[lastcommodore]

Double point or double blade switches are generally considered more reliable for winter operations than the antiquated single point switches on the streetcar network. Leave it to Metrolinx and Co. to somehow flip this though. We live in bizarro world in almost every sense of the word. Transit mode choice for past and upcoming Metrolinx projects. Rolling stock choice and platform length underbuilt for the future. Astronomical overbuilding in other areas @lastcommodore please post what you know about Line 6 vs. T9 here. The list goes on.

Beyond the longer post I made focused purely on the shelters of 6FW vs. ION, when compared to Paris' T9, which is nearly identical length, stop wise, and median-running tramway,
- CBTC is used on 6FW. T9 and ION both use far simpler signalling systems
- 6FW having massively overbuilt and excavated terminal stations- T9 has on-ground transfers
- 6FW MSF is actually 71% larger than T9s (6.5 Ha vs 3.8 Ha by my sat image)
- 6FW has multiple next-destination signs at some stops? I'm not even sure why on a 50m platform
- Massively overbuilt yet less effective shelters (see post linked above)
- Overbuilt catenary systems- both in general and the solid rail around the Humber turn
- Underground turns compared to T9's at-grade turns (and IONs. Interestingly, from my sat estimates the 6FW takes the Humber turn at 40m radius and 10kmh, while the T9 handles 30m radius turns at 15kmh.)

Frankly, it amazes me with how overbuilt the project is, they still are having issues with things like the switches. I suspect there was some poor design/construction wrt some of the heating systems for the switches. I don't want to believe someone just forgot that winter exists here in Toronto.

 

[rbt]

- 6FW having massively overbuilt and excavated terminal stations- T9 has on-ground transfers

IIIRC the excavated portions of Finch were expected to be around 40% of the total project capital cost despite their small portion of total length; though that was back when TTC was still in charge of the project.

 

[JSF-1]

Frankly, it amazes me with how overbuilt the project is, they still are having issues with things like the switches. I suspect there was some poor design/construction wrt some of the heating systems for the switches. I don't want to believe someone just forgot that winter exists here in Toronto.

That's just Metrolinx's incompetence on display, after all they were the ones in charge of overseeing the construction of the line. Makes you wonder just what they are going to screw up with the Ontario Line.

 

[urbanclient]

At the very least completely grade separated rapid transit is the bare minimum at 100s of millions of dollars per mile.

Having conversations about traffic conflict at that price point is ridiculous. The problem has been solved even in Toronto subways or even the technology the Line 3 in Scarborough was using from the 80s is far superior to the antiqued implantation of LRT tech in FWLRT.

To use the logic of a pro-tram contributor:

If something [LRT] doesn't work well then the solution is to make it work well.

If metros cost at least $1 billion per km to build in Toronto in 2026, which doesn’t work well because it’s so expensive, then the solution is to make it work well i.e. make it cheaper. Instead, many of us here are ok with Metrolinx just throwing their hands up, saying “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”. Instead of trying to build metros at <$250 million USD per km like Spain, South Korea, Turkey [1], or what the misguided might call the third-world socialist nightmare next-door, Montréal, we give up on trying to make Toronto projects cost less. Instead, we default to building $250 to 500 million USD per km mixed grade LRTs and then pat ourselves on the back for “saving money” while actually losing money for society in the longer term.

Again this is bizarro world, Finch West did not desperately need an upgrade to tram, especially in hindsight. It was chosen mostly because it happens to be the only high ridership bus corridor wide enough (and just barely) and it also connects a post-secondary institution to the wider rail network (I support the latter idea). Unfortunately, in-person Humber College attendance has tanked since COVID and there are only 3 active apartment/condo developments along the corridor [2]. So barring Humber pulling a Conestoga, Line 6 ridership will be awful now [3] and in the foreseeable future. If pre-COVID Finch East could survive with the 39 and 939 being packed, then so could have the 36.

The Line 2 Scarborough extension will cost $10 billion and increase subway boardings by 105,000, with 52,000 boardings that wouldn't have otherwise used transit. A $3.7 billion dollar Line 6 will increase corridor transit ridership by very little, if any in the short term. And consequently, it will capture 0 latent demand. $10 billion for 52,000 extra compared to now is very expensive, but $3.7 billion for close to 0 extra compared to 2019 is infinitely worse. Given that Line 6's supplanting of the bus is not even a certainty at this point, it can only get worse from here before the area densifies by 20XX. $10 billion for Line 2 at least replaces the bus for 53,000 out of 105,000 [4]. What does $3.7 billion get us in the short term? Shuttle buses 24/7? 50,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent?

