[Rainforest]

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.

It is benefitial that the line goes further north, no denial of that.

But, that might come at a cost of being unable to extend the line further north of Eglinton, just because of the capacity limitations. If it gets close to 100% full within 10 years of opening, then it can'be extended further north, even though such an extension would create a better network.

 

[ARG1]

It is benefitial that the line goes further north, no denial of that.

But, that might come at a cost of being unable to extend the line further north of Eglinton, just because of the capacity limitations. If it gets close to 100% full within 10 years of opening, then it can'be extended further north, even though such an extension would create a better network.

I somehow doubt that. The Ontario Line has a higher capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC, and that line only started running into capacity issues like what, 10 years ago? And that's on an extremely high density corridor with lots of development. The Ontario Line by contrast doesn't have much density, while it will take over some of the bus connections that fed into the Yonge Line it won't take all of it, and it will be aided by vastly improved Stouffville Line service that will help relieve a lot of the traffic especially heading from Scarborough. Will there be a time where the train overcrowds? Almost certainly, and I do hope that the design takes into account future platform expansion, but it won't be 10 years from now, maybe 30.

 

[Rainforest]

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.

First of all, the official OL document implies the cost to be higher than $550 million per kilometre:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20190912/20190912_BoardMtg_Ontario_Line_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf

Page 2: length is 15.5 km. Page 4: total costs $10.4 to $12 billion.
Cost per km, dividing the latter by the former: $671 to $774 million per km.

Furthermore, Relief Line Phase 1 had a larger % of downtown running, where the construction is inherently more expensive. The cost of Phase 2 would go down somewhat, even for the tunneled option.

Regarding the elevated vs tunneled option north of Danforth: a heavy-rail subway would probably be tunneled up to Eglinton. North of Eglinton, technically it could be elevated, almost as easily as OL. There might be a political / psychological argument in favor of OL, in that if Metrolinx pushes through with the elevated running in Leslieville and Thorncliffe / Flemmington, then it will be harder to reject elevated further north. So, the OL concept has certain strengths on its own. But overall, a higher capacity option would fit this corridor better.

 

[Rainforest]

I somehow doubt that. The Ontario Line has a higher capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC, and that line only started running into capacity issues like what, 10 years ago? And that's on an extremely high density corridor with lots of development. The Ontario Line by contrast doesn't have much density, while it will take over some of the bus connections that fed into the Yonge Line it won't take all of it, and it will be aided by vastly improved Stouffville Line service that will help relieve a lot of the traffic especially heading from Scarborough. Will there be a time where the train overcrowds? Almost certainly, and I do hope that the design takes into account future platform expansion, but it won't be 10 years from now, maybe 30.

If we look at the same document, but go to Page 32:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20190912/20190912_BoardMtg_Ontario_Line_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf

Toronto Rocket trains are 138m x 3.2m, while OL trains are projected to be 100m x 3.0m. That's about 40% less capacity. If the stations are built to fit the trains, then the train size is a hard parameter and it cannot be expanded without a very expensive rebuilding.

All other parameters can be improved at a much lower cost. If OL trains can run on ATO, then Yonge trains can run on ATO in the future as well. If the OL trains are optimized for the higher per sq. metre load, then the future Yonge trains can be redesigned with a similar optimization.

So, 40% lesser train capacity means roughly 40% lesser line capacity in the future, even if the new line gets ahead temporarily because it implements ATO etc sooner.

I can't know for sure which line goes over capacity first; maybe Yonge gets there first because it runs through denser areas. But given how much of the subway load comes from the feeder routes, that are going to be split roughly evenly between the Yonge, Spadina, and OL / Don Mills lines, I think the OL will be at risk sooner than Yonge.

 

[innsertnamehere]

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.

The latest business case has the capital cost at $8.472 billion.

And yea, the cost difference isnt apples to apples, but it’s clearly substantial. The OL is double the length for only an extra $1.6 billion or so.

 

[44 North]

Increase the capacity 25%, which gives freedom in the future to branch the line. Gotta leave room in the trunk for that to happen.

 

[H4F33Z]

Can we also talk about a point that no one is seeming to bring up. If we went with the DRL, the city tend to accidentally build the underground most grand and massive stations, that's what really brings costs up, and I fear the city or ttc won't learn their lesson on building what's necessary. And it's not that Light Metro stations are necessarily more cheap, but Metrolinx is actually building the right things, the necessary station facilities, entrances and above-ground stations are even easier and cheaper.

Also, extending the line from Science Centre, couldn't be easier. You got Don Mills Road; the 25 is the fourth bus busiest route on the TTC. Connections to new developments at Barber Greene, Shops at Don Mills at Lawrence, uhh York Mills bus, plus Fairview Mall, and a quickly developing area. Not to mention even more potential north of Sheppard. With underground subways, you're simply restricted in how many stations you can put because it's expensive.

