[allengeorge]

They say in the PDBC that the capability will be there they just won't use it out of the gate which is fine, 34 tph and 80 meters will be fine initially, if the line is overcrowded they'll use them sooner.

Metrolinx also doesn't answer how they're going to price the operational cost of that service increase. What happens when we hit capacity: does the city negotiate with the operator directly? Does Metrolinx? Is the price for the service increase costed out in advance, or is it negotiated at that time? No one knows.

Oh - and it's funny: the proposed budget (over 60 years) doesn't account for the capital or operational costs for a service increase at all. That's pretty weird for a 'capability that's there, but won't be used out of the gate' situation.

(BTW, part of the reason Metrolinx wants to go with shorter trains and lower service is to reduce the capital costs as well: they can buy fewer cars. If you want to increase capacity you may have to go back to buy more equipment as well, and I question how easy that's going to be in a future council/provincial govt.)

 

[officedweller]

The Canada Line does not really have "engineering flaws".

There is wheel slip in icy conditions on the relatively steep approaches to the North Arm Bridge that stall trains and disrupt service - seemingly every year.

 

[Amare]

Also, even if the DRL north hadn't been entirely finalised, it was pretty clear it was going to go to Don Mills and Eglinton (with either Don Mills or Victoria Pac beyond that). So at the least we could have safely extended the existing plan to Eglinton, with going north to Sheppard as a potential Phase 2 regardless of alignment.

We could have kept what we had, included the extension to Eglinton and then only needed to plan a new western leg during development instead of just throwing out the entire plan. Regardless of how well the OL may work, it's just a completely frustrating waste of time and resources to restart planning all over again.

Dont worry, if Doug gets thrown out in 2022 the plans will change again and we'll rinse and repeat the whole cycle again!

 

[NoahB]

Metrolinx also doesn't answer how they're going to price the operational cost of that service increase. What happens when we hit capacity: does the city negotiate with the operator directly? Does Metrolinx? Is the price for the service increase costed out in advance, or is it negotiated at that time? No one knows.

Oh - and it's funny: the proposed budget (over 60 years) doesn't account for the capital or operational costs for a service increase at all. That's pretty weird for a 'capability that's there, but won't be used out of the gate' situation.

(BTW, part of the reason Metrolinx wants to go with shorter trains and lower service is to reduce the capital costs as well: they can buy fewer cars. If you want to increase capacity you may have to go back to buy more equipment as well, and I question how easy that's going to be in a future council/provincial govt.)

Where did you get your 60-year thing? That is news to me and I cannot find it in any of the documents. The likely term will be 30 years like all of Metrolinx's other contracts.

 

[allengeorge]

Where did you get your 60-year thing? That is news to me and I cannot find it in any of the documents.

Page 93 of the Preliminary Design Business Case Full Report (Economic Impact):

“This analysis considers the magnitude of costs and benefits for a 60-year lifecycle (the evaluation period)”

The same timeline is referenced again on page 101:

“Option Performance Comparison

The Economic Case assesses the overall value for money of the Ontario Line and its options by monetizing benefits and estimating costs incurred during construction and over the first 60 years of operations. This analysis leads to the following findings:

• both options have a comparable economic case based on BCR and NPV performance; and
• the refined operating concept option has reduced fleet and operating costs due to the use of 80 m trains (compared to the use of 100 m trains in the IBC operating concept option) – this train choice also reduces benefits realized by travellers as trains will be more crowded (in particular, in future years beyond 2060), which in turn reduces traveller benefits – however the change in benefits and costs are roughly equal.

Combined, these findings note that Metrolinx has flexibility in selecting an operating pattern and fleet size as both the 80 m and 100 m options have a comparable economic case.

Based on this, the following considerations are noted for future planning:

• consider developing warrants for modifying fleet size at appropriate points in the project lifecycle (example, during re- procurement of fleet or after the first 30-year operating concession) based on loading standards, costs, and traveller benefits to further optimize the economic case; and
• explore opportunities to optimize the off-peak service plan (including explicit off-peak economic analysis) to characterize and realize greater off-peak traveller benefits.”

If I misunderstood this wording, please let me know. Thank you.

 

[allengeorge]

And again on page 112, where they mention that they’re considering using 80m trains for the first 30 years - and then again for the next 30 (i.e. 60 in total) to reduce overall financial impact of the project.

