[duty free]

A lot of people really oversell how much of this project is elevated. It’s a small section, conveniently in Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park. I think many underestimate how much push back elevated will receive. I’m not saying it’s right. I would just like to warn people not to get their hopes up.

Why are you ignoring the large section of the line that runs above ground through Riverdale and Leslieville? Was the Save Jimmie Simpson Park group just a figment of my imagination?

I don't underestimate pushback, there's always ignorant self motivated people but what happened, were they successful in making sure the Ontario Line is buried through their neighbourhood? Let me know when you have a chance.

 

[duty free]

This is very accurate. For people who have never lived around or regularly used a system that makes extensive use of elevated rights of way, the very notion of such a thing is typically dismissed out of hand. For those who have, such opposition is practically incomprehensible. It would be as strange to folks who are used to subways as having others recoil at the idea of being forced underground and spending their commute waiting in cold dank stations and crawling through dark tunnels. Yuck. I'll take sunshine and fresh air, thank you. That would be a bizarre take, right?

For what it's worth, in Richmond, the SkyTrain Canada Line right of way on Number 3 Road demonstrates a great example of how elevated transit can integrate well into the public realm while providing frequent, automated, medium-capacity service along a major suburban arterial street. Station spacing in Richmond ranges from as little as 650 metres to about 900 metres and the line averages 32 kph overall, so between 50% and double the average speed of Line 6, depending on who you believe. The SkyTrain Expo and Millennium Lines average 40 kph, incidentally.

View attachment 702303

The comparison to Line 6 is relevant, too, because were the Bombardier-led team to have won the Canada Line RFP, it would have used LRT vehicles in a median-running line along this very corridor, not dissimilar at all to the current crop of Ontario LRT projects.

Bombardier proposed a mixed-mode solution, with SkyTrain running from downtown to the airport and LRT running further south in Richmond. The SNC Lavalin-led team proposed a common vehicle and complete grade separation for the entire line, which was a key differentiator in its plan. The entire 19-kilometre, 16-original station Canada Line, including its operations and maintenance centre, was built with a budget of $2.1 billion (2004 dollars) or $3.3 billion today with inflation, and it was completed in five years from project award to commencement of revenue service.

Prior to any of this, too, Richmond had a central median-running BRT-ish line (the 98 B-Line) on Number 3 Road. This line between Richmond, the airport, and downtown Vancouver carried 20,000 daily passengers before its replacement by the SkyTrain Canada Line, which now carries about 120,000 people per day. In Richmond, its busway had transit signal priority, including advancing before left-turns. Here's what that looked like:

View attachment 702305

Here's how this exact location looks today (the first Streetview is actually just looking north from this same intersection):

View attachment 702306

For clarity, when they built the Canada Line, the northbound travel lanes were moved into the footprint of the median busway while the guideway and expanded sidewalks were built curbside in the former footprint of northbound travel lanes. This reduces the actual width of the road and has the benefit of reducing crossing time for pedestrians and increasing safety. The intersection clearance time for vehicles is also reduced, allowing for a shorter overall traffic light cycle time.

You win at life.

Every street north of Eglinton is wide enough to do just this. This could've been / can still be Finch, Eglinton or pretty much any street in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough for a similar price tag and much better service. Hopefully they learn what we already know.

 

[APTA-2048]

Why are you ignoring the large section of the line that runs above ground through Riverdale and Leslieville? Was the Save Jimmie Simpson Park group just a figment of my imagination?

I don't underestimate pushback, there's always ignorant self motivated people but what happened, were they successful in making sure the Ontario Line is buried through their neighbourhood? Let me know when you have a chance.

I personally don’t really see it as the same. It’s not really elevated like what people picture (which for a lot of Torontonians is the Gardiner and RT, unfortunately). It’s in a rail corridor that already existed and was already busy.

 

[Ratazana]

In the short term to improve service, the Finch West LRT should be given priority when approaching intersections, operated at a higher speed, and reduced dwelling times at stations.

In the meduim term I think Toronto needs to remove some stations. There are honestly to many stops for a 10.3 km line. I would remove Stevenson, Duncanwoods, and Driftwood. Stations would still be about 735 meters apart. That would be a 8- 10 minute walk between station, still reasonably for local trips.

In long term Finch West LRT should be integrated with a future Bolton GO train line and expanded south towards the new Woodbine GO station.

Long term the LRT can be a great and efficient train for local community and used as a feeder line for regional rail. Individuals that need to get to downtown or another part of the city fast can take the LRT to higher order transit more efficiently.

Albion mall is currently served by 3 stations. Not even Eaton Centre gets that level of respect…. Removing Stevenson is a no-brainer.

