[steveintoronto]

I think we're talking about fast tracking the planning work at the very least. Because the current pace is absolutely unacceptable.

One really has to wonder if the 'Relief Line' as being touted, will ever get built at all? You don't have to be biased in any way to see that there's virtually zero movement on planning from the City at this time. And Syn's point is correct, albeit buffered by Tory being the man to "rush up the Gardiner repairs to save money in the long run".

In the event, a relief line of sorts will get built, because it has to. But it won't be by the City, and it won't be of the type most think it will be. Verster's new approach to RER implementation, and his almost revolutionary take on how to do it offers far more hope than what the City does.
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Coming from an organization that publicly denied for the longest time Union Station was a problem and now think about having to mess with it all over again? I'd take any revolutionary take with a grain of salt.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Coming from an organization that publicly denied for the longest time Union Station was a problem and now think about having to mess with it all over again? I'd take any revolutionary take with a grain of salt.

AoD

I don't give credit to Metrolinx, quite opposite, I give credit to Verster. Do you hear the chief officer of any Toronto transit org espousing such ideas? There was one. She's now blowing the whistle, and her role was planning, not chief officer.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Its not this simple.

Even if we fast tracked the DRL, it would take, 9 years vs 13, and cost twice as much.

Fast tracking isn't some magical wand you wave and then suddenly things happen faster. It means paying lots of people extra money for prioritizing work. Anytime you want something faster you pay the price.

There are also huge engineering feats for this subway. It will be lower in the ground and go under more high development complexes (big skyscrapers) than any subway has been done in Canada. Tons of things, like the Enwave water system, hydro, gas, sewer, etc will have to be relocated and dealt with. Just because you dig deep it doesnt solve every problem avoiding this, you need ventilation shafts, emergency exits, stations etc.

Funneling all our money will mean the DRL will now cost $12 billion, rather than $6, for the portion from Queen to Pape, and will be here in 2027 instead of 2031.

Great, now we don't have any other transit solutions in the interim, and meanwhile the Yonge subway is getting worse, worse, worse.

We need the DRL, as well as solutions now, and in the meantime, like ATC, GO RER with full fare integration, express buses, on and off peak pricing, etc.

Putting all our eggs in one basket would be a huge mistake.

However, the Scarborough subway should be cancelled, yes, but that doesnt matter whether the DRL gets built or not. Its just a waste of money period.

The fast-tracking Ms. Keesmaat was referring to in the CBC article was fast tracking planning of the DRL. Given the year-over-year increases in the cost of construction, investing another $100 Million to expedite the speed of planning would in all likelihood result in us saving money in the long term.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I have to wonder how many of the issues in regards to things from the OMB (and the lack of response from city planning to the large number of files they have to process) to transit planning have to do with the fact that City Planning is critically understaffed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm still amazed that the suggestion that we split the YUL into two lines is looked on so negatively from people here. Especially when every little problem on one side bounces around and affects the other.

Here's my ideal situation.

Once we have signalling done on University we split the now fully ATC equipped US line into a Line 1B and then make Yonge Line 1A. Have University trains turn at St. Andrew and connect St. Andrew to Union with the Path extension, with a two hour transfer I see little to complain about with such a solution.

The split is actually something Ed Levy had proposed as well (but more elegantly at Union as an subway interchange). Can you actually turn the tracks around at say St. Andrew (or King) though?

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I'm still amazed that the suggestion that we split the YUL into two lines is looked on so negatively from people here. Especially when every little problem on one side bounces around and affects the other.

Here's my ideal situation.

Once we have signalling done on University we split the now fully ATC equipped US line into a Line 1B and then make Yonge Line 1A. Have University trains turn at St. Andrew and connect St. Andrew to Union with the Path extension, with a two hour transfer I see little to complain about with such a solution.

I just posted this afternoon in the Transit Fantasy Thread about interlining the Relief Line with University-Spadina. Though I don't know how the curve at Osgoode would work (new station at City Hall perhaps).

 

[kicked it in the sun]

Its not this simple.

Even if we fast tracked the DRL, it would take, 9 years vs 13, and cost twice as much.

