Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

innsertnamehere said:
One last thing - why all the concern about capacity for the OL when the former Scarborough LRT would have been reasonably close to its capacity limit (only about 5,000 pphd of growth room, or 50% of projected opening day ridership, compared to 100% and about 15,000 pphd growth ability for the OL) and that was radio silence and fierce opposition of spending for higher capacity there? Just Sayin’
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's accurate. I believe the Scarborough LRT not only had more than enough capacity, it wasn't in danger of getting anywhere near it's capacity limit for a long, long time.

As for "why", you answered the question yourself earlier:

innsertnamehere said:
additionally, the capacity lost from shifting to smaller trains is about 10-15%, but comes with an approximate 50% cost reduction. That’s significant and a worthy prospect in my mind.
Click to expand...

The DRL/OL and Scarborough LRT/SSE are two very different projects. One is foundational, the other is a nice suburban expansion that will likely not justify the investment for several lifetimes (see the Sheppard Subway).

Among all of these major projects, the OL is the one that has the greatest likelihood of exceeding ridership estimates - especially given the method they've used to calculate capacity. Yet for some strange reason it's also the project we've decided we need to penny pinch on, while spending billions extra everywhere else.

Penny wise, pound foolish.
 
Several points - when I say “TR” I really mean “toronto subway train design” - 150 metre platforms, 3.2 metre width, the associated required grades, etc.

One of the big differences between the two technologies is steeper grades with OL and smaller stations as well, which allows for smaller elevated structures, smaller stations, etc.

I’m also a believer in a good project, not a perfect project - the OL is a good project, much better than the old relief line, but it’s not perfect. No infrastructure project is.

also - just because we are blowing money on Eglinton West or Yonge North or wherever doesn’t mean we need to blow it on the relief line. Trim those other lines back and focus criticism there, not on the OL. I’ve said that repeatedly.

and what does “foundational” mean? Who says the OL is more likely to see 100% ridership growth than the Scarborough LRT is to see 50% ridership growth? I don’t really care either to be honest, each project needs to stand on its own merits - I only raised the comparison as many on this board support the Scarborough LRT but oppose the OL on capacity concerns.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Several points - when I say “TR” I really mean “toronto subway train design” - 150 metre platforms, 3.2 metre width, the associated required grades, etc.

One of the big differences between the two technologies is steeper grades with OL and smaller stations as well, which allows for smaller elevated structures, smaller stations, etc.

I’m also a believer in a good project, not a perfect project - the OL is a good project, much better than the old relief line, but it’s not perfect. No infrastructure project is.
Click to expand...

We could debate whether or not it reaches the threshold good.............but I digress.

I live by the motto 'aim for perfection, settle for excellence'. Good is a very low bar.
 
innsertnamehere said:
also - just because we are blowing money on Eglinton West or Yonge North or wherever doesn’t mean we need to blow it on the relief line. Trim those other lines back and focus criticism there, not on the OL. I’ve said that repeatedly.
Click to expand...
But that's kind of the point. Doug Ford and many conservatives have always derided the DRL as some excessive line for the urban elite. What you have instead is adequate capacity elevated line, but a overcapacity expensive underground line/lines in suburban areas (or just ridiculous like Eglinton West).
 
The OL is a foundational project because the entire goal is provide an alternative to Yonge - a line that's already over capacity. We really can't continue expanding the system without it.

The same is not true of the SSE.

I think it's quite clear that the DRL/OL will see far greater ridership and growth than the Scarborough subway based on projected growth and development.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
The excuses thrown around on this board that the OL design capacity is inadequate reek of “Toronto exceptionalism” to me. The OL isn’t proposing some unique, low capacity technology - actually the opposite. It’s using off the shelf standard metro technology used literally all around the world. If that level of capacity is acceptable on literally every other continent - why not in Toronto? Why does toronto need a tailored vehicle technology designed in the 1940’s that costs twice as much per kilometre?
Click to expand...

