News   May 25, 2020
 151     0 
News   May 25, 2020
 315     0 
News   May 22, 2020
 2.8K     2 

Leaside Bridge

diminutive

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
867
Reaction score
43
Also, reintroducing ICTS just as we got rid of it with the SRT closure also seems unwise - Steve Munro estimates the capacity of the line to be 4 subway-car length which would probably push an ICTS to 6 car length on day one with no fleet economies of scale to take advantage of either from the conventional light rail or heavy subway direction.
The DRTES put peak demand in 2030 at 15k pphpd. That's easily met by ICTS scaled vehicles traveling at 90s headways.

Reintroducing LIMs probably wouldn't be a good idea, but any new route should designed to realize all of the cost savings possible. Things like running through a single tunnel, or tighter turn radii and grade allowances.

Also, economy of scale in rolling stock seems nonexistant in Toronto.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
3,362
Location
Toronto
The DRTES put peak demand in 2030 at 15k pphpd. That's easily met by ICTS scaled vehicles traveling at 90s headways.
90-second headways! That put's a lot of faith that the estimates are correct. What about if that line is extended north in the future to Sheppard East or Finch East ... or even to 905?

And what about 2041 estimates?

And what about the earlier modelling that used Queen/Pape instead of King/Pape that indicated 17,500?

With the predicited values so close to the ultimate capacity of ICTS or LRT, I think we'd be taking a huge risk not building it as heavy subway - particularly as much of it will have to be underground, and won't cost much more being built as subway now.

15,000 riders would require a 4-car subway train (using T1 equipment) every 2 minutes and 35 seconds at peak. If full-size 6-car subway trains were used, they'd still come every 4 minutes.
 
Last edited:

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,641
The DRTES put peak demand in 2030 at 15k pphpd. That's easily met by ICTS scaled vehicles traveling at 90s headways.

Reintroducing LIMs probably wouldn't be a good idea, but any new route should designed to realize all of the cost savings possible. Things like running through a single tunnel, or tighter turn radii and grade allowances.

Also, economy of scale in rolling stock seems nonexistant in Toronto.
I agree with this.

Currently, it seems we use this logic. DRL is needed. It should be subway. The way Toronto and TTC build subways, the cost is $450/km.

We have to include the ability to actually collect the money to get the project to actually proceed. The above scenario will have maybe a 25% chance of being started within 10 years. But if we cut costs by one of several means, we could get a cost of $200M/km and still have a grade-separated line. Sure the capacity is only 20 to 25k instead of 30 to 35k, but it still meets our needs. Also, the probability of recieving enough support for the project to actually begin within 10 years may increase to 75%.

Instead of trying to get a home run, we should settle for a double.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,369
Reaction score
1,877
90-second headways! That put's a lot of faith that the estimates are correct. What about if that line is extended north in the future to Sheppard East or Finch East ... or even to 905?

And what about 2041 estimates?
If the cost differential for construction is significant ($200M versus $400M; which I don't really believe), then my honest answer to those questions is that we should consider building a second DRL East with completion targetting 2030.


DRL East #1: Pape & Adelaide (completion 2020)

DRL East #2: perhaps Sherborne/Parliament & Front/Bremner/Core South with completion 2030.


If the capital cost really is halved by targetting 15,000 rather than 45,000; then building 2 lines in different locations would be the same capial price and have significantly better coverage.
 
Last edited:

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
3,362
Location
Toronto
If the cost differential for construction is significant ($200M versus $400M; which I don't really believe), then my honest answer to those questions is that we should consider building a second DRL East with completion targetting 2030.
If it is. But how could it be? Tunnels won't be cheaper. Rolling stock isn't cheaper. You could save a bit on steel for the bridges, but not much. Even the stations shouldn't be much difference in price if you do them based on capacity - presumably the subway stations could be shorter than an ICTS or LRT station, as the vehicles are wider - reality is that you'd likely use 500 feet for the subway stations, and shorter for LRT or ICTS - so perhaps a it of saving.

But $200 million saving a kilometre? I really doubt it simply for technology. Now if you want to start building the ICTS as elevated east of the Don then there would be some money saved.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,369
Reaction score
1,877
If it is. But how could it be? Tunnels won't be cheaper. Rolling stock isn't cheaper. You could save a bit on steel for the bridges, but not much.
I don't have a clue. Don't believe it is possible for a second however there are several posts on this page alone that strongly believe otherwise.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,369
Reaction score
1,877
If it is. But how could it be? Tunnels won't be cheaper. Rolling stock isn't cheaper. You could save a bit on steel for the bridges, but not much.
I don't have a clue. Don't believe it is possible for a second however there are several posts on this page alone that strongly believe otherwise.

The assertion is that we can build underground ICTS for less than half the price of an underground Toronto Rocket system. If a quick phone call with Bombardier or Siemens in the RFQ process confirmed that; then we simply tender 2 small-metro/ICTS lines instead of a single Toronto Rocket line.


