[Northern Light]

Based on Table 22, the OL is about 14% more expensive than the DRL. Let's add that to Pape and you get an extra km - which maybe adds a Cosburn station. I don't think the metrics on the DRL would change that much with 1 added station.

The budget for the OL is not real at this point. There are major components that are at 0% design. More than that, they don't even have the exact route down pat in the business case and have other serious deficiencies.

Add to that the capacity is substantially lower than the RL, as in at least 13% lower, and I would suggest to you based on my reading of their metrics, probably closer to 20% lower.

As such, in an apples to apples comparison, your supposition is incorrect.

 

[Adjei]

This is a completely BS argument. The RL was already contemplated to go north to Don Mills & Eg (and beyond); it simply wasn't in phase 1.

A western extension was also envisioned by had not yet been studied.

There is nothing intrinsic to the technology chosen that limits or promotes greater line length.

That's a budget issue and the OL has a larger one.

RL would be longer with more money too!

And what makes you think Phase 2 or 3 will be built any time. This is Toronto we are talking about. I will take a longer relief line now which reaches Eglinton and also goes to the EX compared to a theoretical phase 2 or 3. This is Toronto we are talking about. How long has the Sheppard subway been open and no extension been done? The western extension of the Eglinton LRT was cut short until John Tory's SmartTrack brought it back into the limelight and is now being championed by the province. Eglinton East LRT was recently supposed to be built and now where is it? It has fallen off the radar and nobody knows when it will be built. Ditto for the eastern extension of Finch LRT.

For any transit project to happen in Toronto, you need the right political actors to champion it particularly at the provincial level since they are most often times bringing forward the most money. The City of Toronto has no way to build these projects on their own. I feel like people are using their dislike for Ford to not like anything he brings forward. I don't like many of what Ford is doing but on this transit line its solid. It's not perfect just like Relief Line which insisted on being all underground for the most part and makes it difficult to push future extensions due to making them more expensive. This line uses elevated in sections and goes along the existing GO corridors when need be. This makes it easier to extend the line in the future if need be as alluded in the report. For example, we can use elevated to reach Don Mills station at Sheppard and Yonge which would be cheaper than if it was tunnelled. This is what I liked about Amsterdam from the times I have spent there, in suburban areas they use elevated and it works well. No one bats an eye. Toronto needs to mature and learn what other successful cities are doing.

The capacity issues being brought forward feel more like scaremongering to me. If the line becomes as constrained as some are alluding to, then find another solution to that. Maybe we may need to build an entirely different line like other cities do. There is only so much future proofing that you can do.

 

[robmausser]

How?

Their entire plan relies on using smaller, lighter trains. That's why it's cheaper. If you end up with the same capacity then all of a sudden cost isn't much of a factor.

It's cheaper and uses standardized trains - the trade off is lower capacity and a less efficient route.

I love how one of your arguments is that the trains are the same width as the current subway trains, and then another is that they are using "smaller lighter" trains.

The only part thats smaller with these trains is the length. Its easy to add more cars to make them longer, and platforms.

The Montreal Metro trains are smaller than the Toronto subways but they are longer, and thus they have the same capacity.

That doesnt change the fact that they are more modern and lighter trains than the current subway technology we use in Toronto, as well as a more modern signalling system than even the CBTC upgrade, as well as the track technology, and everything will be off the shelf.

 

[robmausser]

My bottom line is, there isn't a lot to quibble with on a technical level, it's basically quite a doable project. But it's politically shameful, and opportunistic.

1) If at-ground/elevated is such a good idea, where has ML and the Province been in insisting that it be used in past (TYSSE) or currently in-planning projects (EWLRT, Line 2). How much money could be saved if the Line 2 extension were elevated instead of a deep bore? Wouldn't it make sense to redirect that project before it goes any further? And how about elevated construction on Eglinton across Ford Nation in Etobicoke?

A lot could be saved with a Line 2 extension that is elevated; oh look its already done! I give you the Scarborough RT! A wonderful line that uses rail corridors and elevated sections.

Something that should have just been modernized, upgraded and extended, like the original TTC plan in 2006 called for.

The boondoggle here isnt this Ontario Line, its the Line 2 extension.

The reason it and the TYSSE werent elevated is the fact that the existing subway technology is very expensive and difficult to elevate, thats why you don't see it (much) on the original system, thats why you don't see it on the extensions and thats why you didnt see it on the Relief Line which used existed subway technology.

