True...and the above point that London is definitely not the model to be looking at for cost-containment is absolutely right. But Madrid (and Berlin, and everywhere else in Europe where these things *do* tend to be much cheaper) are not exactly in lightly-regulated jurisdictions.

In the Madrid case, I would think a lot of the difference is probably due to start-up costs. A program of continuous expansion and consequent shifting-around of resources will be a lot cheaper than re-inventing the wheel every time.
 
Mike in TO said:
The regulatory framework is different in Toronto and Ontario than it was a decade or two decades ago, let alone the framework in other countries. Comparisons to London or Madrid are fairly useless when you get into issues such as soil remediation standards, records of site condition, modified risk assessment processes, WSIB premiums in various different rate groups (which can inflate costs by 8%-10% for labour alone), building code requirements, TSSA, inspections, fire code etc... let alone all the performance standards of the TTC. We live in one of the most heavily regulated jurisdictions in the planet when it comes to construction/buildings/infrastructure - that would be your basic rational for escalating costs.... Regulatory regimes aren't well reflected in the CPI or by comparing the $/km of subway in locations on the other side of the planet.
Click to expand...

The upside of that is that those are, by and large, all government policies. If our regulatory regime is so strict as to prohibit things like subway construction (and presumably much more), it should be a sign that things have gotten out of hand. Its hardly absurd to suggest that we should approximate standards in a jurisdiction like Madrid. I'm not talking about regressing to Gaza strip levels, just enough that government policies don't step on each other's feet.
 
Whoaccio said:
Chances are any subway would have capacity to spare, and any loss in capacity from narrower trains could easily be made up by ATC and faster trains.
Click to expand...
There's no way the DRL/Downtown Core Line would have capacity to spare. Going by the Metrolinx ridership projections, it would be the busiest subway line per kilometre by far. Here's how they stack up:

YUS line - 7.1 million annual riders per km
BD line - 5.5 million
Sheppard line - 4.2 million
Spadina extension - 2.7 million
Yonge extension - 2.9 million
Downtown Core line - 10.4 million

Obviously if you compare only the central sections of the Bloor and Yonge lines they'd compare more favourably, and Yonge would probably be busier. But it still shows how much demand there is for another downtown subway. The Downtown line is projected to have almost as many riders as the Bloor line in half the distance.
 
Last edited:
GTS said:
... I think the 501 streetcar should be divided into two routes 501 east from Neville to Pape/Queen and a 501 west from Long Branch to about Dundas. It would be kind of redundant to have a streetcar line on top of a subway line. ...
Click to expand...

The depends on the subway route (Queen or not), and on the station spacing. It might be a good idea to retain the streetcar service, but use single cars instead of two-car trains.

Regarding the splitting of 501, I'd consider connecting the Long Branch / Queensway service (which would run mostly in a ROW) to the closest station on DRL West subway (that station would probably be near Queen / Dufferin) via a short LRT tunnel between that station and Roncesvalles.

The other route could operate between Roncesvalles and the Beaches. It would mostly run in a mixed traffic, but would be more reliable than today's 501 simply because it is much shorter.
 
MisterF said:
There's no way the DRL/Downtown Core Line would have capacity to spare.

Downtown Core line - 10.4 million
Click to expand...
Given that is a new line, you can assume that is the total ridership. Others estimates are in addition to what exists today.

To me that works out to roughly 40,000 rides per weekday. Incidentally this is about the same as Sheppard or the Scarborough RT ridership level.

Peak hour inbound/outbound is probably a touch over 10,000 passengers/hour.

Frankly, if that is east and west legs together then it probably should NOT be built. Surface LRT in a ROW is sufficient to handle 5000 passengers per hour per direction.

Now, if that is NEW rides and not converts from LRT (Queen/King) or existing subway users, then it could be a significant total number since you would expect 10000 passengers per hour to divert around the existing transfer locations.

We are up to about 1/2 the capacity of the current Yonge line. Built with all the capacity enhancements upfront (ATC, high capacity transfer points, etc.) then it should have a theoretical capacity of 40000 to 50000 passengers per hour per direction -- or be at 1/3rd to 1/4th of design capacity.

NOTE, you do not want to get to 100%. Makes it rather difficult to accommodate problems like medical emergencies impacting service.
 
Using that logic the Yonge subway extension it self is 5 times worse and the extension to Vaughn is ... well .......
 
If we're going to compare TTC subway costs to other cities, I must point out that probably most subway projects around the world would not meet Toronto's standards in terms of demanding a line/extension run as close as possible to capacity (or else be condemned as too expensive and for having not enough ridership). Madrid's vast system carries about 2.4M riders per km annually, meaning half of its lines would make the Sheppard line on a Sunday look like rush hour in Tokyo.

rbt said:
Given that is a new line, you can assume that is the total ridership. Others estimates are in addition to what exists today.

