Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Rainforest said:
Many people are rightfully concerned that the % reduction in cost will be smaller than the % reduction in capacity.

Say, we save 15% off the cost, but lose 35% of the potential capacity by using smaller and narrower trains. No problem on the opening day; if the line is designed for 34,000 or even just 29,000 pphpd, it will easily handle the opening-day demand of 15,000-20,000.

But 15 years later, the ridership of OL will hit the capacity limit, and we will be back to today's situation of not being able to serve all peak-hour demand into downtown.

While if we had that extra 35% of capacity, OL would remain sufficient for 25-30 years after opening, instead of just 15 years.
Click to expand...

People need to avoid equating underground to capacity - it muddles the conversation (and I don't doubt for one moment that the local councillor cared more about the former than the latter). In any event at issue with OL is that we know the current termini won't be the final - any projection should take into account reasonable extension scenarios. Flexibility comes with cost - so let's pay for it when we had no hesitation paying for it where it isn't needed.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
People need to avoid equating underground to capacity - it muddles the conversation (and I don't doubt for one moment that the local councillor cared more about the former than the latter).

AoD
Click to expand...

In this case, they are related though.

Surely, an elevated line or a ground level line can have as much capacity as Toronto Rockets, or even more than that, if the route permits the structures and the trains required for that kind of capacity.

But the whole notion of making OL cheaper than the previous version of Relief Line, entirely rests on the ability to build the OL with tighter curves and steeper grades. That means, smaller trains and smaller stations.

I wouldn't want this project to surrender to the locals complaining about noise, visual obstruction, and loss of some spaces. They chose to live in downtown or close to downtown, therefore they need to recognize that downtown needs transit infrastructure.

But the longer-term capacity concerns are reasonable in this case. The loss of the future capacity is somewhat of a problem, and so is the taking of space in the eastern GO / RER corridor which could otherwise be used to run more trains.
 
Rainforest said:
In this case, they are related though.

Surely, an elevated line or a ground level line can have as much capacity as Toronto Rockets, or even more than that, if the route permits the structures and the trains required for that kind of capacity.

But the whole notion of making OL cheaper than the previous version of Relief Line, entirely rests on the ability to build the OL with tighter curves and steeper grades. That means, smaller trains and smaller stations.

I wouldn't want this project to surrender to the locals complaining about noise, visual obstruction, and loss of some spaces. They chose to live in downtown or close to downtown, therefore they need to recognize that downtown needs transit infrastructure.

But the longer-term capacity concerns are reasonable in this case. The loss of the future capacity is somewhat of a problem, and so is the taking of space in the eastern GO / RER corridor which could otherwise be used to run more trains.
Click to expand...

We are on a similar page. Smaller trains can be compensated for by frequency (which had already been used to reach a certain level of performance) and/or train length - which is why I am adamant that any build should at a minimum allow for a longer platform in the future - particularly in the case of underground stations where the ends of the platform getting filled with difficult if not impossible to remove elements like ventilation shafts and whatnot. I don't care if it is a narrower space carved outside the box proper, but do it.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I keep getting confused by the suggestion that we "just build another Relief Line in 20 to 30 years". On what corridor? How do we know what we're going to need to relieve, or how we can fit it into downtown?
 
north-of-anything said:
I keep getting confused by the suggestion that we "just build another Relief Line in 20 to 30 years". On what corridor? How do we know what we're going to need to relieve, or how we can fit it into downtown?
Click to expand...

Theoretically the argument goes that if you keep it cheap(er), the savings from it would create a condition, among other things - for a future build should it be needed. Except that doesn't really bear reality into how transit planning had worked. Future builds isn't driven by past savings - if it was, we would have been building new subway lines after BD and if I am being generous the late 70s Spadina extension (even before the current grossly inflated construction prices circa 2000 onward). Having said so, it is not saying that we shouldn't be considerate towards matter of cost either.

AoD
 
north-of-anything said:
I keep getting confused by the suggestion that we "just build another Relief Line in 20 to 30 years". On what corridor? How do we know what we're going to need to relieve, or how we can fit it into downtown?
Click to expand...

