Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[ssiguy2]

The cheapest alternative that this report didn't even consider is also the easiest..............electrify the Airport line and using EMU to have it travel further east using the rail corridor up to Pape. The Union station is already built, fast, direct, and only requires tunneling thru the very small stretch connecting Pape station to the rail corridor. They could have that done in 2 years and have a full rapid transit line for a fraction of the price and actually have a service to the airport that Torontonians could use.

As far as a large system Sao Paulo offers a great example of how to serve huge new areas of rapid transit Metro on the cheap. They are tranferring most of their original commuter rail corridors over to Metro system using EMU, more frequent stations, and regular fares.

Toronto is in a very enviable position in that it has a very large existing rail network but it flat out refuses to use any of them...........probably the only city on the planet that doesn't. Next time, and there will be a next time, the report should be given a definate amount of money that can be used ie 2 billion and tell them to find options within that price. This idea of giving them a mandate to report potential systems and alighnments as if the cost is irrelevant is lunacy. Why didn't they just recommend tunnels under Queen, King, rail corridor and anything else that caught their fancy? It's this little thing called money.

 

[diminutive]

The cheapest alternative that this report didn't even consider is also the easiest..............electrify the Airport line and using EMU to have it travel further east using the rail corridor up to Pape.

Yea, pretty much. Toronto keeps complaining that it doesn't get enough funding for whatever, but then we make these proposals which obviously ignore any attempts to minimize costs.

I realize that other proposals (rail corridor EMUs, Canada Line/skytrain) have compromises attached to them, but the unwillingness to actually entertain these choices is really frustrating. I guess I'm still bitter about the entire Spadina extension being bored subway with massive 150 million dollar stations. We overbuild (or rather, over-propose) rapid transit capacity hugely and act surprised when places like Vancouver overtake us in terms of rapid transit.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What I do find fascinating is that there is the insistence of building the highest cost modes where the demand is hardly worth it (relative to other priorities) and cheaper options available - and yet when it comes to building subways in the
core, with rock solid demand and the highest degree of population and employment growth (not to mention existing, saturated transit lines), the same people are insistent that we that we nickle and dime. Subways? Gawd forbid, we can't have it underground - we should just stick it to the rail corridor while ignoring the simple fact that a) - TTC have no say over that and b) The province (by Metrolinx as proxy) haven't had the slightest inclination of entertaining that idea. Like yes, we really should underspend on a DRL and have decision that haunt us 40, 50 years down the road (e.g. Union Station to Yonge-Bloor interchange). Sorry, the whole decentralization scheme cooked up during the Metro days is an abject failure, and like it or not, growth will be at the core.

We don't over-build/over-proposed where we should be doing so, and guess what, the driver of that line of decision-making isn't "Toronto" per se.

AoD

 

[jaycola]

Honestly, for someone who lives in York Region, they have already made the choice of a long cross-city commute, and that chore doesn't fall on the TTC. It is the problem of those people to figure out a way to get to the closest commuter train. Commuter trains unlike subway stations, can't be as extensive. Usually people drive to the train station.

You can't first choose to live 20km away from office because you want a bigger house with a large yard and then complain how difficult it is to go to work.

I happen to live 1.8 KM from my office. About a 15 minute walk. I don't know, how much sense does it make to move closer to her work if mine is so close?
It's ridiculous to suggest everyone can just live closer to work. Spouses and partners don't necessarily work close together.

The point I was trying to make is that many in York Region have no choice but to take the Yonge Subway because we are not served by any other options. The report recognizes this demand but disregards it. Development pressures exist on yonge from north of finch right up to and north of Hwy 7.
This development is going to put greater demands on the Yonge line whether the subway is extended or if VIVA/YRT does a better job of getting people there.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

jaycola:

Regardless of your reality, the question is why should the City of Toronto prioritize a transit line extension that will overload the system? The City of Toronto does not represent the interests of York Region residents first and foremost - that's York Region's job. Whether those living in York Region has a choice or not is irrelevant to that discussion. If York Region consider that having a Yonge line extension is a priority, one would imagine they will have to pay for infrastructure upgrades in the City of Toronto that would allow that additional load to be handled without detriment to the local citizenery (and not just the cost of the section of Yonge line falling in the boundaries of York, and associated trainsets). I believe that kind of arrangement exists for water and sewer...

AoD

 

[diminutive]

We don't over-build/over-proposed where we should be doing so, and guess what, the driver of that line of decision-making isn't "Toronto" per se

Almost by definition we shouldn't overbuild or, especially, over propose anywhere in the city. Overproposing, especially, just makes it unlikely that anything will ever get built in the first place. Had Yonge's original subway designers insisted everything be deep bored tunnels, stations have massive concourses and interchanges be designed to cope with (unpredictable) demand a century later we would probably still have streetcars running up the road.