We can simply provide provisions on aboveground sections so that stations are built, as necessary so if development does occur, it can be built either publicly or privately but relatively affordable. Developers funded a new station on the Canada Line in Richmond for only 30 Million to support the local development, and reduce car dependency. Plus, when reconfiguring the road, better sidewalks, cycle tracks and streetscaping can be provided.

When I visited Vancouver a month ago, I was seriously impressed with the Skytrain. It was super fast, had impressive acceleration from stations, and was eerily quiet, not to mention the amazing views. It went to so many different cities in Metro Vancouver, and building aboveground allowed them to continuously expand the system and building underground where it was right. Reece is right, light metro is a perfect technology for Toronto, and this line is what is necessary to change skeptics minds who'll only want heavy rail subways.

Again, the line and plan isn't perfect, but it's a heck of a good plan. By delaying this plan a lot, or going back to the old plan, will make riders wait even longer and make the line even more expensive, which then risks the line not being built. I really don't want to hear, "let's get this right the first time". That mindset is the difference between other cities quickly bringing transit everywhere, and us, Toronto still stuck with a subpar system because we're still arguing.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Can we also talk about a point that no one is seeming to bring up. If we went with the DRL, the city tend to accidentally build the underground most grand and massive stations, that's what really brings costs up, and I fear the city or ttc won't learn their lesson on building what's necessary. And it's not that Light Metro stations are necessarily more cheap, but Metrolinx is actually building the right things, the necessary station facilities, entrances and above-ground stations are even easier and cheaper.

Also, extending the line from Science Centre, couldn't be easier. You got Don Mills Road; the 25 is the fourth bus busiest route on the TTC. Connections to new developments at Barber Greene, Shops at Don Mills at Lawrence, uhh York Mills bus, plus Fairview Mall, and a quickly developing area. Not to mention even more potential north of Sheppard. With underground subways, you're simply restricted in how many stations you can put because it's expensive.

We can simply provide provisions on aboveground sections so that stations are built, as necessary so if development does occur, it can be built either publicly or privately but relatively affordable. Developers funded a new station on the Canada Line in Richmond for only 30 Million to support the local development, and reduce car dependency. Plus, when reconfiguring the road, better sidewalks, cycle tracks and streetscaping can be provided.

View attachment 345234

When I visited Vancouver a month ago, I was seriously impressed with the Skytrain. It was super fast, had impressive acceleration from stations, and was eerily quiet, not to mention the amazing views. It went to so many different cities in Metro Vancouver, and building aboveground allowed them to continuously expand the system and building underground where it was right. Reece is right, light metro is a perfect technology for Toronto, and this line is what is necessary to change skeptics minds who'll only want heavy rail subways.

Again, the line and plan isn't perfect, but it's a heck of a good plan. By delaying this plan a lot, or going back to the old plan, will make riders wait even longer and make the line even more expensive, which then risks the line not being built. I really don't want to hear, "let's get this right the first time". That mindset is the difference between other cities quickly bringing transit everywhere, and us, Toronto still stuck with a subpar system because we're still arguing.

I don’t think we should go back to the old plan. I just think this thing needs to be configured with more capacity. The proposal is otherwise very good. But the capacity is also a fatal flaw.

 

[syn]

The latest business case has the capital cost at $8.472 billion.

And yea, the cost difference isnt apples to apples, but it’s clearly substantial. The OL is double the length for only an extra $1.6 billion or so.

Then we need to make accurate comparisons.

The latest business case proposes to use 80m trains with a maximum 600 person capacity for the next 30 years, which would result in 24,000 pphpd in an absolute best case scenario. Using Toronto Rockets would result in a max capacity (according to Metrolinx documents) over 62% greater.

This is unquestionably an unwise move. I find in Toronto we often know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The OL is a perfect example of this shortsightedness in action.

As @TheTigerMaster pointed out, we don't need to go back to the old plan. They just need to make sure we have a higher capacity plan. They should build longer station platforms (150m instead of 100m), along with other measures to maximize capacity. We need something comparable (or greater) to what we'd get with the old DRL plan, not something with far less capacity.

 

[EnviroTO]

The latest business case has the capital cost at $8.472 billion.

And yea, the cost difference isnt apples to apples, but it’s clearly substantial. The OL is double the length for only an extra $1.6 billion or so.

I'm pretty sure savings related to capacity reduction are not that significant to justify it and that the savings are a factor of running at the surface and Metrolinx not having the same experience as the TTC with estimating. DRL had 8 underground stations and the full line was underground, while OL also has 8 underground stations with a similar amount of tunneling.... so every bit of the additional length of the OL over the DRL is at an above ground pricing for both track and station which would obviously be cheaper.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Then we need to make accurate comparisons.

The latest business case proposes to use 80m trains with a maximum 600 person capacity for the next 30 years, which would result in 24,000 pphpd in an absolute best case scenario. Using Toronto Rockets would result in a max capacity (according to Metrolinx documents) over 62% greater.

