- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
KhalilHeron
Active Member
Thing is the OL has enough capacity. Its not taking all the load of line 1, so it doesn't have to have the same capacity. Building a relief line to end all congestion on line 1 forever isn't possible, so using cheaper technology and routing leaves future prospects for higher-order transit downtown open, rather than blowing all of our money o one overbuilt line. The trains on the OL may be smaller, but the higher frequencies possible means the difference in capacity isn't even that dramatic, and that's not considering any possible service improvements that may be possible in the future to increase capacity that much more when it's possible. There's no reason something an improvement like ATC on line 1 won't be possible on the OL in the future. I agree the extra capacity would be nice but with a cheaper per kilometre price tag, and with more people served right off the bat, I think the OL serves our needs similarly if not better than the DRL would. Also the Toronto Regional Board of Trade Regional Rail Report does an excellent job of providing examples of other places like Paris that can support higher train traffic on fewer tracks than we have at union or the lakeshore east corridor so I don't think the OL impeding on Go capacity is that sound of an argument against it.
syn
Senior Member
Of course we don't know how they got that. Metrolinx spits out these kinds of stats without any references. They're promoting their project - whether or not the facts are actually true and/or accurate seems secondary.
And they're only referring to one station.
I'll ask again how that would be a significant detriment when there are plenty of large, comprehensive systems around the world with deep stations that see heavy usage.
The DRL & DRL North plans would not be overbuilding. It would be the only transit project in Toronto that we wouldn't be overbuilding. The Yonge Line is already over capacity.
I don't understand how we can blow billions of dollars actually overbuilding suburban transit projects, but the one line that needs as much capacity as possible is where we decide we need to pinch pennies.
This is why the system will continue to have serious issues.
Last edited:
ARG1
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
Haven't we all been living under a rock for the last year?
Not sure what Overlea has got do do with it. No one hear is advocating that it need be underground north of O'Connor (except perhaps at the Eglinton intersection itself, to minimize transfers to Line 5) - it's more a debate on where the above-ground should go that far north.
But hang on you say - Vancouver actually did studies of the impacts of above-ground to underground? Isn't that simply the kind of thing people are asking Metrolinx to do - who seem to have taken all the previous community consultation and thrown it out the window.
Sterilizing the rail corridor by using the two tracks of remaining capacity for local transit, on the primary corridor connecting Toronto to the eastern part of the country is a terrible move. At least the new proposal to put the subway entirely on the north side of the tracks, leaves room to add additional tracks in the future, with some expropriations.
The other issue you forget is the shear hypocrisy of the Doug Ford government, unwilling to spend hundreds of millions extra to put the subway underground in this urban area, and yet at the same time willing to spend billions extra on each of the very suburban Eglinton (where's there's massively-wide ROWs) and Scarborough, to put the new extensions underground. I'm yet to hear a single person, opposed or in favour of any of these projects, put together an argument (let alone a coherent argument) on how that makes any sense!
Amare
Senior Member
Eglinton West is being overbuilt, there's no question about that. There are cheaper ways to achieve the same desired effects, but people are scared of the obvious alternative option for whatever idiotic reason.It would be overbuilding, just like we are overbuilding Eglinton West and SSE. Its funny how projects are only overbuilt when they're projects you don't like. Really makes you think huh
SSE is a case where we're seeing a tremendous amount of unnecessary funds being ploughed into the project, and there are definitely cheaper ways on how to construct that subway extension. But of course, we choose the most expensive methods possible to build it.
officedweller
Senior Member
Demolition is advanced at station sites. No tunnelling, etc, yet.
Summary of the stations:.
GNW Station and South Granville Station are designed for office buildings on top.
A new look at the station layouts of the Broadway Subway (RENDERINGS) | Urbanized
Here are architectural diagrams, schematics, and cross-sections that show in detail the layout of the Broadway Subway stations on SkyTrain Millennium Line.
dailyhive.com
Last edited:
officedweller
Senior Member
Yeah, they looked at that - the problem with that alignment is it's at the bottom of a very steep hill for passengers to walk from 6th Ave up to the Broadway office buildings (9th Ave.)
and beyond to the hospital between 10th Ave. and 12th Ave. - ridership would have suffered significantly.
The Broadway Corridor has been studied for years, so the alignment was basically pre-determined.
The Broadway Extension (to Arbutus) is really Phase II West of the Millennium Line (Phase II East was the Evergreen Extension) - so it has been studied for close to 20 years.
The Millennium Line was built truncated, without either eastern or western extensions which would have supplied riders - think of it as our Sheppard Line.
The eastern extension (Evergreen Extension) was completed in 2016 and now the western extension (Broadway extension) is underway.
The further extension to UBC is relatively new and only on the table because of the growth in ridership on the rapid bus line, but the Broadway Extension will ease ridership with higher capacity through the Broadway office/hospital corridor,
so buses from Arbutus to UBC will in future largely carry UBC-bound passengers.
