[Steve X]

im sure they wont mind the "eyesore" when their property values skyrocket when their station is built next door

I'm pretty sure most people living in Leslieville actually enjoys living there and appreciate how their neighbourhood looks like. They aren't primary looking for their property to skyrocket. As for eyesore, the railway itself is an eyesore. ML should buy enough property to plant trees back after they are done and let them grow back in a couple of decades.

More than twice. Initial estimate was hundreds of millions for surface section to Renforth. They've literally added $4 billion to the cost. And even more for Scarborough.

So $8 billion is okay to bury lines in Scarborough and Etobicoke - but $800 million downtown is too expensive?!?

If you look at it that way, yes. If you look at the RL and think of it as the money being stretch to double the service area, that money is expanded to serve more of the downtown and Thorncliffe Park.

 

[syn]

More than twice. Initial estimate was hundreds of millions for surface section to Renforth. They've literally added $4 billion to the cost. And even more for Scarborough.

So $8 billion is okay to bury lines in Scarborough and Etobicoke - but $800 million downtown is too expensive?!?

Putting aside any community concerns, $800 million to build a higher capacity line where it's needed is a colossal bargain relative to the $8 billion investment to bury transit where it's not necessary.

The GO corridor should be left alone for future GO capacity.

 

[afransen]

im sure they wont mind the "eyesore" when their property values skyrocket when their station is built next door

Ah, but it could rise more if it was buried, and aren't they entitled to even larger property appreciation windfalls?

 

[nfitz]

Ah, but it could rise more if it was buried, and aren't they entitled to even larger property appreciation windfalls?

Windfall? If their house prices rise higher than average in the city, their property taxes will increase. If one has no intention of moving, soaring neighbourhood house prices is no windfall.

Though really shouldn't be an issue one way or another.

 

[slapped_chicken]

More than twice. Initial estimate was hundreds of millions for surface section to Renforth. They've literally added $4 billion to the cost. And even more for Scarborough.

So $8 billion is okay to bury lines in Scarborough and Etobicoke - but $800 million downtown is too expensive?!?

I'd like to see Line 2 and 5's extension above ground too - using elevated and surface ROW for rapid transit should be more normalized in this city, wherever it is appropriate to allow for the fast construction times, and lower cost/high trackage systems that we envy in places like Vancouver or MTL (REM).
Of course, Ford decides to run OL above ground and Line 2 and 5 underground for completely different reasons that aren't related to good transit planning, but rather political pandering to his suburbanites

$800 million to build a higher capacity line where it's needed is a colossal bargain relative to the $8 billion investment to bury transit where it's not necessary.

The GO corridor should be left alone for future GO capacity.

OL is pretty high capacity, isn't it? I used to think of it as light metro, but it's wider than the lot of metro trains around the world. Also, at 90 second headways with 800 pax results in 32k pphpd which is more than any subway line in Toronto today. If they were proactive and roughed in extensions at underground stations, you could see up to 40k pphpd in the future. I hope they are - it might be necessary if this line is extended in either direction. Given the line is automated and has PSDs, one can expect that actual capacity will see less deviation from the theoretical max capacity, with less failures during rush hour (unlike Line 1 in its current state, which doesn't always achieve its theoretical capacity)

As for the GO corridor I can't say much, at a glance it has a lot of capacity, but then I remember that HFR will also be sharing the inner express tracks with Stouffville express trains which might limit capacity there. If local trains use the outer tracks exclusively, the local trains can have very high capacity.

With regards to the trees being removed:

 

[KhalilHeron]

OL is pretty high capacity, isn't it? I used to think of it as light metro, but it's wider than the lot of metro trains around the world. Also, at 90 second headways with 800 pax results in 32k pphpd which is more than any subway line in Toronto today. If they were proactive and roughed in extensions at underground stations, you could see up to 40k pphpd in the future. I hope they are - it might be necessary if this line is extended in either direction. Given the line is automated and has PSDs, one can expect that actual capacity will see less deviation from the theoretical max capacity, with less failures during rush hour (unlike Line 1 in its current state, which doesn't always achieve its theoretical capacity)

Yes thank u. I feel people look at the smaller trains and just assume the ol is way lower capacity. The frequencies are higher than line 1 with atc, which is around how frequent you'd expect the drl to be. From what I can tell the pphpd is pretty much the same as the drl, while being cheaper per km, and serving more of the city sooner. It's not perfect but I don't believe capacity will be an issue in practice for decades.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The irony of Eglinton W being buried and Ontario being elevated is not hammered enough by the Press. The Leslieville NIMBY's have a point about the widened ROW being an eyesore vs the treed cover that has bordered the rail line.

You're right, but some of those same people fought against the Scarborough Subway. I have the world's tiniest violin to play...

 

[generalcanada]

with all this talk about the GO corridor section. What about the exhibition section. does anyone else think the line should have just continued all the way to roncesvalles then up to dundas west? or at least something similar
the exhibition part doesnt really do anything except being a lsw go transit transfer point to the downtown core

 

[robmausser]

with all this talk about the GO corridor section. What about the exhibition section. does anyone else think the line should have just continued all the way to roncesvalles then up to dundas west? or at least something similar
the exhibition part doesnt really do anything except being a lsw go transit transfer point to the downtown core

I tend to agree. I would have rather seen the line dip south down closer to Ontario Place, or at least more into the Exhibition grounds, and then (either now or a phase 2) the line curve back up and head north along Dufferin or something.

