Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Minimizing cost within the same performance envelop is one thing; minimizing cost and reducing performance envelop is another. Except that if you take this view, you can easily justify building the original Yonge line as a Canada line-esque project and you would never have gotten to the point where you have the option of extend it past Eglinton and being able to handle the load we have today. Building the DRL to HRT specs should be a given.
Click to expand...

Right, the question becomes what kind of capacity levels are needed on a DRL? Off the top of my head, the DRL study the TTC did suggested that, even with a Dundas West - Eglinton DRL, anticipated demand was well within a Canada Line-esque envelope.

Maybe if you extend the thing way out to Steeles on both sides you'll get more ridership, but unless you managed to get the costs on those outer legs significantly less than the costs we've seen on Spadina, odds are that'll never happen. Frankly even the odds of getting anything more than a Pape-Downtown line are, in all honesty, slim.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
That's like the perfect justification for never doing anything because nothing is ever utilized above 95% everyday. And interesting that you mentioned London (not forgetting that we routinely have to wait the same for the YUS already) - what's the performance of alternate lines in that system, vis-a-vis the transit options in Toronto?
Click to expand...

My point wasn't that you should never do anything. It was that you shouldn't assume that because YUS is slightly over-capacity that there will be the political will to build the DRL or that the DRL is in some way 'necessary.'
 
dimunitive:

Right, the question becomes what kind of capacity levels are needed on a DRL? Off the top of my head, the DRL study the TTC did suggested that, even with a Dundas West - Eglinton DRL, anticipated demand was well within a Canada Line-esque envelope.

Maybe if you extend the thing way out to Steeles on both sides you'll get more ridership, but unless you managed to get the costs on those outer legs significantly less than the costs we've seen on Spadina, odds are that'll never happen. Frankly even the odds of getting anything more than a Pape-Downtown line are, in all honesty, slim.
Click to expand...

Except like I have said - if you do such a close-ended analysis, it will invariably close the door on the usability of the line in the future. As a piece of infrastructure, the DRL will be one that is used, extended and built on beyond foreseeable future - think of even the Dundas West-Eglinton routing as the starting point - like Union-Eglinton of the original YUS - instead of it being the ultimate build-out.

My point wasn't that you should never do anything. It was that you shouldn't assume that because YUS is slightly over-capacity that there will be the political will to build the DRL or that the DRL is in some way 'necessary.'
Click to expand...

The funny thing about overcapacity is that one doesn't really have a good idea of what usage will be like should additional capacity becomes available - in fact, usage of rapid transit within the core is probably lower than demand just because it is so uncompetitive with other forms of movement. Just think - who, as it stands right now, would be crazy enough to try and catch a ride of the YUS unless they absolutely have to say between 4 to 6 - because it is such a dicey proposition in terms of time, reliability, convenience and comfort? You get to see this mode shift effect a lot whenever the weather is inclement.

Which is why I've also said that calling it a DRL and focusing exclusively on the relief aspect is not sufficient - the line should (and can) be aligned to provide relief not only to the YUS - but to the entire NS and EW network in the core. Oh and let's not even get into the network connectivity of the system in terms of reliability in the debate over ridership in said area.

AoD
 
Last edited:
First of all, I was being facetious. Making a point about these people who act as if Toronto is some kind of money sucking parasite.

Also, Toronto doesn't get to call itself a province. It requires the support of existing provinces to do that. You're not going to win votes from Quebec and the East Coast unless you promise to maintain if not increase transfer payments in their direction.
Click to expand...

Let me argue against my self for a moment. It would also require an amendment to the constitution act. And for that constitutional change to happen you would need the support of Ontario since the province is so massive. Good luck getting that. For Ontario to vote for a succession of Toronto would be very much shooting themselves in the foot. That would instantly switch this great province from a rich "have" to a "have not". Not to mention the administrative headaches that could very well take a decade to work out. Ripping out the heart of the GTA isn't exactly an easy task. And take a moment to imagine the havoc on the business community. I'm sure many would much rather move 20km west to Mississauga than deal with losing out on many of the provincial programs they're part of. This is exactly what happened to Montral a few decades ago when Quebec was contemplating leaving Canada and a huge part of the reason that Toronto is now Canada's "first city".

All of this should be stupidly obvious to anybody who has lived here for more than three days. Succession from ON is a stupid and unrealistic idea.
 
Last edited:
diminutive said:
Right, the question becomes what kind of capacity levels are needed on a DRL? Off the top of my head, the DRL study the TTC did suggested that, even with a Dundas West - Eglinton DRL, anticipated demand was well within a Canada Line-esque envelope.
Click to expand...
And the Metrolinx forecasts estimated that the line would be well into heavy rail subway territory, second only to the Yonge line in ridership. And that didn't include a northern extension along Don Mills.
 
