dullturtle06
Active Member
its 200m from Brichmount Rd. lets not give Line 5 the st clair treatmentGetting rid of Ionview would leave a long gap and it is has decent residential density around it.
its 200m from Brichmount Rd. lets not give Line 5 the st clair treatmentGetting rid of Ionview would leave a long gap and it is has decent residential density around it.
Over 530 metres from Birchmount to Ionview. And then 620 metres to Kennedy. Take out Ionview and you get almost a 1.2 km gap!its 200m from Brichmount Rd. lets not give Line 5 the st clair treatment
This is the problem solving that the TTC should be doing. Great idea's.Some creative solutions if Finch LRT removes Stevenson, Duncanwoods, and Driftwood station but locals still want some locals bus transit.
1. Stevenson: the 118 bus currently terminates at thistletown. Theoretically bus line can be extended to Terminate at Albion mall and provide service to stevenson, rather than the LRT.
View attachment 708913
2.Duncawood: 84A bus could be expanded and turn north on Weston, Run along Finch to Peardale station, and make its way towards Steeles and Islington
View attachment 708914
3.Driftwood:108 could be rerouted to Tobermory station.
View attachment 708921
So eventhough stations are removed there could still be some local service that could feed into other stations on Finch
The point is that with proper due diligence it can run properly.This is the problem solving that the TTC should be doing. Great idea's.
The new Line 6 Finch West LRT has been shut down for the second day in a row because of yesterday's snowstorm! Given all the mishaps over the new transit line and how other LRT lines like Waterloo's ION run fine in the snow, who feels it's time to call for a public inquiry?![]()
![]()
Alternatively, I would also be open to covering both Finch West and Eglinton at the same time when the latter open
In the TTC, no one takes initiatives or ownership.The point is that with proper due diligence it can run properly.
It does not.Does anyone know if the contract even permits the TTC to remove stops?
I swear it's the nitwits at the CBC that keep promoting the idea that the REM is an LRT. The CDPQ are at fault too. CDPQ knew that the public had an allergy to the word metro or subway, so they pulled a switcheroo and decided to call it "light rail" and 'LRT' to hide the true nature of the system back during the 2018 launch etc... The politics of ignorance made it necessary to fool the bureaucrats and the general public. https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/cdpqinfrad8/files/2019-10/rem_synthese_21112016_en_0.pdfBang on, repeat this from the hilltops a thousand times over. I am frankly tired of "LRT vs Subway" because 99% of the conversation actually has literally nothing to do with light rail vs. heavy rail. Nearly nobody actually argues the cost-benefits of using low-floor vs high-floor vehicles, using smaller rolling stock, etc. etc.
99% of the conversation is on stop spacing, at-grade intersections, operational procedures, speeds, etc etc etc and unfortunately people associate LRT (a technical designation based on rolling stock) with Toronto tram-like operations (at-grade, frequent stops, lower speeds, median ROWs, etc). Thus, people (inc. Rob Ford) maligned totally grade separated rapid transit because it was called (and by technical standards, is,) LRT.
I genuinely want the term LRT to leave the public consciousness. It needs to die, to be relegated to engineering documents a thousand pages long. The average layman should not even know what the term "LRT" stands for. It should be considered as nerdy a term as the exact manufacturer and rolling stock used on each line.
Use tram, or streetcar, or subway, or elevated metro, or just metro. An "LRT" can be all of these things.
LRTs are amazing and can do anything. (you may have to be old to get this one)I swear it's the nitwits at the CBC that keep promoting the idea that the REM is an LRT. The CDPQ are at fault too. CDPQ knew that the public had an allergy to the word metro or subway, so they pulled a switcheroo and decided to call it "light rail" and 'LRT' to hide the true nature of the system back during the 2018 launch etc... The politics of ignorance made it necessary to fool the bureaucrats and the general public. https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/cdpqinfrad8/files/2019-10/rem_synthese_21112016_en_0.pdf
CDPQ don't call it LRT anymore, but the CBC keeps calling it that. Anyone would know this is nonsensical after riding the REM or looking up the Alstom Metropolis rolling stock it uses (like a nerd). https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-montreal-ottawa-lrt-winter-snow-9.7047495
An automated metro in Montreal (not even light metro by global standards), a fully grade separated quasi-metro in Ottawa, a street running tram in Toronto. How can all 3 things be called an LRT? What kind of people are the CBC hiring if they can't even do the bare minimum research to avoid technical illiteracy? Calling all three systems an LRT ignores fundamental differences that are important for the public to understand. It leads to people unironically thinking the Calgary CTrain could've been built somewhere in the City of Toronto, even on Finch West.
