[Streety McCarface]

This council video is just annoying. The councillor just wanted to know the cost and benefits of subway to Consumers vs “current” LRT plan, and if the City/TTC couldn’t provide this information, then he’ll still be fine. But then others “question” the info request by asking why not to McCowan? And the stupid “North York Relief Line” to Sheppard West. It’s unbelievable that “questions” were asked that were so outside of the scope of the item. That’s Council for you!

They're politicians, they care only about trying to make the lives of those in their ridings better. They will never recognize systemwide advantages/challenges (ie, how overcrowded the yonge line is, Sheppard West serving the Wilson yard, potential interlining the Sheppard and TYSSE subways) because they're not transit nerds like we are. Catchy phrase: "North York Relief", that'll gain support in their respective ridings. "Sheppard Subway Transfer to Wilson Yard", no one will give a damn.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

People will be upset if this stops randomly in the middle. If they're building the subway, go STC or McCowan.

 

[BMO]

Goes to show, either build transit right the first time, or you'll end up wasting 30 years fighting over completing it. IF this line had been built the full length as originally intended that may have set off a chain of events where we would have a DRL already built and an entire network of connecting LRTs to support the core subway network.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Goes to show, either build transit right the first time, or you'll end up wasting 30 years fighting over completing it. IF this line had been built the full length as originally intended that may have set off a chain of events where we would have a DRL already built and an entire network of connecting LRTs to support the core subway network.

Then was the Eglinton West Subway going to be built right? It would have started at Eglinton West Station instead of Eglinton Station. Is this a similar to Sheppard not going to then Downsview Station?

 

[BMO]

Eglinton West was original slated to go to the Airport, so yes, if it had been built as originally planned I imagine a subway to one of the largest employment clusters in Toronto would have been better than stubbing it at Black Creek Dr...likewise for the Eglinton CrossTown, but at least the crosstown will have a direct connection to trains going to Pearson so it's not as bad.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Eglinton West was original slated to go to the Airport, so yes, if it had been built as originally planned I imagine a subway to one of the largest employment clusters in Toronto would have been better than stubbing it at Black Creek Dr...likewise for the Eglinton CrossTown, but at least the crosstown will have a direct connection to trains going to Pearson so it's not as bad.

The Eglinton West Subway was to go from Allen Station (Cedarvale) to York Centre Station (at Black Creek Drive). If there was to have been a second phase, it could have continued onto the airport. However, Doug Ford's friend Mike Harris, put an end to that dream. See link.

 

[dowlingm]

The way things have been going at Wilson, maybe we should be trying to figure out how to get a yard on Line 4 to push trains onto Line 1

 

[OneCity]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-budget-slashes-go-transit-fares/

“In the Toronto area, we’re going to commit to making sure we close the loop along the Sheppard line. We’re going to make sure that we have a three-stop fully funded Scarborough subway.”

Doug brushing off the dust on the ol' Done Mills and Eglington map.

 

[44 North]

Goes to show, either build transit right the first time, or you'll end up wasting 30 years fighting over completing it. IF this line had been built the full length as originally intended that may have set off a chain of events where we would have a DRL already built and an entire network of connecting LRTs to support the core subway network.

But I think it's safe to say that 'building Sheppard right the first time' would've involved building it as LRT or light subway. Should've never been built as full scale heavy subway for little other reason than it led to the present history (i.e perpetually cut short). Even +30yrs ago people said this would happen. Literally we have it on record Metro and TTC being warned that if Sheppard is built as full subway, it's going to be cut short and riders are going to be left high and dry for decades. And that's exactly what happened. They still advocated a semi-underground rail line going east from Yonge/Sheppard, one that still would've allowed all the development envisioned, just not a severely overbuilt one that wouldn't be extended due to cost.

