[steveintoronto]

Some good ideas!

Theoretically, a downtown tunnel build for RER standards, perhaps with 4 tracks instead of 2, could be a more cost-effective solution in the long run than a standard subway. The main advantage would be the ability to hook multiple surface rail lines into that downtown tunnel.

I had considered this, and also one 12 metre tunnel divided into two large quadrants of full rail loading gauge, and two smaller ones stacked between them to carry a DRL type local service. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway)
The economics of the local overhead demand wouldn't justify this though. It must be remembered that the primary purpose of this project is *relief* on the B-D and Yonge lines. An RER station at (Pape subway station?) and a few locales before travelling under (Queen?) would carry that relief.

Part of the reason Metrolinx studies didn't recommend RER technology for the Relief line is that they were not bold enough in their selection of options.

Exactly. They're also working within a dictated mandate from political masters. Their vision has been pretty questionable on a number of projects.

We probably should just focus on the TTC subway Relief line. That's something comprehensive and sellable for those who control the public funds.

And again, I have to ask: "What funds"? The Province is starting to say "No". The cupboard is bare, and the Province is already up the wazoo in debt. They're tapped. The Fed present Infrastructure Fund is limited.

The hope is the Canada Investment/Infrastructure Bank. And they will want a cold, hard business case to show an eventual yield on investment of 1.5 : 1. Since the taxpayer will have a roughly 20-25% share (the leverage ratio is guestimated to be 4 : 1, as is the case in other Investment Banks) and so will also realize the same yield on investment. Whether that be through farebox recovery or some other means would remain to be seen. With that taxpayer share ploughed-back in, the GO Transit farebox recovery is almost break-even for operating costs. There are many aspects that investors can explore, not the least increased land value as a result of the transit convenience. Note that Tory expects the taxpayer to fully foot the SSE bill, and the likes of Oxford Properties reap the yield. And yet supporters of SSE scream "Capitalism!" when confronted with an Investment Bank building transit as a viable investment.

Gov't coffers are tapped. And I'm glad in a way. You don't have to be right-of-centre to be concerned about spending like drunken hockey fans, and blowing the budget on limited, finite schemes.

 

[rbt]

Part of the reason Metrolinx studies didn't recommend RER technology for the Relief line is that they were not bold enough in their selection of options.

Agreed entirely. They looked at RER/Richmond Hill as a discount option only. I still think a $20B upgrade to Stouffville + Richmond Hill lines ($7B each, plus $6B through downtown) would dramatically outperform the DRL Long option while being in the same price range. Part of that money includes lifetime operations subsidies to hit standard TTC fare and full bus integration.

Instead of starting with "we can run X trains on existing infrastructure" they should have gone with "we need to move an additional 30,000 pph from these points to downtown; how much will it cost for GO to do that".

GO corridors will eventually reach their potential; I'm not sure if I'll be around to see it though.

 

[Rainforest]

And again, I have to ask: "What funds"? The Province is starting to say "No". The cupboard is bare, and the Province is already up the wazoo in debt. They're tapped. The Fed present Infrastructure Fund is limited.

I don't expect the province to keep saying "No" indefinitely. They are not prepared to offer anything at this moment, but they are likely to open the purse somewhat closer to the coming 2018 elections.

Exactly. They're also working within a dictated mandate from political masters. Their vision has been pretty questionable on a number of projects.

I agree that their vision and judgement have been questionable in many cases, but I don't know if they are deliberately biased to please their masters, or just follow the path of least resistance. Either explanation is plausible.

 

[Young Stats]

Agreed entirely. They looked at RER/Richmond Hil as a discount option only. I still think a $20B upgrade to Stouffville + Richmond Hill lines ($7B each, plus $6B through downtown) would dramatically outperform the DRL Long option while being in the same price range. Part of that money includes lifetime operations subsidies to hit standard TTC fare and full bus integration.

