Tristen said:
Those areas are mid-density only in my perspective.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain why we should substitute perspective for facts.

Below is a density map centered on Don Mills Road from the 401 to Finch. Note, that this is way back in 2006, when the area was not nearly as dense as it is today. I will find a more current image for the area when I get a moment.

1630343655858.png

From: http://www.torontotransitblog.com/430185149/4846960/posting/

The density in the immediate vicinity of Don Mills Station (within 1km) is over 10,000 per km2, which is the highest classification level the City uses for density.

From this Map, we can see that darker reds represent the highest densities..........

Have a look at this corridor:

1630344280174.png

From: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1535b9fca54f46b3954bca6aaf3ab3f5

Note that densities are only set to rise (and significantly so) based on developments already proposed/approved/under construction.

Be assured even more are coming after that (and yes, I know)
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
Tristen said:
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.
Click to expand...
OL line gives you more bang for your buck(insert dougs buck a beer joke haha funny)than you would with the DRL. The DRL would have more capacity yes but its service area is much smaller than the OL would offer.
 
kamira51 said:
OL line gives you more bang for your buck(insert dougs buck a beer joke haha funny)than you would with the DRL. The DRL would have more capacity yes but its service area is much smaller than the OL would offer.
Click to expand...
With the DRL they were talks about extensions. With the Ontario Line they included the extensions.

That's like saying the original Yonge line (Line 1) would have been better if it were extended to Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and Finch Stations from day one.
 
kamira51 said:
OL line gives you more bang for your buck(insert dougs buck a beer joke haha funny)than you would with the DRL. The DRL would have more capacity yes but its service area is much smaller than the OL would offer.
Click to expand...

The length of the DRL proposal, pre-Ford, wasn't fixed in stone, there was going to be another phase going further north.
The distance of the route is not tied to the rail gauge, nor to whether its above ground or below.

There is money available to enhance capacity by nixing the westernmost portion of the route (anything west of the University Line, arguably, though I might say Spadina instead.

Those funds can be re-allocated to bigger stations and trains.
Savings from not requiring a new rail yard can be invested to bury (most) of the Riverdale section (not to please the nimbys) but to preserve capacity for VIA Rail and HFR.
 
There exists a legitimate concern that by choosing a downsized option (OL), we are losing 25% to 30% in capacity, but will only gain 15 to 20% of saving in the per-km cost. Perhaps even less than 15%, if the cost of the new yard is taken into account.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern that blocking the OL at this point, without a strong political backing to push through with the higher-capacity DRL option, will result in both options being delayed. Given the pressure that already exists on the downtown sections of TTC subway lines, and the impact of expected ridership growth, there is a real risk that the system will choke and will be unable to handle the demand.

In this situation, I am inclined to accept OL as is, at least it will add some extra capacity into the core. But, it is better not to try glossing over the OL's limitations, but instead to be prepared that "Relief Line 2" may be needed shortly after the OL begins its operation.
 
Rainforest said:
There exists a legitimate concern that by choosing a downsized option (OL), we are losing 25% to 30% in capacity, but will only gain 15 to 20% of saving in the per-km cost. Perhaps even less than 15%, if the cost of the new yard is taken into account.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern that blocking the OL at this point, without a strong political backing to push through with the higher-capacity DRL option, will result in both options being delayed. Given the pressure that already exists on the downtown sections of TTC subway lines, and the impact of expected ridership growth, there is a real risk that the system will choke and will be unable to handle the demand.

In this situation, I am inclined to accept OL as is, at least it will add some extra capacity into the core. But, it is better not to try glossing over the OL's limitations, but instead to be prepared that "Relief Line 2" may be needed shortly after the OL begins its operation.
Click to expand...
We've been over this but the capacity loss is closer to 20%, and the cost savings will be much larger than 15-20%. The cost per km of the relief line was in the $920 million per km range.. Ontario Line is projected to cost about $550 million per kilometre, about 65% less.