 

[duty free]

I personally don’t really see it as the same. It’s not really elevated like what people picture (which for a lot of Torontonians is the Gardiner and RT, unfortunately). It’s in a rail corridor that already existed and was already busy.

Anytime someone tries to compare the Gardiner to elevated rail show them this.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

@kevinrupasinghe.bsky.social

I wanted to compare what I saw on Seattle's Line 1 LRT with Toronto's Finch LRT. In Seattle, you can see left turning cars waiting while fast-moving transit gets priority. Help TTCriders make it happen in Toronto: www.ttcriders.ca/greenlight 📸: @wk1998.bsky.social / @kevinrupasinghe.bsky.social

bsky.app

 

[duffo]

@kevinrupasinghe.bsky.social

I wanted to compare what I saw on Seattle's Line 1 LRT with Toronto's Finch LRT. In Seattle, you can see left turning cars waiting while fast-moving transit gets priority. Help TTCriders make it happen in Toronto: www.ttcriders.ca/greenlight 📸: @wk1998.bsky.social / @kevinrupasinghe.bsky.social

bsky.app

Its not clear in the Seattle video is the LRT actually gets advance priority over the left-turn phase, or if the video was just taken after the advance left-turn phase is over and the cars waiting to turn left arrived after the light turned green for through movements? I feel like we will see lots and lots of this (possible) unsubstantiated misinfo by those who don't actually understand how TSP works over the coming weeks and months....

 

[lastcommodore]

Its not clear in the Seattle video is the LRT actually gets advance priority over the left-turn phase, or if the video was just taken after the advance left-turn phase is over and the cars waiting to turn left arrived after the light turned green for through movements? I feel like we will see lots and lots of this (possible) unsubstantiated misinfo by those who don't actually understand how TSP works over the coming weeks and months....

More importantly: Does it matter?
What actually matters is the tram gets a green light. If there is time for a dedicated left before the tram arrives, it makes no difference to tram speed.
Likewise I have heard that iON actually dosent have much TSP, the signals are just really well timed. Again: Does it matter if its TSP or timing? The end result is the same- tram gets a green.

 

[duffo]

More importantly: Does it matter?
What actually matters is the tram gets a green light. If there is time for a dedicated left before the tram arrives, it makes no difference to tram speed.
Likewise I have heard that iON actually dosent have much TSP, the signals are just really well timed. Again: Does it matter if its TSP or timing? The end result is the same- tram gets a green.

Right, but in the example provided, it probably would have been just as easy to show a Finch LRT proceeding through an intersection, and a Seattle LRT waiting at a red light while cars turn left. Out of context clips prove nothing about how the underlying system operates.

 

[lastcommodore]

Right, but in the example provided, it probably would have been just as easy to show a Finch LRT proceeding through an intersection, and a Seattle LRT waiting at a red light while cars turn left. Out of context clips prove nothing about how the underlying system operates.

This is fair. Maybe I can get a ride along vid and compare time at reds, 6FW vs 1 Seattle

 

[smallspy]

Splitting hairs as to who is to blame more for this and that isn't productive, since all parties seem to be pointing the finger at anyone but themselves. In reality each party involved probably carries some of the blame. City council, city departments, TTC and its board, Metrolinx. And if the stupid idea(s) originated from one party, it's the other party(s) duty to keep those stupid ideas in check, not to complacently yes-man rubber stamp decisions. Even if they don't have the power to countermand decisions, they at least have a duty to voice discontent and dissent to stupid ideas. Death by committee isn't just about wasting time flapping gums, it's about metaphorical committees, organizations that are supposed to work together, but not critically evaluating each other's plans and intentions.

It has nothing to do with splitting hairs, it has to do with where the information came from and more importantly what is its basis.

In this case, the consortium is worried that increased vehicle speeds will result in increased wear on the vehicles - which means that they will need to be serviced more often, and thus affects their bottom line. Of course they are going to complain about it, and because the contracts are written in the way they are, they win in this case. Which is patently absurd.

Dan

 

[urbanclient]

It has nothing to do with splitting hairs, it has to do with where the information came from and more importantly what is its basis.

In this case, the consortium is worried that increased vehicle speeds will result in increased wear on the vehicles - which means that they will need to be serviced more often, and thus affects their bottom line. Of course they are going to complain about it, and because the contracts are written in the way they are, they win in this case. Which is patently absurd.

