[nfitz]

Lis, that's pure revisionism. There WAS no DRL in 2007's Transit City, nor was there anything approaching a serious DRL proposal by the time David Miller left office in 2010.

That's also pure revisionism. There were no Transit City bus lines in the 2007 Transit City either, because it's the LRT report. It wasn't a subway report. It wasn't the 2009 Transit City Bus Plan (that's still on TTC's website - http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com...gust_26_2009/Reports/Transit_City_Bus_Pla.pdf)

Not only was there serious proposals while Miller was mayor, they'd convinced the province to increase it's priority to the 15-year timeframe in the final 2008 RTP, rather than the 25-year timeframe.

 

[44 North]

In many ways, OL is happening despite the city.

Not really. Other than the central part of Crosstown it's like the only major project that was on schedule. City's stance was it to start by 2020 and that's more or less where things were. All the other projects uploaded by the Prov either fell by the wayside or were seriously delayed. Finch, Sheppard, Jane, SLRT, Eg West. RL was never contingent on TC being completed.

And let's not forget the lead up to the 2014 election when RER was promised Metrolinx went on record saying RL might involve buses...(the project that was in the City's TMP and Mlinx's RTP since the 00s and most definitely didn't involve buses). It was only a couple years after that when the Prov seemingly took note of the major capacity crunch coming into the core and put their full backing on the City's stance that a new subway line was needed.

 

[syn]

Not really. Other than the central part of Crosstown it's like the only major project that was on schedule. City's stance was it to start by 2020 and that's more or less where things were. All the other projects uploaded by the Prov either fell by the wayside or were seriously delayed. Finch, Sheppard, Jane, SLRT, Eg West. RL was never contingent on TC being completed.

And let's not forget the lead up to the 2014 election when RER was promised Metrolinx went on record saying RL might involve buses...(the project that was in the City's TMP and Mlinx's RTP since the 00s and most definitely didn't involve buses). It was only a couple years after that when the Prov seemingly took note of the major capacity crunch coming into the core and put their full backing on the City's stance that a new subway line was needed.

Agreed.

The DRL was well on track and canceled...because of the province.

 

[44 North]

Agreed.

The DRL was well on track and canceled...because of the province.

Pretty much. But there were a few good years in the later YRNS studies when Mlinx and the City formed a partnership - the City focusing on the south end and the Prov on the north end to create a line to Sheppard. This was advertised by the Libs during the 2018 election I believe so must've been real to some degree. Unfortunately they didn't do anything other than some vague routings. Then operated in bad faith by deciding to work in-house on something else. I don't mean bad faith in a figurative sense, I mean literally.

But it's all politics. The south portion of RL wins no votes and is extremely expensive. No party wants that. Like QQE LRT. If the capacity issues into the core weren't so glaring they'd prefer to build nothing. OL for its faults and delays could be worse. Could be nothing, or some LRT running down Front like Mlinx was musing during mid-YRNS studies when the City was about a decade past that stage. So at least there's an agreement that it'll be a subway/metro service. Hopefully to Eglinton. If it's built.

 

[superelevation]

The main thing I'd observe out of the past few days discussion is that I think folks are overly pessimistic about the capacity of a high passenger density low floor train. Yes, all the low floor vehicles in play now are very much tram derived, but between Ottawa, Eglinton, Hurontario and Edmonton the demand for a higher capacity quasi light metro low floor vehicle in a couple decades might be Canada specific, but certainly won't be a painfully small one for a bespoke(ish) design.

Is a 100m walkthrough vehicle with increased door density as good, all around, as a Metropolis set? No, but it's certainly not an impractical concept. Yes, if I had a time machine I'd have built light metro for these projects, but given the environment we operate in I don't see any reason to think that Eglinton or Ottawa will see short term capacity crises; frankly they are both in far better positions to boost capacity than the Canada line is.

Eglinton is about comparable to the Canada line WRT how much capacity can expand as a % of what it will be at day 1 (compared to Canada Line today), but Eglinton is serving a way busier market and hence its a much bigger concern. Toronto is not getting another proper crosstown line anytime soon, Vancouver may well get another NS line.