There are also huge engineering feats for this subway. It will be lower in the ground and go under more high development complexes (big skyscrapers) than any subway has been done in Canada. Tons of things, like the Enwave water system, hydro, gas, sewer, etc will have to be relocated and dealt with. Just because you dig deep it doesnt solve every problem avoiding this, you need ventilation shafts, emergency exits, stations etc.

Funneling all our money will mean the DRL will now cost $12 billion, rather than $6, for the portion from Queen to Pape, and will be here in 2027 instead of 2031

So, basically, your position is that Toronto has to build the most expensive subway line in the world at $1 billion per km and that it's reasonable for this to take well over a decade.

They'll have to relocate some utilities! They'll need to build ventilation shafts!

People on boards like this should be utterly appalled at how much these projects cost compared with Europe (which, by the way, is a lot older and has more going on underground) or Asia. Vancouver or Montreal don't have these world-beating high costs, and they're subject to the same construction rules and similar bidding processes, and both of those cities have the same infrastructure issues. Only cities like San Francisco and New York have costs like what's proposed here, the former because of possibly the world's strictest review regime and ultra high wages, and NYC because of straight corruption (and review and wages and city age and overbuilding). How can it seem normal to you to accept that $1 billion per km is normal for the relief line??

People in Toronto have been 'captured' by a certain kind of thinking that makes these costs and timetables seem acceptable, even reasonable. Break free!

 

[steveintoronto]

So, basically, your position is that Toronto has to build the most expensive subway line in the world at $1 billion per km and that it's reasonable for this to take well over a decade.

They'll have to relocate some utilities! They'll need to build ventilation shafts!

People on boards like this should be utterly appalled at how much these projects cost compared with Europe (which, by the way, is a lot older and has more going on underground) or Asia. Vancouver or Montreal don't have these world-beating high costs, and they're subject to the same construction rules and similar bidding processes, and both of those cities have the same infrastructure issues. Only cities like San Francisco and New York have costs like what's proposed here, the former because of possibly the world's strictest review regime and ultra high wages, and NYC because of straight corruption (and review and wages and city age and overbuilding). How can it seem normal to you to accept that $1 billion per km is normal for the relief line??

People in Toronto have been 'captured' by a certain kind of thinking that makes these costs and timetables seem acceptable, even reasonable. Break free!

Urban Toronto occasional author Jonathan English makes exactly these points, by interviewing Phil Verster (new Metrolinx CEO) in English' most recent article, and by English' previous articles. There's a third one linked in the first one below. His latest is being discussed in detail in The Great Platform Height Debate string. Please post there also, and repeat the points you make here.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/08/cityrail-depth-corridor-capacity

Union Station and GO RER: Metrolinx's Phil Verster on the Future

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Steve - that has nothing to do with this DRL proposal and you know it. Stop spamming this thread.

MoD

 

[ShonTron]

The split is actually something Ed Levy had proposed as well (but more elegantly at Union as an subway interchange). Can you actually turn the tracks around at say St. Andrew (or King) though?

AoD

Splitting Line 1 is a great idea, it allows for the Yonge Line to be extended west along Front Street for a stop or two to Spadina or Bathurst, also connecting to the GO Barrie Line at the proposed station at Spadina in a much less awkward manner than the Metrolinx-proposed Relief Line alignment.

It makes the pre-determined Queen Street DRL alignment (which I don't like, compared to a King or Adelaide Street route) more logical as well.

 

[steveintoronto]

Splitting Line 1 is a great idea, it allows for the Yonge Line to be extended west along Front Street for a stop or two to Spadina or Bathurst, also connecting to the GO Barrie Line at the proposed station at Spadina in a much less awkward manner than the Metrolinx-proposed Relief Line alignment.

It makes the pre-determined Queen Street DRL alignment (which I don't like, compared to a King or Adelaide Street route) more logical as well.

Excellent point. End to end splitting alone makes little to no sense, for efficient operation, it requires two more platforms, or shared island platforms for cross-platform connection. The recent changes to London's Circle Line examined this, and made a 'break in the circle' work by doing just that. (Using the island platforms extant at Baker Street)

"Run-through station" advantage is lost, so utilizing that 'break' is an answer to gaining more than what is lost. And the proposals by some to utilize a Spadina South station or a new alignment up Spadina makes a lot of sense. St George would do what it was initially designed for, and even though capacity is limited, ostensibly it would handle eastbound Line 2 load that wants to go south to the core. That would be 'relieved' by a Spadina alignment connection to the west if the YUS is handling max load from north of the City.

