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

[nfitz]

The map is hard to read, but it looks like the subway is on Don Mills to me.]

In the second figure that terminates at Sheppard? It certainly should represent Don Mills, but as at Sheppard the GO line is west of Leslie, and Don Mills is east of Leslie, it just seems to be a rough line.

Also notice that electrification of the eastern part of the CP line from the Junction to Agincourt is shown on the map. I don't recall seeing this on Metrolinx maps before.

It was included on the Metrolinx Big Move maps of 2008 and 2013 - though rarely anywhere else - and that's all I think the "2031" figure represents - rightly or wrongly.

 

[ssiguy2]

What kind of money has Toronto put on the table for the DRL?

 

[pstogios]

What kind of money has Toronto put on the table for the DRL?

Um, zero?

 

[nfitz]

Um, zero?

And why should they? Metrolinx announced that the DRL is part of the Next Wave projects, along with Hurontario and Hamilton LRTs. Both those projects are being 100% funded by Metrolinx.

There's no point bidding against one's self!

 

[gweed123]

And why should they? Metrolinx announced that the DRL is part of the Next Wave projects, along with Hurontario and Hamilton LRTs. Both those projects are being 100% funded by Metrolinx.

There's no point bidding against one's self!

Not to mention it's nowhere near the point where a formal funding announcement is necessary. They haven't even nailed down the station locations yet! Heck, they barely know what alignment they're using.

 

[ponyboy]

For those of you interested, I have reworked my scheme based on forum input.

Junctions and Tunnel-to-Right-of-Way Ramps:

• CapitalSeven suggested that Gerrard Sq would be too tight to bring the rail from right-of-way height to subway tunnel (35ft vertical), but the corridor beside Jimmie Simpson Park may be long enough to get the train in. I have sketched out such a junction there (two ramps are needed: one of the ramps, the one from LSE down into the tunnel going north, can also happen earlier, just after passing over the DVP on the North side of the Unilever site).
• The Gerrard Sq junction is now entirely underground.
• Also, gweed123 suggested that "The DRL should be running RER rolling stock, not TTC, and thus be part of the RER network", so "LSE trains have the option of using the DRL (what I call the Central Tunnel) as well. " That is now possible with the junctions I have added.

Relief Line Alignment

• The Queen East portion of my revised relief line tunnel turns north at the LSE rail corridor rather than continuing east to Pape. This would save money by not having to drill two separate tunnels in that part of town, and simplifies the junction, but you lose one subway station further east on Queen.

Crossing the Don Valley near Queen -- bridge or tunnel, and routing

• I don't know whether the relief line would need to cross the Don Valley near Queen via tunnel or bridge. Tunnel would need to be deep, and I don't know whether there is enough run to get it down low enough to be under the river (is there a 2% maximum grade?). A bridge crossing might be too shallow because the line must curve under buildings and homes in order to line up with the LSE corridor. Maybe a shallow path can be found that allows bridge crossing at Queen and doesn't interfere with buildings above. Or if the tunnel can be done, perhaps it can go under the river near Sunlight Park Road or Eastern and back toward Queen via the Richmond St Corridor in a way that doesn't interfere with buildings.

Extension of Relief line to Sheppard/Leslie using existing rail

• Finally, I bring the relief line all the way to Sheppard, using the rail corridor, so it finishes 100m from Leslie station. Since that rail corridor already exists from Lawrence to Sheppard, it shouldn't cost too much more to bring the Relief Line there, and GO trains could continue on to RH. [update: alternative, as WislaHD and Translude15 suggest, tunnel could extend further up Don Mills to hit higher density areas, and then directed west via hydro corridor to Old Cummer station, but that's a lot more tunneling than what I suggested]

 

[pstogios]

There's no point bidding against one's self!

Did I say the city should?

 

[minilude]

What's the cost of 3-track DRL-long tunnel vs 2-track DRL-long tunnel?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

What's the cost of 3-track DRL-long tunnel vs 2-track DRL-long tunnel?

3? 4 at least if we want regular 2WAD service.

Note that the tunnel would have to fit larger dimension heavy rail trains vs subway trains. It would add considerable cost.

And then a downtown station that's long enough for four, eight or twelve car consists?

Astronomical.

 

[zenmeister]

For those of you interested, I have reworked my scheme based on forum input.