Thats why you DID see it on the Scarborough RT, and why you are seeing it on the REM, and the Skytrain, and etc etc.

As for Eglinton East/West, often the argument is that since the trains are low floor and overhead powered, they can just run in the middle lane through intersections, and elevating is not worth the cost. However I do think a portion of Eglinton West will be elevated, and I really do think the portion of the Crosstown from Laird to Kennedy should have been elevated. That was simply a political decision. But it could have been done.

 

[syn]

I love how one of your arguments is that the trains are the same width as the current subway trains, and then another is that they are using "smaller lighter" trains.

The only part thats smaller with these trains is the length. Its easy to add more cars to make them longer, and platforms.

The Montreal Metro trains are smaller than the Toronto subways but they are longer, and thus they have the same capacity.

That doesnt change the fact that they are more modern and lighter trains than the current subway technology we use in Toronto, as well as a more modern signalling system than even the CBTC upgrade, as well as the track technology, and everything will be off the shelf.

You're mistaking me for someone else as I haven't brought up the width of the trains. If I had, I would've pointed out that they're 3m, while current TTC stock is 3.2m (according to the report).

Increasing station lengths to add more cars isn't easy. It's actually quite a costly endeavour, all things considered, and it may have an impact on the number of trains per hour.

Why not just build it properly in the first place with the high capacity vehicles used on the subway?

Some of the justifications for full subway extensions on Sheppard and the B-D Line are 'it's building the highest capacity possible for the future'.

With this line it seems we're building lower capacity than we need right now.

 

[syn]

And what makes you think Phase 2 or 3 will be built any time. This is Toronto we are talking about. I will take a longer relief line now which reaches Eglinton and also goes to the EX compared to a theoretical phase 2 or 3. This is Toronto we are talking about. How long has the Sheppard subway been open and no extension been done? The western extension of the Eglinton LRT was cut short until John Tory's SmartTrack brought it back into the limelight and is now being championed by the province. Eglinton East LRT was recently supposed to be built and now where is it? It has fallen off the radar and nobody knows when it will be built. Ditto for the eastern extension of Finch LRT.

For any transit project to happen in Toronto, you need the right political actors to champion it particularly at the provincial level since they are most often times bringing forward the most money. The City of Toronto has no way to build these projects on their own. I feel like people are using their dislike for Ford to not like anything he brings forward. I don't like many of what Ford is doing but on this transit line its solid. It's not perfect just like Relief Line which insisted on being all underground for the most part and makes it difficult to push future extensions due to making them more expensive. This line uses elevated in sections and goes along the existing GO corridors when need be. This makes it easier to extend the line in the future if need be as alluded in the report. For example, we can use elevated to reach Don Mills station at Sheppard and Yonge which would be cheaper than if it was tunnelled. This is what I liked about Amsterdam from the times I have spent there, in suburban areas they use elevated and it works well. No one bats an eye. Toronto needs to mature and learn what other successful cities are doing.

The capacity issues being brought forward feel more like scaremongering to me. If the line becomes as constrained as some are alluding to, then find another solution to that. Maybe we may need to build an entirely different line like other cities do. There is only so much future proofing that you can do.

No it's not. It's Ontario. Why can't Ontario implement the full DRL?

If you don't trust them to implement the DRL, then why trust them to implement this?

 

[Steve X]

I love how one of your arguments is that the trains are the same width as the current subway trains, and then another is that they are using "smaller lighter" trains.

The only part thats smaller with these trains is the length. Its easy to add more cars to make them longer, and platforms.

The Montreal Metro trains are smaller than the Toronto subways but they are longer, and thus they have the same capacity.

That doesnt change the fact that they are more modern and lighter trains than the current subway technology we use in Toronto, as well as a more modern signalling system than even the CBTC upgrade, as well as the track technology, and everything will be off the shelf.

The are almost the same width but they are aiming for a lighter train (mention in the report). Lighter train = cheaper elevated structure

The term "modern" here meant about to climb steeper grades and take on tighter curves. All in which the TRs can't do. They also claim they will analyse how much slower it would be if they have tighter curves.

Now we wait for them to analyse the route in detail and ask the industry if someone can provide such trains that will fit what they are looking for.

No it's not. It's Ontario. Why can't Ontario implement the full DRL?

If you don't trust them to implement the DRL, then why trust them to implement this?