Dan

I implore you read this quote from @lastcommodore for my sentiment on this issue and other members' posts with evidence that this is the TTC playing dumb and acting powerless. When in fact, they likely have the ability to make changes, but they would rather sit on their hands and do nothing. There is a clear pattern of behaviour of the TTC coming up with any and all excuses to avoid changing anything besides slowing down service even further i.e. Flexity streetcars, Line 1's top speed is reduced etc...:

The problem here is:
- There was no communication by basically anyone involved, and even now a lot of it seems to come down to the blame-game. TTC has seemingly spent more time trying to blame the consortium or whatever than actually doing anything to speed up 6 by interpreting their contracts in the strictest way possible (Faster speeds -> we broke the contract (??) -> we have to literally consult everyone before we can do anything) meanwhile the province and MX are telling the TTC that they have the power to just go faster.
- Tram vehicle operation is not new to the TTC. We have the entire streetcar network of Toronto to show that the TTC has basically gone "We've tried making things slower and we're all out of ideas on how to make things faster". The TTC has shown literally zero interest in even making the routes with dedicated ROWs slightly faster, and has repeatedly clogged up every opportunity and attempt at doing so ("We have to consult literally everyone to remove a stop and if ONE person objects we gotta cancel!")
- These motions from the city should be entirely unnecessary. The TTC should be just getting it done, or the TTC should be demanding the city let them implement faster protocols- not the other way around.

This is not the first time you misinterpreted some secondhand info: You claimed $10 million per km per year for maintenance of 70 km of subway, when no subway system on earth comes close to that cost per km, and 42 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5 RSD which has been proven wrong. Look at this statement by Metrolinx. Even if it's Metrolinx's fault for going along with whatever braindead ideas came out of the city and TTC in the past*, the problem is out of its hands now. This is mostly between the TTC (which is under the city) and Black & McDonald doing the signals. Running faster service is not going to significantly increase maintenance costs because vehicle hours overall are reduced proportional to the reduction in number of vehicles needed to run the route, assuming no headway changes. Vehicle-km total will stay the same, but vehicle-km per vehicle will increase, but you'll be running less vehicles... We've been over this half a dozen times. And yet here people are, still claiming like it's cut and dry that maintenance or even operating costs are going to go through the roof because the LRVs were pushed a bit harder. All nominal maintenance cost "increases", if any, shouldn't even be increases, but a return to the norm. The TTC isn't even operating the trams fast enough to meet the original contractual run times. That contract would've factored in the maintenance costs for the speeds needed to run 33-38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 6, and 38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5.

*"For these reasons, and in consultation with the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West." (Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf)

 

[Kyle Campbell]

More importantly: Does it matter?
What actually matters is the tram gets a green light. If there is time for a dedicated left before the tram arrives, it makes no difference to tram speed.
Likewise I have heard that iON actually dosent have much TSP, the signals are just really well timed. Again: Does it matter if its TSP or timing? The end result is the same- tram gets a green.

Having ridden that line in Seattle, the on street portion felt slow, though not Line 6 slow. But it's such a small portion of the system

 

[Bojaxs]

Realistically, how many minutes can we shave off of a single, full length trip by just giving trains the green light before left turns?

3-4 minutes at the most?

 

[duffo]

I implore you read this quote from @lastcommodore for my sentiment on this issue and other members' posts with evidence that this is the TTC playing dumb and acting powerless. When in fact, they likely have the ability to make changes, but they would rather sit on their hands and do nothing. There is a clear pattern of behaviour of the TTC coming up with any and all excuses to avoid changing anything besides slowing down service even further i.e. Flexity streetcars, Line 1's top speed is reduced etc...:


This is not the first time you misinterpreted some secondhand info: You claimed $10 million per km per year for maintenance of 70 km of subway, when no subway system on earth comes close to that cost per km, and 42 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5 RSD which has been proven wrong. Look at this statement by Metrolinx. Even if it's Metrolinx's fault for going along with whatever braindead ideas came out of the city and TTC in the past*, the problem is out of its hands now. This is mostly between the TTC (which is under the city) and Black & McDonald doing the signals. Running faster service is not going to significantly increase maintenance costs because vehicle hours overall are reduced proportional to the reduction in number of vehicles needed to run the route, assuming no headway changes. Vehicle-km total will stay the same, but vehicle-km per vehicle will increase, but you'll be running less vehicles... We've been over this half a dozen times. And yet here people are, still claiming like it's cut and dry that maintenance or even operating costs are going to go through the roof because the LRVs were pushed a bit harder. All nominal maintenance cost "increases", if any, shouldn't even be increases, but a return to the norm. The TTC isn't even operating the trams fast enough to meet the original contractual run times. That contract would've factored in the maintenance costs for the speeds needed to run 33-38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 6, and 38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5.
View attachment 702424View attachment 702423

View attachment 702422
*"For these reasons, and in consultation with the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West." (Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf)

Your tone is extremely aggressive and persistent on many ongoing UT threads. Seriously, you need to stop trying to prosecute long time respected members of the forum and participate in good faith discussion. I'm not a mod but I suspect you're not far from getting blocked.