The reason to upgrade Don Mills LRT wouldn't be the capacity, but rather the need to extend the subway further north to divert more riders from the Yonge line. Two parallel LRT lines would be less effective at doing that, even though they would have enough capacity.

Furthermore, the busiest section of Don Mills transit is south of Eglinton up to Danforth. With that section overtaken by the subway, the remaining route from Eglinton to Steeles is less busy, and can be handled by buses. BRT lite, in the form of curb lanes, already exists from Eglinton to Finch.

I feel the OL in its current form is not a prudent long-term investment. We are losing 30% of potential capacity compared to a full-scale subway, while only saving ~ 15% in costs. However, I take it as a glass-half-full situation, given the tremendous difficulty of getting any progress on the downtown relief in the past. If OL comes into existence, it will be a very substantial new transit stream into downtown, supporting more jobs and more economic activity. It can carry the system forward for the next 20-30 years. After that the system will get crowded again, and another relief line will be needed. But the risk of cancelling the OL now and causing a very long delay in getting any relief at all is, IMO, greater than the downside of accepting the suboptimal / undersized relief option.

We are not losing 30% capacity, we are maybe losing 20%, and we are gaining lots. Better GO / Subway integration is easily worth more than that 10%.

Agreed.

The DRL was well on track and canceled...because of the province.

On track at like 5% design to go half as far as the OL, and it would have been worse in the section that WAS getting built because it would have been incredibly deep. But at least some residents with some of the most valuable property and best transit service in the country would have to see less trains.

 

[drum118]

Eglinton is about comparable to the Canada line WRT how much capacity can expand as a % of what it will be at day 1 (compared to Canada Line today), but Eglinton is serving a way busier market and hence its a much bigger concern. Toronto is not getting another proper crosstown line anytime soon, Vancouver may well get another NS line.



We are not losing 30% capacity, we are maybe losing 20%, and we are gaining lots. Better GO / Subway integration is easily worth more than that 10%.



On track at like 5% design to go half as far as the OL, and it would have been worse in the section that WAS getting built because it would have been incredibly deep. But at least some residents with some of the most valuable property and best transit service in the country would have to see less trains.

If the OL/DRL or what is built and is built to Steeles by Don Mills, it will take close to 35% of current ridership off the Yonge Line in the first few months. By 2050, that 35% lost of ridership with be replace by 55% new riders from all the new development along Yonge and within a mile of it to the point you need a 2nd Yonge line by Bays St starting at Eglinton with the new 2nd Yonge line under the existing one north of Eglinton to Steeles only...

The OL/DRL or what will see today Yonge ridership by 2040.

The foot dragging by TTC, but mostly Toronto for the DRL all started in 1910 when the new mayor refused to allow the first part to be built as well the Queen St section that was approved by the residence of Toronto. Since 1910, various plans were looked at and shelve. When the Yonge Subway was to be built, the Queen Line almost got built until the Fed's removed the $25 Million funding for it.

No fan of the Vancouver system and will be a failure in Toronto like the SRT.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The problem are bureaucrats and politicians who can't see that the population of Toronto, Ontario, and Canada will be increasing. Even the COVID-19 pandemic will not stop that.

"The next Census of Population will take place in May 2021. Census information is used to make informed decisions about your community, province or territory, and the country as a whole."

See link. Need a temporary job, apply now with Statistics Canada.

 

[syn]

On track at like 5% design to go half as far as the OL, and it would have been worse in the section that WAS getting built because it would have been incredibly deep. But at least some residents with some of the most valuable property and best transit service in the country would have to see less trains.

That's not correct. It was at 15% design and scheduled to begin construction in 2020. And, most importantly, it was a higher capacity line that wouldn't use any space in the GO corridor.

There's no reason the government couldn't have fast tracked this and a northern extension to Sheppard.

 

[afransen]

I think postponing the census a year would be a very sensible idea.