ML won't be the one implementing this. They'll just hire the industry to analyse what they want and get a line that fits (or not fit). Based on history, TTC really screwed up the TYSSE and cannot be trusted to implement the RL either. Delivered late and over budget.

 

[Northern Light]

I love how one of your arguments is that the trains are the same width as the current subway trains, and then another is that they are using "smaller lighter" trains.

The only part thats smaller with these trains is the length. Its easy to add more cars to make them longer, and platforms.

Actually, the ability to handle certain grades is predicated on total train weight (therefore length).

If, after opening the new line, you ascertain that you need to add 1/3 to the length of the train, its not simply tacking on more cars......its discerning whether you may have to tear down entire segments of line and rebuild from scratch.

There's also the matter of station placement; if any of those stations is near a curve on one side, never mind two, extending them may prove impossible, not merely expensive and disruptive.

I'm not firmly opposed to choosing different rolling stock than the TTC standard; or going to standard gauge (though i see little advantage to this and creates problems, like lack of interoperability); but reducing capacity to save a few $$$ now, seems penny-wise, pound foolish.

 

[Northern Light]

And what makes you think Phase 2 or 3 will be built any time. This is Toronto we are talking about. I will take a longer relief line now which reaches Eglinton and also goes to the EX compared to a theoretical phase 2 or 3. This is Toronto we are talking about. How long has the Sheppard subway been open and no extension been done? The western extension of the Eglinton LRT was cut short until John Tory's SmartTrack brought it back into the limelight and is now being championed by the province. Eglinton East LRT was recently supposed to be built and now where is it? It has fallen off the radar and nobody knows when it will be built. Ditto for the eastern extension of Finch LRT.

For any transit project to happen in Toronto, you need the right political actors to champion it particularly at the provincial level since they are most often times bringing forward the most money. The City of Toronto has no way to build these projects on their own. I feel like people are using their dislike for Ford to not like anything he brings forward. I don't like many of what Ford is doing but on this transit line its solid. It's not perfect just like Relief Line which insisted on being all underground for the most part and makes it difficult to push future extensions due to making them more expensive. This line uses elevated in sections and goes along the existing GO corridors when need be. This makes it easier to extend the line in the future if need be as alluded in the report. For example, we can use elevated to reach Don Mills station at Sheppard and Yonge which would be cheaper than if it was tunnelled. This is what I liked about Amsterdam from the times I have spent there, in suburban areas they use elevated and it works well. No one bats an eye. Toronto needs to mature and learn what other successful cities are doing.

The capacity issues being brought forward feel more like scaremongering to me. If the line becomes as constrained as some are alluding to, then find another solution to that. Maybe we may need to build an entirely different line like other cities do. There is only so much future proofing that you can do.

To take last things first.

The capacity issue is not scaremongering. Its a concern.

Also, its important for an Apples-to-Apples comparison.

There are a number of other issues (the budget does not include a connection from the MSF to the line), that much is clear.

Elevated lines are fine, but if open to the weather......have you met the SRT? Are we sure those issues are being accounted for fully?

Elevated lines have other drawbacks, especially when placed directly over a road r-o-w in terms of everything from public realm to redevelopment.

Yes, these issues can be mitigated; but have they in this proposal? (answer is no, the business case says so and acknowledges that may need to change, it would, which would add $$$)

There are a host of other concerns, including GO ROW capacity, both during construction and in the final form.

The BCA admits these have not been resolved, including the fact they have not found any site to drop in TBMS.

They have not reached even a preliminary class estimate for costs, nor have they resolved how to actually make certain curves (the report says this)

There are a multitude of holes here.

Could it work, quite probably, will it be delivered by 2027? Nearly zero chance. Will it be delivered at the current budget? Nearly zero chance.

When compared with a line concept much closer to construction and more thoroughly designed and budgeted, the risks here are not immaterial and to my mind, hard to justify.

 

[Steve X]

I'm not firmly opposed to choosing different rolling stock than the TTC standard; or going to standard gauge (though i see little advantage to this and creates problems, like lack of interoperability); but reducing capacity to save a few $$$ now, seems penny-wise, pound foolish.

The RL if built would have it's own issues with interoperability. The RL would have been ATO only while Line 2 would still be manual operation. Thus the T1s won't be able to serve the RL. Only the RL trains would be able to relief the T1s in an emergency but they'll have a much smaller fleet.