Instead of starting with "we can run X trains on existing infrastructure" they should have gone with "we need to move an additional 30,000 pph; how much will it cost for GO to do that".

GO corridors will eventually reach their potential; I'm not sure if I'll be around to see it though.

In order to do that, Metrolinx and GO needs to abandon its downtown focus mentality and start thinking to provide service across the GTHA.

 

[Hopkins123]

People here seem to want to use RER as a cheaper DRL. A "poor mans DRL".

We've had proposals to run RER at subway-like frequencies for years. Every time it comes up, the people who work in the field will explain that RER has very real physical frequency and capacity limitations. The commuter lines can be upgraded to accommodate more trains, yes, but these upgrades would cost several billion dollars to a an RER DRL reliably running with 2.5 minute or greater headways.

RER vehicles are taller and longer than subway vehicles. That means we'll be spending much more money on tunnel and station contruction.

So for some (likely small) amount of money saved, what do we gain or lose in service quality?

- Less frequent service
- Fewer stations, making the line less accessible
- Poorly placed staions; these rail lines were frequently built far from development and major destinations, meaning that people will have longer trips to get to the stations. Some stations will also have significant elevation challenges (such as at Eglinton), which might very well may stations in certain locations infeasible .
- Less oppertunities for transit-oriented development (more cars on the road in the long term)
- A line that would have trip time lengthened by a winding trip through the Don Valley
- Overall longer trip times compared to subway-DRL due to fewer stations (a lesson learned from SSE), difficult to access stations, longer headways and potentially slower travel speeds

I encourage you to read City Planning's report on the Relief Line and Yonge Line demand forecasting, to see how sensitive the potential for Yonge Line relief is to travel time and other factors. In that report, you'll see how even an increase in trip time of two minutes is expected to dramatically cut into the ridership of the Relief Line, while also reducing its potential to relieve Yonge Line crowding. And obviously, the reduced the station count that RER would offer would further harm our goal of reliving a Yonge Line crowding. Keep in mind that any RER solution would have to perform at least as well as the subway proposal at these goals, while also costing less.

I'll conclude by saying that Metrolinx has at least twice considered the potential of an RER Relief Line. Twice they've thoroughly rejected the idea. And I'll remind you that Metrolinx was by no measure enthusiastic about building a subway Relief Line; they believed for a long time that RER + upgrades to Yonge capacity would be sufficient to reduce Yonge ridership to manageable levels for another decade or so. There's no anti-RER bias; these planners have seen these ideas many times. RER as a Relief Line is just not a workable solution.

Now you know precisely how Scarborough subway extension advocates feel. Cheapening out on the technology mode chosen to rub two pennies together resolves nothing.

 

[steveintoronto]

Two crucial points:

I don't expect the province to keep saying "No" indefinitely. They are not prepared to offer anything at this moment, but they are likely to open the purse somewhat closer to the coming 2018 elections.

You just caught me checking the latest from Brown. You can guess the story there. The Libs? The Hydro thing hasn't raised an eyelash, let alone an eyebrow, and I agree, what would they have to lose by 'pleading for understanding'? (Oh, and here's the cash we borrowed from your credit card on your behalf for you) I'd have a whole better feeling for Investment stepping in if there was a change of leadership with the Libs, but that's a whole other bridge to burn.

In order to do that, Metrolinx and GO needs to abandon its downtown focus mentality and start thinking to provide service across the GTHA.

Exactly! Again, the Libs nixed expressway tolls, Wynne did a complete 180 degree turn to please the GTHA majority! So anything that comes from QP coffers is going to have to satisfy *everyone*, not just Pape Central Psycophants. (sic) And that means giving the burbs and regions a rocket ride right to downtown. And in itself, that's the *Relief* that is claimed to be so urgent for the TTC.

I've got to agree with Rainforest, the *extant* GO lines have not been fully vetted to make them work in ways *beyond the Metrolinx mindset*!