I find this entire thing interesting, because what they’re comparing appears to be:

1. 100m trains w/ high frequency for entire project lifetime
2. 80m trains w/ lower frequency for the entire project lifetime

Nowhere are they actually costing out a staged approach, which is what we’re told is actually going to happen. Are we supposed to extrapolate between the two? Why not price it out?

 

[WislaHD]

From the way the contracts are set up (sliced and diced north and south, civils versus ops), the players involved - Plenary is a very familiar name (they're involved with our next gen fleet of trains that will operate on the Melb metro tunnel, Sydney Metro fleet (pic already shown in this thread) and the Gold Coasts new tram line) - to the broad technical characteristics, you can see how globalised new rail line implementation has become.

Where 50 years ago there might be have been more noticeable quirks, these days, there's far more familiarities.

For instance, the 4 car, up to 5 car, possibly 100m platform stations is about the sweet spot that'll probably feature for the suburban rail loop here in Melbourne. Ontario line (capacity relief and expansion within a smaller geographical area) and the SRL (an orbital wrap-around to enhance an existing and continually upgraded radial network) are doing two different things, but it's interesting that many of the same players view their solutions as applicable to both.

Doubly interesting is that out of the 4 cities (Toronto, Melbourne, Montreal and Sydney) going down this path, Sydney (or more to the point, the NSW state government who has planning control) are aggressively pursuing active expansion / new rail lines with similar "metro" tech (as they now categorise it up there). The line that has recently been announced to connect to the new Western Sydney airport will be 4 car (the main metro line that's open and will be extended in a few years is 6-car - very AU suburban train-like) and I wouldn't be surprised look/feel is more akin to the Ontario Line despite it having an average station spacing of 4km (as it cuts through undeveloped areas atm).

I'd slot Montreal next to Sydney in this case because they appear to be now enthusiastically pursuing REM de l'Est which for all intents and purposes will most likely look the main REM under construction versus aggresively expanding their existing metro on the same scale.

And Melbourne & Toronto are dipping their toes in the water (OL and SRL example above) while also looking to augment existing networks / expand them too (in Toronto's case I'm specifically talking about TTC and GO, not just one or the other, in Melbourne's case it is the long list of level crossing removals and augmentations like Melbourne Metro and the mooted future cross-town connections still to come). Sydney's all but stopped enhancing its existing network - for now.

Apologies for the foreigner dumping in on this thread but I think closely watching what happens across the 4 cities will be a worthy exercise over the next decade - any academics on here? surely there's a thesis or ten in it.

And yet, of all the cities listed I think the most could be learned from Brisbane and their upgraded BRT system. With the mounting costs of subway and metro systems, I believe the Toronto region could do well to look at implementing a network of high-capacity BRTs on existing arterial trunk routes (which already range from 20,000 to 40,000 daily riders on existing bus routes). The Ontario Line is needed but it won't solve the City's transit problems, and less expensive solutions need to be considered.

 

[NoahB]

Page 93 of the Preliminary Design Business Case Full Report (Economic Impact):

“This analysis considers the magnitude of costs and benefits for a 60-year lifecycle (the evaluation period)”

The same timeline is referenced again on page 101:

“Option Performance Comparison

The Economic Case assesses the overall value for money of the Ontario Line and its options by monetizing benefits and estimating costs incurred during construction and over the first 60 years of operations. This analysis leads to the following findings:

• both options have a comparable economic case based on BCR and NPV performance; and
• the refined operating concept option has reduced fleet and operating costs due to the use of 80 m trains (compared to the use of 100 m trains in the IBC operating concept option) – this train choice also reduces benefits realized by travellers as trains will be more crowded (in particular, in future years beyond 2060), which in turn reduces traveller benefits – however the change in benefits and costs are roughly equal.

Combined, these findings note that Metrolinx has flexibility in selecting an operating pattern and fleet size as both the 80 m and 100 m options have a comparable economic case.

Based on this, the following considerations are noted for future planning:

• consider developing warrants for modifying fleet size at appropriate points in the project lifecycle (example, during re- procurement of fleet or after the first 30-year operating concession) based on loading standards, costs, and traveller benefits to further optimize the economic case; and
• explore opportunities to optimize the off-peak service plan (including explicit off-peak economic analysis) to characterize and realize greater off-peak traveller benefits.”

If I misunderstood this wording, please let me know. Thank you.