Elevated lines are fine, but if open to the weather......have you met the SRT? Are we sure those issues are being accounted for fully?

The subway and streetcars all are opened to the weather. Do they not work in the winter? The SRT is special since it has a magnetic track that pulls the trains. If they don't choose the innovia trains, the issue would be solved. Last winter, the TTC claims it's the trains that are so old, doors are freezing up preventing it from running properly.

Since the RL is targeted for 2029. If OL gets built by 2029, is still successful. In terms of budget, even 10-20% over what they are claiming would be acceptable for reaching Eglinton provided that they can actually reach that 30k capacity.

 

[smallspy]

The term "modern" here meant about to climb steeper grades and take on tighter curves. All in which the TRs can't do. They also claim they will analyse how much slower it would be if they have tighter curves.

The TRs can handle quite steep grades - there are portions of the current subway network with grades as steep as 4.5%, and every single subway on the system - even the G-cars - could operate on it.

Why the TTC has decided - arbitrarily - that 3% be deemed the maximum subway grade built is a mystery to me. But don't kid yourself - the equipment is capable of much more.

Dan

 

[muller877]

Generally, it's an improvement on what's there, has merit. There is concern about the above ground implementation (the other work being done in the area, the lack of space available to expand GO services and fit the OL without expropriation, the resistance of local residents).

Capacity is an issue, and Levy seriously questions whether 90 second intervals are realistic.

Cost and timeline (especially) are not considered sensible.

Platform doors, smaller trains, larger doors, no seats that impede flow, automation. Hmmm...I wonder if the dwell time will be better?

I guess I should just listen to the "experts" who say no.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The subway and streetcars all are opened to the weather. Do they not work in the winter? The SRT is special since it has a magnetic track that pulls the trains. If they don't choose the innovia trains, the issue would be solved. Last winter, the TTC claims it's the trains that are so old, doors are freezing up preventing it from running properly.

Since the RL is targeted for 2029. If OL gets built by 2029, is still successful. In terms of budget, even 10-20% over what they are claiming would be acceptable for reaching Eglinton provided that they can actually reach that 30k capacity.

Not overly concerned about weather, but it isn't exactly a non-issue for TTC either (we all know they exist - on L2 at both ends in winter, especially). The only serious issue for me is low-balling platform length to 100m - that's ECLRT level, and counting on frequency to hit the target pphpd meant you will have nowhere to go once you max that.

Personally I would like to see 130m underground stations (with the 30m roughed in, if the cost delta is too high) and have provisions for extensions to full 130m for above ground ones.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

Platform doors, smaller trains, larger doors, no seats that impede flow, automation. Hmmm...I wonder if the dwell time will be better?
I guess I should just listen to the "experts" who say no.

I have no sworn allegiance to TTC subway cars - so if the new line is a different technology fine. But the square footage stat is a concern.
No seats in the way equates to everybody sitting sideways on a bench, and more people standing. As does wider doors. The Heathrow tube is nice and small, but under heavy load it’s a sardine can. People sit sideways in New York, but that’s not pleasant even if the car is bigger.
We need a capacity short of crush loading. And a more reasonable seating arrangement.
Any system will encounter longer dwell time when people are forced to squeeze by other people, or force their way onto an already crammed car, during boarding. Using a less than TR sized vehicle increases the risk of crowding, We need our subway dimensions to be generous, even if smaller technologies are cheaper. That’s the best assurance of shorter dwell time.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I have no sworn allegiance to TTC subway cars - so if the new line is a different technology fine. But the square footage stat is a concern.
No seats in the way equates to everybody sitting sideways on a bench, and more people standing. As does wider doors. The Heathrow tube is nice and small, but under heavy load it’s a sardine can. People sit sideways in New York, but that’s not pleasant even if the car is bigger.
We need a capacity short of crush loading. And a more reasonable seating arrangement.
Any system will encounter longer dwell time when people are forced to squeeze by other people, or force their way onto an already crammed car, during boarding. Using a less than TR sized vehicle increases the risk of crowding, We need our subway dimensions to be generous, even if smaller technologies are cheaper. That’s the best assurance of shorter dwell time.

- Paul

I have no problem with slightly narrower cars or sideway seating (fairly trainset agnostic) even - what I do have an issue with is highballing capacity assumptions to size the hard infrastructure - the latter is what you can't change cheaply.

AoD