This is unquestionably an unwise move. I find in Toronto we often know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The OL is a perfect example of this shortsightedness in action.

As @TheTigerMaster pointed out, we don't need to go back to the old plan. They just need to make sure we have a higher capacity plan. They should build longer station platforms (150m instead of 100m), along with other measures to maximize capacity. We need something comparable (or greater) to what we'd get with the old DRL plan, not something with far less capacity.

Metrolinx pretty clearly states that the design is 100m platforms with 90 second frequencies, which results in 30,000 pphd at 750 people per train, which I think is pretty reasonable. And in order for the line to "overrun" that, it would have to be the third busiest subway line on the continent. Not even the Yonge Line has demand exceed 30,000 pphd today. We are talking about a 40-60% cost reduction at the cost of a marginal amount of capacity that would be highly unlikely to ever be needed anyway.

The OL isn't some low-capacity light metro, it's just as high capacity as most global subway networks. It's just that Toroto's existing tech allows for unusually high capacities. To claim that the OL is some inferior system is Toronto Exceptionalism at it's finest, and is a perfect example of missing the forest for the trees.

I believe the 80m number comes from them planning on running 80m trains initially due to lower demand. Just like how the Crosstown has been designed for 90m trains but they are running 60m trains on opening day.

 

[Undead]

750 people per train, which I think is pretty reasonable

I think this was the bit where people had concerns. IIRC, 750 per train was based on a crowding standard of 4 people/sq.m. which is much higher than observed crowding levels on line pre pandemic rush (2.5/sq.m.)

@DirectionNorth In practice, the TR's never carry their crush capacity. Pre pandemic peak volume topped out at 1,100 people per train, not 1,400.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think this was the bit where people had concerns. IIRC, 750 per train was based on a crowding standard of 4 people/sq.m. which is much higher than observed crowding levels on line pre pandemic rush (2.5/sq.m.)

We went over this as I said - although the Business Case said 4 people/sq.m, the actual capacity number stated is much lower, more in line with the crowding standards the TTC uses. 750 people at 4 per sq m would mean a train 100m long would be only 1.8 metres wide, while in reality they will be closer to 3m wide. 3x100m is 300 square metres, which results in a crowding level of exactly 2.5/sq. m if the train holds 750 people. If we applied the 4/sq m standard, the trains would hold 1,200 people and the line as a whole would have a capacity of 48,000pphd, which nobody is claiming.

Applying the same standard (2.5/sq. m) to the TTC Rockets, they have about 436 square metres of floor area (140x3.12m), and hold about 1,100 people at crush load.

 

[DirectionNorth]

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.

Very well said.

Then we need to make accurate comparisons.

The latest business case proposes to use 80m trains with a maximum 600 person capacity for the next 30 years, which would result in 24,000 pphpd in an absolute best case scenario. Using Toronto Rockets would result in a max capacity (according to Metrolinx documents) over 62% greater.

This is unquestionably an unwise move. I find in Toronto we often know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The OL is a perfect example of this shortsightedness in action.

As @TheTigerMaster pointed out, we don't need to go back to the old plan. They just need to make sure we have a higher capacity plan. They should build longer station platforms (150m instead of 100m), along with other measures to maximize capacity. We need something comparable (or greater) to what we'd get with the old DRL plan, not something with far less capacity.

According to train size, the TTC Rocket crush load capacity is 1458/439.6 = ~3.316 people per m^2. Applying that to the OL trains gives a 1000 people capacity.

Assuming that 90 second headways is optimistic, and using 2 minute headways instead, we get 1000*30 = 30,000 pphd. I think that's enough.

 

[ARG1]

If we look at the same document, but go to Page 32:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20190912/20190912_BoardMtg_Ontario_Line_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf

Toronto Rocket trains are 138m x 3.2m, while OL trains are projected to be 100m x 3.0m. That's about 40% less capacity. If the stations are built to fit the trains, then the train size is a hard parameter and it cannot be expanded without a very expensive rebuilding.

All other parameters can be improved at a much lower cost. If OL trains can run on ATO, then Yonge trains can run on ATO in the future as well. If the OL trains are optimized for the higher per sq. metre load, then the future Yonge trains can be redesigned with a similar optimization.

So, 40% lesser train capacity means roughly 40% lesser line capacity in the future, even if the new line gets ahead temporarily because it implements ATO etc sooner.

I can't know for sure which line goes over capacity first; maybe Yonge gets there first because it runs through denser areas. But given how much of the subway load comes from the feeder routes, that are going to be split roughly evenly between the Yonge, Spadina, and OL / Don Mills lines, I think the OL will be at risk sooner than Yonge.

As I said, long term you are correct, but the Yonge Line lasted with 26k PPHPD for over 50 years before capacity enhancements became a necessity. Realistically, the Ontario Line won't need it anytime soon.