People often forget that transit projects have a huge carbon footprint to start and only become carbon negative after decades of use, if ever. If Line 6 manages only marginally better ridership than the 36 bus, the carbon payback period could be as long as a century.

In its current state, you can forget about environmental benefits from this line, even societal benefits look dubious right now. Years of worsened traffic on Finch due to construction, economic losses to individuals and businesses, all for what. As has been pointed out by others, TSP might not be the golden bullet I thought it would be, given the lack of two-stage pedestrian crossings.

1. https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/...nstruction-Costs-in-Canada_Feb-2025_FINAL.pdf
2. https://svnrock.ca/apartment-crane-watch-2/
3. https://stevemunro.ca/2025/08/12/ttc-surface-route-stats-2019-2024/
4. https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/scarborough-subway-extension

Finch West circled in black, image source: https://stevemunro.ca/2024/02/15/overcrowding-on-ttc-bus-routes/

 

[mikey7767]

K I'll take that at face value, that you're apparently pro subway, but you clearly just strawmanned @mikey7767 .

He never said that Line 6 should've been a subway. Line 6 bad =/= Line 6 should've been a subway.

Can we please move on from this persistent logical fallacy to the point where every time anyone makes a post remotely critical of trams in Toronto that they have to make a disclaimer that they don't think Finch West deserved a subway? Just because someone is critical of Line 6 does not mean they think it should've been a subway.

The cost difference between LRT and Subways in Toronto is 4.7x, Finch LRT per km compared to the Ontario Line per km, The Ontario line is using a lot of elevated sections and and GO right of way so most likely the difference is 5x+ to build a subway instead of an LRT. Finch West costs 3.7Billion as an LRT and would cost around 17.5 Billion as a Subway at the same per km as the Ontario line..

Exactly! I've actively mentioned that I do not think a subway would be a good idea here. At the same time, building LRTs in Toronto is also a bad idea. And a costly bad idea.

As someone else pointed out, LRTs are 10 times more expensive than a BRT. So why some people here think they have the moral high ground to think it is okay to spend $350 million per kilometre on LRTs and not on BRTs at less than one tenth of the cost and also on metros at maybe two to three times the cost (if done elevated or grade separated on a corridor) is beyond me. These obnoxious people think only their version of upgrading makes sense, and anything cheaper or more expensive is out of the question even if cheaper options like BRT or just a RapidTO lane would be faster and better transit.

And it goes to show, nobody sees the FWLRT and is like "I'm gonna ditch my car and take the LRT today because it's better than driving".

A BRT would have been less than one tenth the cost and a lot faster to operate, especially with signal priority. But no, we must build something more expensive, but not too expensive, only up to their (whomever supports these dumb ass LRTs) level of expensive. Even if it takes us backwards, and even if the intended goals can be done at one tenth the cost, and when we can use that money to actually build subways elsewhere where it is needed, because let's face it, we still do need subways in many parts of the city.

 

[Amare]

Exactly! I've actively mentioned that I do not think a subway would be a good idea here. At the same time, building LRTs in Toronto is also a bad idea. And a costly bad idea.

As someone else pointed out, LRTs are 10 times more expensive than a BRT. So why some people here think they have the moral high ground to think it is okay to spend $350 million per kilometre on LRTs and not on BRTs at less than one tenth of the cost and also on metros at maybe two to three times the cost (if done elevated or grade separated on a corridor) is beyond me. These obnoxious people think only their version of upgrading makes sense, and anything cheaper or more expensive is out of the question even if cheaper options like BRT or just a RapidTO lane would be faster and better transit.

And it goes to show, nobody sees the FWLRT and is like "I'm gonna ditch my car and take the LRT today because it's better than driving".

A BRT would have been less than one tenth the cost and a lot faster to operate, especially with signal priority. But no, we must build something more expensive, but not too expensive, only up to their (whomever supports these dumb ass LRTs) level of expensive. Even if it takes us backwards, and even if the intended goals can be done at one tenth the cost, and when we can use that money to actually build subways elsewhere where it is needed, because let's face it, we still do need subways in many parts of the city.