I think you are misreading the document. (I'm in no way a lawyer though)

This segment is to find the cost and benefit of the project over a 60-year horizon, which is the purpose of this document. Note they are calling it the evaluation period. It is separate from the operation and maintenance contracts which typically go in 30-year segments. the document literally mentions "or after the first 30-year operating concession" in the part you quoted. Which shows they are aiming for a 30-year contract.)

One interesting thing about the pages you shared is that it does not seem enthusiastic about the 80m plan. ("both the 80 m and 100 m options have a comparable economic case."
It mentions that they might (will) have to procure new vehicles before the 30 years are up. ("during re- procurement of fleet")

And again on page 112, where they mention that they’re considering using 80m trains for the first 30 years - and then again for the next 30 (i.e. 60 in total) to reduce overall financial impact of the project.

I find this entire thing interesting, because what they’re comparing appears to be:

1. 100m trains w/ high frequency for entire project lifetime
2. 80m trains w/ lower frequency for the entire project lifetime

Nowhere are they actually costing out a staged approach, which is what we’re told is actually going to happen. Are we supposed to extrapolate between the two? Why not price it out?

The document is saying that they expect to reach 40tph by 2041 for either plan. But it does seem will delay getting 100m trains until they absolutely have to at an unspecified date if they go with the "refined" operating plan.

But given the PDBC's unenthusiastic tone about the new plan and Metrolinx's statements, it seems they still want to go with the 100m/40tph plan but want to show they are doing their homework.

 

[allengeorge]

@NoahB : Thank you for the detailed response. Just to clarify, I actually didn't conflate the contract length with the analysis period. If I gave you that impression, that's my bad - I should have been clearer.

If I had to summarize my concerns, it would be as follows:

• Metrolinx calls the 80m option a "refined" concept. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that wording: I took it to mean "improved" or "preferred".
• I actually don't read the PDBC as unenthusiastic on the 80m trains; in fact, they specifically call it out as having a higher BCR (benefit-to-cost ratio) than the 100m option.
• If they go with the 80m, lower-tph option, I don't see a lot of details on the process of negotiating a capacity increase, who will pay for it, how much it'll cost, etc.
  That is, it feels like value-engineering without a clear path on what to do if you hit service limits.

It mentions that they might (will) have to procure new vehicles before the 30 years are up. ("during re- procurement of fleet")

I actually interpreted this differently: I imagined reprocurement would only happen at contract intervals, implying that the earliest you'll do a service increase is at the close of the first RSSOM contract period.

 

[salsa]

The Ontario Line is needed but it won't solve the City's transit problems, and less expensive solutions need to be considered.

Indeed. Metrolinx is only projecting a 15% reduction in crowding on Line 1 with the Ontario Line. This is completely inadequate over the long term.

 

[JSF-1]

Indeed. Metrolinx is only projecting a 15% reduction in crowding on Line 1 with the Ontario Line. This is completely inadequate over the long term.

Also doesn't help the OL isn't going to Sheppard which we have known for years now is really required for any sort of Relief line to have any meaningful impact on Line 1's ridership. Also doesn't look like there is any discussion of this extension at the moment even though there absolutely should be. No reason we can't have a northern extension of the OL be shovel ready or even under construction by the time the main portion of the OL opens beyond the Conservatives being cheap and having there priorities in odd places (canning the exhibition portion of the OL in favour of a northern extension to Sheppard would not be a bad idea but he we are).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

1) Its being delayed by 3 years to 2030, the original planned opening date of the Relief Line, and before you say "further delays", I could say the same about the original DRL.
2) Quite Often: Even with the new Bay Concourse, travelling from Union Station to the Subway could take some time, so being able to transfer directly to a train that gets you directly to the Queen street area would be extremely helpful to a ton of commuters.
3) Please tell me a route you can take with the Scarborough Subway that has the same catchment area as the planned underground route, while eliminating the linear transfer and taking an above ground route. I'll wait. The amount of money it'll cost to build a portal to elevate Line 2 east of Kennedy and the amount of engineering required to get that to work would probably be the same or even more expensive than an all underground option.
4) New trains are a fine fit, and I've debunked this argument numerous times.
5) The only place this project is cutting corners in is your mind.

First of all I don't think your first point really applies because this project is already getting delayed by another 3 years - I have a hard time believing it won't be delayed further. Yes it's a larger plan than the previous one, but further behind. This is why a phased approach can be helpful.

There's no reason Ford couldn't have fast tracked the existing plan, designed in conjunction with local stakeholders, and started immediately on the DRL North to Don Mills.

