[nfitz]

"Some", not all, see my reference to Northern Light earlier.

I really didn't want to do this, but here is my ummm actually moment.
Regarding Line 5, I don't recall the crux of the debate on that thread being who exactly was responsible for ridership forecast, but whether or not ridership projections were accurate in planning route capacity i.e. 15k passengers per hour per direction, headways, vehicles. This considered the delays and population boom during said delays.

Without delving into the myriad changes and delays e.g. Rob Ford, city council...Yes the demand estimates from 2010 were done by TTC and Toronto, but Metrolinx was involved early on, then progressively took over until they got full control officially in 2012.
Source:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-51449.pdf

Metrolinx was ultimately responsible on signing off on ridership forecasts used in the 2012 Eglinton case which I referenced in a previous post.

June 2012 Metrolinx Eglinton case:
https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/...etrolinx/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf

In 2.4 (pg. 11/49) it says "The assumed employment and population forecasts used for the assessment are identified in ‘Places to Grow’ the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area and is consistent with those used in the Regional Transportation Plan, The Big Move."
Big Move 2008 pdf:https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663240133/Documents/Metrolinx/TheBigMove_020109.pdf

The Big Move 2008 says, "The GTHA, located in southern Ontario, is Canada’s largest urban region. It is also one of Canada’s fastest growing urban regions. With a current population of over six million people, it is forecast to be home to 8.6 million people by the year 2031."

Without fully accounting for undercounted visas and overstays, the GTHA population is already estimated to be 8.3 million as of July 1, 2024 (StatsCan). The true population of the GTHA could very well be 8.6 million already when factoring in NPR undercount claimed by Benjamin Tal from CIBC (https://economics.cibccm.com/cds?id=858756bd-a8fc-4920-8ea4-e1dcd1c104d4&flag=E).

Compare that with the TTC/Toronto Crosstown Environmental Project Report from 2010: https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1689691727/Images/Metrolinx/EA_complete.pdf
View attachment 693162
"2.1.2 Identification of Alternative Transit Technologies
The City of Toronto’s Official Plan forecasts a 270,000(10%) increase in the population of the City by 2031"

The city of Toronto has seen much more than a 270,000 increase in just the last 5 years, let alone since 2010. 2+ times more population growth has happened from 2010 to 2024 (600-700k) than what was forecast from 2010 to 2031 (270k). I don't think anyone, not even the IRCC could have predicted 15 years worth of growth in 5 years and that Toronto would reach ~3.3 million by July 2024 (StatsCan). That's why I never blamed Metrolinx for underestimating ridership and delivering less route capacity as a result.

StatsCan Population estimates:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710015201


But forget the ridership projection and capacity debate. The Eglinton Crosstown post 2007 was no longer just a city project.

Metrolinx was involved indirectly through planning Big Move by 2008. It was then announced as early as 2009 that Metrolinx would eventually take over. (https://stevemunro.ca/2009/07/06/queens-park-reveals-metrolinx-role/). By 2010, Metrolinx's eventual takeover was taking shape (https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/cc/bgrd/CC20_1_app3_3.pdf). By June 2011, Metrolinx had commissioned Steer Davies Gleave to update a 2009 case analysis. At the same time Mx completed an updated ridership forecast working with the TTC. All this before any construction started in late 2011. By the time tunnelling started in 2013, Metrolinx had been the sole government agency responsible for approving the new ridership forecasts, even if consultants did the work in 2011-2012.

"Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown updated ridership forecasts jointly prepared by TTC and Metrolinx (April – June 2011)"
https://transittoronto.ca/archives/...ton-scarborough-crosstown-update-20110623.pdf

In any case, I don't see it mattering whether or not the TTC/Toronto or Metrolinx is more or less responsible for ridership projections, underestimated, overestimated, or otherwise. Many people work from home now, and subway ridership is still only 76% of pre-pandemic levels, so maybe the population boom's effect on ridership has been cancelled out. We really won't know what ridership will be like until the line actually opens. Same goes for all the other transit projects in progress like GO Expansion. nfitz, you thought the ridership projections weren't nearly as underestimated as I thought. We can agree to disagree.

TTC Ridership recent stats:
https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/Monthly-Corporate-Metrics

I'm not sure what population numbers have to do with much; whether Milton doubles or quadruples does nothing for Line 5 demand. Nor do I see any differing PPHPD estimates in this TLDR full of tangents. I certainly don't see the 15,000 demand that I think you mentioned here.

Agree to disagree sure. But twisting all sorts of technical stuff to make different conclusions than the experts come across as the same kind of conspiracy theorist nonsense as the nutters who think vaccines are harmful, or keep trying to prove to us with "science" that the USA blew up the World Trade Centre themselves.