To me that works out to roughly 40,000 rides per weekday. Incidentally this is about the same as Sheppard or the Scarborough RT ridership level.
Click to expand...

That 10.4M figure is per km per year, not just per year.
 
Don't tend to agree with many of your points scarberiankhatru

But that's a good one :)

I bet if we were to look at other systems - London for one you'd reach similar conclusions on some of there lines. I recall when I was there last a few lines have fairly infrequent service and even then were mostly empty even during the weekdays.
 
rbt said:
Given that is a new line, you can assume that is the total ridership. Others estimates are in addition to what exists today.

To me that works out to roughly 40,000 rides per weekday. Incidentally this is about the same as Sheppard or the Scarborough RT ridership level.

Peak hour inbound/outbound is probably a touch over 10,000 passengers/hour.

Frankly, if that is east and west legs together then it probably should NOT be built. Surface LRT in a ROW is sufficient to handle 5000 passengers per hour per direction.

Now, if that is NEW rides and not converts from LRT (Queen/King) or existing subway users, then it could be a significant total number since you would expect 10000 passengers per hour to divert around the existing transfer locations.

We are up to about 1/2 the capacity of the current Yonge line. Built with all the capacity enhancements upfront (ATC, high capacity transfer points, etc.) then it should have a theoretical capacity of 40000 to 50000 passengers per hour per direction -- or be at 1/3rd to 1/4th of design capacity.

NOTE, you do not want to get to 100%. Makes it rather difficult to accommodate problems like medical emergencies impacting service.
Click to expand...
No, the other estimates are for total ridership as well. That's why it lists the Yonge and Spadina extensions separately. And as Scarberian said, that 10.4 million figure is per kilometre.

Metrolinx backgrounder, pages 27-28

The projected ridership for the Downtown line is 138.4 million per year. That works out to 379,000 riders per day (more on weekdays obviously), which is over six times the projected ridership of the Sheppard line and almost equal to the entire Bloor-Danforth line.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
If we're going to compare TTC subway costs to other cities, I must point out that probably most subway projects around the world would not meet Toronto's standards in terms of demanding a line/extension run as close as possible to capacity (or else be condemned as too expensive and for having not enough ridership). Madrid's vast system carries about 2.4M riders per km annually, meaning half of its lines would make the Sheppard line on a Sunday look like rush hour in Tokyo.

That 10.4M figure is per km per year, not just per year.
Click to expand...

Ahh.. that makes more sense.

Thanks.
 
MisterF said:
The projected ridership for the Downtown line is 138.4 million per year. That works out to 379,000 riders per day (more on weekdays obviously), which is over six times the projected ridership of the Sheppard line and almost equal to the entire Bloor-Danforth line.
Click to expand...
Which is why the only option is building this as a full subway. Not only that, but a full subway with both express and local tracks.
 
rbt said:
Ahh.. that makes more sense.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

yea well atleast they have a subway lol and it will provide a framework for the city to grow, much like how the sheppard subway is providing a framework for that part of North York to become more urban. In a couple of years the Sheppard subway will have a larger ridership after the condos around bessarion are built and other projects aroud yonge-sheppard are complete. What i am trying to say is, that even thought the madrid's subway is overall less busy, and built in places where there is very little ridership, it will pay off in the end. And i believe IMHO that the Sheppard subway will eventually pay off. SO yes the DRL should be built and subways should be built before areas get the necessary ridership.

oh and btw i meant to quote Scarberian my bad...:p
 
Last edited:
allabootmatt said:
True...and the above point that London is definitely not the model to be looking at for cost-containment is absolutely right. But Madrid (and Berlin, and everywhere else in Europe where these things *do* tend to be much cheaper) are not exactly in lightly-regulated jurisdictions.

In the Madrid case, I would think a lot of the difference is probably due to start-up costs. A program of continuous expansion and consequent shifting-around of resources will be a lot cheaper than re-inventing the wheel every time.
Click to expand...

Politics play a large part in subway construction and I know that Spain has a socialist gov't. Besides the Green Party the most transit friendly major party we have is the NDP. Sure they would spend us into oblivion but we could all take the subway there.
 
GTS said:
Politics play a large part in subway construction and I know that Spain has a socialist gov't. Besides the Green Party the most transit friendly major party we have is the NDP. Sure they would spend us into oblivion but we could all take the subway there.
Click to expand...

We should give credit, then, to the Libs for putting up the money for Move2020 and creating Metrolinx.

If you would have told me, in early 2006, that the Yonge subway extension was anything less than a pipe dream I never would have believed you. I'm sure the same goes for those who pulled out Transit City out of their asses with zero clue where ANY of the money would come from.

Even the Conservatives, particularly in places like Thornhill, had no choice but to say it was a good idea during the 2006 election. Now, if only their federal counterparts come up with some cash we'll be a bit further down the road...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top