The GO transfer is good in theory, though I do question how often it'll be used.

The last three bolded points I don't agree with because the government isn't operating with any consistency. If anything, suburban residents have been told above ground transit is unacceptable, and are currently getting projects that support that position.

New trains - new is nice, but they don't seem a fit for this project, where capacity is crucial.

And finally, we shouldn't need to cut corners to force regional agencies to integrate fares.

Innovation is a great thing, but we're not seeing that here. If the 'innovation' undercuts the primary purpose of the project you have a problem.

Irrespective of my disagreement RE capacity, I want to question this "great" plan.

The old plan lacked:

- Phase one build West of Osgoode and North of Bloor serving super fast growing Downtown Communities, and lower income transit starved Northern Communities
- Cross platform transfers to GO which are clearly better than the deep Downsview Park style transfers we would have had
- Elevated rail used extensively (which will likely change the perception of elevated rail in Toronto - potentially significantly reducing costs for future suburban lines - because yes obviously on those wide suburban roads elevated makes way more sense)
- A modern train platform - the Toronto Subway trains are fine, but newer trains with higher power requirements (hence catenary) can climb steeper slopes and hit higher speeds
- Very strong incentive for the province to finally force regional agencies to the table to integrate fares (needed for cross platform transfers)
- Automation and Platform Screen doors as a given (they were also "planned" for the TYSSE, who knows if their fate would have been the same for DRL)

Both the RL and OL have flaws. In the case of the OL, it doesn't go past Exhibition and frankly it there is no plan to get to Dundas West and Mt Dennis. On the east, what the plan to get to Don Mills and Sheppard, and beyond? The rolling stock change is a huge waste of money.

 

[afransen]

Also doesn't help the OL isn't going to Sheppard which we have known for years now is really required for any sort of Relief line to have any meaningful impact on Line 1's ridership. Also doesn't look like there is any discussion of this extension at the moment even though there absolutely should be. No reason we can't have a northern extension of the OL be shovel ready or even under construction by the time the main portion of the OL opens beyond the Conservatives being cheap and having there priorities in odd places (canning the exhibition portion of the OL in favour of a northern extension to Sheppard would not be a bad idea but he we are).

With an elevated alignment, OL should be possible to extend the 6 km to Don Mills Station for a couple billion dollars, even with the absurd cost of transit in Ontario.

It's less clear to me what the western extension should look like, without duplicating GO expansion enhancements. Maybe head to Humber Bay Shores and up Islington (provided Islington could be intensified significantly north of Bloor)? Going from the Ex to Mt Dennis would just be duplicating GO expansion.

 

[WislaHD]

With an elevated alignment, OL should be possible to extend the 6 km to Don Mills Station for a couple billion dollars, even with the absurd cost of transit in Ontario.

It's less clear to me what the western extension should look like, without duplicating GO expansion enhancements. Maybe head to Humber Bay Shores and up Islington (provided Islington could be intensified significantly north of Bloor)? Going from the Ex to Mt Dennis would just be duplicating GO expansion.

I want to see how GO-RER changes commuter patterns first before talk of western extension occurs. We saw how Weston commuters adapted rapidly to the price-shift of the UPX. If that is replicated with GO-RER across Toronto, then I think any duplication of the route along the GO corridor is a waste of money. Fare integration is cheaper solution with existing and planned infrastructure.

Two (fantasy) concepts I've seen on UT that I have always liked were a) heading up Dufferin and connecting with a Sheppard West extension (hell, convert Sheppard to OL technology and we got a ring subway!) ; and b) to Humber Bay and elevated(/cut&cover) along The Queensway to Sherway Gardens.

 

[Coolstar]

I want to see how GO-RER changes commuter patterns first before talk of western extension occurs. We saw how Weston commuters adapted rapidly to the price-shift of the UPX. If that is replicated with GO-RER across Toronto, then I think any duplication of the route along the GO corridor is a waste of money. Fare integration is cheaper solution with existing and planned infrastructure.

Two (fantasy) concepts I've seen on UT that I have always liked were a) heading up Dufferin and connecting with a Sheppard West extension (hell, convert Sheppard to OL technology and we got a ring subway!) ; and b) to Humber Bay and elevated(/cut&cover) along The Queensway to Sherway Gardens.

I've also seen ideas of the OL heading up Jane St instead of the Jane LRT being built.