In the event of a 'Bathurst Yard' RER station not happening (and now seemingly unlikely by Verster's new vision for Union, albeit he's going to meet stiff institutional resistance) a Spadina alignment to connect with the northern leg of the University line to a Spadina leg of the DRL, such that the southern University leg terminates at St George, or a new two level interchange at Spadina Station North would make sense.

@kicked-it-in-the-sun.56189/
As to costs of subway building and how this might change markedly under 'New Management' at Metrolinx:

The key problem with the cost/benefit case for the DRL as evaluated in the Neptis report is the extraordinarily high cost estimate provided by Metrolinx. The most striking feature of almost all transit planning reports over the past decade is the complete absence of attention to cost control. Very few studies include an examination of different approaches (i.e. underground vs. elevated) or routes and the cost implications. This is in stark contrast with earlier reports, such as the original 1985 Downtown Relief Line study, in which cost was the primary factor being considered when different routes were evaluated. That report concluded that the most economical routing would be along the rail corridor from Bay Street to the Don River, where vacant land is available for a subway. The cost savings would surely be dramatic since virtually no new infrastructure beyond tracks and surface stations would be required in that segment. It would have the added benefit of running right through the heart of the rapidly developing East Bayfront and West Don Lands areas. Such a route does not appear to have been considered in the contemporary DRL reports. The Don Mills segment, as well, is planned to be built entirely underground even though an elevated routing through that area would clearly be feasible and would likely produce enormous cost savings (See "The Rising Cost of Rapid Transit Construction" for more detail). Underground construction costs in Toronto are becoming increasingly out-of-line when compared with peer cities both in Canada and Europe.

https://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5113.shtml

-Jonathan English
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/12/reacting-neptis-big-move-transit-review-updated-response

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Splitting Line 1 is a great idea, it allows for the Yonge Line to be extended west along Front Street for a stop or two to Spadina or Bathurst, also connecting to the GO Barrie Line at the proposed station at Spadina in a much less awkward manner than the Metrolinx-proposed Relief Line alignment.

It makes the pre-determined Queen Street DRL alignment (which I don't like, compared to a King or Adelaide Street route) more logical as well.

Except we now have the slight problem of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted with respect to Union Station stop - and the mess at that station post-redo makes me wonder if they can ever have foot traffic flow properly there.

AoD

 

[aquateam]

I'm still amazed that the suggestion that we split the YUL into two lines is looked on so negatively from people here. Especially when every little problem on one side bounces around and affects the other.

Here's my ideal situation.

Once we have signalling done on University we split the now fully ATC equipped US line into a Line 1B and then make Yonge Line 1A. Have University trains turn at St. Andrew and connect St. Andrew to Union with the Path extension, with a two hour transfer I see little to complain about with such a solution.

The split is actually something Ed Levy had proposed as well (but more elegantly at Union as an subway interchange). Can you actually turn the tracks around at say St. Andrew (or King) though?

AoD

Unfortunately, Ed Levy's book seems to have disappeared from the internet :/ should have downloaded it when it was still up.

But here is what he proposed:

This is a really cool idea, but may be infeasible because:
1) "decoupling the Yonge and University lines would be very challenging and involve going very deep. The vertical clearances mean that you would probably have to start lowering one starting at College. Lots of reconstruction for not much benefit, when you could just transfer
2) Front is very far south for a relief line alignment. Add in all that additional depth and the stations will end up not being very conveniently accessible.

Personally, I prefer this:

But if you want to split the east and west legs, this is also not bad:

But some of the densest neighbourhoods in Toronto are bypassed by prematurely ending the DRL at Spadina/Bathurst, so I don't see why you wouldn't continue west to at least Roncesvalles.

 

[Towered]

Yes, it needs to go all the way to Dundas West. Not sure where to take it north of there though, as it would be redundant to follow the rail corridor...