It's not that building LRT in Toronto is a bad idea, it isnt.

The problem is more that we dont know how the hell to implement LRT to it's actual full potential. For starters we implement low-floor where it makes absolutely no sense to do so, which costs us capacity space.

Then we choose vehicles that are flawed for one reason or another (ie: the Flexity Freedoms and their shorter 5 car-modules vs longer 7-car modules, Alstom Cidatis and their problematic wheel hub assembly design).

The TSP problems have been well documented, so that's another issue.

Then the TTC and their idiotic SOPs is another issue, that's literally ingrained into the software of the vehicles so there's another issue.

So as you can see we have an LRT that was/is being sabotaged by: Metrolinx, the TTC, and the city collectively. Metrolinx came up with a sub-optital design and chose a flawed vehicle, the city screwed the implementation by not optimizing signals, and the TTC is compounding it by idiot SOPs. Not to mention Mosaic which cant properly ensure that track switches are functioning properly. Tee whole thing is a cluster*$** with 4 parties involved, each one of them which have/are screwing up immensely.

 

[turbanplanner]

I don't think there is a single pro-subway poster on UrbanToronto that has advocated for a subway along Finch.

I think most would rather have extended the Sheppard line westward beyond Sheppard West Station and build a BRT along Finch.

TBH I hate BRT's because of how crap the Highway 7 and to a lesser degree the Miway BRT are when it comes to serving people along the route

And it goes to show, nobody sees the FWLRT and is like "I'm gonna ditch my car and take the LRT today because it's better than driving".

TBF Has a single person looked at the Highway 7 or Miway BRT and decided not to drive? The miway lots are EMPTY 24/7 vs the Dixie go with terrible service which is packed to the last row

 

[hw621]

Beyond the longer post I made focused purely on the shelters of 6FW vs. ION, when compared to Paris' T9, which is nearly identical length, stop wise, and median-running tramway,
- CBTC is used on 6FW. T9 and ION both use far simpler signalling systems
- 6FW having massively overbuilt and excavated terminal stations- T9 has on-ground transfers
- 6FW MSF is actually 71% larger than T9s (6.5 Ha vs 3.8 Ha by my sat image)
- 6FW has multiple next-destination signs at some stops? I'm not even sure why on a 50m platform
- Massively overbuilt yet less effective shelters (see post linked above)
- Overbuilt catenary systems- both in general and the solid rail around the Humber turn
- Underground turns compared to T9's at-grade turns (and IONs. Interestingly, from my sat estimates the 6FW takes the Humber turn at 40m radius and 10kmh, while the T9 handles 30m radius turns at 15kmh.)

Frankly, it amazes me with how overbuilt the project is, they still are having issues with things like the switches. I suspect there was some poor design/construction wrt some of the heating systems for the switches. I don't want to believe someone just forgot that winter exists here in Toronto.

I smell corruption here.

 

[Westey]

Exactly! I've actively mentioned that I do not think a subway would be a good idea here. At the same time, building LRTs in Toronto is also a bad idea. And a costly bad idea.

As someone else pointed out, LRTs are 10 times more expensive than a BRT. So why some people here think they have the moral high ground to think it is okay to spend $350 million per kilometre on LRTs and not on BRTs at less than one tenth of the cost and also on metros at maybe two to three times the cost (if done elevated or grade separated on a corridor) is beyond me. These obnoxious people think only their version of upgrading makes sense, and anything cheaper or more expensive is out of the question even if cheaper options like BRT or just a RapidTO lane would be faster and better transit.

And it goes to show, nobody sees the FWLRT and is like "I'm gonna ditch my car and take the LRT today because it's better than driving".

A BRT would have been less than one tenth the cost and a lot faster to operate, especially with signal priority. But no, we must build something more expensive, but not too expensive, only up to their (whomever supports these dumb ass LRTs) level of expensive. Even if it takes us backwards, and even if the intended goals can be done at one tenth the cost, and when we can use that money to actually build subways elsewhere where it is needed, because let's face it, we still do need subways in many parts of the city.

I still don't know why subway was not a good idea. I used AI to get the numbers, so I am not saying they are 100% accurate, but they are hopefully in the ballpark.

