You make the argument very well in this and following posts. Why build a compact car when you can build a bus? Economy of scale is multiples more, as is utilization efficiency of the roadway, and you share the fixed costs, like a steering wheel, four wheels, doors, and a single driver remain static while the passenger load is multiples more. This is writ large in modern streetcars.
Perhaps that "relief" in DRL is eluding you? Build this of sufficient size, capacity and *speed* and it not only relieves existing infrastructure, it renders moot the massive investments needed to expand the older lines to do something they were never designed to do in the first place. It will actually *save* money in the long run by allowing a perfectly good extant system (with needed perks, such as elevators, enlarged access and platforms and state of the art signalling systems) to continue to run uninterrupted, and continuing to render benefit from the original investment approx half a century ago. Leave it, and circumvent the extra needed capacity around it.
Absolutely. It's like building an arterial road when you need a highway. Either build it big, or don't bother. And not only that, since it's going to take private investment to do this, the grander it is (caveats apply) the more likely you are to attract private capital since you'll be satiated most of the demand, competition is far less likely. The proof of that is many grand projects around the world, many built with Cdn pension and fund money. Time to do it in Toronto.
Doesn't 'work everywhere else'. It works in many places where *local demand* needs to be satisfied. That's not what will make the Ontario Line work. The comparator isn't the Docklands Light Railway, which is rather pedantic and serves only a section of London.
The real comparison is Crossrail and Thameslink. That's London's transportation future. It not only serves the core of London (and Thameslink is already running ATO in the central core, Crossrail will too when the core section is opened) but run out on mainline rail to the exurbs. With no seat change to do it.
Not only that, one version of Thameslink Siemens Class 700 (which operate through new tunnels totally automatically save the driver closing doors and hitting a button to go) the Class 717 operates third rail through a tunnel into the core of London well over a century old, and 4.7m in diameter, and the trains run out to the mainlines, put up pantographs, and then run on 25kV catenary.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=class+717
Class 717, top speed 85mph. Class 700 (also run third rail and catenary, but in modern wider tunnels with space to evacuate from the regular doors) over 100 mph. And can do so totally automatically in segments of track with balises.
Here's the model most apt for for the Ontario Line, and able to run in the 5.4 metre tunnels the TTC planned for the DRL with space to spare:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...w/great-northern-class-717-emus-unveiled.html
And the carriage gauge of these trains? The same is RER single deck EMUs would be, and compatible with VIA Rail HFR, since they are ostensibly able to work with REM Metro sized stock:
https://www.systracanada.com/en-pro...e-hfr-via-trains-on-montreal-s-reseau-express
DOCUMENTS
Interoperability Study to Operate HFR VIA Trains on Montreal’s REM
PDF - 190.5 kb
The Ontario Line can stone three birds with one kill if you let it, and allow local trains to stop while regionals and HFR bypass them in station with a centre track. HFR to Ottawa from underground at Osgoode? Why not? (Alternates would still be available from Union)