[Northern Light]

I was specifically thinking about the Golden Mile. No construction yet and the decision to start sales until people move in is a really long time. 2033 is optimistic. Also, think about 7 years into the future, how much better will GO service be?

The demand at Golden Mile that is concerning is not the latent demand, which while real, is well within the capacity currently set to be offered.

The concern is approved density nearing 40,000 people.

That will certainly take some time to build out, how much depends on lots of future policies on immigration, and subsidies for rental construction and so on. I don't think, currently, with the condo market in the toilet, there is not a huge worry between now and 2035; but sometime thereafter, maybe by 2040, maybe a bit later, more capacity will likely be required. You certainly don't want to build a major transit line where a very realistic scenario has it over capacity in less than 20 years.

 

[TRONto]

The demand at Golden Mile that is concerning is not the latent demand, which while real, is well within the capacity currently set to be offered.

The concern is approved density nearing 40,000 people.

That will certainly take some time to build out, how much depends on lots of future policies on immigration, and subsidies for rental construction and so on. I don't think, currently, with the condo market in the toilet, there is a huge worry between now and 2035; but sometime thereafter, maybe by 2040, maybe a bit later, more capacity will likely be required. You certainly don't want to build a major transit line where a very realistic scenario has it over capacity in less than 20 years.

Just thought of this; CityPlace may be a good to compare to. It's taken over 25 years to build out the whole thing. If Golden Mile were to be similar, you'd be looking at 2060 for the last buildings to be completed.

 

[Westey]

It does need to be pointed out though that part of the reason why the Canada Line was built cheap is because it was underbuilt. It's the main criticism thrown at the line and its already become a problem since TransLink had to purchase 12 new trains in 2018 to increase capacity by 35%; its a fundamental flaw with the line and sooner or later Vancouver will have to invest a lot of money too make the stations longer and that includes the underground stations. That lines whole M.O. was to built as quickly and as cheaply as possible to be ready in time for the 2010 Olympics and as a result questionable choices were made. Its like the UP here, it too was designed to be cheap and quick and ready for the 2015 Pan-Ams and as a result its electrification was cut and you could argue ridership has grown enough that we maybe should have invested in designing the line with larger trains in mind. I have no doubt if they could do it over again without the pressure of the Olympics, Vancouver would have built the Canada Line to the same standard and spec as the rest of the SkyTrain network.

As far as I understand the P3 delivered what was requested. It was the design requirements that were set wrong, not the P3 contractor not delivering the capacity required.
I don't think the capacity of Canada Line is underbuilt for what is needed on Finch. 10k ppdph seems more than enough there. I also don't think Finch residents would complain about the 4 years it took to build that line.
When Canada Line was used as a template for Eglinton - I think they would have needed 80m stations to design for 20k. So am sure that would have cost more than the $100M/km that Canada Line cost.

 

[Northern Light]

Just thought of this; CityPlace may be a good to compare to. It's taken over 25 years to build out the whole thing. If Golden Mile were to be similar, you'd be looking at 2060 for the last buildings to be completed.

Not to quibble greatly, but 25 years from today is actually 2051, not 2060.

Even if, for argument's sake, you didn't push up against capacity constraints til near then......say 2048 just to pick a number.......I would argue that building a line that will reach its absolute capacity limit within 22 years is problematic given the cost here initially and the cost of solution when the time comes.

Its not a near-term problem, but it may be a medium term problem, TBD.

 

[T-Bor]

Presumably if we're looking 25 years out, the cars will need to be replaced. The TTC could always get Line 1-style cars instead of 2 or 3 cars stretched out, which would increase capacity. Plus running more trains. If we're talking about overcapacity in 30 years, STC will be largely built out as well, so there could be a more equal share going in each direction

 

[TRONto]

Not to quibble greatly, but 25 years from today is actually 2051, not 2060.

Even if, for argument's sake, you didn't push up against capacity constraints til near then......say 2048 just to pick a number.......I would argue that building a line that will reach its absolute capacity limit within 22 years is problematic given the cost here initially and the cost of solution when the time comes.

Its not a near-term problem, but it may be a medium term problem, TBD.

I wrote it as 25 years from 2035. Sorry, that wasn't clear.

 

[A 6264]

Not to quibble greatly, but 25 years from today is actually 2051, not 2060.

Nope, the answer is 2050. You're thinking like it's next month already.

 

[rbt]

Nope, the answer is 2050. You're thinking like it's next month already.

His 25 year period is being implemented by Metrolinx.

 

[urbanclient]

His 25 year period is being implemented by Metrolinx.

In that case, it might well be 37.5 to 50 years in human years.

