences very high volumes of passengers, loads that busses simply can't serve. There's plenty of room on the road for LRT ROW, and there's tonnes of room for ridership growth so the extra capacity of LRT can be used fully.
On the other hand, it does have the hydro corridor sitting right next to it. To be honest though, I think that the hydro corridor should be more than a local service. It's got a lot of potential as a fast and reliable regional route. Building a regional rail line even with few stops would likely take a lot of riders off Finch, and would improve a lot of transportation through that corridor. But then on the con, the hydro corridor doesn't hit Humber College, which is a pretty major trip generator. But it could eventually be extended to Pearson, and maybe even continuing the old GO ALRT route down through MCC and to Oakville.
I don't think that LRT should be going on the hydro corridor. That's really suited for faster transit. But obviously, it would have at least a slightly higher cost. I support the LRT, but I also believe that some sort of regional rail corridor is needed up there.
On one hand, Finch is an excellent route for LRT, no doubt about it. It experiences very high volumes of passengers, loads that busses simply can't serve. There's plenty of room on the road for LRT ROW, and there's tonnes of room for ridership growth so the extra capacity of LRT can be used fully.
On the other hand, it does have the hydro corridor sitting right next to it. To be honest though, I think that the hydro corridor should be more than a local service. It's got a lot of potential as a fast and reliable regional route. Building a regional rail line even with few stops would likely take a lot of riders off Finch, and would improve a lot of transportation through that corridor. But then on the con, the hydro corridor doesn't hit Humber College, which is a pretty major trip generator. But it could eventually be extended to Pearson, and maybe even continuing the old GO ALRT route down through MCC and to Oakville.
I don't think that LRT should be going on the hydro corridor. That's really suited for faster transit. But obviously, it would have at least a slightly higher cost. I support the LRT, but I also believe that some sort of regional rail corridor is needed up there.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
The Spadina extension will really split Finch West's ridership and reduce crowds, though (but perhaps ridership growth will eat that or most of that right back up).
The hydro corridor doesn't even go as far as Weston, and a pretty massive bridge would be needed at Dufferin.
taal
Senior Member
There's a lot of local ridership on Finch W as well - people getting on and off quite often - verse other routes where it's the main arteries only
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Yep, it turns down at the 400 on basically an express route to Pearson. From there, there's also a corridor that's going to be used by the Mississauga transitway, following the 403 to Oakville.
Fresh Start
Banned
The distance from Signet/Finch (where F.H.C begins to cross to the south side) and Weston/Finch is negligible though. After the Weston intersection the line could go elevated, transitioning from the median of Finch, crossing over the CPR and diving into a trench by around Signet, where a stop would be located. For uninterruption of service I'd recommend underpasses whereever the line intercepts a cross-street (Hwy 400, Norfinch, York Gate, Jane, Driftwood, Tobermory and Sentinel). Of these only 3 would require stations where passenger get on and off (Norfinch, Jane and Sentinel). Access to Finch West subway station is interesting because to my knowledge the station layout will extend up to Four Winds Dr, immediately fronting the Hydro Corridor. So conceivably direct access within a fare-paid zone would be possible if a bus terminal existed in this location (the 36, 41, and 107 would use an alternate terminal off Finch proper).
The Dufferin bridge crossing is more challenging but not an impossibility. Where F.H.C. intersects the reservoir is actually narrower than parts of the water body to the north or south, especially considering the BRT would only occupy a small segment of the total cross-width. So a bridge structure would actually be at-grade by the time it reaches the service road, north of where Wilmington ends. East of here, speeds of 40 km/h could be achieved as only three cross-streets/stops remain prior to Yonge: Bathurst, Grantbrook and Hilda.
That is how one goes about creating a true rapid transit cross-town corridor, not TTC/Metrolinx's nightmarish confection of ROW median LRT with too many minor stops en route to sustain rapidness.
lead82
Senior Member
I'd have to agree here that while Finch is well suited for LRT, the current design does not offer enough of a speed boost. The current Finch buses would suffice just fine the way they are to serve local demand. With the subway splitting the ridership, the LRT on the hydro corridor could be make to stop just at the major cross roads: Yonge, Bathurst, Dufferin, Keele, Jane, etc.. This would serve as a true rapid corridor to Humber College, but I would like to see a branch go directly to Pearson by following the hydro corridor as it turns south of Finch near Weston to Pearson. If the trip can be done in under 40mins, that would attract a lot of riders from North York area travelling to the airport.
With the current design, the trip would take longer than an hour, and that would not be useful for anyone starting their journey at Yonge St, as the buses could make that journey in the same time, thus not offering any time savings, except maybe during peak hours.
The one thing I like about the transit city plan is that it will enhance the street-scape by planing trees along the road and adding bike lanes. Something that wouldn't be done with the hydro corridor design. That alone could save lots of money or allow for a longer line.
With the current design, the trip would take longer than an hour, and that would not be useful for anyone starting their journey at Yonge St, as the buses could make that journey in the same time, thus not offering any time savings, except maybe during peak hours.
The one thing I like about the transit city plan is that it will enhance the street-scape by planing trees along the road and adding bike lanes. Something that wouldn't be done with the hydro corridor design. That alone could save lots of money or allow for a longer line.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The speed boost comes from the multi-door boarding, multi-unit (MU) trains, transit priority signals, and right-of-ways. You don't get that with narrow single-door boardings of single unit buses sharing the road with traffic.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
If you can do it with LRT, you can do it with buses. The fiction being spread with Transit City is that buses can't be improved and must be replaced.
Multi-door boarding is extremely fast if few people are getting on or off and they can walk around the vehicle freely (like, for example, Ellesmere station on the RT in the off-peak), but does anyone really think they'll be running LRT vehicles at very high frequencies if they're not crowded? No, they'll run just enough to maintain an acceptable level of overcrowding. As vehicle frequency lowers and stop spacing increases, you get larger and larger crowds waiting for each vehicle and squeezing their way off, which eats up time.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Exactly why with light rail vehicles can handle the larger crowds with MULTI-UNIT trains of 2 or 3 cars. And since a low-floor light rail vehicle is about 2½ buses in length, a 2 car MU train will be the equivalent of 5 buses at one time. Try coupling 5 buses together with a single driver.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
You missed the point. If they couple 2 together, they'll halve the frequency. Then, there'll be twice as many people waiting at the next stop (and it might take more than twice as long to get people on and off).
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The current streetcars can because the ones we have are high floor with a maximum length of a single articulation, but still a bus in not as environmentally friendly. Using our current streetcars as the basis for an LRT to bus comparison would be like comparing a single subway car to the new streetcars for comparison. Brussels longer tram is 144ft long with a max capacity of 250 compared to a 60ft articulated bus with a max capacity of 115 and our LRT/trams will be wider and could easily be made even longer and/or coupled. The latest LRT/trams are extremely energy efficient and the low rolling resistance of rail cannot be matched by bus. The number of people enticed by riding a rail vehicle versus a bus, regardless of how misplaced those preferences may be, are also greater for a rail vehicle. How can electric running vehicles handling 250 people or more with a single driver and held on a smooth linear route despite snow and ice be the same as a bus?