Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[TRONto]

Size does not matter. Lets say an assessed $500k house, everywhere, the city of Toronto will collect less taxes than other places. Ironically, Timmins has one of the highest property taxes, so if Toronto implemented those taxes, it would definitely hurt.

Correct, size doesn't matter for the tax rate. My point was that if I have a 2K sq ft house and there was an exactly same house + land in Barrie. What is the tax paid for each homeowner. In theory, each home owner uses the same amount of services.

I believe that is a fair comparison of how much taxes are paid instead of %. Absolute terms. It is an aspect of "who pays more taxes".

 

[micheal_can]

Correct, size doesn't matter for the tax rate. My point was that if I have a 2K sq ft house and there was an exactly same house + land in Barrie. What is the tax paid for each homeowner. In theory, each home owner uses the same amount of services.

I believe that is a fair comparison of how much taxes are paid instead of %. Absolute terms. It is an aspect of "who pays more taxes".

Barrie does not have an RT system, so of course Toronto should be higher... but it isn't.

 

[micheal_can]

While you may well be right; its worth saying Austerity/neo-liberal nonsense has at least partly exacerbated this situation, not just here in Ontario, but globally.

Too few hospital beds/no surge capacity in the system, de-unionization of the economy without replacing the labour standards unions brought about through employment standards legislation; etc etc.

What needs to happen (in due course, not this moment) is a sharp rise on taxes on business and the upper-middle and high-income earners in order to rebuild and enhance social supports and robust public services; as well as substantial improvement in employment standards.

What we have been seeing is what happens when conservative governments are afraid of taxes and want to look for "efficiencies".

 

[W. K. Lis]

What we have been seeing is what happens when conservative governments are afraid of taxes and want to look for "efficiencies".

That's the "myth of fiscal conservatism". See link.

 

[lenaitch]

Barrie does not have an RT system, so of course Toronto should be higher... but it isn't.

I realize property tax calculations are complex, but a while back I found a website calculator for Toronto (I think the real estate board or a realtor, or something). I plugged in my assessed value and it came out about the same as it apparently would be in Toronto. I live in a township that has no transit (the County recently started a limited service), No major expressways, no sanitary waste system and a few small municipal water systems (I realize this is a separate line item in Toronto) and a volunteer fire department that will come and hose down your foundation.

 

[asher__jo]

On the topic of taxes, cities getting proportionally 1% of the PST (either directly setting a 1% tax or being given that amount) is painfully overdue. Being reliant on property taxes is a poor situation, of course diversifying and have road tolls and levies on parking are also useful.

 

[Steve X]

On the topic of taxes, cities getting proportionally 1% of the PST (either directly setting a 1% tax or being given that amount) is painfully overdue. Being reliant on property taxes is a poor situation, of course diversifying and have road tolls and levies on parking are also useful.

If 1% is added to sales taxes, it must be added to the entire GTA. Of course we'll likely see this only to towards ML with Queen's Park telling TTC to go find your own money elsewhere.

 

[asher__jo]

If 1% is added to sales taxes, it must be added to the entire GTA. Of course we'll likely see this only to towards ML with Queen's Park telling TTC to go find your own money elsewhere.

Yes. Of course this is in the ideal world of having a GTHA level of government and Metrolinx being run by officials from that area.

 

[asher__jo]

Given he developed a better plan than the city in a short period of time, I'm not so sure.



Theres a number of reasons why using Greenwood is actually worse than just building a new yard for OL



It will have similar capacity, not less.



It shouldn't, our rolling stock is fine, but for a new line lighter trains with a slightly narrower profile is fine. Interoperability matter less and less as the OL is a major line that will have significant scale on its own. Future lines can use the same standard which is more easily built elevated and which allows a narrower bore for tunneling.



As was mentioned RER will operate better than 10 minute frequencies in a number of key places.

You raise no real compelling counterargument.

 

[Tommy521]

Future lines can use the same standard which is more easily built elevated and which allows a narrower bore for tunneling.