Finding the corridor to fit wouldn't be a huge problem. You can use the Dundas corridor, and then maybe even have a surface section along the west bank of Don from Dundas to Bloor. Or, use the Bay St corridor running N-S.

Getting the funding will be a much bigger issue. Two mid-capacity Relief Lines will provide a better area coverage than a single high-capacity line, but they will cost a lot more.
 
north-of-anything said:
I keep getting confused by the suggestion that we "just build another Relief Line in 20 to 30 years". On what corridor? How do we know what we're going to need to relieve, or how we can fit it into downtown?
Click to expand...
Well we'll have to look at travel patterns when OL opens to make a decision. With other projects on the horizon such as the Stouffville Line RER, it's extremely difficult to properly judge what exactly will be needed and where.
 
Rainforest said:
Many people are rightfully concerned that the % reduction in cost will be smaller than the % reduction in capacity.

Say, we save 15% off the cost, but lose 35% of the potential capacity by using smaller and narrower trains. No problem on the opening day; if the line is designed for 34,000 or even just 29,000 pphpd, it will easily handle the opening-day demand of 15,000-20,000.

But 15 years later, the ridership of OL will hit the capacity limit, and we will be back to today's situation of not being able to serve all peak-hour demand into downtown.

While if we had that extra 35% of capacity, OL would remain sufficient for 25-30 years after opening, instead of just 15 years.
Click to expand...
Aren't we also getting GO RER as additional capacity downtown? Not matter how fat the pipe eventually it will be filled. Why not plan for parallel lines to supplement capacity in 30 years?

I'm also a bit puzzled how 34kppdpd will fill in 15 years, but increasing that by 6k extends the life by 20 or 30 years?
 
Rainforest said:
Finding the corridor to fit wouldn't be a huge problem. You can use the Dundas corridor, and then maybe even have a surface section along the west bank of Don from Dundas to Bloor. Or, use the Bay St corridor running N-S.

Getting the funding will be a much bigger issue. Two mid-capacity Relief Lines will provide a better area coverage than a single high-capacity line, but they will cost a lot more.
Click to expand...

afransen said:
Aren't we also getting GO RER as additional capacity downtown? Not matter how fat the pipe eventually it will be filled. Why not plan for parallel lines to supplement capacity in 30 years?
Click to expand...

Building anywhere downtown is by default expensive and comes with a giant sticker shock - you simply can't avoid it. A new line through the core will always be difficult to sell politically on the basis of price alone. Ergo, we need to do it right - or we risk having to pay for it dearly (e.g. Union subway expansion; upcoming Yonge-Bloor expansion)

AoD
 
north-of-anything said:
I keep getting confused by the suggestion that we "just build another Relief Line in 20 to 30 years". On what corridor? How do we know what we're going to need to relieve, or how we can fit it into downtown?
Click to expand...

My concern isn't location/routing. There are options.

Looking at the roughly 70 year history of the current RL/OL seems to make it clear we should not build anything now with the assumption we'll build another line in a few decades.

A future RL should have no impact on this project. We should be building for maximum capacity now.
 
Rainforest said:
But the whole notion of making OL cheaper than the previous version of Relief Line, entirely rests on the ability to build the OL with tighter curves and steeper grades. That means, smaller trains and smaller stations.
Click to expand...
It means different rolling stock, different technology (possibly). Optimizing the system to the needs, not building around a legacy standard which imposes arbitrary constraints.
What I don’t get is the feeling that Toronto subway standards based on technological constraints of 70 years ago as the be all and end all. The epitome of mass transit perfection.

Advocate for higher ultimate capacity sure. But don’t equate every attempt of innovation as counter to goals.
 
Darwinkgo said:
Why? At what expense? A line that extends no further past Pape?
Click to expand...

Because it's needed right now.

If we can build the SSE and EWLRT spending as much as possible, we can afford to build this line properly.

As for length, the DRL plan was just Phase 1.
 
afransen said:
You know how we guarantee subway doesn't get built in Toronto? Insisting that it cost $1.5 billion per km or bust.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the whole point of the province uploading subway construction that they could build what's needed faster, efficiently and more affordably?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top