[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.

 

[lastcommodore]

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.

The problem is that we end up comparing (project A costs, toronto, 2019) versus (project B, not toronto, some other time) and so inevitably we kind of miss the elephant in the room that we are completely incapable of building at cost.

"110M/km for tram or 130M/km for elevated subway" makes literally zero sense. That shouldnt be possible, how in the world can elevated only be a price diff of 20M/km? It only is because we're actually comparing (tram, toronto, 2019) vs. (elevated, vancouver, 2005) and so any Toronto recent price is saddled with cost overruns.

I guarantee you if Toronto built 6FW as an elevated a la Canada line, a (elevated, Toronto, 2019), it'd end at 1bn/km and somehow still 1/2 the advertised speed. Likewise if (tram, Vancouver, 2005) happened itd probably be like 30M/km and 2x the speed of 6FW right now.

A point ive been trying to not so subtly make on some of this tram v. brt v. subway v. elevated debate. Costs between these solutions are frankly less important than the added cost of incompetence here. 6FW could have been an elevated metro for a bit more *if we could build competently. It also could be what it is now for a lot, lot less.

 

[Photon54]

Finch West LRT using electric switch heaters Ottawa LRT inquiry warned against | Globalnews.ca

Since launching at the beginning of winter, the Finch West LRT has been beset by delays and service disruptions tied to the switch technology embedded in the new transit line.

globalnews.ca

"The Toronto system, like Ottawa before it, is using electric heaters to melt ice and snow stuck in its switching systems. The technology proved so problematic in Ottawa it had to be replaced."

Seems learnings from Ottawa not applied.

 

[hw621]

Finch West LRT using electric switch heaters Ottawa LRT inquiry warned against | Globalnews.ca

Since launching at the beginning of winter, the Finch West LRT has been beset by delays and service disruptions tied to the switch technology embedded in the new transit line.

globalnews.ca

"The Toronto system, like Ottawa before it, is using electric heaters to melt ice and snow stuck in its switching systems. The technology proved so problematic in Ottawa it had to be replaced."

Seems learnings from Ottawa not applied.

Who is surprised? Lol

 

[Steve X]

Time to yank them all out. What a joke

 

[hw621]

Time to yank them all out. What a joke

Cry all we want. Nothing is going to happen to them...

 

[hw621]

Someone on Youtube claimed this. Is this true? If it is, is that the end of the subway vs. LRT argument?