 

[drum118]

Cross post
Mount Dennis Metrolinx GO and UP Station to open Nov. 16

 

[urbanclient]

I'm not sure what population numbers have to do with much; whether Milton doubles or quadruples does nothing for Line 5 demand. Nor do I see any differing PPHPD estimates in this TLDR full of tangents. I certainly don't see the 15,000 demand that I think you mentioned here.

Agree to disagree sure. But twisting all sorts of technical stuff to make different conclusions than the experts come across as the same kind of conspiracy theorist nonsense as the nutters who think vaccines are harmful, or keep trying to prove to us with "science" that the USA blew up the World Trade Centre themselves.

I never claimed 15,000 would be the demand on Day 1, I simply pointed out that was the eventual target route capacity, not demand. The concept that population numbers blowing past projections 5-10 years early would have some impact on demand in the regional network is not something you appear to grasp. I even countered my own argument for you with the fact RTO has not fully happened and subway ridership is still down. All you have done is be stubborn, strawman and ad hominem attack people without making a single cohesive argument to support your conclusions.

I tried to be civil and engage in reasonable debate, but you have misunderstood or misrepresented my argument multiple times over several threads—at best because you do not or cannot read, at worst you intentionally misrepresent what I say.

Here is my first post on route capacity:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ne-5-m-s-metrolinx-arcadis.11782/post-2304066

Regarding demand, I speculated it would be higher than originally predicted because those predictions were made a long time ago with data dating as far back as the 2001 and 2006 Censuses (see sources cited by TTC/Toronto in 2010 and Mx 2012). These population projections that were the basis for ridership projections and route capacity significantly underestimated the actual population we would have by today. I also never claimed a number for demand because: A. I haven't bothered to dive that deep and create a model to simulate demand. B. because they cannot run 15,000 or even much lower passengers per direction per hour capacity on opening day. Right now, I can roughly calculate route capacity with info @smallspy has kindly provided, but this napkin math would be highly speculative because we don't know the spare ratio and ultimately how the TTC will operate the line. If capacity were the limiting factor for peak ridership, it doesn't matter what peak demand is.

The assumption I made is that anyone willing to dismiss my argument offhand would have bothered to make sure they knew what they were talking about. Besides calling people "morons" and "conspiracy theorist", have you said anything of substance? Misrepresenting my argument and calling people names doesn't logically or empirically prove your point. Not being able to or not bothering to read someone's argument before calling them a conspiracy theorist sounds like emotional thinking instead of rational debating to me.

TTC/Toronto in 2010 and Mx 2012:
https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/eglinton-crosstown-lrt/studies

 

[urbanclient]

Civil? You think "appear to grasp" is civil?

A large part of your recent post history is just you name calling and blurting emotional language if not mockery.

Why do you need transit before the station opens?

Good grief, they are literally building a subway station next to the GO station. How much frigging transit do you need?

Are those that pointed out the morons (elsewhere) complaining about Olivia Chow and the TTC not running enough Union Pearson trains after the last Blue Jays game, TTC apologists?
And those who blame Metrolinx for the initial Line 5 demand estimates - on a city project they weren't involved in - Metrolinx apologists?
Pointing out both the errors and accolades of a given agency isn't being an apologist. This isn't third-world USA politics.

Rather than engage in civil debate, you attack myself and others and end up calling me a conspiracy theorist. Assuming you know TTC does not run UP Express, rather Metrolinx does? You would be right about that one point. But then you insinuated something along the lines of "third world" American political pundit towards me. Clearly my good faith across multiple posts did not result in the same from you.

In several threads you misconstrued capacity for demand multiple times. Then tried to mock me when pointing out mathematically proven inadequacies in the current quantity of rolling stock to meet Metrolinx/Crosslinx's eventual targeted route capacity. This was somehow misinterpreted by you as criticizing Metrolinx for inaccurate ridership projections, which I did not do. And this was also an excuse for you to smart aleck me and tell me the project was entirely the City's (by the time of your oft-cited 2010 report) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I never denied the city had something to do with some, if not most of the project's brainwork early on (i.e. 2007). But fact is, the city had no money for the project, it was never going to be a TTC project in the end, barring large municipal tax increases (source in my previous post).