Junctions and Tunnel-to-Right-of-Way Ramps:

• CapitalSeven suggested that Gerrard Sq would be too tight to bring the rail from right-of-way height to subway tunnel (35ft vertical), but the corridor beside Jimmie Simpson Park may be long enough to get the train in. I have sketched out such a junction there (two ramps are needed: one of the ramps, the one from LSE down into the tunnel going north, can also happen earlier, just after passing over the DVP on the North side of the Unilever site).
• The Gerrard Sq junction is now entirely underground.
• Also, gweed123 suggested that "The DRL should be running RER rolling stock, not TTC, and thus be part of the RER network", so "LSE trains have the option of using the DRL (what I call the Central Tunnel) as well. " That is now possible with the junctions I have added.

Relief Line Alignment

• The Queen East portion of my revised relief line tunnel turns north at the LSE rail corridor rather than continuing east to Pape. This would save money by not having to drill two separate tunnels in that part of town, and simplifies the junction, but you lose one subway station further east on Queen.

Crossing the Don Valley near Queen -- bridge or tunnel, and routing

• I don't know whether the relief line would need to cross the Don Valley near Queen via tunnel or bridge. Tunnel would need to be deep, and I don't know whether there is enough run to get it down low enough to be under the river (is there a 2% maximum grade?). A bridge crossing might be too shallow because the line must curve under buildings and homes in order to line up with the LSE corridor. Maybe a shallow path can be found that allows bridge crossing at Queen and doesn't interfere with buildings above. Or if the tunnel can be done, perhaps it can go under the river near Sunlight Park Road or Eastern and back toward Queen via the Richmond St Corridor in a way that doesn't interfere with buildings.

Extension of Relief line to Sheppard/Leslie using existing rail

• Finally, I bring the relief line all the way to Sheppard, using the rail corridor, so it finishes 100m from Leslie station. Since that rail corridor already exists from Lawrence to Sheppard, it shouldn't cost too much more to bring it there.

View attachment 74338View attachment 74337 View attachment 74330 View attachment 74331 View attachment 74333View attachment 74334

As I've said before, 3 tracks makes RER impossible, more so, it will eliminate the possibility that the Richmond Hill ever be upgraded to RER. It's short sighted to not see that.

 

[andrewpmk]

The DRL is never going to be designed for GO trains. We figured this out with SmartTrack. Building commuter trains underground is extremely expensive (even more than subway) so it only makes sense in a few places (like London Crossrail). The DRL will be a conventional 2 track subway. My guess is it will be automated and incompatible with the rest of the subway system.

 

[gweed123]

The DRL is never going to be designed for GO trains. We figured this out with SmartTrack. Building commuter trains underground is extremely expensive (even more than subway) so it only makes sense in a few places (like London Crossrail). The DRL will be a conventional 2 track subway. My guess is it will be automated and incompatible with the rest of the subway system.

1) Nobody is proposing a tunnel for conventional GO trains.

2) The Paris RER system, which is substantially underground, uses double decker trains on some routes.

If your goal is to maximize relief, you need to stretch as far out into the suburbs as possible. As Spadina and Scarborough have shown, suburban subway extensions are just simply uneconomical. It's far more cost effective to plug a future line into existing rail corridors.

The added costs of building a tunnel capable of handing double-decker RER trains through downtown is more than made up for by not having to tunnel for kilometres under strip malls and single family homes.

 

[andrewpmk]

Building a tunnel for double decker trains is extremely expensive. Therefore, it rarely makes sense. It has been done for a handful of underground commuter rail systems like the Paris RER and London Crossrail but those systems carry passenger volumes far higher than anything in Toronto ever will. The capacity of double decker trains is not needed for the vast majority of subway lines. It may well make sense to build the DRL to be expandable to 8 or 10 car trains, because its ridership may well exceed the Yonge line (particularly during events at the Rogers Centre/Air Canada Centre/CNE and if the Unilever redevelopment is built).

Don Mills Road is by far the most densely populated north-south road in Toronto that does not have an existing subway line under it. It should be easy to justify building a subway along it as far north as Finch. It will be hugely expensive (probably at least $10 billion) but it is badly needed. You are not going to find anywhere else in Toronto where the case for building a subway is this good. (Personally I think we need a lot more subways than the DRL, but this is Toronto).

I can't see how it would make sense to run the DRL along the Richmond Hill line. Don Mills/Sheppard and Don Mills/Finch is more densely populated than Leslie/Sheppard and Leslie/Finch.