Arguing that the TTC should at least consider something like a Canada Line or rail corridor or whatever is hardly "nickle and dimeing"; both would be able to meet the essential goals of a DRL in terms of rough alignment, capacity and travel times. The TTC even did a report on why cities like Vancouver or Madrid are able to realize more affordable rapid transit, and there's almost no evidence that any of its conclusions were applied here.

Just because this is the DRL doesn't mean the 8-10b will magically be easier to get. It's a lot of money, and the biggest impediment to rapid transit at the moment is it's (apparently) huge cost per km.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The cheapest alternative that this report didn't even consider is also the easiest..............electrify the Airport line and using EMU to have it travel further east using the rail corridor up to Pape. The Union station is already built, fast, direct, and only requires tunneling thru the very small stretch connecting Pape station to the rail corridor. They could have that done in 2 years and have a full rapid transit line for a fraction of the price and actually have a service to the airport that Torontonians could use.

Have we already forgotten the study showing that in a couple of decades the rail corridor and Union Station could be so overloaded that one solution would be to build another station between Bathurst and Spadina, and shuttle the passengers to the CBD via - wait for it - the DRL?

 

[Jaye101]

Much as I like the idea of a DRL, it seems difficult to justify at 8.3 billion for the full route. That's over 450m/km, nearly a half billion! It's very hard to justify things at that level. Even for sections which could easily avoid tunneling, like Eglinton-Pape, the costs remain high.

It would be nice if the TTC looked like it was trying to contain these costs. The - longer - Canada Line cost 1/4 of the projected DRL costs, so clearly there are alternatives. A Canada Line like medium capacity system is close to the projected peak 2031 demand volumes for a DRL (15k pph/pd vs. 14k pph/pd, respectively) so it's not like the TTC 'needs' a full blown subway. I can understand not building so close to capacity, but I think the point that Vancouver built a slightly longer line for a quarter of the price with sufficient or near sufficient capacity is highly illustrative.

Other TTC materials have estimated costs up to 10 billion for the full line. There's almost no point in considering transit investments at that cost/km; the TTC/City would be better off seriously reflecting about what it can do to bring down costs/km.

Why not stop building fare paid areas in new stations? The fare loss from a PoP system would probably be much less than the cost of building massive underground fare areas. Why not look at medium capacity systems? Why not build on viaducts in areas like Don Mills and Eglinton where the urban fabric is appropriate. Does the line trade frequency for capacity to the greatest extent possible?

You are absolutely correct. The Canada Line used the cut and cover technique during construction and I believe the same can be done with the DRL in order to save hundreds of millions. Richmond, Adelaide and Wellington provide the perfect opportunity to build the DRL cost and time effectively.

 

[BurlOak]

Almost by definition we shouldn't overbuild or, especially, over propose anywhere in the city. Overproposing, especially, just makes it unlikely that anything will ever get built in the first place. Had Yonge's original subway designers insisted everything be deep bored tunnels, stations have massive concourses and interchanges be designed to cope with (unpredictable) demand a century later we would probably still have streetcars running up the road.

Arguing that the TTC should at least consider something like a Canada Line or rail corridor or whatever is hardly "nickle and dimeing"; both would be able to meet the essential goals of a DRL in terms of rough alignment, capacity and travel times. The TTC even did a report on why cities like Vancouver or Madrid are able to realize more affordable rapid transit, and there's almost no evidence that any of its conclusions were applied here.

Just because this is the DRL doesn't mean the 8-10b will magically be easier to get. It's a lot of money, and the biggest impediment to rapid transit at the moment is it's (apparently) huge cost per km.

You are absolutely correct. The Canada Line used the cut and cover technique during construction and I believe the same can be done with the DRL in order to save hundreds of millions. Richmond, Adelaide and Wellington provide the perfect opportunity to build the DRL cost and time effectively.

Canada Line was about 18 km long, 16 stations and $2.0B. Basically, it was 50% underground and 50% elevated. Thats about $110/km, or $140/km with inflation.

Osgoode Station to Don Mills/Steeles is about 22 to 25 km, depending on the route. I figure it would need 16 to 20 stations - about the same station spacings as Canada Line.

Thus, Toronto should be able to build the entire length of the "DRL" or "Don Valley Line", grade-separated (what many people call subway) for $3.3B (24km x $140M) - about the TTC estimate for phase 1. If this proposal was on the table, it would truly relieve the Yonge line and I am sure that people would be willing to pay the dedicated taxes needed for the project. Extravagant construction is another one of the reasons why people do not support transit taxes.

P.S. Canada Line only took 4 years of construction, not 8 like Eglinton.

 

[MisterF]

Understanding that I do have personal interest in the area north of Finch on the Yonge line, this report totally ignores a large segment of the population where transit demand already exists.