I expect we will be building a single Toronto Rocket based line.
 
Last edited:

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,641
But $200 million saving a kilometre? I really doubt it simply for technology. Now if you want to start building the ICTS as elevated east of the Don then there would be some money saved.
A few Canadian prices I found.

Canada Line Vancouver. $2.1B for 18 or 19 km = $110/km, $140M/km in current $. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line). I think we had someone on here who stated that this cost included trains and a yard and this was for a half elevated half burried line. The stations were a little small on this line so maybe we could add 15% or 20% to the cost to get 100m stations.

Orange Line extention to Lava (Montreal Metro). $750M for 5 or 6 km = $140/km (http://www.amt.qc.ca/corp_template.aspx?id=1108&LangType=1033). I am unsure what year these $ are quoted in (probably between 2002 and 2007), but I assume the inflated cost would be less than $200M/km. This is for a 100% burried line.

Also, both the tunnelling under the Riviere des Praries and the bridge over the Fraser in a high seismic zone are more complex than bridging over the Don Valley.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
8,768
important to note that Montreal's subway uses a single tunnel, making it considerably cheaper to construct. (but also much lower capacity)

The canada line uses trains that are only 40m long. (compared to 140m for the new Toronto rockets) This is a huge difference in capacity, and quite frankly if the DRL was to be constructed with 40m long ICTS trains it would be over capacity on opening day. mind you trains with that capacity also allow for much cheaper construction as platforms can be 50-60m long instead of 160-170 for Toronto. there is also the fact that the Canada Line was built Cut and Cover, which could questionably create total traffic havoc in the city for years on end in Toronto.
 
Last edited:

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,641
important to note that Montreal's subway uses a single tunnel, making it considerably cheaper to construct. (but also much lower capacity)

The canada line uses trains that are only 40m long. (compared to 140m for the new Toronto rockets) This is a huge difference in capacity, and quite frankly if the DRL was to be constructed with 40m long ICTS trains it would be over capacity on opening day. mind you trains with that capacity also allow for much cheaper construction as platforms can be 50-60m long instead of 160-170 for Toronto. there is also the fact that the Canada Line was built Cut and Cover, which could questionably create total traffic havoc in the city for years on end in Toronto.
I was looking for capacity number for Montreal. Although not the greatest reference, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro) says that they use 9 car trains with 160 passengers per train and 2 minute frequencies. This works out to over 40,ooo pphpd. This does seem unrealistic, but I would like to see an accurate number an not just a general comment that the capacity is "much less".

For Vancouver, If we assume the station cost half the total amount, these stations could have been made twice as long and still come in at about $200M/km.

As for cut-and-cover, this is another area that should be explored. How much can be saved and how much inconvenience this entails are important factors. You do not try to minimize inconvenience, nor do you minimize costs, you pick something in between, but I think maybe the lower cost should have a bit more weight.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
8,768
Half elevated as well. Elevating a line typically costs $70ish million a km, so that makes the tunnelled portion more than 200. You are probably looking at 250-300m a km to build the Underground portion of the Canada line with 120m (3 car) trains. This is in much simpler geography than what the DRL requires, (no sharp turns, no mega bridges, no tunnelling around an underground walkway system, etc.) by the time all that is factored in, you are looking at almost no cost savings compared to HRT (standard toronto subway) when built cut and cover, at which point you should probably opt with the $10 million more a km, and built HRT, to allow for hugely larger capacity.
 

diminutive

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
867
Reaction score
43
The canada line uses trains that are only 40m long. (compared to 140m for the new Toronto rockets) This is a huge difference in capacity, and quite frankly if the DRL was to be constructed with 40m long ICTS trains it would be over capacity on opening day. mind you trains with that capacity also allow for much cheaper construction as platforms can be 50-60m long instead of 160-170 for Toronto. there is also the fact that the Canada Line was built Cut and Cover, which could questionably create total traffic havoc in the city for years on end in Toronto.
Translink claims the CL's EMUs can hold ~167 people per car and designed the stations to accommodate 3 car trains. If you had trains running every 90s, which is hardly innovative, that would work out to a peak capacity of about 20k pphpd, nearly a 15% cushion over the biggest estimate for a DRL and a 70% cushion on the simple Pape-King-Downtown alignment.

While cities like Montreal or Vancouver definitely build lower capacity transit systems, the capacity gap isn't as big as you let on and certainly not relative to our capital costs gap. More importantly, there really aren't any routes left in Toronto which have the potential for >20k pphpd.

There is a persistent trend on this board to WAY overestimate capacity requirements and I've got no idea where it comes from. What do people here really think peak demand on a DRL would be? In another thread, rbt guessed 45k pphpd. nfitz just said it would be 'dangerous' not to plan for more than 20k, since one day the DRL may stretch from the 905 to downtown. When subways cost 800m/km or whatever in 2040 I will literally eat my shoe if a DRL, if it even exists, is extended anywhere. As it is I'd be amazed if we got anything more than a Pape-downtown segment as long as prices are coming in at 450-500m/km.

