Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

BurlOak said:
Tunnel cost is $50M/km. https://www.thestar.com/business/20..._million_contract_to_tunnel_eglinton_lrt.html
Say $75M with inflation. If you tunnel an extra 3 or 4 km to a better TBM extraction site, you might just break even right there. Then when you want to remobilize to extend the subway, no TBM's are required at all - just excavation contracts for Stations (and emergency exits). It would likely cost double (or more) to remobilize TBM equipment to extend the tunnel those 4 km.
If we use the Toronto method of building subway every 50 years, it may not make sense. But if you intend to extend the subway in 5 or 10 years, then doing the tunnel now makes sense.
Did you notice how MTO tends to build the substructure wider than required to allow for future widening. This eliminates the costs of remobilizing for pier construction in valley.
Click to expand...

Can't help dwelling on the word wider and thinking if it would make sense using three tracks. Slim down the trains, increase the tracks. One express track southbound in the AM only stopping at the key stations, which switches to express northbound in the PM. Other two tracks are normal all-stop. Torontonians are urban and more than adaptable, we could handle spicing things up a bit to more mimic the complexities of a system like NYC's. RL could be Line 7 - A, B, C services (local, express inbound, express outbound).

Not sold on using 100m trains for a new subway into the core like what Metrolinx is peddling. But if three tracks over its whole length any loss in train capacity is made up in overall line capacity and thus a bit more palatable.
 
44 North said:
Can't help dwelling on the word wider and thinking if it would make sense using three tracks. Slim down the trains, increase the tracks. One express track southbound in the AM only stopping at the key stations, which switches to express northbound in the PM. Other two tracks are normal all-stop. Torontonians are urban and more than adaptable, we could handle spicing things up a bit to more mimic the complexities of a system like NYC's. RL could be Line 7 - A, B, C services (local, express inbound, express outbound).

Not sold on using 100m trains for a new subway into the core like what Metrolinx is peddling. But if three tracks over its whole length any loss in train capacity is made up in overall line capacity and thus a bit more palatable.
Click to expand...
I'm not a world traveller, but I have been on about 10 metro systems world-wide and none had express trains. It does not seem to be a concept that is widely considered as a requirement for a mature subway system.
 
BurlOak said:
I'm not a world traveller, but I have been on about 10 metro systems world-wide and none had express trains. It does not seem to be a concept that is widely considered as a requirement for a mature subway system.
Click to expand...
It's a concept that is actually pretty unique to NYC from my understanding. It's pretty rare for full on metro systems to have express tracks. That type of service pattern is usually reserved for commuter rail type services.
 
Rainforest said:
I can't imagine any operational benefits from the subway upload, given that the bus network remains in the city's hands, and is tightly integrated with the subways. Sounds about as efficient as appointing two CEOs with overlapping powers in a single corporation.

There might exist a fiscal benefit if the system expansion is funded by borrowing, since the province can borrow at a lower rate than the city. If that's the true goal, then it can probably be achieved through some kind of joint ownership. Say, originally the city owns 100% of the subway system worth (on the books) $20B. The province builds $5B worth of additions, and gets a 20% stake in the formal ownership. Now the whole system costs $25B on the books, the city owns 80% = $20B just as it did before, so its balance isn't disturbed in any way. The province owns 20% = $5B, and that offsets the bonds it had issued to cover the construction costs. The operations would remain 100% in the city's hands for the whole system.

Regarding the OL, Metrolinx should present a reasonably detailed design to confirm that the proposed line a) can be built, and b) meets the capacity expectations. Until then, neither the city nor the feds should write a blank cheque for a bag of unknown goodies.
Click to expand...

My only concern with a cancelled upload is if the Ontario Line remains TTC fare.

Would be a shit show if the OL required a separate fare.
 
Rainforest said:
I can't imagine any operational benefits from the subway upload, given that the bus network remains in the city's hands, and is tightly integrated with the subways. Sounds about as efficient as appointing two CEOs with overlapping powers in a single corporation.

There might exist a fiscal benefit if the system expansion is funded by borrowing, since the province can borrow at a lower rate than the city. If that's the true goal, then it can probably be achieved through some kind of joint ownership. Say, originally the city owns 100% of the subway system worth (on the books) $20B. The province builds $5B worth of additions, and gets a 20% stake in the formal ownership. Now the whole system costs $25B on the books, the city owns 80% = $20B just as it did before, so its balance isn't disturbed in any way. The province owns 20% = $5B, and that offsets the bonds it had issued to cover the construction costs. The operations would remain 100% in the city's hands for the whole system.

Regarding the OL, Metrolinx should present a reasonably detailed design to confirm that the proposed line a) can be built, and b) meets the capacity expectations. Until then, neither the city nor the feds should write a blank cheque for a bag of unknown goodies.
Click to expand...
But in the end all this comes back ti one thing. The ttc is one of the least supported transit systems in terms of operational funding from higher levels of government. Get that funding back and theres no need to upload the subway.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
But in the end all this comes back ti one thing. The ttc is one of the least supported transit systems in terms of operational funding from higher levels of government. Get that funding back and theres no need to upload the subway.
Click to expand...

Okay, but the problem is that actually requires money. It's far cheaper to shuffle the deck chairs to pretend we're doing anything worthwhile
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top