It is generally accepted that demand for transit service north of Finch is so high that any extension of the Yonge will overwhelm the system down the line. So what it the alternative for those in the area between Finch and Hwy 7 not served adequately by transit at the present time? Go trains does not serve the densely populated areas north and south of Steeles between Dufferin and Bayview so how will Go improvements make a difference for these areas? I understand that the purpose of the DRL is to ease the pressure further south but this report offers no alternatives or even suggestions for the existing demand north of Finch.
It simply states demand is high so we cannot accommodate it.

My wife lives here L4J5M9 and works here M5A1E8. What options does she have to get to work?

There is a glaring hole in the middle of the urban region, where demand already exists, that is being not only ignored but cast aside by this report.

The biggest glaring hole in the subway network is the DRL route, by far. It's a much more important project than the Yonge extension and would serve far more people. And it would relieve the system rather than overload it.

The cheapest alternative that this report didn't even consider is also the easiest..............electrify the Airport line and using EMU to have it travel further east using the rail corridor up to Pape. The Union station is already built, fast, direct, and only requires tunneling thru the very small stretch connecting Pape station to the rail corridor. They could have that done in 2 years and have a full rapid transit line for a fraction of the price and actually have a service to the airport that Torontonians could use.

As far as a large system Sao Paulo offers a great example of how to serve huge new areas of rapid transit Metro on the cheap. They are tranferring most of their original commuter rail corridors over to Metro system using EMU, more frequent stations, and regular fares.

Toronto is in a very enviable position in that it has a very large existing rail network but it flat out refuses to use any of them...........probably the only city on the planet that doesn't. Next time, and there will be a next time, the report should be given a definate amount of money that can be used ie 2 billion and tell them to find options within that price. This idea of giving them a mandate to report potential systems and alighnments as if the cost is irrelevant is lunacy. Why didn't they just recommend tunnels under Queen, King, rail corridor and anything else that caught their fancy? It's this little thing called money.

Yes, the rail corridors are underused. Yes, the GO system should be upgraded to proper regional rail. But even if it were, there would still be a need for a traditional heavy rail subway east-west through downtown.

What I do find fascinating is that there is the insistence of building the highest cost modes where the demand is hardly worth it (relative to other priorities) and cheaper options available - and yet when it comes to building subways in the
core, with rock solid demand and the highest degree of population and employment growth (not to mention existing, saturated transit lines), the same people are insistent that we that we nickle and dime. Subways? Gawd forbid, we can't have it underground - we should just stick it to the rail corridor while ignoring the simple fact that a) - TTC have no say over that and b) The province (by Metrolinx as proxy) haven't had the slightest inclination of entertaining that idea. Like yes, we really should underspend on a DRL and have decision that haunt us 40, 50 years down the road (e.g. Union Station to Yonge-Bloor interchange). Sorry, the whole decentralization scheme cooked up during the Metro days is an abject failure, and like it or not, growth will be at the core.

We don't over-build/over-proposed where we should be doing so, and guess what, the driver of that line of decision-making isn't "Toronto" per se.

AoD

Very true. If there's one place in the city where a full-blown subway is warranted, it's the DRL route.

 

[diminutive]

Yes, the rail corridors are underused. Yes, the GO system should be upgraded to proper regional rail. But even if it were, there would still be a need for a traditional heavy rail subway east-west through downtown.

At the risk of misunderstanding ssiguy2, I think he meant building rapid transit/subway (electric, grade separated, normal fares, appropriate stations, low headways) along the rail corridor and up to Pape, not a kind of souped up GO train. The difference between this and "traditional heavy rail subway" is pretty slim.

Very true. If there's one place in the city where a full-blown subway is warranted, it's the DRL route.

How do you judge that? The TTC claims peak demand to be somewhere in the range of under 20k pphpd, which is well within the range of a medium capacity system. If that could save money and make the project more feasible, why not? The same argument could be made for running along the rail corridor.

P.S. Just to be clear, I think the rationale for a bona fide rapid transit through the downtown core is quite solid. I just don't think it will get funded at this price. Toronto can't do it, and I doubt the Province will do it on top of their contribution to the Eglinton Crosstown at a time when they have to screw with teacher's wages. So, wherever possible, City/TTC needs to reduce the costs of grade separated RT. If this means using existing rail corridors, think about it. Cut-and-cover? Viaducts? Smaller trains? Smaller stations? I realize all of these things are less than ideal (more disruptions to local residents, less capacity...) but part of leadership is balancing priorities and resources. Vancouver's leadership made a conscious choice to build the Canada Line with cut/cover and viaduct sections. It wasn't totally popular, but at least they have something to show for it.

