[Tristen]

There are hidden cost (other than the official price tag) if we build a heavy metro.

There is just not enough demand outside of the downtown core in the Toronto's suburban to support another heavy metro. The line will extend "eventually" and it just not worth the cost to construct a heavy metro in low-to-mid density area then run at lower frequency or half-empty train because of lack of demand.

Lower cost allows us to grow the network faster. Car users are not likely to switch mode when rapid transit is far away from them.

 

[EnviroTO]

There are hidden cost (other than the official price tag) if we build a heavy metro.

There is just not enough demand outside of the downtown core in the Toronto's suburban to support another heavy metro. The line will extend "eventually" and it just not worth the cost to construct a heavy metro in low-to-mid density area then run at lower frequency or half-empty train because of lack of demand.

Lower cost allows us to grow the network faster. Car users are not likely to switch mode when rapid transit is far away from them.

Why would the price for a non-heavy metro be right on budget, but heavy metro not? This is a line into the downtown core which is to help relieve an overloaded line. They built the current subway in 1954 when the population of the whole city was 1.3 million. This line is being built because Line 1 was overloading and it will be 2030 before this line opens and the population will be 3.5 million so does it really make sense to make something in 2030 smaller than was created in 1954 when the city was less than half the size? No lanes are going to be added to roads... transit is where all the growth in transportation needs to go.

These suburban places where they will extend "eventually" is where they are building heavy metro, even though they could be building light rail. The city was going to build heavy metro downtown (where demand is high) and light rail fully grade separated from Kennedy to Malvern (like Eglinton) where the demand is lower and where it is more suburban. The province's current plan is to build heavy metro to Scarborough and Richmond Hill, turn GO trains (heavy rail) that go to the suburbs to higher frequency urban rail, and to put a light metro solution downtown. Why would a subway from the CNE (far greater peak crowd generator than Scarborough Centre), through the densest downtown in Canada, providing relief to an overloaded subway, providing connection to East Harbour (a new downtown and train hub), and through the highrise neighbourhoods of Cosburn, Thorncliffe Park, and Flemingdon Park (paralleling bus routes with over 45000 riders daily) be the lighter transit option? My concern is they are going to launch this thing and it will be overloaded in a decade and call it a success. The success is the current subway which despite minimal expansion and investment manages to be the subway system for a city of 3 million people but it took foresight for people to build the Bloor Viaduct with a place to put a future subway line, and to build a subway that could grow capacity easily even using signalling technology created before most of us were born. Build it right and in 65 years people might say we need to relieve the Ontario Line / DRL, build it without the proper capacity and we might be asking for handouts from the province and federal governments before the warranty is up on this line.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Why would the price for a non-heavy metro be right on budget, but heavy metro not?

No one is saying that, but cost overruns are inevitable on both; OL is far cheaper per km.

This is a line into the downtown core which is to help relieve an overloaded line. They built the current subway in 1954 when the population of the whole city was 1.3 million. This line is being built because Line 1 was overloading and it will be 2030 before this line opens and the population will be 3.5 million so does it really make sense to make something in 2030 smaller than was created in 1954 when the city was less than half the size? No lanes are going to be added to roads... transit is where all the growth in transportation needs to go.

OK ... and

These suburban places where they will extend "eventually" is where they are building heavy metro, even though they could be building light rail. The city was going to build heavy metro downtown (where demand is high) and light rail fully grade separated from Kennedy to Malvern (like Eglinton) where the demand is lower and where it is more suburban.

For political reasons, and because of the linear transfer at Kennedy. Are we eliminating a linear transfer here? No? Good.

The province's current plan is to build heavy metro to Scarborough and Richmond Hill, turn GO trains (heavy rail) that go to the suburbs to higher frequency urban rail, and to put a light metro solution downtown. Why would a subway from the CNE (far greater peak crowd generator than Scarborough Centre), through the densest downtown in Canada, providing relief to an overloaded subway, providing connection to East Harbour (a new downtown and train hub), and through the highrise neighbourhoods of Cosburn, Thorncliffe Park, and Flemingdon Park (paralleling bus routes with over 45000 riders daily) be the lighter transit option?

Hm, I have always held the belief that having the OL in 2030 is better than having the DRL from Pape to Queen in 2035. If you could guarantee that we could get the DRL, and have the Science Ctr. extension, I'd support you. But this is Toronto, so we can't.

My concern is they are going to launch this thing and it will be overloaded in a decade and call it a success. The success is the current subway which despite minimal expansion and investment manages to be the subway system for a city of 3 million people but it took foresight for people to build the Bloor Viaduct with a place to put a future subway line, and to build a subway that could grow capacity easily even using signalling technology created before most of us were born. Build it right and in 65 years people might say we need to relieve the Ontario Line / DRL, build it without the proper capacity and we might be asking for handouts from the province and federal governments before the warranty is up on this line.

It's been less than 70 years since the completion of the Yonge Line. The DRL first appeared on planning documents 30 years after Yonge's opening.

I see no problem asking for money for transit expansion.

I think that capacity is my main concern with this line. However, the capacity (based on what I've seen on SkyTrain) is only 25% less than Yonge. I think that it's a fair trade-off.

 

[DSC]

Lots of survey marks around southern boundary of Corktown Common (on the bike path) and at Don River prefixed with OL. I assume Ontario Line

 

[Tristen]

My concern is they are going to launch this thing and it will be overloaded in a decade and call it a success.

Any transit improvement is a success.

