Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[diminutive]

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.

That's simply not true at all. The Evergreen line's projected costs work out to approximately 120m/km, which is ballpark similar to the Canada Line and way less than anything that gets built here.

Your analogy with closing Eglinton is flawed in a couple ways. At least with respect to a DRL's Pape-Eglinton leg, Pape is not a major arterial road. It doesn't have tons of small businesses. The City won't collapse if it is closed for four years.

Yes, using more disruptive techniques does involve externalizing costs to local residents. Then again, the rt lines themselves externalize a ton of benefits to local residents/businesses. Imagine if we had insisted that the Yonge line or Bloor line be tunneled, would the merchants be better off?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

dimunitive:

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.

We should be efficient - of course - except that you are not building for something till 2031 - you are building for a system beyond that point. Imagine what would have happened (and probably to a certain extent did happen) if the TTC chose to build the say the Yonge line on the basis of a 15 year planning horizon? That's what a 2031 projection gives you.

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.

Actually in this case real leadership is convincing the public the case for making a significant but required (no, make that overdue) investment that would provide lasting benefits, not headaches a mere 20 years down the road - instead of fiddling around oversized and underused lines that are good at nothing but buying votes elsewhere. If Toronto had went for Canada Line sized stations when it had the chance - what kind of headaches would it have provided now (as if our Yonge-Bloor and Union Stations aren't bad enough)?

AoD

 

[diminutive]

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.

Well, he specifically described a tunnel to Pape for a new transfer. I don't think this is regional rail so much as something like a London Overground or KCR. The only real difference I could see is alignment; King/Queen vs. rail corridor. And that's a worthwhile debate, whose answer partially depends on what we expect the DRL to do (relief vs. local transit).


QUOTE=MisterF;677853]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.[/QUOTE]

Yea, this is one of the best parts about the DRL! It could potentially serve a bunch of non-commercial destinations, making it's demand profile less 'peaky' and greatly improving it's commercial viability. Nonetheless, peak demand projections are still comfortably within the range for canadaline/skytrain/val/mediumcapacity system, while an option like the rail corridor really wouldn't impact capacity at all. If capacity is appropriate for peak hours, it'll obviously be appropriate for off-peak hours as well.

 

[skylyte]

I wonder if the TTC has taken into account how much more ridership they would get if the proposed DRL would head up to Lawrence instead of just ending at Don Mills? That area is "intensifying" as well going upscale with the Don Mills "mall" and condos. It would also be a natural stopping place for routes such as the Lawrence 54, instead of having to go the proposed terminals/stations at Don Mills or Leslie.

 

[diminutive]

We should be efficient - of course - except that you are not building for something till 2031 - you are building for a system beyond that point. Imagine what would have happened (and probably to a certain extent did happen) if the TTC chose to build the say the Yonge line on the basis of a 15 year planning horizon? That's what 2031 projection gives you.

Once you go beyond the first few decades though accurate ridership predictions become... difficult, and far more susceptible to planning decisions. It's been a conscious choice of the City's to pile as much development along the Yonge corridor as possible. By contrast other parts of the subway (Spadina and Bloor lines) are well within their design limits, so it's not as if all RT routes will inexorably experience ridership growth until they approach 50k pphpd.

Again, I think the comparison to Vancouver is instructive; while we've only been able to build short extensions and stubways (Sheppard, SRT, TYSSE) they've been able to add pretty substantial new routes. I guess this is to say I would view it as far preferable to build a notionally 20k pphpd system now, make sure it gets done then let the people of 2050 build another notional 20k pphpd system which will be better suited to their needs, rather than us guessing.

Actually in this case real leadership is convincing the public the case for making a significant but required (no, make that overdue) investment that would provide lasting benefits, not headaches a mere 20 years down the road - instead of fiddling around oversized and underused lines that are good at nothing but buying votes elsewhere. If Toronto had went for Canada Line sized stations when it had the chance - what kind of headaches would it have provided now (as if our Yonge-Bloor and Union Stations aren't bad enough)?

Just to be clear, I do realize other lines and projects are more vulnerable to arguments of overbuilding than the DRL. That said, the DRL is also a fresh start line which should give us more options to control costs. It's the same logic and planning process though that produces the Spadina extension as the 10b dollar DRL, so it's not like I'm 'for' "oversized and underused" lines elsewhere.

Your right that leadership does involve actually making the case for projects like this and getting the resources, but it's a much easier case to make if you can show that you've tried to minimize costs in my opinion. You may think it small minded, but I think people (both general public and Prov/Feds) will ask why the TTC wants to spend up to 500m per km to deep bore tunnel through downtown when there is a rail corridor a few hundred meteres south. It's not a ridiculous question and I don't think the TTC has a decent answer considering it's default behaviour seems to be to automatically bored subways, regardless of situation (Spadina...) with absolutely cavernous stations that cost 150m each.