I am curious why you are assuming that a lighter trainset would allow for a narrower bore? The ECLRT used 6.5m diameter TBMs while the TYSSE used only 6.0m diameter TBMs. In fact, I believe the OL will have a larger diameter tunnel bore than that which was planned for the RLS/RLN.

The ECLRT primarily has a larger bore size than the standard TTC subway due to the use of an overhead caternary instead of a third rail, and it is entirely possible that the entirely grade-separated OL will be able to use a third rail instead of overhead wires. This doesn't necessarily mean the tunnel will be a narrower diameter than was planned for the RLS/RLN or than what is currently used for the TTC standard. A lot more goes into the design of the tunnel (including diameter) than just the train size. You have to consider airflow and ventilation, allowable clearance (especially on OL's particularly curvy track), safe passage for workers/emergency exit access, among other things.

Furthermore, having a smaller tunnel diameter (say, 6.0m vs 6.2m) doesn't have that much of a benefit to a project. Sure, the TBM is smaller and you'll excavate less soil/rock along the tunnelled alignment. This does very little for the required strength of the pre-case tunnel liners, the general size of the station (shaving 20cm off is nothing here), ease of TBM operation, tunnelling efficiency, or overall cost of tunnelling.
Sure, if you're pipe-jacking 400m from one sewer access to another, going from 1.2m bore diameter to 1.0m bore diameter can save you 36% on material excavated. But, for example if we're dropping an approximately 18km (9km twin bore) tunnelled section from 6.2m to 6.0m, you're going to save what... 6-7%? Basically just on material disposal, likely not even on the overall TBM cost. The relatively small amount of material disposal cost saved is not something that is really critical in large scale transit projects such as this.

 

[Steve X]

I am curious why you are assuming that a lighter trainset would allow for a narrower bore? The ECLRT used 6.5m diameter TBMs while the TYSSE used only 6.0m diameter TBMs. In fact, I believe the OL will have a larger diameter tunnel bore than that which was planned for the RLS/RLN.

The ECLRT primarily has a larger bore size than the standard TTC subway due to the use of an overhead caternary instead of a third rail, and it is entirely possible that the entirely grade-separated OL will be able to use a third rail instead of overhead wires. This doesn't necessarily mean the tunnel will be a narrower diameter than was planned for the RLS/RLN or than what is currently used for the TTC standard. A lot more goes into the design of the tunnel (including diameter) than just the train size. You have to consider airflow and ventilation, allowable clearance (especially on OL's particularly curvy track), safe passage for workers/emergency exit access, among other things.

Furthermore, having a smaller tunnel diameter (say, 6.0m vs 6.2m) doesn't have that much of a benefit to a project. Sure, the TBM is smaller and you'll excavate less soil/rock along the tunnelled alignment. This does very little for the required strength of the pre-case tunnel liners, the general size of the station (shaving 20cm off is nothing here), ease of TBM operation, tunnelling efficiency, or overall cost of tunnelling.
Sure, if you're pipe-jacking 400m from one sewer access to another, going from 1.2m bore diameter to 1.0m bore diameter can save you 36% on material excavated. But, for example if we're dropping an approximately 18km (9km twin bore) tunnelled section from 6.2m to 6.0m, you're going to save what... 6-7%? Basically just on material disposal, likely not even on the overall TBM cost. The relatively small amount of material disposal cost saved is not something that is really critical in large scale transit projects such as this.

Then again they could place the curves outside or cut and cover those parts. No one said the entire line has to be bored with one size tunnel.

You raise no real compelling counterargument.

One argument is Greenwood would have to be rebuilt anyways for 6 car trainsets. Another is if a blockage is to happen at the entrance of the yard, no trains can get by. This would be very problematic if an accident happens before service starts as there would be no trains on both the Relief Line and Line 2 between Broadview and Kennedy. Line 2 trains starts from Kipling and would not be able to pass that area. Third is a full subway communication system outage would affect everything hooked up to the TTC system. Lines 5 and 6 would be able to operate independently at the local control centre at their own MSF. OL would be able to function while the RL would be screwed too (that's not really a Greenwood yard problem).

