[salsa]

A fellow well known in transit activist circles, Stephen Wickens is loudly making known his issues w/OL capacity projections; and he's his reasons why down for everyone to see.

View attachment 228354

Our elected officials are so consumed right now with the Nimbyism in Leslieville that they are completely overlooking this looming crisis that could be coming.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I mean, by 2030 we're going to again need to develop concrete plans to deal with Yonge Line's crowding.

The natural option is an OL extension along Don Mills, but the OL likely will not have the capacity to accommodate that. So where do we move forward from there?

Uncomfortable answer: we need to revise housing and development patterns in Toronto, more people need to live in the central core and this means the elimination of some single-detached neighbourhoods.

Transit answers:
OL needs extension along Don Mills to at least Finch. Intercepting important bus routes before they reach the Yonge Line will have a significant impact as we know from the Relief Line studies.

GO-RER needs fare integration (specifically fare-by-distance) and proliferation of stations in the 416. We have more rapid transit lines in place than we realize that are being underutilized by Torontonians. The Stouffville Line should be seen as an alternative route downtown for people in Scarborough.

Next up, we have an arterial grid network in Toronto, we need to built BRT lines on each and every arterial road. A highly-functioning BRT system would feed (and for various travel patterns, supersede) our rapid transit network and make commuting throughout the city much quicker, easier, and more reliable. BRTs designed well can exceed the speed and capacity of LRT, and a whole network of them would get our city moving. This doesn't necessarily relieve Yonge, but will help disperse growth and activity away from the Yonge Street corridor.

Long-term, we may have to seriously consider activating the Midtown rail corridor for transit, or the Gatineau Hydro Corridor as per some of the transit fantasy maps that @BurlOak has posted in the past. Though I don't think these things are on anyone's radar at the moment. An express Yonge Line to me still seems like complete fantasy, and more like a year 2100 problem, but who knows.

 

[NotAToy]

I think there are several short term and long term solutions to Yonge crowing.

Short Term:

1. Encourage Scarborough people to use GO from Kennedy, Scarborough, Eglinton Stns.
2. Question - How many people use the Yonge line from west of the Yonge Line? How about encouraging people to do so?

Long Term:

1. Build N-S BRT routes to B-D, Eglinton, E-W streetcars, etc.
2. Build the DRL (I still think it should be subway) to intercept E-W bus routes
3. Eliminate a Pape transfer with another line from Scarborough
4. Build a Jane line, with the line going into Downtown. Question: How useful is the University line?
5. Densify downtown!

 

[Northern Light]

Our elected officials are so consumed right now with the Nimbyism in Leslieville that they are completely overlooking this looming crisis that could be coming.

In fairness to those is Leslieville; I don't believe above ground is viable here strictly from a cost perspective. It adds, by my calculations, no less than 1B in expropriation costs, not including compensation to the City for lost park space and likely a rec. ctr at Queen Street.

Recreation Ctr new builds in Toronto can run upwards of 80M; given much more expensive land in this area, the number would likely be higher.

I hasten to add, if my math is correct, the non-OL portion of the LSE corridor at this location needs to be 5 tracks; GO is planning for a 4th already, but VIA HFR is not factored in; and I'm anticipating at this point that VIA's connection to the PTBO track will be via the Stouffville line. That could also mean a 2-track flyunder there, but I digress.

If that's the case, adding 2 OL tracks means a 7-track wide corridor, not including platform/station space.

To the extent that the OL is a serious proposal at all; rather than a delay tactic, there are myriad other problems w/it. But that is a big one.

I hasten to add, those expropriation calculations are made based on relatively small station footprints, and 100M platforms. If capacity issues were addressed by going with longer trains, and therefore larger stations, the expropriations costs rise accordingly.

Of course, some of those costs exist in the underground model as well; but nowhere near as substantial.

Add to that, I'm sure a 7-track corridor would require a mandate for both noise and crash walls on both sides.

Not an immaterial cost either.

 

[sche]

Perhaps the Richmond Hill GO line could be converted to some kind of light metro or RER service, but the terrain and capacity constraints at Union make that far from being a silver bullet solution.