Why not let some Investors come in, look at the situation and say (and I fully believe this): "Look, you have incredibly underutilized assets languishing, the City is in conniptions for the Bloor Danforth and Yonge lines to be relieved, you have limited cash, and frankly, off the record, you're buying votes with it, so let us make a proposal to revamp the whole approach here, make a reasonable and sustained return on our investment, and *save you bundles* by having better oversight with expenditures and bringing in world class experts to review your plans, draw up a detailed engineering and business proposal, and perhaps even modified legislation to protect all parties concerned".

It has to happen, or we're sunk... (Edit to Add: If that sounds hysterical, it isn't. Crossrail, a glowing success internationally, would not have happened without the participation of London businesses)

[...][The Mayor of London, through Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority (GLA), will contribute £7.1bn. This includes a direct contribution from Transport for London of £1.9bn and contributions raised through the Crossrail Business Rate Supplement (BRS), section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Crossrail farepayers will contribute towards the debt raised during construction by TfL.

Government will contribute by means of a grant from the Department for Transport of £4.7 billion during Crossrail's construction.

London businesses will contribute £4.1bn through a variety of mechanisms, including the BRS.

Over 60% of Crossrail’s funding will come from Londoners and London businesses.

Network Rail will undertake works costing no more than £2.3bn to the existing national rail network raised through projected operating surpluses from the use of Crossrail services.

There are also considerable additional financial contributions from some key beneficiaries of Crossrail:

• The construction of Crossrail is part funded by the City of London Corporation, which has agreed to make a direct contribution of £200m and in addition will seek contributions from businesses of £150m, and has guaranteed £50m of these contributions.
• Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has agreed to a £70 million funding package.
• Canary Wharf Group has agreed to contribute £150m towards the costs of the new Canary Wharf Crossrail station at Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf Group will also design and build the new station.
• Berkeley Homes has agreed to construct a station box for a station at Woolwich.

The £14.8 billion funding envelope for the project is a fully inclusive cost, allowing for both contingency and expected inflation.]
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding

Take a close look Mr Tory Sir! Take a damn good look...do I see Oxford Properties offering to help pay for SSE?

And here's some homework, Messrs Tory et Wynne:
Crossrail Act 2008 - Crossrail
www.crossrail.co.uk › About Us
The Crossrail Act giving permission for the railway to be built, operated and maintained received Royal Assent in July 2008. The Crossrail Hybrid Bill was ...

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

So how bout that new preferred alignment down Carlaw eh?

 

[jje1000]

So I hear at the Relief Line meeting tonight about Carlaw vs Pape, now that the Pape alignment has fallen out of favor for the Carlaw alignment in the eyes of city planning, that the NIMBYs of Carlaw are now coming out in significant numbers to protest why they aren't going with the Pape alignment.

Amazing.

So much chaff and bickering in these forums over what the Relief Line will be and not enough actual information:

planginerd has nice notes on the meeting:
https://twitter.com/planginerd

Cllr @PaulaFletcher30 kicking us off. "Good news is that we'll get stations in Leslieville, Riverdale, & Riverside. bad news is $6.8B" #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849760315076169728

"Construction won't start till 2024 and won't open till 2031 in the best case. We are planning" @PaulaFletcher30 #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849760465664303108

#drl is going to Exec Committee and City Council in May. Delayed by 1 month

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849768073603289088

City is in initial stages of planning #drl Phase 2 with Metrolinx. Need to goto council to get approval. To Eglinton/Sheppard is a question

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849768362351742976

"Going to council to also advance Yonge Subway North extension to 30% design." JP from City. Pushing to May cycle to include this. #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849768564634660864

JP "council, city staff, and ttc are aligned in that this is one of the most important subway lines in the city" #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849769528884113408

"Open question whether ttc will take design to 100% or only to 30% and then use p3" -David Naigler from TTC #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849770412099678209

ICYMI - I live tweeted #drl event tonight. Lots of photos & info on my feed. Carlaw alignment moving ahead as preferred. Minimal opposition