The main variable for the Broadway Extension was station placement - on which corner of the block.
... and no the public did not get to decide on the station sites because the sites were bought / negotiated in secret.
Mount Pleasant Station is across the street from the expected location.
Oak Station was moved a block east to be mid-block instead of on the corner of Oak - that placed it closer to the hospital.
Broadway City Hall Station will be a significant interchange station with lots of escalators and elevators linking platforms but no additional street entrances.
A plaza dedication (from a condo project) at Arbutus St. will be used for an emergency exit instead of an entrance, with the stationhouse across the street.
Broadway is like Bloor or Eglinton, so demand is on a relatively narrow corridor.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Well it's not perfect ... and I spent a good week climbing that hill regularly when my sister was in the ICU there a few years ago - it's not insurmountable.
Don't get me wrong - I think a tunnel under Broadway is the answer; but the current solution fails in the primary objective - connecting to UBC. I also think that running the new subway down Carlaw (or even Pape - or go back to the original plan, and run it under Leslie) is preferable, leaving the extra space on the railway alignment for GO or VIA in the future.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
It wouldn't get the same ridership as the yonge line currently has, so to match that ridership would be overbuilding. It's really a matter of spending more money on the project now to ensure future capacity on this one line, or spending a little less for lower capacity, but using that saved money sometime in the future on other downtown transit. If the OL was the last transit downtown Toronto would ever get it would be underbuilt, but it won't be, and I imagine the cheaper price tag (once you factor in DRL extensions to the western side of downtown and donmills/eglinton) will allow that future transit to be built sooner than the DRL would.
It would be overbuilding, just like we are overbuilding Eglinton West and SSE. Its funny how projects are only overbuilt when they're projects you don't like. Really makes you think huh
EWLRT and SSE are def overbuilding, tho, especially with extensions overbuilding, can make a lot of sense. If you were going to match the exact capacity needed for each extension then every extension would have to use different rolling stock to match that exact capacity and it'd be a mess. EWLRT should def be above ground in my opinion but for the SSE what other ways of getting the subway to stc are there? There aren't really any possible at or above grade alignments other than maybe along the hydro corridor but that wouldn't make that big a difference and would make it harder to get to Scarborough general. The SRT needed replacement, and since no one seemed too keen on refurbishing it, and in my opinion, the lrt plan wouldn't do much to address the current problems with the srt, and would introduce some new ones, it kind of makes sense to overbuild
nfitz
Superstar
I don't think anyone wants another line with the same ridership as the Yonge line.
Isn't that the forecast ridership was higher than the Bloor-Danforth line enough!
44 North
Senior Member
Not even just cheaper, but possibly cheaper and better. If say going up Midland you don't have to go under a river, so a station at Lawrence wouldn't be that deep when TBM'd. Then surface to use Line 3's corridor offering two stations for Scarb Centre. Save money, and use the savings to serve the centre better.
syn
Senior Member
Just because it won't match Yonge's ridership right away doesn't mean it's overbuilding.
It's like arguing Toronto overbuilt the first subway line on Yonge because it wasn't full. They didn't overbuild; a subway was simply the next logical step. The streetcar route was maxed out. Even though they didn't run full 6-car configurations at the start, that quickly changed.
The same is true in this situation. Ridership will be high to start, and if projections hold true, it'll be at or near capacity in relatively short order. The same cannot be said for the SSE, EWLRT nor the YNSE.
If you want an example of overbuilding transit, we have it on the Sheppard Line.
I really don't understand this logic. The DRL should've been built decades ago. Downtown hasn't seen any subway construction in over half a century. Do you honestly believe the government is thinking "Hey let's save a few billion here so we can build another downtown line down the road!'? What in their actions indicate that's the case?
Why not build the highest capacity line now and save money with the next line when costs inevitably increase?
Why aren't they taking that approach with any of the other major transit projects? Why are they making the SSE and EWLRT the priorities when the Yonge Line is already over capacity?
What you're suggesting makes no sense to me.
officedweller
Senior Member
Getting to UBC is not the primary objective - it never has been (except in the minds of UBC students).
The primary objective is to serve Vancouver's 2nd office district - the Broadway office and hospital corridor.
Bus service to UBC will improve without the workers on board. UBC students also pay a highly subsidized transit pass rate (even if they do not use the pass).
Adult 3-Zone transit passes are usually $177 monthly.
U-Pass BC
A U-Pass BC gives students access to the bus, SeaBus, SkyTrain, and discounts on West Coast Express.
nfitz
Superstar
That's not the impression I've had. Nor does the B-Line seem any more crowded in the west than east. If anything it seems more crowded east of Cambie than west, and the new extension is only going one stop past Cambie.
But anecdotal observations are one thing. Are there ridership numbers for the B-Line by segment?