gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,835
Reaction score
1,580
City:
Hamilton
I don't think this election will have a huge impact on the DRL, regardless of who wins. We're likely going to end up with a minority government, which means that ranked balloting for the next Federal election is a likely outcome (to the best of my knowledge, both the Liberals and the NDP support ranked balloting, which they should, considering they would be the primary beneficiaries of it). There's a good chance that this upcoming government won't last more than a couple years, and there's only a very small chance that the DRL will be seriously considered for funding during that time.
 

Kitsune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
488
City:
Toronto
... after the funding for it got rejected. It will be interesting to hear a) how its going to be funded and b) if its going to be truncated like sheppard or built to UBC.
 

aquateam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
887
Reaction score
831
... after the funding for it got rejected. It will be interesting to hear a) how its going to be funded and b) if its going to be truncated like sheppard or built to UBC.

My impression is that it was always meant to be built in phases, first to Arbutus, then to UBC.
 

Translude15

Frank the Tank
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
720
Reaction score
402
... after the funding for it got rejected. It will be interesting to hear a) how its going to be funded and b) if its going to be truncated like sheppard or built to UBC.

Haha wow did not know that. Saw a bunch of Vancouver friends talking about this on facebook so just assumed funding was available.

Interesting to note the Liberals and NDP have pledged to help fund the project.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,835
Reaction score
1,580
City:
Hamilton
My impression is that it was always meant to be built in phases, first to Arbutus, then to UBC.

That was my impression as well. As well, it won't really be truncated like Sheppard, since it will basically already be an extension of the Millennium Line. Even if it gets truncated even further, just having a connection to the Canada Line would be a big deal. It doesn't have to reach all the way to UBC in one shot to be a huge positive for that area.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,755
Reaction score
2,269
Stumbled across this YRNS technical report just now, which I don't think it was posted before. Seems like news to me, and there's a helluva lot more info than the previous YRNS report. I quickly skimmed through it, and it appears to answer a lot of questions we've had (or rather my Qs re: their LRT idea). Edit: and there's a new option...surface subway.

http://regionalrelief.ca/uploads/PDF/YRNS_Technical_Report_EN.pdf
 
Last edited:

CapitalSeven

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
998
Reaction score
716
Wow. What's really interesting about that document is the routing for the LRT variant, which morphed into "surface subway." Down the middle of Don Mills, through the old Leaside Spur, along the railway through the Don Valley, across into Broadview and back, along Bayview to Queen and then a tunnel under King.. It does the same thing as the long subway version, but (+) costs less and (-) serves communities less directly. I think it would have to use more of a light rail technology for narrow ROWs, curves and grades, but in longer configurations.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
13,384
Reaction score
7,435
I just skimmed the document. Does anyone know the difference between base capital costs and real capital costs?

The LONG has $7.8 Bn in Base capital and $5.7 in real capital cost
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,158
Reaction score
26,141
City:
Toronto
Looks like they've loaded the dice for the surface subway option at this early stage. It's actually pretty ok, but I'd like to see 1. more stations, 2. more thought into station placement, 3. consideration of how it will influence landuse and promote densification and 4. minimization of environmental impact, particularly along the Don River corridor.

I am a little curious about how the diversion from Yonge was projected to be 2K higher than DRL long even though it has the same amount of rail connectivity, markedly fewer stations, lower level of bus connectivity and a very marginal decrease in travel time.

AoD
 
Last edited:

T-Bor

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
152
Reaction score
4
the travel time assumptions seem rather low.. assuming 22 minutes from Don Mills on the subway to St. Andrew.

They also put 27 minutes as travel time from Don Mills to Union, which would only even be close to that when the system is running normally. I.e. sunday mornings
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
13,384
Reaction score
7,435
Page 5:

City of Toronto land use assumptions were used for future year population and employment assumptions

•Population growth: 30% growth to 3.20 million (present: 2.45 million)

Toronto's population count was 2.48 Million in 2001, as measured by the census. The city was 2.6 Million in 2011. In 2008, the official estimation is 2.8 Million. I wonder why the report using a significantly lower population count.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,755
Reaction score
2,269
Wow. What's really interesting about that document is the routing for the LRT variant, which morphed into "surface subway." Down the middle of Don Mills, through the old Leaside Spur, along the railway through the Don Valley, across into Broadview and back, along Bayview to Queen and then a tunnel under King.. It does the same thing as the long subway version, but (+) costs less and (-) serves communities less directly. I think it would have to use more of a light rail technology for narrow ROWs, curves and grades, but in longer configurations.

I'd definitely agree that a sleeker, quieter, narrower-bodied vehicle would be an optimal choice for a surface subway instead of the hulking TR. Something made to order, like Siemen's Inspiro. Having said that, I do have some serious queries (qualms?) about this surface subway and how it'd get from Broadview Stn to King. I've looked at this section numerous times, and the only way I think a non-tunneled solution could work as they describe would involve closing the section of Bayview Ave between River and Front. A level crossing is out of the question considering the frequencies (and that this is a subway train). I think a better idea would be to have the line elevated as it enters through a portal just north of Gerrard. Another thing I don't get is why it would take longer to get from Broadview to downtown (9.4min) than from Pape (8.8min) - which would have two more stations and an added km. Nor why on p.33 it says Broadview to Union when everywhere else it says it will stop at St Andrew.

I also have doubts about how realistic it'd be to have a subway in Don Mills' median, and along the Leaside Spur. 2-car LRVs is one thing, or something cut/covered and/or infrequent. But 7-car subways at 3.5min frequencies running on the surface is a tall order. Also, it claims that this line would have seven stations. But what's listed is only six (Don Mills, Eglinton, Broadview, Sherbourne, King, St Andrew). Would the seventh be at Thorncliffe, or Lawrence, or Dundas/Gerrard area? If stopping at Thorncliffe or Regent, it would really boost its Social Inclusion & Equity score. But aside from that, this is an interesting, peculiar proposal. Highest relief, highest benefit-cost ratio, lowest per rider cost, etc. Should lead to interesting discussions.
 

Top