Adjei
Senior Member
I hope this shuts up all those who try to bring up St. Clair to discredit LRTs. I mean subways also go overbudget...What a shocker..
|
|
|
I hope this shuts up all those who try to bring up St. Clair to discredit LRTs. I mean subways also go overbudget...What a shocker..
They'll simply switch to "Governments can't do anything on time and on budget. Just look at St. Clair and Spadina."
44 North
Senior Member
Yes, but that 11k peak projection is only for the initial 5.5km of a DRL. IMO 11,000 peak for a short 5.5km line is actually pretty decent. Not to mention it's double the Crosstown’s projected peak, but for half its length. If we want to compare apples to apples, I think it’d be better to compare the entire DRL from Don Mills to Dundas West (i.e DRTES Option 3). 1986 projections for an almost identical route were 11,7000 by 2011; but now looking at this route the TTC claims that the east branch alone will have 14,9000 peak by 2031, while the west branch will have 13,000.
So while projected ridership along other corridors like Eglinton and Sheppard came to be roughly 1/3 of their previous forecasts, the DRL’s peak projection has nearly tripled. And considering all the mess the system is in now, and listening to Byford continually stress the need for this line any chance he gets, I think 'getting ahead of ourselves' would've been quite sensible.
salsa
Senior Member
For once I wholeheartedly agree with what 44 North has to say.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Only 11.7k pphpd by 2011? 11,700 pphpd is horribly low for an 18 km route. That's worse performance than the even Scarborough subway extension's highest usage projections (11,000 pphpd, but more concentrated; 7km vs 18km). I wouldn't be surprised if usage on some parts of that route, particularly the Don Mills segment, drop to as low as the Sheppard Subway.
Anyways, looking at the history of the Relief Line and TTC usage, I really don't see a point where it made any sense to build the Relief Line.
In the 1980s, Yonge Line capacity wasn't an issue. Bloor-Yonge station was going to be upgraded, so it could handle transfers adequately. As you pointed out, in 2011 the line was expected to move 11k pphpd, so obviously it would be a lot lower than this in the 80s/90s period,
In the 90s and early 2000s, the TTC was going through a massive ridership slump. Obviously Yonge and B-Y station capacity would have been a non issue back then. The provincial subsidy for the TTC was eliminated. Throughout the 90s and early 2000s, the Relief Line would have been underused, and more critically, the TTC probably couldn't afford to operate the line without provincial subsidy, as it likely would not have been profitable. As Silence&Motion pointed out, the strategy back then was to get more people onto existing subways, rather than building new, unnecessary lines (a logical strategy, in my opinion).
In the mid 2000s, Yonge capacity is becoming an issue. This is why the TTC is moving to install ATO on Line 1, and to replace all of the Hawker series transits with TRs early. It was anticipated that ATO and TRs would be able to handle demand.
Finally, in 2007 the Yonge North extension is proposed. With it moving 26,000 persons southbound though Finch at peak AM hour, ATO and Toronto Rockets will not be able handle the demand, as we had previously expected. City of Toronto moves forward with the Relief Line.
Nowhere in this timeline do I see a point where building the DRL earlier made any sense. The only thing I may have done differently is perhaps expedite the Relief Line study process in 2007, so that the line would open in the first half of the 2020s, rather than the second half.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
Yonge reached 30k peak in the 80s. That was our warning call to build a parallel line - or some kind of new line radiating northwards from the core. Ridership did go down to the low 20,000s in the 90s, but Yonge most definitely reached practical capacity long ago, and was a clear and present danger in the 80s.
As well, it’s true that 11,700k peak for such a long line as the DRL isn’t anything to write home about (relative to what was being projected for Eglinton or Sheppard at the time). But there are a couple points to keep in mind:
One, this Network 2011 DRL was to be ICTS, with large portions running in the open air or elevated. So by default its per km costs would've been significantly lower than Eglinton West or Sheppard East. As an affordable light / intermediate RT line, 11,700k peak is fairly decent.
Two, cooked numbers for Sheppard East and Eglinton West (which by their very nature made the DRL numbers look small). I can’t exactly prove why their DRL numbers contrast so much with present-day DRL projections, but I think a large part has to do with anti-downtown sentiment, and the perceived notion that downtown growth would stagnate. Perhaps there was evidence which made this seem true, or politics got involved. But obviously the opposite happened.
As well, it’s true that 11,700k peak for such a long line as the DRL isn’t anything to write home about (relative to what was being projected for Eglinton or Sheppard at the time). But there are a couple points to keep in mind:
One, this Network 2011 DRL was to be ICTS, with large portions running in the open air or elevated. So by default its per km costs would've been significantly lower than Eglinton West or Sheppard East. As an affordable light / intermediate RT line, 11,700k peak is fairly decent.