 

[MisterF]

At the risk of misunderstanding ssiguy2, I think he meant building rapid transit/subway (electric, grade separated, normal fares, appropriate stations, low headways) along the rail corridor and up to Pape, not a kind of souped up GO train. The difference between this and "traditional heavy rail subway" is pretty slim.

Yup, what you described is exactly what I was talking about: proper regional rail. They way they do it in Europe, Asia, and as far as I know Australia. That's what GO needs to turn into. But even that wouldn't address rapid transit in the downtown shoulder areas (as the report describes them) and it wouldn't do a very good job of relieving the streetcar lines or Bloor-Yonge station. Only a line along King or Queen with an effective transfer at the Danforth can do that properly.

How do you judge that? The TTC claims peak demand to be somewhere in the range of under 20k pphpd, which is well within the range of a medium capacity system. If that could save money and make the project more feasible, why not? The same argument could be made for running along the rail corridor.

P.S. Just to be clear, I think the rationale for a bona fide rapid transit through the downtown core is quite solid. I just don't think it will get funded at this price. Toronto can't do it, and I doubt the Province will do it on top of their contribution to the Eglinton Crosstown at a time when they have to screw with teacher's wages. So, wherever possible, City/TTC needs to reduce the costs of grade separated RT. If this means using existing rail corridors, think about it. Cut-and-cover? Viaducts? Smaller trains? Smaller stations? I realize all of these things are less than ideal (more disruptions to local residents, less capacity...) but part of leadership is balancing priorities and resources. Vancouver's leadership made a conscious choice to build the Canada Line with cut/cover and viaduct sections. It wasn't totally popular, but at least they have something to show for it.

Metrolinx estimated that the DRL would have 138 million annual riders. That's almost as many as the Bloor line and well over double the estimates for Eglinton, despite being half the length of both. It's also more "point" riders than any line in the city except Yonge. Extend it north of Bloor and the numbers would get even higher. Of any corridor in Toronto, the DRL is the place to not cheap out.

As for funding, well it needs to be planned before it can be funded. When Eglinton was first put on a map it wasn't funded either. But your point is a valid one and exactly why the GTA needs extra revenue tools to pay for more transit. With the talk in the media about a gas tax or sales tax or whatever to pay for transit expansion, I'm convinced that it's going to happen eventually.

 

[rbt]

P.S. Canada Line only took 4 years of construction, not 8 like Eglinton.

You could do Eglinton significantly faster if you ignore the impact to traffic.

A large chunk of the time is 1) staggering intersection closures and 2) putting a cover over construction so the station is built while traffic is driving over a temporary roof.

Canada Line instead opted to close the area around stations for the full construction period.


It probably wouldn't be wise to close off every north-south route from Keele to Don Mills for 4 years though it would make construction both cheaper and faster; just like Canada Line did to a chunk of downtown Vancouver.


~80% of the cost of modern construction is 1) worker safety, followed by 2) limiting disruption. If you are willing to sacrifice one or both of those, costs drop. If you increase one or both of those, costs increase. Vancouver basically forgot to write in #2 when tendering the Canada Line and tunnel bores/minimal closures that they promised residents suddenly became 3 year long open-cuts.

Vancouver will never build another line as cheaply as the Canada Line because they now know to write in #2. That is, the billion saved during construction wasn't worth the hit to the local economy. When you include externalized costs such as small business losses, salary losses, etc. the construction price of the Canada Line is much less appealing.

 

[nfitz]

You could do Eglinton significantly faster if you ignore the impact to traffic.

It's also a function of funding. The government isn't prepared to spend all the money in the next 4 years.

My point was simply that none of these proposals has any chance in hell of getting built within the next 30 years, if ever.

Something is going to get built over the next 30 years. There's a lot on the plate already for the next 10 years, but what about the 20 years since that? Since the 1950s, not a decade has passed without rapid transit construction going on. It will happen one way or another. The entire DRL is a big project, but not much bigger than Eglinton. And Phase 1, isn't a much bigger project that the Spadina extension.

More to the point, something has to happen. Population is increasing, employment is increasing, transit ridership is increasing (TTC ridership up 25% in less than a decade). It's all going to blow up at some point. Even TTC has reversed it's position about the whether the DRL is needed sooner or later.

 

[W. K. Lis]

With the Eglinton Crosstown happening and the possibility of a Downtown Relief Line creating a terminal at Eglinton and Don Mills, the current office buildings in that area will become a magnet for even more offices. Unlike Yonge and Sheppard, it is already zoned for commercial. It could be redeveloped into a larger office hub than it is currently.

Gone will be the low-rise office buildings surrounded by parking lots and unused land. I can see taller office buildings going up, the closer they are to the stations.

One big change will be the parking lot for the Ontario Science Centre may have to redeveloped for either a Centre expansion or office buildings to make the connection better than it is currently.