 

[Streety McCarface]

But I think it's safe to say that 'building Sheppard right the first time' would've involved building it as LRT or light subway. Should've never been built as full scale heavy subway for little other reason than it led to the present history (i.e perpetually cut short). Even +30yrs ago people said this would happen. Literally we have it on record Metro and TTC being warned that if Sheppard is built as full subway, it's going to be cut short and riders are going to be left high and dry for decades. And that's exactly what happened. They still advocated a semi-underground rail line going east from Yonge/Sheppard, one that still would've allowed all the development envisioned, just not a severely overbuilt one that wouldn't be extended due to cost.

If it was built as an underground LRT from day one between Yonge and Consumers with no capacity upgrades possible, it would have cost the same as a subway from Yonge to Don Mills with potential capacity upgrades (ie platform lengthening, The Spanish solution at Sheppard Yonge, etc). The only difference that could be made is if it was extended as an aboveground LRT in the future. They should have built the subway as a cut and cover line, saving money on stations. Sheppard is wide enough to fit a cut and cover line very easily.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Or god forbid if it was build with the ART system that Vancouver uses that costs significantly less to construct and still offers 25000+ ppdph capacity....

Cough cough, Canada Line, Cough...If the system is to reach capacities that you are suggesting, you're basically building MRT -- subway. Long, wide cars on a grade-separated right of way at frequencies of every 5 minutes or less.

 

[dowlingm]

Or god forbid if it was build with the ART system that Vancouver uses that costs significantly less to construct and still offers 25000+ ppdph capacity....

And locks you into using ICTS vehicles forever where in light rail or heavy rail there is at least some hope of competition among manufacturers for your business?

 

[Streety McCarface]

Doesn't have to be ICTS, though Vancouver got bids from CRRC and Rotem for ICTS compatible vehicles recently.

It's not like all of Toronto's recent rail vehicles for the subway haven't been built by BBR though.

I wouldn't trust either of those companies. Rotem's Silverliner V cars are some of the worst trains I've ever been on. We still haven't seen how CRRC performs in North America, so we can't really trust them with an entire line's future. I must also note that I don't believe either of these companies have any experience with building ICTS compatible vehicles anywhere.

ICTS is narrow hence the lower tunneling cost. For the Evergreen extension in Vancouver only one TBM was required.

Although it may be narrower, it's automated, meaning that tunnels need extra redundancies to allow a safe and effective evacuation of individuals from trains in the event of an emergency. Knowing the union, they'll demand wide, fenced walkways and double the number of emergency exists. That will require wider tunnels.

Also, a train's width has little to do with tunnel width, and more importantly, the type of TBM used, or cost. Case and point: The Eglinton crosstown. The tunnels are actually wider than the TYSSE tunnels because of pantograph requirements. Case and point #2: The SSE. They're planning on using a single bore tunnel for a subway line with quite large bends in it. Guess what? The costs are still astronomically high. The point is that the type of tunnel built is that which suits the local geography best. Costs are not necessarily determined by the tunnels themselves either, but rather, where they dig through.

We don't need another type of rolling stock technology in the TTC, it's bad enough having two different types of subway cars and it's even worse having a shrinking streetcar network. Throwing in other random technologies will make interoperability impossible and transfers even worse.

 

[aquateam]

I wouldn't trust either of those companies. Rotem's Silverliner V cars are some of the worst trains I've ever been on. We still haven't seen how CRRC performs in North America, so we can't really trust them with an entire line's future. I must also note that I don't believe either of these companies have any experience with building ICTS compatible vehicles anywhere.

Okay, then how about Hyundai and the Canada line. Same idea.

Although it may be narrower, it's automated, meaning that tunnels need extra redundancies to allow a safe and effective evacuation of individuals from trains in the event of an emergency. Knowing the union, they'll demand wide, fenced walkways and double the number of emergency exists. That will require wider tunnels.

There is no relationship whatsoever between the degree of automation and the required number of emergency exits, tunnel width, or backup tunnels.

Also, a train's width has little to do with tunnel width, and more importantly, the type of TBM used, or cost. Case and point: The Eglinton crosstown. The tunnels are actually wider than the TYSSE tunnels because of pantograph requirements.