Circa 2014, the FWLRT was estimated to cost $2.5B, or $1.1B for construction alone - so $100M/km. Inflate to 2018 the contract was for about $110M/km (for the construction portion). Everyone knew at the time that the temptation to add Stops would be huge with an on-street LRT, especially a low floor one. So complaining about that at this point is ignoring something we have known for over a decade.

Circa 2005, the Canada Line construction started for a 20km line at a cost of $2B. That's 100M/km. Inflate to 2018 is $150M/km. And this is for a 50% elevated, 50% underground "subway". Assume more elevation than was done in Vancouver and you get to $130M/km.

So the options at the time were;
1) Minor bus improvements for $5M/km, or.
2) 90% on-street LRT for $110M/km, or
3) 90% elevated "subway" for $130M/km.

At the time, and now, I still vote for #1, then #3, and #2 last.
But if the City said their 2 top priorities at the time were transit on Sheppard East and Finch West, and they said major improvement MUST occur in these areas even before we can even start thinking about other corridors, e.g. the DRL (Ontario Line corridor), then I think it's reasonable to say that "subway" would have been the best option to move people and meet the political goals of the day.

 

[nfitz]

I smell corruption here.

I smell incompetence. I'd think Ockham might have as well.

 

[JSF-1]

I still don't know why subway was not a good idea. I used AI to get the numbers, so I am not saying they are 100% accurate, but they are hopefully in the ballpark.

Circa 2014, the FWLRT was estimated to cost $2.5B, or $1.1B for construction alone - so $100M/km. Inflate to 2018 the contract was for about $110M/km (for the construction portion). Everyone knew at the time that the temptation to add Stops would be huge with an on-street LRT, especially a low floor one. So complaining about that at this point is ignoring something we have known for over a decade.

Circa 2005, the Canada Line construction started for a 20km line at a cost of $2B. That's 100M/km. Inflate to 2018 is $150M/km. And this is for a 50% elevated, 50% underground "subway". Assume more elevation than was done in Vancouver and you get to $130M/km.

So the options at the time were;
1) Minor bus improvements for $5M/km, or.
2) 90% on-street LRT for $110M/km, or
3) 90% elevated "subway" for $130M/km.

At the time, and now, I still vote for #1, then #3, and #2 last.
But if the City said their 2 top priorities at the time were transit on Sheppard East and Finch West, and they said major improvement MUST occur in these areas even before we can even start thinking about other corridors, e.g. the DRL (Ontario Line corridor), then I think it's reasonable to say that "subway" would have been the best option to move people and meet the political goals of the day.

I don't think we should be using the Canada Line as an example considering it was intentionally underbuilt so it could open in time for the 2010 Olympics and overcrowding has been a persistent problem on the line ever since. Its cost per km looks nice on paper but it hides the reality that it delivered sub-par transit to that part of Vancouver and Vancouver sooner or later is going to have to invest a lot of money to fix this mistake and make the stations larger. You and I both know that if we went with option 3 there is no way it would be built elevated because at the time these decisions were being made "elevated" was a dirty word and every subway needed to be underground. Unfortunatly a certain mayor at the time convinced sububan residents that they deserved subways and anything less was treating them like second class citizens. In fact there are still people peddling that nonsense to this day when talking about the above ground sections of the EC (including the western extension), and the at grade and elevated sections of the OL. The anti-elevated narrative at City Hall didn't change until Doug was elected and the OL elevated as a cost-cutting measure (which was the right choice of course). Also this city doesn't need another 5 stop stubway that goes nowhere. We nearly made that mistake in the 90's on Eglinton, and its the reason the Sheppard Line has never lived up to its potential; and Finch West is a corridor with even less ridership potential then both Sheppard and Eglinton.

 

[Voltz]

IIIRC the excavated portions of Finch were expected to be around 40% of the total project capital cost; though that was back when TTC was still in charge of the project.

That doesn’t make sense, maybe that was for Sheppard?