Personally, my opinion based on TTC estimates for a 'full' Eglinton-Pape-King/Queen-Dundas West DRL, by 2050 demand would be in the range of 20-25k. I think the best way to meet that goal is to design a system based around smallish trains running at the highest frequency physics will allow. Bombardier claims it can reach about 48 trains per hour, but 40 is definitely achievable.

Also, re cut/cover. For starters, a substantial portion of the Canada Line was actually bored through downtown Vancouver, but whatever. More importantly though, there's no reason to think cut/covering a section like that along Pape would create 'traffic havoc for years on end' for the City. A good chunk of Toronto wouldn't see anything wrong with tearing down the Gardiner permanently, yet apparently closing a secondary 4 lane road in East York for a couple years would create some kind of super traffic apocalypse! It's totally dissonant. I doubt anyone here would react in horror if King or Yonge or Queen were permanently turned into pedestrian/transit malls, why couldn't Richmond or Wellington or Adelaide or Pape be closed for a few years to build an obviously beneficial piece of infrastructure?

Half elevated as well. Elevating a line typically costs $70ish million a km, so that makes the tunnelled portion more than 200. You are probably looking at 250-300m a km to build the Underground portion of the Canada line with 120m (3 car) trains. This is in much simpler geography than what the DRL requires, (no sharp turns, no mega bridges, no tunnelling around an underground walkway system, etc.) by the time all that is factored in, you are looking at almost no cost savings compared to HRT (standard toronto subway) when built cut and cover, at which point you should probably opt with the $10 million more a km, and built HRT, to allow for hugely larger capacity.
Hugh? Alot of these numbers don't make any sense at all...

'no mega bridges:' The Canada Line has several river crossings. One under False Creek, one along the North Arm Bridge and another along the Middle Arm Bridge.

"to build the Underground portion of the Canada line with 120m (3 car) trains:" A three car train on the Canada Line would be 60 meters, and the system was designed to accommodate that.

Your route costs are extremely bizarre. Using your numbers, the Canada Line would have cost nearly 200m/km. And, if elevated lines cost 70m/km, why does at grade LRT here cost 100m/km, and why don't we just elevate the DRL along the rail corridor and in Thorncliffe/Flemingdon?

You keep mentioning very real ways the TTC could save money (cut/cover, elevating, single tunnel bores) but then just discount them as impossible.

Also, just using your numbers (250m-300m), that's STILL substantially less than what the TTC estimates for the DRL (450m-500m). That's 50-100% premium here!
 
Last edited:

jamincan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
196
Reaction score
41
Location
Kitchener
Perhaps someone could clarify, but when I crunch the numbers, the Canada Line with full-length trains actually seems to have similar capacity to the new TRs. Wikipedia shows a crush load of 1100 for the TRs, and 400/2-car set crush loads for the Canada Line which translates to 1200 for a 6-car train. Also, from what I can tell, a 6-car Skytrain would have less capacity (~1000 crush load from my estimates, though I don't have actual figures), but has construction advantages for tunneling. The MkIII (Innovia Metro) would also be available without LIMs according to Bombardier, which would remove some of the concern about being locked into the technology. If this is the case, it seems that the TRs don't really have much advantage in capacity compared to the technology used in Vancouver. What are the arguments in favour of using the existing technology if not for capacity?
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
3,362
Location
Toronto
important to note that Montreal's subway uses a single tunnel, making it considerably cheaper to construct. (but also much lower capacity)
It's also bored in competent bedrock, rather than the flowing sands and fill that we have to deal with in Toronto.

What's amazing is that they managed to keep the costs relatively in line with all the corruption in the industry in Quebec.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,017
Reaction score
3,268
Perhaps someone could clarify, but when I crunch the numbers, the Canada Line with full-length trains actually seems to have similar capacity to the new TRs. Wikipedia shows a crush load of 1100 for the TRs, and 400/2-car set crush loads for the Canada Line which translates to 1200 for a 6-car train. Also, from what I can tell, a 6-car Skytrain would have less capacity (~1000 crush load from my estimates, though I don't have actual figures), but has construction advantages for tunneling.
Two different sets of numbers that you're using, thus the discrepancy.

1100 people per set is the TTC's standards rating. If trains average beyond that number, than the TTC adds another train. In reality, the crush capacity - what would be equivalent to the Canada Line's 167-per-car - of a 6 car TR train is well over 1800 per train (I've seen the number 315/car written internally as the crush capacity for the T1s).

Of course, at that loading you have to deal with longer dwell times at stations, thus increasing the headway between trains and decreasing the throughput of trains on the line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 

Top