Anyway, the main point is that there is no money nor will there be for decades and even if they manage to get funding by 2025, we all know that the first segment won't open till at least a decade after that. By 2035 the GTA will be home to more than 9 million and the City will be home to 3.5.

Toronto needs an affordable plan and equally importantly one that can be up and running very fast, Torontonians have been saddled with poor transit for too long and it's needs are immediate, not some imaginary time frame which everyone knows will be pushed back further and further.

GO, in the City itself, should be part of the standard TTC system. It would serve, literally, millions more people and every area of the city than will a DRL.

Toronto already has an extensive rapid transit system and DRL, it's called GO. Damn shame the people can't afford to take the system they are paying for thru their taxes.
 
we all know there is a very real chance funding could be secured this spring. 100%? absolutely not. but above "zero to nil" absolutely, well above it.
 
Last edited:
What Toronto doesn't need is someone from Vancouver pontificating about what Toronto has, needs or doesn't need. And if one think otherwise, well, they can just look up the subway to UBC saga and realize that transit woes are hardly a Toronto specific phenomenon.

Besides, didn't someone argue that we need it along Sheppard - of all places?

AoD
 
Last edited:
There's also the need for short range subway lines downtown to act as a connector, and hit additional points of interest, and they would guarantee to be always busy, even if they don't themselves generate extra fares.
 
diminutive said:
Right, the question becomes what kind of capacity levels are needed on a DRL? Off the top of my head, the DRL study the TTC did suggested that, even with a Dundas West - Eglinton DRL, anticipated demand was well within a Canada Line-esque envelope.

Maybe if you extend the thing way out to Steeles on both sides you'll get more ridership, but unless you managed to get the costs on those outer legs significantly less than the costs we've seen on Spadina, odds are that'll never happen. Frankly even the odds of getting anything more than a Pape-Downtown line are, in all honesty, slim.
Click to expand...

I looked it up. The DRL peak ridership is 14,900 and Canada Line capacity is 15,000 (source DRTES and Wiki). That is for 40m stations. With 100m stations, the capacity would be in the Yonge range and still allow tighter curves, smaller tunnels, shorter stations, etc.

I think the decision to go HRT or SkyTrain (or LRT) is not about capacity, but how straight the line is, how sharp the curves are, and, how tight the station locations are (i.e. platform lengths or station and line height).
 
ssiguy2 said:
Anyway, the main point is that there is no money nor will there be for decadess.
Click to expand...

We could have funding secured by October (when council meets) if we really wanted to. All it involves is implementing some revenue tools. Generating $30 Billion, let alone $7 Billion is not a problem for this city. Toronto isn't the ultra poor city that some would like you to believe it is.

Putting aside the hypothetical situations, as insert said Metrolinx plans to have funding secured by spring. I can see little reason why that won't happen. There will almost certainly be no elections in the next six months.
 
Last edited:
Many would argue otherwise. Wynne could probably win another minority though, (albeit a much smaller one) but Horwath has expressed displeasure over the revenue tools. If Wynne isn't willing to switch the HST hike to a Corparate tax hike I doubt it will pass. If she is willing to, (which past performance seems to indicate she will be) I think the Big Move will happen.
 
BurlOak said:
I looked it up. The DRL peak ridership is 14,900 and Canada Line capacity is 15,000 (source DRTES and Wiki). That is for 40m stations. With 100m stations, the capacity would be in the Yonge range and still allow tighter curves, smaller tunnels, shorter stations, etc.

I think the decision to go HRT or SkyTrain (or LRT) is not about capacity, but how straight the line is, how sharp the curves are, and, how tight the station locations are (i.e. platform lengths or station and line height).
Click to expand...


In the end the disadvantages of having to operate a single line on other technology outweighs the negligible advantages of ICTS. Having the same network tech makes not having a yard directly on the line possible, and makes it so the TTC doesn't have to buy a whole new set of matenience vehicles, including things like track replacers and tunnel washers. ICTS is cheaper but ultimately has lower capacity as well.
 
A smaller capacity downtown line would probably require another relief line within a couple of decades. That would mean that the city would be covered in rapid transit more quickly than with one new high-capacity line every 50 years. It'll make for a better network in the long run.
 
Last edited:
junctionist said:
A smaller capacity downtown line would probably require another relief line within a couple of decades. That would mean that the city would be covered in rapid transit more quickly than with one new high-capacity line every 50 years. It'll make for a better network in the long run.
Click to expand...

I've brought this up before too. It may be more beneficial to build the DRL to accommodate LRT trains (90+m) instead of HRT, that way it can be extended north of the Don Valley (or north of Eglinton) at-grade as the Don Mills LRT. On the west side it can become the Jane LRT.

In fact, building it as at-grade LRT north of the Don Valley could likely save at least a billion dollars, enough to push the line further west from downtown in Phase 1 than would otherwise be possible with an HRT subway. If you want a DRL that stretches north of Eglinton, IMO the best way of getting it is through this type of plan.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top