A REM-style conversion of the Richmond Hill line might be possible to provide more relief, running along the Leaside spur and Don branch, and it might be possible to make an underground terminal somewhere downtown, but the alignment beside the Don still presents flood risks that would be really expensive to fix.

 

[sche]

Perhaps the Richmond Hill GO line could be converted to some kind of light metro or RER service, but the terrain and capacity constraints at Union make that far from being a silver bullet solution.

A REM-style conversion of the Richmond Hill line might be possible to provide more relief, running along the Leaside spur and Don branch, and it might be possible to make an underground terminal somewhere downtown, but the alignment beside the Don still presents flood risks that would be really expensive to fix.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

In fairness to those is Leslieville; I don't believe above ground is viable here strictly from a cost perspective. It adds, by my calculations, no less than 1B in expropriation costs, not including compensation to the City for lost park space and likely a rec. ctr at Queen Street.

Recreation Ctr new builds in Toronto can run upwards of 80M; given much more expensive land in this area, the number would likely be higher.

I hasten to add, if my math is correct, the non-OL portion of the LSE corridor at this location needs to be 5 tracks; GO is planning for a 4th already, but VIA HFR is not factored in; and I'm anticipating at this point that VIA's connection to the PTBO track will be via the Stouffville line. That could also mean a 2-track flyunder there, but I digress.

If that's the case, adding 2 OL tracks means a 7-track wide corridor, not including platform/station space.

To the extent that the OL is a serious proposal at all; rather than a delay tactic, there are myriad other problems w/it. But that is a big one.

I hasten to add, those expropriation calculations are made based on relatively small station footprints, and 100M platforms. If capacity issues were addressed by going with longer trains, and therefore larger stations, the expropriations costs rise accordingly.

Of course, some of those costs exist in the underground model as well; but nowhere near as substantial.

Add to that, I'm sure a 7-track corridor would require a mandate for both noise and crash walls on both sides.

Not an immaterial cost either.

You appear to be right on the money. The BCA identified $1 Billion to $1.2 Billion for property costs

 

[Allandale25]

I hasten to add, if my math is correct, the non-OL portion of the LSE corridor at this location needs to be 5 tracks; GO is planning for a 4th already, but VIA HFR is not factored in; and I'm anticipating at this point that VIA's connection to the PTBO track will be via the Stouffville line. That could also mean a 2-track flyunder there, but I digress.

In looking at the concept maps produced by VIA, they might be leading more to the former CP Don Branch/Belleville Spur instead of the Lakeshore East Line/Stouffville Line for HFR. They only indicated "Eglinton" which could be here (Google Map link) or here (Google Map link). The Stouffville Line goes under the CP Rail line here. Also, see a post here by @alexanderglista.

 

[Northern Light]

You appear to be right on the money. The BCA identified $1 Billion to $1.2 Billion for property costs
View attachment 228416

Not quite though. My number is strictly for the Leslieville section; the above is for the entire line.

I don't believe you would encounter the same problems w/the proposed elevated section at Overlea, in terms of expropriation costs; though there are other issues there.

Using their above numbers, in 2019 dollars, I would assume a total number closer to 1.7B * for the property aquisition (assuming its done now, and the property market has a lull) but that is deceptive.

* The storage facility site is up in the air again; I actually can't see any good solutions that aren't the TTC Greenwood yard.

If that is the case; and the new line remains standard gauge; then there is a cost for re-tracking all of Greenwood Yard, plus building a connection track, either in a tunnel or above-grade.

When you add that in; it drives costs further above their high-end projections, by at least several hundred million.

PS The Greenwood option, based on the current TTC yard plans and rolling stock plans, delays this project to at least 2032, as TTC isn't budgeting new equipment and Obico isn't going to be ready til sometime in 2030; you can't retrack that yard, until
TTC vacates it.

Of course, if you revert to TTC gauge, Greenwood is available 1-2 years sooner, at a lower cost; give or take the need for new maintenance facilities.

But if you do that, you have to order the rolling stock w/that customization, likely at a modest premium, to off-the shelf design.