Moreover, if it overloaded, then the government have pressure to build another relief line serving other communities fast. (probably woodbine + O'Connor - Parkview)

 

[syn]

Any transit improvement is a success.

Moreover, if it overloaded, then the government have pressure to build another relief line serving other communities fast. (probably woodbine + O'Connor - Parkview)

I don't understand this reasoning.

The DRL has been on the table for at least 40 years, if not longer. We still haven't built anything.

Why would the government be in any rush to build another one?

Why would we wait until the OL is overloaded before even entertaining the idea of building another one?

This is the entire problem with the OL. The funds necessary to make it a heavy rail, higher capacity line are more than justified. This isn't a suburban line. In fact, the government is spending many billions extra to build heavy rail extensions (or bury LRTs) in low density suburbs.

There is absolutely no reason to not do the same here, where it's actually a necessity.

 

[nfitz]

Even based on the dubious numbers Metrolinx presented, the previous DRL plan has significantly higher capacity.

DRL has higher capacity than Line 4. But Line 4 isn't light metro.

Ontario line has higher capacity than Line 4. It's not light metro.

 

[syn]

DRL has higher capacity than Line 4. But Line 4 isn't light metro.

Ontario line has higher capacity than Line 4. It's not light metro.

Putting aside any labels, the previous DRL plan using standard TTC subway vehicles had a much higher capacity ceiling than the OL plan does.

 

[Northern Light]

There are hidden cost (other than the official price tag) if we build a heavy metro.

There are overt costs to building the O/L such an entirely unnecessary maintenance yard, when Greenwood could be repurposed instead, if the new line is built to TTC Gauge and the construction correctly timed.

That's a lot of extra capital.

Never mind the extra $$$ should the capacity of the O/L prove inadequate, (which seems likely) and we are then faced with either 'fixing' the O/L at considerable cost and hassle, or alternatively, building yet another line; which history tells us will arrive no sooner than 3 decades after it is required.

There is just not enough demand outside of the downtown core in the Toronto's suburban to support another heavy metro. The line will extend "eventually" and it just not worth the cost to construct a heavy metro in low-to-mid density area then run at lower frequency or half-empty train because of lack of demand.

The O/L, should it be extended north of Eglinton, will run through a fairly dense Don Mills at Lawrence, with towers lining both sides of the road within the Don Way Circle.

It will then run north to Sheppard, which is a forest of towers, which continue northward to Finch.

Excepting space in/around York Mills which is largely commercial and lower in density, there is or will be more than sufficient demand to justify heavy rail, at least as far north as Sheppard and quite possibly Finch. I don't see any need to think about a lesser capacity technology north thereof, at this point, which realistically won't be built in the next 40 years.

 

[syn]

There are overt costs to building the O/L such an entirely unnecessary maintenance yard, when Greenwood could be repurposed instead, if the new line is built to TTC Gauge and the construction correctly timed.

That's a lot of extra capital.

Never mind the extra $$$ should the capacity of the O/L prove inadequate, (which seems likely) and we are then faced with either 'fixing' the O/L at considerable cost and hassle, or alternatively, building yet another line; which history tells us will arrive no sooner than 3 decades after it is required.



The O/L, should it be extended north of Eglinton, will run through a fairly dense Don Mills at Lawrence, with towers lining both sides of the road within the Don Way Circle.

It will then run north to Sheppard, which is a forest of towers, which continue northward to Finch.

Excepting space in/around York Mills which is largely commercial and lower in density, there is or will be more than sufficient demand to justify heavy rail, at least as far north as Sheppard and quite possibly Finch. I don't see any need to think about a lesser capacity technology north thereof, at this point, which realistically won't be built in the next 40 years.

Exactly.

I think it should also be made clear that this line isn't about demand outside the core; it's about demand for travel to and from the core, which is significant.

This exercise should yield the maximum reasonable capacity to relieve the Yonge Line. We are not achieving that goal.

 

[Tristen]

The O/L, should it be extended north of Eglinton, will run through a fairly dense Don Mills at Lawrence, with towers lining both sides of the road within the Don Way Circle.

It will then run north to Sheppard, which is a forest of towers, which continue northward to Finch.

Those areas are mid-density only in my perspective.

 

[Tristen]

I think it should also be made clear that this line isn't about demand outside the core; it's about demand for travel to and from the core, which is significant.

That’s the problem, you are disproportionally benefiting only a small area while others have to wait longer to see transit improvements because you spent more on building for maximum capacity.

There are people (a lot) who don’t work/live at the core.

 

[toronto647]

Gotta love the Toronto Star... They never do give up.

The Ontario Line is another Ford fiasco going nowhere

There’s still time to stop the Ontario Line, Aug. 26

www.thestar.com

 

[Tristen]

Gotta love the Toronto Star... They never do give up.

The Ontario Line is another Ford fiasco going nowhere

There’s still time to stop the Ontario Line, Aug. 26

www.thestar.com

Let’s not build it because all the single family housing along the route will see an increase in value.

let’s build it in nowhere so no one can disproportionally benefit from it.

 

[syn]

That’s the problem, you are disproportionally benefiting only a small area while others have to wait longer to see transit improvements because you spent more on building for maximum capacity.

There are people (a lot) who don’t work/live at the core.

Then how do you explain the billions upon billions of dollars being spent on suburban subway expansions? We are building capacity in the suburbs that won't be fully utilized for at least a few lifetimes.

You build transit based on demand. This line, more than any other project, is expected to reach peak capacity quite quickly. It's a necessity.