You misconstrued capacity for demand and changed the topic in the Eglinton thread so I played along and pointed out demand might be higher than projected. The 2010 report you kept asserting was evidence this was a city project entirely for some reason assumed 2.9-3 million people in Toronto by 2031. We all know the city has more than 3 million people as of now. Had you even bothered to read the report, you would know the numbers came from a 2006 City of Toronto Official Plan, which got its numbers from a 2002 paper that itself was part of an earlier Official Plan. The 2011-2012 numbers from the updated Mx case complemented the earlier work done and do not contradict it. 8.6 million in GTHA by 2031 based on 2006 Census figures. These are not "meaningless annual numbers". These formed the basis of what became Line 5 today. This is all information you were unfamiliar with since all you have done is misread, misconstrue, misinterpret what I say, try to gotcha me, get proven wrong, then call me names. You not appearing to grasp the concept of demographics>demand>route capacity is evidenced by your outright denials of this causal link.

whether Milton doubles or quadruples does nothing for Line 5 demand. Nor do I see any differing PPHPD estimates in this TLDR full of tangents. I certainly don't see the 15,000 demand that I think you mentioned here.

Strawmanning Milton when the obvious topic at hand is Toronto. Toronto's population is much higher than expected. And look at the post you replied to, you are still not grasping the difference between capacity and demand.

I listed only some of the evidence that Metrolinx was involved well before 2010, which still countered your false notion that this was a city project that Mx was not involved in. Had you even read the cover page of the 2010 EPR you would see Metrolinx plastered above the other logos. Given that you have refused to acknowledge any of the facts I brought up to counter your sweeping claims and insults, it's clear you didn't know the history behind the project and just made assumptions. Rather than admit you were at least partially wrong, you keep DARVOing me and the rest of us on this thread.

Just look at your post history, you have a short temper and reading comprehension issues. Most of your angry replies to others originate from fundamental misunderstandings of what people said; this leads to strawman attacks and a speech chilling effect on those with thinner skin to your insults, which goes against what this forum is about.

I've pointed out that there's been multiple predictions by multiple agencies - as far as I can recall in the TLDR, all you've pointed to that might contradict this is meaningless annual numbers, and the business case for a different project, that wasn't built, and I commented here a decade ago was going to be problematic.

We are done. Stop spreading these bizarre conspiracy theories and click-bait perpetuated by ignorant U-Toobers on the World Wide Web, who are more concerned with their views than the truth.

The 2010 and 2012 papers are here together on the same webpage. The 2012 updated benefits case analysis was iterative and not a business case for a different project as you claim. Had you even bothered to read it, you would know this fact. This work was later refined to produce the contracts that went to Crosslinx et al that became Line 5 Eglinton today. However, the options in these papers are not exactly what we got in the end.
https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/eglinton-crosstown-lrt/studies
The fact you are still grasping at straws bringing up Reece who I mentioned once instead of actually considering the merits of someone else's argument makes me think you might even be ragebaiting.

 

[nfitz]

Ignoring the TLDR - I did glance at the last sentence though. I don't think I ever mentioned Reece. I thought he'd retired actually from YouTube, from something I read somewhere.

I fail to see what this has to do with GO Construction.

 

[urbanclient]

Ignoring the TLDR - I did glance at the last sentence though.

So they nearly admit to functional illiteracy as an engineer. Literacy skills are underappreciated in STEM.

I don't think I ever mentioned Reece. I thought he'd retired actually from YouTube, from something I read somewhere.

I fail to see what this has to do with GO Construction.

Playing dumb and gaslighting now about the youtuber we spoke about earlier.

GO Construction, and specifically East Harbour is predicated on population estimates>transit demand>to plan route capacity. This conversation started with me pointing out grievances the public has about anything Metrolinx touches, such that any information that may seem pro-Metrolinx would be met with doubt and resentment given that some people toe the party line as Mx insiders. This somehow hit a nerve with you, which I can't see why, since you don't claim to be in Mx nor do you seem to be a fan of Metrolinx.

 

[urbanclient]

Stop spreading conspiracy theories, and stop pretending the 2012 project was the same - it's fundamentally different in ways that increase demand. The nerve you hit is my disdain for science-rejecting "experts" who think they know far more than the qualified professionals.

There's absolutely no possibility that Line 5 is going to be over the initial capacity provided by 38 two-car trains. None. Zero. Zilch. I suppose there's a possibility if 50% of those vehicles are unavailable for service - but that's a different issue (and unlikely given the same vehicles have been operating in Waterloo for years). And I guess if the Prince Edward Viaduct collapses tomorrow, then there'd be overcrowding as well; again, a different problem.

There's a myriad of reason things might go wrong. But the mountain you choose to lie on just won't happen. I'd be more worried about the Ontario line - though I haven't seen detailed hourly demand estimates.

You imply you are an expert, and yet you seem to not understand that not all 76 cars can be used, there are always some kept as spares. As I mentioned elsewhere, Line 1 ran with 65/76 trains pre-covid.
I never acted as cocksure of myself as you. I can accept that others have different opinions without insulting them from the getgo. I pointed out, (for the umpteenth time) that population projections used to determine the design and capacity of the Line 5 (as well as nearly all the other GTHA transit projects) were underestimates.