 

[whatever]

And of course once you're at Lawrence the next call will be to push it just that little bit further to bring it up to Sheppard...

 

[11th]

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.

Hopefully that will happen; but the problem with Yonge/Sheppard (or NYCC) was never about zoning. A number of residential towers under construction there are built on lands originally zoned for commercial. I'm sure the city would welcome office towers to be built in NYCC and won't hesitate either to rezone any land for it if/when there's the demand.

 

[M II A II R II K]

The rail corridors should have a Toronto Overground system in addition to other subway expansion. A Lakeshore Line and a large U-shaped line from Markham to the Airport.

 

[DKsan]

While we're talking about costs, I wonder if we're missing two things that could escalate costs.

1. The tunnel under the Don River near the West Don Lands.

2. The tunnel/bridge under/over the Don Valley at Pape. I'm going to assume the study's cost includes both.

We were lucky with the Bloor Line crossing over the valley with the viaduct because the architect thought ahead and put a rail bed underneath. Streetview looking at the Millwood Road bridge indicates what looks like a second "storey" to it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

There's also the costs of building nothing.

 

[diminutive]

2. The tunnel/bridge under/over the Don Valley at Pape. I'm going to assume the study's cost includes both.

Do transit bridges cost that much? It would only have to carry two rail ROWs and (maybe) a bike path. Not to constantly mention Vancouver, but there are a few such transit bridges there. They don't seem to inflate route costs that much.

This may be kind of screwy, but the Millau Viaduct would have wrked out to like 250m CAD/km of bridge, which is roughly half of this DRL's cost/km, and it's far more grandiose than anything I'd imagine over the Don Valley.

So dunno how the two bridges over this part of the Don Valley would be such a huge cost driver.

 

[innsertnamehere]

While we're talking about costs, I wonder if we're missing two things that could escalate costs.

1. The tunnel under the Don River near the West Don Lands.

2. The tunnel/bridge under/over the Don Valley at Pape. I'm going to assume the study's cost includes both.

We were lucky with the Bloor Line crossing over the valley with the viaduct because the architect thought ahead and put a rail bed underneath. Streetview looking at the Millwood Road bridge indicates what looks like a second "storey" to it.

take a closer look. not only is that "second floor" filled with trusses, it is not large enough for two tracks to cross it. you will need a new bridge to cross the don valley.

 

[DKsan]

Do transit bridges cost that much? It would only have to carry two rail ROWs and (maybe) a bike path. Not to constantly mention Vancouver, but there are a few such transit bridges there. They don't seem to inflate route costs that much.

This may be kind of screwy, but the Millau Viaduct would have wrked out to like 250m CAD/km of bridge, which is roughly half of this DRL's cost/km, and it's far more grandiose than anything I'd imagine over the Don Valley.

So dunno how the two bridges over this part of the Don Valley would be such a huge cost driver.

How the Eglinton LRT was going to cross the Don Valley was part of the reason of why it was restored to its half-buried, half-surface status.

 

[rbt]

That's simply not true at all. The Evergreen line's projected costs work out to approximately 120m/km, which is ballpark similar to the Canada Line and way less than anything that gets built here.

Storage yard, land expropriation, rolling stock, maintenance facility, control center.

Those are 5 things that are not included in the Evergreen line's published price. Reducing service on parts of the Millenium line to serve this new branch is one reason for this. The total service level in Vancouver will be the same, just spread over a wider area.

Anyway, preserving current service levels and adding this new component would have some cost for each of the above and possibly additional items.

Capacity is another area to adjust for. Skytrain at 60 second frequencies is no match for Toronto Rockets at 90 second frequencies. This impacts station design more than anything due to emergency exit requirements.


Those adjustments bring it up to about $250M/km and is just what I see off the top of my head. If I went through the Madrid miracle evaluation the TTC performed, I could probably find another $100M/km.


It's great for Vancouver for suburban lines. It's not appropriate for Toronto for a central line. It would have been wise for Toronto to use ALRT technology for an extension of the Spadina line or for Sheppard; and I say that despite disliking elevated stations.

 

[datamouse]

Hopefully that will happen; but the problem with Yonge/Sheppard (or NYCC) was never about zoning. A number of residential towers under construction there are built on lands originally zoned for commercial. I'm sure the city would welcome office towers to be built in NYCC and won't hesitate either to rezone any land for it if/when there's the demand.

Also at Yonge&Sheppard a number of the properties are city owned and I bet the city is waiting to get a good price on the land vs encouraging office development. The land at the NW was leased out for 15 years to a small retail building since no one was interesting in buying the land for example. The Hullmark Centre will have an office component in one tower. The Emerald Park development is mostly in a location zoned for residential but part of it does jut into the commercial zoning land. I believe the parking lot at the SW corner is zoned for an 20-something office tower but who knows when it will happen.
The city really needs to start encouraging office growth in the centres outside of the downtown as one way to reduce demand for travel downtown.