That's because the Eglinton crosstown is LRT, not ICTS. There is no pantograph for ICTS because it uses a third rail. The LIM system for ICTS means that it hugs the rail instead of running on top of it, and a much smaller cross section is needed.

Case and point #2: The SSE. They're planning on using a single bore tunnel for a subway line with quite large bends in it. Guess what? The costs are still astronomically high.

You've just given an example of an extra-wide-diameter tunnel being astronomically expensive to show there is no relationship between tunnel cross-section and cost?

The point is that the type of tunnel built is that which suits the local geography best. Costs are not necessarily determined by the tunnels themselves either, but rather, where they dig through.

Yes, you choose a tunneling method based on geology but once you have a given construction method, it makes sense that the costs would scale with the volume of earth you need to move, mass of concrete, square meters of wall, etc. We are assuming that a given route has already been picked, not that changing the technology choice changes the alignment. Tunneling isn't the only cost (signalling, track, other subsystems, etc. which are independent of tunnel size) but the cost of building the tunnel itself, surprisingly enough, scale with tunnel size.

We don't need another type of rolling stock technology in the TTC, it's bad enough having two different types of subway cars and it's even worse having a shrinking streetcar network. Throwing in other random technologies will make interoperability impossible and transfers even worse.

Funnily enough, ICTS is the rolling stock that already exists on the TTC network, not LRT. And those new LRT vehicles will definitely not be interoperable with the streetcar network either.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Okay, then how about Hyundai and the Canada line. Same idea.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the degree of automation and the required number of emergency exits, tunnel width, or backup tunnels.

The Canada line has trains that are 3 meters in width, relatively the width of a TR train car (3.15m). Canada line trains are not ICTS, they are metro cars, and if I remember correctly, they weren't even built in north america (where quality control issues are). These trains are basically subway trains. Nevertheless, Rotem has no experience with ICTS, so that puts them out of the question regardless

That's because the Eglinton crosstown is LRT, not ICTS. There is no pantograph for ICTS because it uses a third rail. The LIM system for ICTS means that it hugs the rail instead of running on top of it, and a much smaller cross section is needed.

You've just given an example of an extra-wide-diameter tunnel being astronomically expensive to show there is no relationship between tunnel cross-section and cost?

The point is that you can dig large tunnels for subway trains just like you can dig large tunnels for ICTS trains. The fact that a single tunnel can be built to accommodate 1 line doesn't prove anything when it comes to cost, at least not anything particularly significant. Most internal tunnel costs are about the same, the only difference in price is really that of the increased volume of concrete liners and maybe the initial cost of the tunnel boring machine.

The evergreen tunnel wasn't cheap because it was single bore tunnel, it was cheap because no stations were required in it.

Yes, you choose a tunneling method based on geology but once you have a given construction method, it makes sense that the costs would scale with the volume of earth you need to move, mass of concrete, square meters of wall, etc. We are assuming that a given route has already been picked, not that changing the technology choice changes the alignment. Tunneling isn't the only cost (signalling, track, other subsystems, etc. which are independent of tunnel size) but the cost of building the tunnel itself, surprisingly enough, scale with tunnel size.

Signaling costs the same for both subways and ICTS trains, it might even be more for icts because it's automated. Tracks cost more for ICTS because it requires 2 power rails. It still takes the same amount of time for the same number of construction workers to dig either tunnel, TBM costs aren't that significant, so the only other increased costs are those of extra concrete and steel for the liners, and both those materials are not that expensive.

Funnily enough, ICTS is the rolling stock that already exists on the TTC network, not LRT. And those new LRT vehicles will definitely not be interoperable with the streetcar network either.

And it's planned to be removed because it was extremely unreliable. Also, I have a lot of problems with the way Metrolinx is taking things with the LRT lines they're building. The very least they could do is have them use the TTC guage so our flexity streetcars can use them as well.