On the flip side, if anything can be an LRT and so many people love how cheap and amazing LRTs are, then all Metrolinx needs to do for future projects is to call them LRTs.
It’s not as great as you might think. Yes it fills in the void but this is not likely the ridership’s travel pattern so telling them to wait 15-20 min for some of these routes so they can hop off a few stops later to connect to line 6 isn’t going to win any prizes. Plus the most vulnerable are the ones that need these stops cause they can’t walk far, suggesting they hop on and off to connect to multiple routes would just drive them away. They might as well take a taxi considering they need to get to these stops on the first place.This is the problem solving that the TTC should be doing. Great idea's.
It’s not as great as you might think. Yes it fills in the void but this is not likely the ridership’s travel pattern so telling them to wait 15-20 min for some of these routes so they can hop off a few stops later to connect to line 6 isn’t going to win any prizes. Plus the most vulnerable are the ones that need these stops cause they can’t walk far, suggesting they hop on and off to connect to multiple routes would just drive them away. They might as well take a taxi considering they need to get to these stops on the first place.
Weather affecting Ottawa LRT and Montreal REM as well: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-montreal-ottawa-lrt-winter-snow-9.7047495
I think that you are bang on. I joined this around 2015-16. This was a time when there was a lot on planning discussion on the future of transit. At that time, I advanced the same argument that transit city and the like was really about streetcars and that the term LRT was just a way "to sexy it" up politically and mislead people into thinking this is like the Confederation line in Ottawa or similar services in Calgary & Edmonton. I even recall one insightful contributor calling it "Streetcar city" and that's what it was, .Bang on, repeat this from the hilltops a thousand times over. I am frankly tired of "LRT vs Subway" because 99% of the conversation actually has literally nothing to do with light rail vs. heavy rail. Nearly nobody actually argues the cost-benefits of using low-floor vs high-floor vehicles, using smaller rolling stock, etc. etc.
99% of the conversation is on stop spacing, at-grade intersections, operational procedures, speeds, etc etc etc and unfortunately people associate LRT (a technical designation based on rolling stock) with Toronto tram-like operations (at-grade, frequent stops, lower speeds, median ROWs, etc). Thus, people (inc. Rob Ford) maligned totally grade separated rapid transit because it was called (and by technical standards, is,) LRT.
I genuinely want the term LRT to leave the public consciousness. It needs to die, to be relegated to engineering documents a thousand pages long. The average layman should not even know what the term "LRT" stands for. It should be considered as nerdy a term as the exact manufacturer and rolling stock used on each line.
Use tram, or streetcar, or subway, or elevated metro, or just metro. An "LRT" can be all of these things.
In general, the Finch West LRT had a lot more support on Urban Toronto versus Eglinton, where LRT was more begrudgingly accepted, back in the day. However the line was built, LRT was always the technology that made sense for Finch, as it really doesn't justify a subway. And with the Sheppard line so close, if you want to build a subway, you should just extend that line.
So the fact that line 6 is performing so poorly is an absolutely massive red flag that something about how we have designed it has resulted in this operational catastrophe and the a huge harm to LRT's reputation. I've always been a big believer in trams being used in the appropriate context. But 100% if they're slower than the bus they replaced, that is NOT acceptable. We didn't spend billions of dollars to have WORSE service.
No matter what some people say, SPEED is important for public transit. Do I expect an LRT to be as fast as a GO train? Certainly not. But at a bare minimum it should be faster than the bus, considering it's in its own ROW!