 

[Westey]

I don't think we should be using the Canada Line as an example considering it was intentionally underbuilt so it could open in time for the 2010 Olympics and overcrowding has been a persistent problem on the line ever since. Its cost per km looks nice on paper but it hides the reality that it delivered sub-par transit to that part of Vancouver and Vancouver sooner or later is going to have to invest a lot of money to fix this mistake and make the stations larger. You and I both know that if we went with option 3 there is no way it would be built elevated because at the time these decisions were being made "elevated" was a dirty word and every subway needed to be underground. Unfortunatly a certain mayor at the time convinced sububan residents that they deserved subways and anything less was treating them like second class citizens. In fact there are still people peddling that nonsense to this day when talking about the above ground sections of the EC (including the western extension), and the at grade and elevated sections of the OL. The anti-elevated narrative at City Hall didn't change until Doug was elected and the OL elevated as a cost-cutting measure (which was the right choice of course). Also this city doesn't need another 5 stop stubway that goes nowhere. We nearly made that mistake in the 90's on Eglinton, and its the reason the Sheppard Line has never lived up to its potential; and Finch West is a corridor with even less ridership potential then both Sheppard and Eglinton.

I think you are making a number of assumptions.

1. One is if Vancouver under-build a transit line for a cost of $100M/km, then that exact transit line in a location where it will not be under-build will somehow be a boondoggle.
2. Next is that everyone hates elevated. The most popular part of the SRT, with most residences, were adjacent to the elevated portion near Brimley and STC. Nobody actually proposed an elevated transit line with costs to allow for comparison, so there was no hate for it.
   1. There were a couple of articles about elevated transit in the Star and Post (Elevated Trains offers subway alternative) in Dec. 2010, and nobody really paid attention to it.
   2. In March 2011, the Ford-McGuinty MOU said that Eglinton line could be elevated through the Don Valley (I don't recall the exact words). For the rest of 2011, we all thought Karen Stintz and TTC were developing elevated and buried options. But in December, it turned out nothing was done the whole thing was scrapped. As I recall, the most powerful reason was that Finch needed that transit money and Eglinton or Sheppard shouldn't get it.
3. I recall it was after Eglinton was killed (and Sheppeard) and other politicians realized they opened a hornets nest, and were grasping at straws to somehow provide something better for Scarborough - that is when elevated was dismissed.
4. The last assumption is that a transit line is never allowed to be extended.

 

[nfitz]

I don't think we should be using the Canada Line as an example considering it was intentionally underbuilt so it could open in time for the 2010 Olympics and overcrowding has been a persistent problem on the line ever since.

Has the overcrowding been an issue since they finally purchased more vehicles and significantly increased the frequency - which is still far from the ultimate frequency.

I have no doubt there'll be a problem in the coming decades if densification continues along the Cambie corridor. But the biggest issue so far in terms of overcrowding was contractual - not from the design. They could have added more vehicles years ago, if they'd have wanted to.

At the same time, I recall nothing like the constant failures when the Canada Line opened, as we've seen on Finch.

 

[ARG1]

I don't think we should be using the Canada Line as an example considering it was intentionally underbuilt so it could open in time for the 2010 Olympics and overcrowding has been a persistent problem on the line ever since. Its cost per km looks nice on paper but it hides the reality that it delivered sub-par transit to that part of Vancouver and Vancouver sooner or later is going to have to invest a lot of money to fix this mistake and make the stations larger. You and I both know that if we went with option 3 there is no way it would be built elevated because at the time these decisions were being made "elevated" was a dirty word and every subway needed to be underground. Unfortunatly a certain mayor at the time convinced sububan residents that they deserved subways and anything less was treating them like second class citizens. In fact there are still people peddling that nonsense to this day when talking about the above ground sections of the EC (including the western extension), and the at grade and elevated sections of the OL. The anti-elevated narrative at City Hall didn't change until Doug was elected and the OL elevated as a cost-cutting measure (which was the right choice of course). Also this city doesn't need another 5 stop stubway that goes nowhere. We nearly made that mistake in the 90's on Eglinton, and its the reason the Sheppard Line has never lived up to its potential; and Finch West is a corridor with even less ridership potential then both Sheppard and Eglinton.

The Canada Line is still nowhere near its ultimate capacity, with the signalling system capable of running trains every 90s (currently every 3m), and trains able to be extended to 50m trains (platforms are either already long enough, or have built in knock out panels). In regards to Finch West, its weird to cite capacity issues with the Canada Line when ultimately the Canada Line has a far greater max capacity than Finch West will ever have.