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849793332230451200

Meeting tone completely different this time. Huge credit James Pertulla. People seem overall happier, qs calm, & many leaving already #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849773666166505473


Note on Carlton alignment:

Finally a pt about NOT doing Carlaw. "Carlaw alignment will disrupt more businesses and people than pape through absolute numbers" #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849776902671826944

Tunnel on Carlaw will be 25m deep!! 2 major sewers to get under. #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849765790802903040

Multiple qs so far abt relative affordability of each alignment. City has done far more work than normal but no detailed cost delta yet #drl

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849772242405871618

JP saying at this stage that cost delta in the 100-150M range. Very rough

https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849772364401451009


Presentation Panels:
https://twitter.com/PlanGinerd/status/849759736203489280

Opening Presentation Remarks:
https://twitter.com/IdeasForWard30/status/849966169666801665

Some commentary:

Costing for Carlaw won't be done till they cost out the full #downtownreliefline, they don't want to factor cost into the choice - odd

https://twitter.com/klashton27/status/849772595180433410

TTC doesn't have #downtownreliefline construction money but do have design money, will keep moving it forward, city needs this line

https://twitter.com/klashton27/status/849769257416232960

 

[jungleboy.ca]

Thank you to jje1000 for trying to bring us back to reality and WislaHD for the attempt to speak reason to steveintoronto. I just experimented with the ignore option and unfortunately it makes things impossible to follow when people are replying to or quoting the ignored individual.

Can we get just a smidge of moderation? The name of this thread is "TTC Relief Line Proposal (DRL)" and I come here to read about and discuss the various merits of that proposal (or lack thereof) within the bounds of what's being studied, designed and debated. That means we're talking about a TTC gauge subway, on one of the proposed alignments.

I know I only have a couple posts under my username; but frankly, I'm sick of wading through pages of spurious messages to find relevant content.

To wit:

So I hear at the Relief Line meeting tonight about Carlaw vs Pape, now that the Pape alignment has fallen out of favor for the Carlaw alignment in the eyes of city planning, that the NIMBYs of Carlaw are now coming out in significant numbers to protest why they aren't going with the Pape alignment.

Amazing.

Where did you hear this, WislaHD? If upset Carlaw residents were there, they didn't make themselves heard. This was by far the least contentious Relief Line meeting I've attended, and I've been to most.

The most interesting thing about last night for me (and my main reason for attending) was the very preliminary incremental cost of Carlaw v. Pape: $100-150M. I thought it was going to be more in the realm of $500M on account of the trunk sewers. There was some indication that tunnelling on Pape has it's own complications in terms of bedrock depth near Gerrard--and that might explain the smaller delta even though Carlaw would have to be deeper.

I asked TTC staff whether they'd talked with Metrolinx about going in the backdoor at Greenwood to avoid a wye at Danforth and Pape. Answer: No, not yet. Basically, they know what the requirements are for a wye, and work needs to be done on that as a baseline before exploring something like using the LSE corridor to access Greenwood.

I asked Planning staff if there would be Official Plan or zoning reviews particularly in the area around Gerrard Square; seeing as it's proposed to be a 4-mode transit hub. I was told that Planning expects to review zoning and the OP around all stations, but hasn't yet set up a formal process to do that.

Those were the highlights from my end. The only other thing worth mentioning is that the grey "Smart" Track/RER station box for Gerrard Square isn't actually where Metrolinx has identified as their preferred option. They're indicating they'd prefer the station to run basically from Logan to Carlaw. On this count, the Carlaw alignment for the Relief Line performs even better for interchange.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Thanks for the in-person update on specific issues directly related to the project!

MoD

 

[44 North]

The most interesting thing about last night for me (and my main reason for attending) was the very preliminary incremental cost of Carlaw v. Pape: $100-150M. I thought it was going to be more in the realm of $500M on account of the trunk sewers. There was some indication that tunnelling on Pape has it's own complications in terms of bedrock depth near Gerrard--and that might explain the smaller delta even though Carlaw would have to be deeper.