Although ML comes up with 95% crap, sometimes they do come up with a good idea. ML plans to have a backup generator for Line 5 so the accessible would not have to try to move through the tunnel during power failures. Hopefully they have a backup for OL too. Something I don't think TTC would ever plan.

 

[asher__jo]

On which point?

To the point the Ontario line is superior to RL and RL north planning and that it's lower capacity is a non-issue. Of course RL planning was predicated on using the same rolling stock/gauge as existing TTC subway and hence why using Greenwood made sense. I am not suggesting RL was a flawless plan, but blindly endorsing it's replacement and accepting all of Metrolinx/Ford government's argument that it is superior is troubling. And beyond all that the planning of the Ontario line being planned in secret and unsurped all the consultative work the TTC did is even more troubling.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The ECLRT primarily has a larger bore size than the standard TTC subway due to the use of an overhead caternary instead of a third rail, and it is entirely possible that the entirely grade-separated OL will be able to use a third rail instead of overhead wires. This doesn't necessarily mean the tunnel will be a narrower diameter than was planned for the RLS/RLN or than what is currently used for the TTC standard. A lot more goes into the design of the tunnel (including diameter) than just the train size. You have to consider airflow and ventilation, allowable clearance (especially on OL's particularly curvy track), safe passage for workers/emergency exit access, among other things.

We haven't even mentioned special track needs, conduit casing dimensions, quiet track zones, the type of third rail being used, track speed requirements, factors of safety, and the grade of the tunnel.

Furthermore, having a smaller tunnel diameter (say, 6.0m vs 6.2m) doesn't have that much of a benefit to a project. Sure, the TBM is smaller and you'll excavate less soil/rock along the tunnelled alignment. This does very little for the required strength of the pre-case tunnel liners, the general size of the station (shaving 20cm off is nothing here), ease of TBM operation, tunnelling efficiency, or overall cost of tunnelling.
Sure, if you're pipe-jacking 400m from one sewer access to another, going from 1.2m bore diameter to 1.0m bore diameter can save you 36% on material excavated. But, for example if we're dropping an approximately 18km (9km twin bore) tunnelled section from 6.2m to 6.0m, you're going to save what... 6-7%? Basically just on material disposal, likely not even on the overall TBM cost. The relatively small amount of material disposal cost saved is not something that is really critical in large scale transit projects such as this.

That's not entirely true, it could be the difference between being within clearance of a shallow water main or being a safe distance away. If the O-line is going to require wider tunnels, the alignment they've chosen will likely not be feasible without a bunch of additional microtunneling (or other trenchless technology) utility relocations. That could easily add 100-200M dollars to the bill.

To add context to the precast tunnel liners, it can be significant. They're expensive enough as is (~20K per ring for the crosstown rings, they'll be relatively the same for most subway projects because of the insanely high quality that is required for them). The price of them increases pretty much quadratically as the diameter increases, not just because of additional concrete requirements, but also because of much higher transportation costs.

Muck-away isn't really an issue for a larger diameter tunnel as you mentioned. I think the cost of increasing the tunnel diameter by half a meter would increase the cost of muck away (during full loading seasons) by 3 million dollars for an 8 km tunnel — pennies for a multi-billion dollar project.

One argument is Greenwood would have to be rebuilt anyways for 6 car trainsets. Another is if a blockage is to happen at the entrance of the yard, no trains can get by. This would be very problematic if an accident happens before service starts as there would be no trains on both the Relief Line and Line 2 between Broadview and Kennedy. Line 2 trains starts from Kipling and would not be able to pass that area. Third is a full subway communication system outage would affect everything hooked up to the TTC system. Lines 5 and 6 would be able to operate independently at the local control centre at their own MSF. OL would be able to function while the RL would be screwed too (that's not really a Greenwood yard problem).

