[gweed123]

The local stop spacing on the west side of Queen would be ok, and it's close to downtown anyway. The further stop spacing would be on the east side where it needs to be rapid anyway.

The ALRT can have extra stops downtown such as Skydome, Cityplace, and Fort York, and include a new Roncesvalles station so people can transfer there between the ALRT and the DRL.

Like on the map I posted on the previous page? Haha. I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[k10ery]

Above-ground rail is not an alternative if it fails to serve the intermediate stops.

The ARL debate has driven home the point that the line itself doesn't offer any benefit, what matters is the stop locations and fare policy.

Will regional rail in the west end of downtown sufficiently serve West Queen West, Parkdale, College, Roncesvalles, Liberty Village, etc...?

+1

I think it certainly COULD serve those areas well. But based on what we are hearing there is no reason to believe it ever actually WILL.

 

[unimaginative2]

At today's prices, subway passes the cost-benefit test almost nowhere.

What possible justification do you have for that statement, besides religion?

And your point about high prices in Toronto today is quite right, but don't you think that's a reason to look at why our cost per kilometre is so much higher than many peer cities, rather than proclaiming that subways are "too expensive"?

 

[nfitz]

And your point about high prices in Toronto today is quite right, but don't you think that's a reason to look at why our cost per kilometre is so much higher than many peer cities, rather than proclaiming that subways are "too expensive"?

More expensive?? Lot cheaper than New York City ... aren't they into the $billion/km range? And the cost in London is huge to bore the Crossrail tunnels, even though the diameter is smaller than Eglinton. Montreal was somewhat cheaper a few years ago, but the boring was a lot simpler, with only 1 tunnel required instead of 2, and also they were drilling through bedrock, rather than a mixed bag of unconsolidated materials.

 

[gweed123]

More expensive?? Lot cheaper than New York City ... aren't they into the $billion/km range? And the cost in London is huge to bore the Crossrail tunnels, even though the diameter is smaller than Eglinton. Montreal was somewhat cheaper a few years ago, but the boring was a lot simpler, with only 1 tunnel required instead of 2, and also they were drilling through bedrock, rather than a mixed bag of unconsolidated materials.

The only subway projects right now that would pass a cost/benefit analysis are the DRL, and maybe a B-D extension to STC.

Sheppard West probably wouldn't pass that analysis, but it gets a pass because of the network connectivity possibilities.

As far as grade-separated rapid transit goes, electrified regional rail is by far the best bang for the buck.

 

[rbt]

The only subway projects right now that would pass a cost/benefit analysis are the DRL, and maybe a B-D extension to STC.

Yonge should be on that list (very high in fact) with the caveat that downstream capacity is an issue.

 

[gweed123]

Yonge should be on that list (very high in fact) with the caveat that downstream capacity is an issue.

It's borderline now, but you're right, with the projected ridership it should be.

 

[k10ery]

The only subway projects right now that would pass a cost/benefit analysis are the DRL, and maybe a B-D extension to STC.

Sheppard West probably wouldn't pass that analysis, but it gets a pass because of the network connectivity possibilities.

As far as grade-separated rapid transit goes, electrified regional rail is by far the best bang for the buck.

Pretty sure it wouldn't. DRL would take very few cars off the road, and rightly or wrongly BCA methodologies put a lot of weight onto that. Some people like to argue that DRL takes cars off the road by freeing up capacity to expand the Yonge line north. But given the high costs of that, and the emergence of viable aboveground options for Richmond Hill, I doubt that DRL+Yonge North would have the highest BC ratio, even if (unlikely) it could beat the do-nothing option.

 

[unimaginative2]

More expensive?? Lot cheaper than New York City ... aren't they into the $billion/km range? And the cost in London is huge to bore the Crossrail tunnels, even though the diameter is smaller than Eglinton. Montreal was somewhat cheaper a few years ago, but the boring was a lot simpler, with only 1 tunnel required instead of 2, and also they were drilling through bedrock, rather than a mixed bag of unconsolidated materials.

Yes, nfitz. Go ahead and pick the two most expensive cities in the world. Even you note that Montreal is far cheaper. I could provide you with a list two pages long of cities on every continent where tunneling costs are far lower than in Toronto.

 

[nfitz]

Even you note that Montreal is far cheaper.

I don't think it was far cheaper. The primary reason it was cheaper was that you only needed 1 tunnel, because the diameter is so much smaller for the Montreal trains, and the geology is so different, with all the tunnel in bedrock, compared to none here (except perhaps near the lake - and even that's shale). Also compare apples to apples, Montreal's cost didn't include ANY new rolling stock, and therefore no new yards.