Interesting. I was hoping Carlaw would cost equal or less...not that happy that it's more, and all things considered $150M is still a tidy sum IMO. Maybe we should keep the door open for both.

The only other thing worth mentioning is that the grey "Smart" Track/RER station box for Gerrard Square isn't actually where Metrolinx has identified as their preferred option. They're indicating they'd prefer the station to run basically from Logan to Carlaw. On this count, the Carlaw alignment for the Relief Line performs even better for interchange.

I'm still not sold on that Gerrard GO station and don't see the need for it if there will be a subway station. Seems way too close to East Harbour, and now that it will apparently be running to Logan it's even closer. Can't help but think it's one part of an attempt by Tory and the Prov to defer RL indefinitely.

 

[jje1000]

Thank you to jje1000 for trying to bring us back to reality and WislaHD for the attempt to speak reason to steveintoronto. I just experimented with the ignore option and unfortunately it makes things impossible to follow when people are replying to or quoting the ignored individual.

Can we get just a smidge of moderation? The name of this thread is "TTC Relief Line Proposal (DRL)" and I come here to read about and discuss the various merits of that proposal (or lack thereof) within the bounds of what's being studied, designed and debated. That means we're talking about a TTC gauge subway, on one of the proposed alignments.

@AlvinofDiaspar

I wonder if it might make sense to create several new subfolders for each of the major Transit projects going on in the city (i.e. one for the Scarborough Subway, DRL, Roadwork, GO Transit)- people inside those subfolders can feel free to start their own topics/overall threads regarding particular topics, so we don't need to have both construction pictures and debates over alignment going on simultaneously in each thread.

Would also allow relevant information and news to stay high up rather than being buried in a megathread.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Where did you hear this, WislaHD? If upset Carlaw residents were there, they didn't make themselves heard. This was by far the least contentious Relief Line meeting I've attended, and I've been to most.

From a friend who attended. He said there were not as many upset Carlaw residents as there were Pape residents at the previous meeting, but there were a few. Perhaps I played it up by saying 'significant numbers'.

 

[steveintoronto]

Steve Munro today:

[...]
For its part, TTC planning consistently downplayed the worth of a “relief” line asking why one would spend billions to divert riding rather than simply providing more capacity on the existing tracks. Moreover, the TTC looked only at the short version from Pape/Danforth to downtown, a line that would have had little off-peak demand in the planning context predating the rise of near-downtown redevelopment. TTC management’s consistent advice was that the Relief Line was not needed. This deeply flawed position allowed planning for a Richmond Hill extension to continue unchallenged.
[...]
The Relief Line

The fundamental question behind a “Relief Line” is this: what is it supposed to achieve? That may seem simple, but the answer depends on how one sees today’s network and the priorities for future growth and change.

For many years, debate hung on the Bloor-Yonge interchange and just how many people might be diverted from it. That was the crunch point, and planning, such as it was, focused on fixing that problem. Solutions included heroic schemes to increase platform space and separate passenger flows to decrease dwell times. However, a billion dollars worth of station changes would do almost nothing to address demand elsewhere on the route.

It is no secret that riders north of Bloor, and often well north of Eglinton, cannot always board a southbound train in the AM peak. Multi-train waits are needed at downtown stations for northbound service in the PM peak. The slightest disruption brings havoc. Meanwhile on Bloor-Danforth, it is common for east end riders to wait for multiple trains westbound in the AM peak.

(Although schedules call for a train every 140 seconds, or 25.7 trains/hour, the TTC never achieves this on average. For all of 2016, the average values ranged between 22 and 24 trains on Line 1 YUS. Meanwhile on Line 2 BD, the situation was somewhat better with values around 24 for several months except during the summer (the compound effect of reduced schedules and train failures thanks to no air conditioning), and a big dip in December. [See CEO’s report for March 2017 at pp 30 and 32.] The TTC’s inability to hit this target comes from many factors including the usual collection of delays from passengers or equipment, but also from their own operating practices. Even with a new signal system, it is far from guaranteed that the TTC will actually operate the level of service to which they aspire.)