 

[urbanclient]

Can we put this debate to rest now about who is to blame more for Line 6 being slow *spoiler alert* all parties involved suck:

"On one hand, the City and TTC claim that until handover of Line 6 by Metrolinx, they could not make changes to the signal programming. However, staff revealed that a move for slower operation dates back at least to 2024, possibly to 2020, and was approved by all parties. Moreover, the handover took place well before opening day, and issues with poor signal priority would have been obvious during the TTC’s acceptance trials."
https://stevemunro.ca/2025/12/19/toronto-council-debates-transit-priority/

"Although the TTC takes the blame for rotten operations, their shuttle buses keep service available to riders. The overwhelming cause of delay is with systems provided and maintained by Metrolinx’ P3 partner, Mosaic. It is extremely difficult to believe that these are new conditions that suddenly manifested when passengers actually rode the trains. Equipment reliability should have been proven in the acceptance process. As for switches failing to operate in cold weather, this is not exactly new technology for Toronto, and in any event Metrolinx claimed that the line had already been through cold weather testing before it opened."
https://stevemunro.ca/2025/12/14/6-finch-west-six-days-of-delays/

 

[ctf5650]

Presumably if we're looking 25 years out, the cars will need to be replaced. The TTC could always get Line 1-style cars instead of 2 or 3 cars stretched out, which would increase capacity. Plus running more trains. If we're talking about overcapacity in 30 years, STC will be largely built out as well, so there could be a more equal share going in each direction

I remember hearing that the Line 5 tunnels are actually wider than those on the TYSSE so that could be possible down the line, although it would require raising the platforms or lowering the trackbed

 

[Burnt creek]

Why must there always be so many stops in everyone of these plans? Cant planners and councilors be more considerate of transit user and their time? From a commuters standpoint its turns this kind of service into something akin to a bus service. Its seems very reasonable to have no more than a total number of stops equal to or less than the total kilometres on a line. Space the stations or stops approximately one kilometer apart.

Love the eglinton crosstown, and how the plan eveolved from its original inception. But the fact that there is 25 stops for a 19 km line is the one thing that still bugs me.

This (above) post of mine from from 2016 has aged very well because it turned out to be true 100%. Now that the Finch West "LRT" has opened and we are are hearing the stories of frustrated users and how joggers are outpacing the "LRT". What I find frustrating is hearing that signal prioritization is somehow the magic bullet to resolve this, sure it will solve the problem a little. The real problem is that there are way too many stops and too many stops makes its akin to a bus service and in reality this should not be called an LRT but rather a streetcar. How this was not obvious from the beginning is beyond me.

 

[lrt's friend]

This (above) post of mine from from 2016 has aged very well because it turned to be true 100%. Now that the Finch West "LRT" has opened and we are are hearing the stories of frustrated users and how joggers are outpacing the "LRT". What I find frustrating is hearing that signal prioritization is somehow the magic bullet to resolve this, sure it will solve the problem a little. The real problem is that there are way too many stops and too many stops makes its akin to a bus service and in reality this should not be called an LRT but rather a streetcar. How this was not obvious from the beginning is beyond me.

There is no reason why rail in a separate right of way should be slower than a bus in mixed traffic on the very same corridor. There are problems that need to be resolved above and beyond stop spacing. We also have to understand that the Finch West LRT is designed to be a local transit service. This is different from true rapid transit. We need to serve riders along the entire corridor so there needs to be a compromise between speed of service and stop spacing. That compromise has been made, so the focus now needs to be on other things that can speed up the trains. If we wanted to make this line super fast, it needed to be subway with the associated enormous cost differential. It is very disappointing that this line was opened to the public without better optimization. So many videos I have seen, show trains running at a snail's pace. Surely, that can be improved.

 

[Burnt creek]

Exactly, you are supposed to build transit to move people. But if its slow because it has too many stops thats means its not moving people effectively and efficiently. For strictly comparative purposes, at 20-23 kms per hour, thats about the speed that decent marathoners run or good joggers/ runner who do 10km runs attain. Thats too slow for moving people via any kind of form transit or transportation.

Development is determined and occurs where there is an expectation of increased property values. In the absence of that, there is no development. Developers are business people. As such, they can and will only respond to market demand.

Its the proponents on these projects that are saying that its will increase property values, not me.

I don't mean too blow my horn too much but here is another post of mine (from that same discussion in 2016) whereby I alluded to fact that with this kind of station spacing (i.e.: 18 stops for 10 Kms) , a jogger or a marathoner will/would match this pace. But i was a bit wrong here, It turns out that a jogger could EXCEED THIS PACE. Ten years from now we may look at this line as bigger boondoggle than the eglinton crosstown. That's because the Crosstown (the west part of line at least) has stations that are well spaced and hence will at least add some value because commuting times will be better. I would rather spend X times 10 and get something rather than spend X amount and get nothing or perhaps even an inferior service.

 

[Burnt creek]

There is no reason why rail in a separate right of way should be slower than a bus in mixed traffic on the very same corridor. There are problems that need to be resolved above and beyond stop spacing. We also have to understand that the Finch West LRT is designed to be a local transit service. This is different from true rapid transit. We need to serve riders along the entire corridor so there needs to be a compromise between speed of service and stop spacing. That compromise has been made, so the focus now needs to be on other things that can speed up the trains. If we wanted to make this line super fast, it needed to be subway with the associated enormous cost differential. It is very disappointing that this line was opened to the public without better optimization. So many videos I have seen, show trains running at a snail's pace. Surely, that can be improved.

Then why is it called an LRT? this is another thing i found frustrating. That line is a streetcar service plain and simple. That's what it looked like 10 yrs ago and that what it is now. Look at other projects out there such as the Hazel McCallion line in Mississauga or the Ottawa projects or Montreal? Are they putting this many stops? they are not. the Hazel McCallion line is 19 stops for 18 kms. that's what you need, about one stop per Km approx . I dont see anywhere outside of Toronto this BS of torturing user with a gazillions stops ontransit routes.