 

[Northern Light]

In looking at the concept maps produced by VIA, they might be leading more to the former CP Don Branch/Belleville Spur instead of the Lakeshore East Line/Stouffville Line for HFR. They only indicated "Eglinton" which could be here (Google Map link) or here (Google Map link). The Stouffville Line goes under the CP Rail line here. Also, see a post here by @alexanderglista.


View attachment 228428

View attachment 228429

No question that option is under consideration.

However, there are some serious capacity constraints on the CP Mainline, and some would be quite expensive to fix.

The Don Branch takes you up to Leaside, but then you have to get across ET Seton Park, if that bridge needs another track, the cost would be massive; Additional corridor space at other points is more workable; but the Lower Don is also flood prone, the big bridge by the Brickworks needs considerable work, not sure if the piers are ok, but the deck is toast.

Across a number of issues, coming up via Stouffville would seem the more prudent and cost-effective choice.

Without the OL in the way, there is ample room for 5 tracks in the corridor, give or take some bridges. (that are short)

 

[BurlOak]

Just from listening to a few videos and Metrolinx announcements, I think the entire Ontario Line is planned around the cross-platform transfers. That is why they think it is so appealing. I doubt the savings from going underground to elevated and back again are that great. If this idea was removed from the equation - they likely would go for a fully underground option - and maybe smartly eliminating the Carlaw jog. But, once it becomes a mandatory (in this plan) to come up to grade level at East Harbour, then it is no longer possible to go under the Don. It is also quite difficult to transition from above ground to underground in the constrained rail corridor, so why not remain elevated for the entire rail portion.
Like everything, I think we are stuck between 2 bad plans when the optimal solution is between the two. The opponents want to go back to DRL, while Metrolinx want OL. And I don't think Doug Ford can find that same compromise that made the Eglinton-Crosstown such a good idea - and created transit unity for at least a short while.

 

[BurlOak]

The Don Branch takes you up to Leaside, but then you have to get across ET Seton Park, if that bridge needs another track, the cost would be massive; Additional corridor space at other points is more workable; but the Lower Don is also flood prone, the big bridge by the Brickworks needs considerable work, not sure if the piers are ok, but the deck is toast.

Across a number of issues, coming up via Stouffville would seem the more prudent and cost-effective choice.

Without the OL in the way, there is ample room for 5 tracks in the corridor, give or take some bridges. (that are short)

The first bridge (Seton Park) is about 250m long, while the second (Brickworks) is 350m. If property is available, (build half new bridge beside, demolish existing, and built other half in the place of the first), its maybe $50M to $75M each to replace with a 2 track bridge.
Building a new single track bridge is very similar cost, building a temporary bridge to the side, moving the tracks, tearing down and building new bridge, and removing temporary bridge.

 

[Hopkins123]

CityNews version of the Ontario Line map from this clip:

Metrolinx seeks feedback for proposed Ontario Line

Metrolinx hosted its fourth in a series of open houses for residents to learn more about the proposed Ontario Line. As Ginella Massa reports, while most agree it is overdue riders say they also want to make sure its done right.

toronto.citynews.ca

View attachment 228299

Of all the things about this plan to protest about, an elevated guideway and stop in Leslieville should not be it. The ratio of elevated to underground segments looks pretty sound to me. What community organizers should be getting their rank and file in a uproar over is the lack of stops in areas where there's enough potential viability to have stops there and the spacing gaps are wide enough to fit them in: namely Liberty Village, Distillery District and Pape & Mortimer.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Just from listening to a few videos and Metrolinx announcements, I think the entire Ontario Line is planned around the cross-platform transfers.

That cross-platform transfer idea has always sounded like a post hoc rationalization for a decision that was only intended as a cost-saving measure.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Not quite though. My number is strictly for the Leslieville section; the above is for the entire line.

I don't believe you would encounter the same problems w/the proposed elevated section at Overlea, in terms of expropriation costs; though there are other issues there.

Using their above numbers, in 2019 dollars, I would assume a total number closer to 1.7B * for the property aquisition (assuming its done now, and the property market has a lull) but that is deceptive.

* The storage facility site is up in the air again; I actually can't see any good solutions that aren't the TTC Greenwood yard.

I'm curious; could you elaborate on why you don't see any good MSF locations other than TTC Greenwood?