“Relief” is not a question of providing more capacity at one strategic point (Bloor-Yonge) but of diverting a substantial number of current and future passengers to an entirely new route.

Probably the biggest obstacle a “Downtown Relief Line” faced lies in its name, from which “Downtown” was removed comparatively recently. This viewpoint led many to see the line primarily for its downtown segment rather than for areas further out that it could serve. By contrast, the Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Scarborough extensions are all seen from their outer ends looking in.

Thanks to the TTC presenting the “DRL” as a short Danforth to Downtown bypass rather than as a route with a wider reach, its political constituency has been limited, even within the City of Toronto. Only when Metrolinx looked at the line in a much larger context, all the way north to Sheppard (Don Mills Station), did the outlook shift both for what the line could achieve and who it would serve.

The question of a name for this line has been discussed on this site before, but I will make the point again: if we were talking about the “Don Mills Subway”, the line would have been built years ago. A route south from Sheppard and Don Mills, through the about-to-redevelop node at Eglinton (and a connection to the Crosstown LRT), serving Flemingdon and Thorncliffe Parks, and then (finally) connecting with the Danforth subway and onward into downtown is a very different animal from a Danforth/Downtown link. It would provide a completely new path east of Yonge and divert considerable traffic away from the existing congested lines. This would not be an “only” solution in the manner that SmartTrack was sold, but a major contribution to overall improvement of the network.

Yes, it would be expensive, but one can see the skew in past comparisons where credit for the avoided cost and complexity of expanding capacity on existing lines and stations was not considered an offsetting saving against the “DRL” cost. [...]

https://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/06/has-john-tory-discovered-life-after-smarttrack/#more-17380

It's good to see that some well informed commentators regard this in a wider view.

That means we're talking about a TTC gauge subway.

Where exactly has that been stated? The study is only being commissioned now, that's all there's funding for at this time.

Here's Rainforest's point made by the Neptis Foundation:

Downtown Relief Line
[...]
Notwithstanding some fairly optimistic assumptions, our analysis indicates that benefits are only about two-thirds of the costs, even for the shortest scheme. Put simply, the scheme in its current form is not worthwhile, costing more than it delivers. However, incremental revenues appear to cover incremental operating costs. This fact could explain why TTC supports the scheme; if the capital cost can be covered, TTC will make a profit on the operations.

The case for the scheme would be further eroded if GO is upgraded. As we have shown, GO relief and express rail services, with interchanges at Danforth/Main, Kennedy, Kipling, and Bloor/Dundas West, can provide similar relief to the subway at a fraction of the cost. Although TTC seems not to have pursued the potential of GO relief services, in the 2012 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion study[6] TTC did consider the alternative of a “Lakeshore RT” service along the GO rail line, with a station at Danforth, but apparently with no interchange to the subway, and with average speeds reduced to 40 km/h,[7] about the same as the subway. Perhaps not surprisingly, TTC concluded that this scheme would not relieve demand on the Yonge subway south of Bloor.

The DRL seems to us to be a scheme whose time has not yet come, if indeed it ever will. Upgrading of the GO rail system would do much more to make the entire GTHA a “transit metropolis,” at a fraction of the cost.

Metrolinx seems to be thinking on similar lines. Although the DRL was included in the $36-million Big Move program, Metrolinx has never issued a detailed Benefits Case Analysis. A “Relief Line Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis,” dated November 2012 was finally released September 2013. The document provides few hard numbers, with no indication as to gross or net benefits. [...]

http://www.neptis.org/publications/subway-schemes/chapters/downtown-relief-line

 

[salsa]

All materials from the public meeting are online.

http://reliefline.ca/the-project/project-materials