 

[Rainforest]

We are not losing 30% capacity, we are maybe losing 20%, and we are gaining lots. Better GO / Subway integration is easily worth more than that 10%.

Trains being 1/3 shorter, and slightly narrower, means at least a 30% loss in the ultimate capacity. All control mechanisms that will be used for OL to enable a higher frequency, could be applied on the full-scale subway as well.

We are gaining in some other respects: faster access to shallow or elevated stations, getting to Eglinton sooner, etc. But we are still getting less capacity, and that means another RL will be needed sooner.

 

[Rainforest]

In my view, that's a plus given our history of network expansion (hopefully pushes us to build out more sooner). Network coverage has economies of scale benefits in terms of demand for public transit. Far better to have 5 medium capacity light metro lines, than 3 high capacity subway lines.

For sure, network redundancy is beneficial.

But the flip side is the immense difficulty of getting any new line funded. Our 4-years election cycle is good for many things, but not for long-term public investments, including investments in transit. The government that has to spend money is in the office now, the government that gets to cut the ribbon will be in the office 8, 10, 12 years from now, and likely formed by another party. Therefore, they all drag their feet.

 

[afransen]

Trains being 1/3 shorter, and slightly narrower, means at least a 30% loss in the ultimate capacity. All control mechanisms that will be used for OL to enable a higher frequency, could be applied on the full-scale subway as well.

We are gaining in some other respects: faster access to shallow or elevated stations, getting to Eglinton sooner, etc. But we are still getting less capacity, and that means another RL will be needed sooner.

Isn't this just an argument for longer stations? We could rough in the expansion potential in the underground stations and provide for it in the above ground ones. MSF for longer trains may have to be built further north as part of an extension.

 

[ARG1]

No fan of the Vancouver system and will be a failure in Toronto like the SRT.

Failure? It kind of has an overcapacity problem. Its sort of like, the polar opposite of the SRT in that sense.

 

[superelevation]

If the OL/DRL or what is built and is built to Steeles by Don Mills, it will take close to 35% of current ridership off the Yonge Line in the first few months. By 2050, that 35% lost of ridership with be replace by 55% new riders from all the new development along Yonge and within a mile of it to the point you need a 2nd Yonge line by Bays St starting at Eglinton with the new 2nd Yonge line under the existing one north of Eglinton to Steeles only...

The OL/DRL or what will see today Yonge ridership by 2040.

The foot dragging by TTC, but mostly Toronto for the DRL all started in 1910 when the new mayor refused to allow the first part to be built as well the Queen St section that was approved by the residence of Toronto. Since 1910, various plans were looked at and shelve. When the Yonge Subway was to be built, the Queen Line almost got built until the Fed's removed the $25 Million funding for it.

No fan of the Vancouver system and will be a failure in Toronto like the SRT.

Vancouver's rail system is frankly better than the TTC Subway. Higher frequencies, and still plenty of capacity.

Trains being 1/3 shorter, and slightly narrower, means at least a 30% loss in the ultimate capacity. All control mechanisms that will be used for OL to enable a higher frequency, could be applied on the full-scale subway as well.

We are gaining in some other respects: faster access to shallow or elevated stations, getting to Eglinton sooner, etc. But we are still getting less capacity, and that means another RL will be needed sooner.

It doesn't because it is not so simple as measuring the floor space of the train, the TTC refuses to put longitudinal seating in its trains which alone shrinks the gap to 20%. Of course we could operate the Yonge Subway super frequently too, lots of "ifs", but we've seen over the decades that those are almost never fulfilled in this city.

Part of the problem is this attitude of "we need a relief line" every time anything gets built, what if we just served the popular markets, ran the GO Trains more frequently and fixed the seating layout on the subway.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Isn't this just an argument for longer stations? We could rough in the expansion potential in the underground stations and provide for it in the above ground ones. MSF for longer trains may have to be built further north as part of an extension.

We could (and should), but it requires pre-planning and forethought - the presence of which isn't clear at this stage. Anyhoo, OL stuff in OL thread.

AoD