This is not a conspiracy theory. You disparaging others for merely having a somewhat different opinion as yours, and not diametrically different is genuinely hard to understand. The relatively inelastic housing supply has not kept up with demand. However, you think it entirely impossible for inelastic transit supply to lag behind as well because of the capacity future proofing they did? Fine.

I earlier pointed out the difficulty of ramping up capacity with just the 76 cars delivered. Based on the info @smallspy kindly provided, 95 minutes round trip is a safe figure. Let's assume 64 of 76 cars are used on 32 trainsets, that means peak headways of just under 3 minutes and peak capacity between 6000 and 10,000 passengers per hour per direction with each two-car trainset carrying 320 to 500 passengers (depending on density). Metrolinx forecasted 5,400 demand pphpd by 2031. We're already at the 2031 population levels predicted years ago, but proportionally less people commute now.

For reference, peak Line 2 peak demand was 23,000 to 26,000 pphpd and capacity was 24,000 to 38,000 pre-covid. Are we assuming Line 5 would only hit 20-25% of Line 2 demand and run with around 25-50% of Line 2 capacity? Fine.

Time will tell. There are too many variables that have changed to know forsure 14 years from the project's last real ridership projection.

 

[felix123]

What the heck is going on here?
Is this even a GO Train thread anymore?

 

[PShells]

What the heck is going on here?
Is this even a GO Train thread anymore?

Perhaps it’s now GO Construction Criticism.

 

[Undead]

Please stop derailing the thread. We already have Eglinton for that.

 

[Allandale25]

This can help us get back on topic. Brief video showing the Etobicoke Bridge work.

 

[Northern Light]

^^^ @Allandale25 to the rescue

Some lifts from the above:

 

[Allandale25]

^ I wonder if the truss spans are also being replaced? Would you happen to know, @smallspy ?

 

[PShells]

This may be too much inside baseball for a public message board to address, but there’s been many instances where two lines have a weekend closure for what appears to be a single project on one of the lines. Both lines get closed to eliminate all train traffic so the weekend project can be completed.

Does Metrolinx typically line up maintenance or other project work for the “second” line closure? I’ve learned through this forum that these weekend closures can be scheduled a year or more in advance. I hope they’re used to the fullest, but I am cognizant of financial budget constraints (or even the availability of work crews).

I’ve only experienced significant upgrades occurring on the Stouffville line when that is the only line closed on the weekend. For example, the December 2024 and June 2025 closures for signal work and to bring new track into service between Kennedy and Agincourt.

However, this doesn’t mean crucial “unsexy” work isn’t occurring on the ST line even though the main closure is driven by project needs on the LSE line.

Example Nov 15-16 Notices

LSE
Metrolinx is transforming the existing GO rail system to deliver a whole new rapid transit experience to your community. During this closure, work will happen on the rail corridor to help prepare the track for faster, more frequent service. The east section of Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) is continuing its track integration work for the Ontario Line.

ST
We will be performing track construction and maintenance along the Stouffville Line to ensure the safe and reliable operations of our trains. This work will also focus on updating key infrastructure for the Stouffville GO Expansion. This work can only be completed when trains are not running.

 

[generalcanada]

This may be too much inside baseball for a public message board to address, but there’s been many instances where two lines have a weekend closure for what appears to be a single project on one of the lines. Both lines get closed to eliminate all train traffic so the weekend project can be completed.

Does Metrolinx typically line up maintenance or other project work for the “second” line closure? I’ve learned through this forum that these weekend closures can be scheduled a year or more in advance. I hope they’re used to the fullest, but I am cognizant of financial budget constraints (or even the availability of work crews).

I’ve only experienced significant upgrades occurring on the Stouffville line when that is the only line closed on the weekend. For example, the December 2024 and June 2025 closures for signal work and to bring new track into service between Kennedy and Agincourt.

However, this doesn’t mean crucial “unsexy” work isn’t occurring on the ST line even though the main closure is driven by project needs on the LSE line.

Example Nov 15-16 Notices

LSE
Metrolinx is transforming the existing GO rail system to deliver a whole new rapid transit experience to your community. During this closure, work will happen on the rail corridor to help prepare the track for faster, more frequent service. The east section of Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) is continuing its track integration work for the Ontario Line.

ST
We will be performing track construction and maintenance along the Stouffville Line to ensure the safe and reliable operations of our trains. This work will also focus on updating key infrastructure for the Stouffville GO Expansion. This work can only be completed when trains are not running.

ST trains and LSE share the corridor.