Although ML comes up with 95% crap, sometimes they do come up with a good idea. ML plans to have a backup generator for Line 5 so the accessible would not have to try to move through the tunnel during power failures. Hopefully they have a backup for OL too. Something I don't think TTC would ever plan.

I believe back-up requirements are now a requirement for most new major construction projects (the TYSSE being exempted because it was an extension of Line 1), but I could very easily be wrong on this.

With regards to Greenwood, the yard has to be rebuilt anyway, and eventually, they'll have to build Obico as well. Building the relief line gives them an opportunity to build Obico and repurpose greenwood simultaneously.

The last two are extreme cases (that would happen maybe once every 2-3 years) that don't justify the cost of building an unnecessary brand new yard for a small line. Greenwood is not going to close any time soon, and Obico will have to be built eventually (SSE, service expansions, line redundancy). Besides, I believe they are working to improve the operational reliability of the TTC rapid transit system.

 

[smallspy]

Given he developed a better plan than the city in a short period of time, I'm not so sure.

Did they, though? Michael Schabas is also the same man behind the hydrogen push at Metrolinx. And the high-speed railway alignment to London that was infamously "researched" via Google Maps. I would be highly skeptical of anything he suggests without another party thoroughly verifying his research.

Theres a number of reasons why using Greenwood is actually worse than just building a new yard for OL

And they are what, exactly?

It will have similar capacity, not less.

Supposedly. Considering that the number of rapid transit lines around the planet that operate at the same projected frequencies as the Ontario Line can be counted on one hand with several fingers left over, there is a lot to be skeptical about the plan and its underlying numbers.

It shouldn't, our rolling stock is fine, but for a new line lighter trains with a slightly narrower profile is fine. Interoperability matter less and less as the OL is a major line that will have significant scale on its own. Future lines can use the same standard which is more easily built elevated and which allows a narrower bore for tunneling.

In the grand scheme of things, those things are very minor qualms.

What is a more major one is what will be the cost of a brand new heavy maintenance facility, and its continual upkeep and operation, versus using what already exists (or will exist by thing time) and building a lighter-duty storage facility - all other things being assumed to be equal?

Dan

 

[Tommy521]

We haven't even mentioned special track needs [...] pennies for a multi-billion dollar project.

All very good points, I can't disagree with any of this.

That's not entirely true, it could be the difference between being within clearance of a shallow water main or being a safe distance away. If the O-line is going to require wider tunnels, the alignment they've chosen will likely not be feasible without a bunch of additional microtunneling (or other trenchless technology) utility relocations. That could easily add 100-200M dollars to the bill.

I am assuming you are speaking of the Gerrard-O'Connor stretch of the OL alignment as I doubt this would be much of an issue for the hard rock tunneled portions downtown. From a settlement standpoint, if you had say... a volume loss between 0.5% and 2.5% I could see an increase in tunnel diameter being a bit of an issue here. I must admit I haven't looked into it though so it would be hard for me to say the extent. Going deeper could help avoid that, but merely shifts the costs elsewhere.

To add context to the precast tunnel liners, it can be significant. They're expensive enough as is (~20K per ring for the crosstown rings, they'll be relatively the same for most subway projects because of the insanely high quality that is required for them). The price of them increases pretty much quadratically as the diameter increases, not just because of additional concrete requirements, but also because of much higher transportation costs.

Thank you for the added context for PCTLs, in my personal experience they had been described as 'not that big of a concern' in regards to increasing/decreasing tunnel diameter.

With regards to Greenwood, the yard has to be rebuilt anyway, and eventually, they'll have to build Obico as well. Building the relief line gives them an opportunity to build Obico and repurpose greenwood simultaneously.

I am also a fan of using GWY as a intermediate yard for staging. I personally was of the opinion that the RLN extension would likely have a new yard built for it, merely using GWY as a stepping stone.