This per km difference will also likely *increase* as the line is extended, as the OL will be elevated compared to the Relief Line which likely would have been tunneled under Don Mills.
 
Rainforest said:
There exists a legitimate concern that by choosing a downsized option (OL), we are losing 25% to 30% in capacity, but will only gain 15 to 20% of saving in the per-km cost. Perhaps even less than 15%, if the cost of the new yard is taken into account.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern that blocking the OL at this point, without a strong political backing to push through with the higher-capacity DRL option, will result in both options being delayed. Given the pressure that already exists on the downtown sections of TTC subway lines, and the impact of expected ridership growth, there is a real risk that the system will choke and will be unable to handle the demand.

In this situation, I am inclined to accept OL as is, at least it will add some extra capacity into the core. But, it is better not to try glossing over the OL's limitations, but instead to be prepared that "Relief Line 2" may be needed shortly after the OL begins its operation.
Click to expand...

By the time that the Ontario Line is completed, after Line 5, Toronto downtown is closer to a downtown rapid transit NETWORK. By NETWORK, that would have to include GO/UPX transfer capabilities to create some sort of network. The legacy streetcar network could become part of the network, if, and only if, the streetcars get better priority over the single-occupant automobile.

We may have start by banning on-street parking on the streetcar routes. To combat climate change, we may have to start there, along with getting rid of minimum parking, free parking, and low density developments. This means parking provided by employers becoming a taxable benefit.
 
M II A II R II K said:
If the Ontario Line becomes overcrowded, then build another one on a different route to cover more areas and people.
Click to expand...

When the Scarborough LRT was canceled for the SSE, there was constant talk of building for the future, building 'proper' transit, doing it right the first time...why doesn't that apply here, for a project that actually needs the capacity?

Why aren't we building LRTs in the suburbs and upgrading when necessary?
 
innsertnamehere said:
We've been over this but the capacity loss is closer to 20%, and the cost savings will be much larger than 15-20%. The cost per km of the relief line was in the $920 million per km range.. Ontario Line is projected to cost about $550 million per kilometre, about 65% less.

This per km difference will also likely *increase* as the line is extended, as the OL will be elevated compared to the Relief Line which likely would have been tunneled under Don Mills.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this number?

At that rate the cost of the OL is only $8.5 billion.

Metrolinx has the cost pegged at $10.9 billion on their site (which will undoubtedly go up).

I would say the investment for a significant amount of additional capacity is more than worth it.
 
innsertnamehere said:
We've been over this but the capacity loss is closer to 20%, and the cost savings will be much larger than 15-20%. The cost per km of the relief line was in the $920 million per km range.. Ontario Line is projected to cost about $550 million per kilometre, about 65% less.
Click to expand...
Longer transit lines will always have a lower per-kilometre cost than similarly configured shorter lines, as the cost of construction and certain infrastructure (eg, MSFs, terminal facilities, TBMs, etc...) is amortized over the length of the line.. The only apples-to-apples comparison would be the DRL and OL with similar length an alignment. MX didn't evaluate this option, so we cannot say for certain what the difference would be.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
With the DRL they were talks about extensions. With the Ontario Line they included the extensions.

That's like saying the original Yonge line (Line 1) would have been better if it were extended to Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and Finch Stations from day one.
Click to expand...
Yeah I understand that the line is basically the DRL, plus the north extension.

I belive that the OL line proposal is better because it includes both proposals to be built right from the getgo, and not have to deal with the clown show that is our political hellscape regarding transportation.
 
The savings will not be that significant expect the Ontario Line to have a much higher cost per km than the Vaughan extension even adjusted for inflation.

If in 1954 they built something with less capacity, we would have less capacity today. We wouldn't have lines all over the place. If we really want to save money and put transit all over the place we should be building LRT where the savings are huge, not going through the whole effort and most of the cost of a full subway without the capacity of a full subway.

When the relief line was planned there was a plan to build the Don Mills LRT all the way to Steeles. It would have covered much greater distance for cheap and not sacrificed capacity on the DRL. That makes sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top