Two, cooked numbers for Sheppard East and Eglinton West (which by their very nature made the DRL numbers look small). I can’t exactly prove why their DRL numbers contrast so much with present-day DRL projections, but I think a large part has to do with anti-downtown sentiment, and the perceived notion that downtown growth would stagnate. Perhaps there was evidence which made this seem true, or politics got involved. But obviously the opposite happened.
nfitz
Superstar
Keep in mind that in 2008 Metrolinx modelled the 18 km route at having 17,500 pphpd in 2031.
Bloor-Danforth was estimated to be 16,400 in 2031 for the current 26.2 km. 11,700 for the 18 km route doesn't sound that bad at all really.
Remember this is peak point per direction. Total peak-hour ridership is (obviously) much higher. Metrolinx estimated 57,100, compared to 70,000 for the BD and 106,100 for the Yonge-University (and 10,100 for Sheppard, 30,700 for Eglinton, ... etc.).
On a daily basis, that's about 390,000 a day for the DRL (compared to 725,000 a day for YUS and 480,000 a day for BD).
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I wouldn't say the numbers were "cooked". It's just that the official plan back then was for suburban urban centres (Scarborough centre, NY Centre, etc...). When estimating usage on Eglinton West and Shepard, TTC was working under the assumption that the city would meet their targets for the new centres. Obviously, perhaps with the exception of North York, the plan was a spectacular failure.
I don't think that's true. The DRL is marked as a subway:
What do you mean by "practical capacity"? There's still plenty of capacity that can be squeezed out of Yonge with upgrades.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Yup, I'm aware of that. The DTRES also came up with a similar number for Pape to Dundas West, 2031. That's a very respectable number, imo.
I don't think that's correct.
Take a look at the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study - Page 23. In 2001, approaching B-Y Station on Line 2 from the east, there were 22,630 passengers. In 2031, that number increases to 30,650. Line 2's peak point and direction is westbound, immediately east of B-Y.
Attachments
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
It might not be - but that is what was published.
Yes, that's a good figure! Still 22,630 currently (or in 2001) still makes the 17,000 or so for the DRL look pretty good.
Note it increases to 30,650 without the DRL. I seem to recall reading somewhere back in 2009/2010 or so, that the simulations with the BD had a reduction in ridership after the DRL opened ... so it's possible that the lower number in the future is correct - or at least what the model reported. Other simulations though seem to show the DRL having less impact. What's the difference? For one, the newer stuff seems to show DRL on King, but Big Move used Queen. Probably a myriad of other assumptions ...
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Where was that published?
I've never been able to the find peak point/direction usage number for the whole of Line 2.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Going from 31,000 to 17,000 is a dramatic drop that's not in line with what was estimated in DTRES. On Page 52, the diagram shows that BD Subway will lose 5,600 riders if the DRL East was built. That means that BD's peak point usage would be 25,260. But I suppose it is possible that the two reports would come up with different numbers.
By the way, a few post ago I and 44 North noted that the RL peak point usage was 17,000. It's actually 14,900 in the DTRES.
nfitz
Superstar
2008 Big Move report, one of the appendices. Only the 2031 projection. I've linked to it many, many times in the last 6 years.
One might be a bit high, and the other a bit low, but they'd have different assumptions. I don't think any show such a big drop with the same assumptions. The key is given the same assumptions for any model, what would the drop in those models be - that would be more similar.
44 North
Senior Member
I don't think that's true. The DRL is marked as a subway:
I'm not sure how much I can trust that map, because I believe it's more of an amateur reinterpretation of the plans and not exactly official. Whatever it is, there were so many morphing plans in such a short period in the mid-80s, it’s hard to find reliable info. I was always under the impression the typical DRL with its Atartiri station, use of the rail corridors, and supposed elevated section above Overlea Blvd was to be ICTS.
In the early to mid 80s, I think it was hard set that the line was supposed to be some non-subway RT. From Ed Levy:
Just prior to Network 2011, I believe most or all of the future corridors were to be ICTS. Again, from Levy:
But for the actual Network 2011 proposal, while Eglinton is shown as being “subway†in that map you provided, Levy claims that it’s to be "ICRT" http://levyrapidtransit.ca/12-5-the-network-2011-final-report-june-1986/#.VRV_W46bEWc . Other Network 2011 maps seem to give the same line weighting, colour, and dashes for this ICRT lines to the DRL. It's hard to know what's what. I think I may have to take trip to the Reference Library when I have time to see these reports first hand.
Attachments
CDL.TO
Moderator
My understanding is that it was proposed to be ICTS, but as studies continued it was determined that ICTS would not have sufficient capacity and the design was changed to subway.