 

[gweed123]

Building a tunnel for double decker trains is extremely expensive.

So is building subways under strip malls and single family homes, but you have no issue supporting those.

Don Mills Road is by far the most densely populated north-south road in Toronto that does not have an existing subway line under it. It should be easy to justify building a subway along it as far north as Finch. It will be hugely expensive (probably at least $10 billion) but it is badly needed. You are not going to find anywhere else in Toronto where the case for building a subway is this good. (Personally I think we need a lot more subways than the DRL, but this is Toronto).

I can't see how it would make sense to run the DRL along the Richmond Hill line. Don Mills/Sheppard and Don Mills/Finch is more densely populated than Leslie/Sheppard and Leslie/Finch.

I would run it in a tunnel until just north of Lawrence, and then have it hook up with the Richmond Hill line. The existing RH track would basically be abandoned south of Lawrence, used only for VIA movements.

And here's the issue with building the DRL as a subway line: even if the wildest fantasy plans, it only goes as far as Sheppard. Because it's a specific rail gauge and a specific vehicle, it can't run on 'traditional' rail. I'd much rather build a slightly more expensive tunnel that can interface with traditional rail lines on either end. That way, the potential routings into the suburbs are endless (branch to Pearson, branch to Unionville, branch to RHC, branch to Square One if the appropriate tunnel is built).

By narrowing it down to current subway technology that's incompatible with traditional rail, you effectively limit the reach of the relief to however far you build the subway. With RER, the track/signal/electrification upgrades at both ends of the tunnel will already been taking place, so the biggest question is "where do we route it to?". The potential for relief is far, far greater than anything a subway, unless it has a blank cheque, could ever accomplish.

 

[ponyboy]

Seems the cost of tunneling is a big issue. How big of a radius for double decker trains? Found this discussion on Steve Munro's website from 2009:

https://stevemunro.ca/2009/07/11/how-big-a-hole-do-we-need/

From the comments there, soil removal appears to be a big issue --
Mark Dowling | July 11, 2009 at 7:08 pm
A 6.5m radius single bore tunnel will create 2.9 times more spoil than a 2.7m radius twinbore tunnel for a given length.


I'm sure that the Leslie Spit has lots of room for more infill, but realize there is a cost of removing that soil and transporting it. How much of the overall budget is soil removal?

Rather than just saying costs will be astronomical, can we pin down some better numbers on the all inclusive costs per km of the tunnel gweed123, myself, and others support versus a more traditional subway tunnel others support? I'll look further into this. In my opinion, a few hundred million, or even a couple billion more, is a small overall cost relative to benefit, in such a $10B+ project, if we can provide true reach into the suburbs with existing rail lines. The Union station re-do is not even done, and already talk of capacity issues there.

Few other cities in the world are building density like Toronto, and further development along suburban corridors of a RER that seamlessly interlines into and across downtown (Queen) would provide a lot of long term relief. It would provide people easy options from multiple suburban origins to multiple city destinations (and vice versa) with fewer connections required. I believe it is a better value proposition for the consumer both in terms of time and money that exceeds a "tipping point" threshold. This value proposition in both time and money is what is needed to get people to choose transit over cars. I'm not sure the value proposition of the RER plans focusing on Union will be enough because many still need to take further subway, streetcars, and buses after reaching Union station.

Shouldn't network designs seek to minimize overall daily travel times (from front door to desk) for the greatest number of consumers per investment dollar? TTC/MLinx should do a large representative time-use survey of riders on a regular rolling basis, and then have transportation/industrial/systems engineers compete to design the network that minimizes time for rider, and also which design frees up the most road capacity by changing behavior. Dynamic road pricing, and changing parking prices could be added. It is a massively complex simulation, but I hope that someone at MLinx/TTC is doing this kind of modeling, because it is essential for design decisions.

Here are some twinbore tunnel pics. How big of radius do the machines need to be to be wide enough for 3-4 tracks, and high enough four double decker trains?

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/eaglevalley/9794966-113/story.html

http://tunnellingjournal.com/news/san-francisco-tunnels-complete/

http://www.eptisa.com/en/experience...s-cristianos----las-americas-tunnel/mercados/

http://tunneltalk.com/TunnelTECH-Apr2015-Arup-large-diameter-soft-ground-bored-tunnel-review.php