With GO-RER Exhibition GO will already be subway-like in speed and frequency.

Then they could have put a station on Dufferin and Liberty Street, and had 3 rapid transit stations surrounding Liberty Village, to the North, South and West.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Could this article be used for going elevated with the Ontario Line? Probably not.

Study Discovers High Levels of Air Pollution on Boston’s Subway Platforms​

From link.

Here’s one more good reason to wear a mask on the T: new scientific research has discovered unhealthy levels of air pollution on subway platforms in Boston and New York City.

During the summer of 2019, researchers from the NYU Grossman School of Medicine measured air samples in 71 stations during the morning and evening rush hours in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Their findings were published on Wednesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

While New York’s subway stations had the dirtiest air, the study team found that the concentration of airborne pollutants on underground train platforms in Boston still reached levels that raise concerns for riders and for transit employees who spend long periods of their day underground.

The study team found that the average level of fine particulate pollution on Boston’s underground subway platforms was 139.8 micrograms per cubic meter – a level of pollution that’s categorized as “unhealthy” under the EPA’s air quality index.

Air quality measurements at above-ground stations, on the other hand, were found to be comparable to the ambient levels of air pollution on surrounding streets.

“Our findings add to evidence that subways expose millions of commuters and transit employees to air pollutants at levels known to pose serious health risks over time,” said the study’s lead author David Luglio, a doctoral student at NYU Grossman, in a press statement accompanying the research paper.

Among the MBTA stations that were analyzed, the study team found the dirtiest air samples on the Broadway station on the Red Line. More detailed analysis found that the primary source of pollution seems to be iron dust generated from train wheels and rails, as well as from wear and tear from trains’ collector shoes that brush against the third rail. Dust from decaying organic matter was another major component of underground pollution.

Notably, the study only measured air quality on the rapid transit network, not on commuter rail platforms, where diesel exhaust from trains could generate even higher levels of hazardous pollution.

The authors plan to do additional research into why some subway systems, like Philadelphia’s, are less polluted than others, and to recommend practices that could improve air quality in stations relatively quickly.

The MTBA is in the midst of a major project to upgrade ventilation and improve air quality at the Back Bay station, where passengers can often smell the exhaust from diesel commuter rail trains. Streetsblog has reached out to the agency to comment on this research; this story will be updated if and when they respond.

A reason to wear masks on any underground railway?

 

[syn]

OL is pretty high capacity, isn't it? I used to think of it as light metro, but it's wider than the lot of metro trains around the world. Also, at 90 second headways with 800 pax results in 32k pphpd which is more than any subway line in Toronto today.

I believe the original projections were 24,000 - 30,000 pphpd, which has since been downgraded.

It's about 20% less than the original DRL plan, which is unacceptable.

 

[KhalilHeron]

I believe the original projections were 24,000 - 30,000 pphpd, which has since been downgraded.

It's about 20% less than the original DRL plan, which is unacceptable.

It's still projected to have a capacity of 24k-30k ppdph by 2041, which is perfectly acceptable, and would not run into capacity issues for a very long time. The main purpose of the Line is to relieve line 1, and they're currently expecting it to take about 5k-6k off of line 1 at peak hours. Obviously, with the people it'll take off lines 2 and 5 as well as new riders it'll be more than 6k per hour but that is well under capacity for a very long time.

 

[syn]

It's still projected to have a capacity of 24k-30k ppdph by 2041, which is perfectly acceptable, and would not run into capacity issues for a very long time. The main purpose of the Line is to relieve line 1, and they're currently expecting it to take about 5k-6k off of line 1 at peak hours. Obviously, with the people it'll take off lines 2 and 5 as well as new riders it'll be more than 6k per hour but that is well under capacity for a very long time.

Line 1 is already over capacity. 24k-30k by 2041 is not acceptable (and it's only a few decades away).

If the purpose is to relieve Line 1 then it needs maximum capacity.

 

[KhalilHeron]

Line 1 is already over capacity. 24k-30k by 2041 is not acceptable (and it's only a few decades away).

If the purpose is to relieve Line 1 then it needs maximum capacity.

Line one is certainly overcapacity but the OL or the drl can't just take endless amounts of passengers off of line 1. 24k-30k ppdph aren't going to take the ol instead of line 1. It's ridership projections as well as drls are and were firmly under their max capacities. The ol is projected to carry an average of 19k ppdph. That number isn't going to go up by 10k a very long time, and by then we should hope they'll have more downtown subway projects underway that could take the load off, as well as the technology to increase ols capacity even further.
not to mention the OL actually relieves line 1, 2, and 5 more than the DRL would have in the same timeframe

 

[syn]

Line one is certainly overcapacity but the OL or the drl can't just take endless amounts of passengers off of line 1. 24k-30k ppdph aren't going to take the ol instead of line 1. It's ridership projections as well as drls are and were firmly under their max capacities. The ol is projected to carry an average of 19k ppdph. That number isn't going to go up by 10k a very long time, and by then we should hope they'll have more downtown subway projects underway that could take the load off, as well as the technology to increase ols capacity even further.
not to mention the OL actually relieves line 1, 2, and 5 more than the DRL would have in the same timeframe

I realize that isn't a possibility. That's why the line has to have the absolute maximum capacity available. That should be the number one goal, and we should make sure it happens even if it involves a greater investment.

20 years is not a very long time. The Sheppard Line's 20th anniversary is next year.