I could provide you with a list two pages long of cities on every continent where tunneling costs are far lower than in Toronto.

When you make that list, make sure you do apples to apples. For example, the tunelling costs are oly a small fraction of the costs. Probably less than 1/4 of the total costs ... perhaps less, if you go through the contracts.

And of course, big first-world cities are going to be more expensive than smaller or second-world or third-world cities. Just the real-estate costs would be much higher here (and make sure you factor that into your list ... many European costs, don't seem to include land purchase costs.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I don't think it was far cheaper. The primary reason it was cheaper was that you only needed 1 tunnel, because the diameter is so much smaller for the Montreal trains, and the geology is so different, with all the tunnel in bedrock, compared to none here (except perhaps near the lake - and even that's shale). Also compare apples to apples, Montreal's cost didn't include ANY new rolling stock, and therefore no new yards.

When you make that list, make sure you do apples to apples. For example, the tunelling costs are oly a small fraction of the costs. Probably less than 1/4 of the total costs ... perhaps less, if you go through the contracts.

And of course, big first-world cities are going to be more expensive than smaller or second-world or third-world cities. Just the real-estate costs would be much higher here (and make sure you factor that into your list ... many European costs, don't seem to include land purchase costs.

Toronto is the most expensive city not named San Francisco or NYC. LA is cheaper, so is Chicago.

 

[BurlOak]

Transit City - Phase II: A Mix of Regional Rail and Subway extensions (like has been discussed here).

View attachment 8880

4 Subway Projects (DRL, Sheppard West, North Yonge, South Yonge)

3 REX Projects (Lakeshore, Markham, Brampton). The REX Projects only extend to their 'local route' terminus points in my earlier GO REX map (in the fantasy thread). Reduces cost and provides service on the most needed parts of the lines.

I chose Lakeshore, Markham, and Brampton because those 3 lines are the most useful to transit in Toronto. Metrolinx has already prioritized the Georgetown and Lakeshore corridors for electrification, so I just added the Markham (Stouffville) line to the mix. That line will be a God-sent to Scarborough residents wanting to get downtown.

Based on a Metrolinx Study (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...and Related Planning Studies - FINAL (DS).pdf), they seem to prefer the Brampton and Barrie GO lines dead ending at the Bathurst Yard (between Bathurst and Spadina, South of Front). This proposal seems very short sighted as any long term solution should have GO lines on the East and West paired up to increase frequencies. This Metrolinx proposal would not work well with your GO REX proposal - even though I believe most, including Metrolinx, think we need frequent all day service which would be much more difficult with this Metrolinx option.

I like one of the tunnelled GO options better - maybe using Wellington since it is not as great of a detour from the rail corridor and it brings people closer to their destination. The tunnel under Union with a Union East station may also work. These Metrolinx plans will have a great impact on the choice of DRL route. At least now with Byford we may have a seat at the table when the route is chosen.

 

[gweed123]

Based on a Metrolinx Study (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...and Related Planning Studies - FINAL (DS).pdf), they seem to prefer the Brampton and Barrie GO lines dead ending at the Bathurst Yard (between Bathurst and Spadina, South of Front). This proposal seems very short sighted as any long term solution should have GO lines on the East and West paired up to increase frequencies. This Metrolinx proposal would not work well with your GO REX proposal - even though I believe most, including Metrolinx, think we need frequent all day service which would be much more difficult with this Metrolinx option.

I like one of the tunnelled GO options better - maybe using Wellington since it is not as great of a detour from the rail corridor and it brings people closer to their destination. The tunnel under Union with a Union East station may also work. These Metrolinx plans will have a great impact on the choice of DRL route. At least now with Byford we may have a seat at the table when the route is chosen.

I think that those were just evaluating options, not necessarily final solutions. But if they have to divert some from Union Station, I think the Lakeshore tunnel directly south of Union is the best option, and it wouldn't significantly alter my GO REX plan.

I think that if we get proper fare integration, a lot of Union-bound traffic will be diverted onto local transit anyway, especially in places like Riverdale, and especially if the Union X proposal is adopted, because it would mean that people working further north in the CBD would have a local transit option to get there, and they could change at less congested points like Riverdale or Parkdale, as opposed to Union.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Just a thought, maybe it's late. The MTCC was rumoured to be recently sold, or up for sale. Should GO be looking into this property as a place to put additional station capacity?

 

[AKS]

Just a thought, maybe it's late. The MTCC was rumoured to be recently sold, or up for sale. Should GO be looking into this property as a place to put additional station capacity?

Someone posted MTCC is sold already and it's not to GO. Oxford bought it.