TTC subways surely don't cost twice as much as the OL scale subways. A tunnel is a tunnel. There will be some saving due to the switch to OL: smaller / cheaper stations, and it is easier to thread the line through various tight spots therefore the length of surface / elevated sections will be greater and the tunnels shorter. Still, long tunnels are part of the design, the total saving for the same-length line will be perhaps in the 15-20% range , certainly not 50%.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The cost per km of the OL is roughly half that of the city’s Relief line. Judge that as you will.
Click to expand...

reliefline.ca

Downtown Relief Line Subway (DRL) - Toronto [Historical Note]

What is the Relief Line? Relief Line Subway Project: Terms of Reference, Challenges, Transit Technology. Why the Ontario Line instead of the Downtown Relief Line?
reliefline.ca reliefline.ca

Ontario Line/Relief Line comparison:

Length: 15.5km – 7.4km

Estimated cost: $10.4b to $12b – $8b to $9.2b

Taking the average cost and calculating the cost per km:
Ontario Line: (10.4 + 12.0) / 2 / 15.5 = 0.72b/km
Relief Line: (8.0 +9.2) / 2 / 7.4 = 1.16b/km
Ratio: 1.16 / 0.72 = 1.61

So, times 1.61 is not twice as much. Furthermore, both DRL South and OL contain the most expensive downtown section, but OL also has the section north of Danforth where there are fewer obstacles and the construction should be cheaper. If we were to add the extension of DRL to Eglinton, the per-km cost of DRL would very likely go down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
innsertnamehere said:
Several points - when I say “TR” I really mean “toronto subway train design” - 150 metre platforms, 3.2 metre width, the associated required grades, etc.

One of the big differences between the two technologies is steeper grades with OL and smaller stations as well, which allows for smaller elevated structures, smaller stations, etc.

I’m also a believer in a good project, not a perfect project - the OL is a good project, much better than the old relief line, but it’s not perfect. No infrastructure project is.

also - just because we are blowing money on Eglinton West or Yonge North or wherever doesn’t mean we need to blow it on the relief line. Trim those other lines back and focus criticism there, not on the OL. I’ve said that repeatedly.

and what does “foundational” mean? Who says the OL is more likely to see 100% ridership growth than the Scarborough LRT is to see 50% ridership growth? I don’t really care either to be honest, each project needs to stand on its own merits - I only raised the comparison as many on this board support the Scarborough LRT but oppose the OL on capacity concerns.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's too many gung ho about 3.2 wide trains. Most are supportive of a narrower design. A big benefit of expanding train length however, that seldom gets talked about: opportunity for branching. This is carte blanche for a new line through the core, with a general idea for affordable extensions outside that area. I think it'd be wise to allow for separate services. I guess that could still be done in theory, but seems like it'd be pushing it a bit.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Actual cost estimate for the OL in the business cases is $8.5 billion from what I recall.
Click to expand...

We know that all transit cost estimates are sliding up as the time goes, you can find a range of estimates for both OL and DRL. I took the estimates for both lines from the same page, that should reduce the uncerntainty due to the time-of-estimate.

innsertnamehere said:
costs would likely be less than half per km upon full buildout to Sheppard for phase 2 of each line, as the OL will be able to be built as an elevated line while the city more than likely would have tunneled the RL.
Click to expand...

Under that condition, the city agrees to elevated OL but not to elevated TTC subway, probably yes. However, that would be a policy issue, not a technical issue. Where the line is straight, elevating a TTC subway isn't substantially harder than elevating an OL type light metro.
 
Based on the number provided by Metrolinx, at similar frequencies the DRL plan with TRs represents a 32% increase in capcity over the current OL plan. Putting aside the questionable method used to come up with the OL estimate and assuming twice the cost per km (which I don't think is accurate), I'd still say that's well worth the investment.
 
1626790352543.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top