Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

gweed123 said:
So is building subways under strip malls and single family homes, but you have no issue supporting those.



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.
Click to expand...

I realize that tunneling anything is expensive, but building a tunnel large enough for double decker trains and platforms long enough for 12-car GO trains increases the cost dramatically. That is why the "SmartTrack" proposal died. The ridiculous western portion of "SmartTrack" would have cost far more than a subway. It might make sense to build underground commuter rail in a few cases like Crossrail or RER (though the Crossrail trains are not double decker) but the costs of that are astronomical compared to the DRL.

I don't think that there is a shortage of demand for a subway on Don Mills. This line could easily have demand similar to or slightly higher than Line 1. My proposal goes up to Don Mills/Finch, which is 2km north of Sheppard and connects to Seneca College. It is going to be really expensive - at least $10 billion, probably far more than that if the western extension to Dundas West is built - but it is absolutely necessary. Building a tunnel large enough for double decker trains would be prohibitively expensive and few cities have done this.

Going up the Richmond Hill line does not make sense because (a) there is little development along it north of Sheppard and south of Highway 7 and (b) the northern end of the Richmond Hill line is owned by CN. There is a lot more development along Don Mills in the area between Sheppard and Finch.
 
andrewpmk said:
Building a tunnel large enough for double decker trains would be prohibitively expensive and few cities have done this.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely on that. The Eglinton West RER tunnel was projected to cost $7 Billion+. Tunnels for double-decker trains are a whole different story than traditional subway tunnels.

andrewpmk said:
My proposal goes up to Don Mills/Finch, which is 2km north of Sheppard and connects to Seneca College. It is going to be really expensive - at least $10 billion
Click to expand...

The Relief Line from Downtown to Sheppard will cost $7.4 Billion. Brining it to Finch would bump that up to $8.2 Billion approximately. Not a huge amount of money considering the usage the line would get.
 
Re the RER vs subway debate:

1) What about building the DRL Long past Finch, swinging it west underneath (or within) the hydro corridor and connecting to Old Cummer Station? That allows a connection for RH Line passengers to jump onto the DRL should they require it. If that's too arduous even a stop between York Mills and Lawrence on Don Mills would do the trick.
2) Perhaps the DRL is the right line to build separate local and express tracks. If true relief is the intent and potential ridership could exceed the Yonge Line, surely giving riders the option of express train would offer similar time savings as opposed to building RER style tunnels which would require 4 tracks anyways.

I know the Local-Express system has been mentioned regarding the Yonge Line but given the nature of Yonge's development the costs of doing it there are almost prohibitive.
 
I should point out that there's nothing preventing GO from using a mix of rolling stock types. Heck, they're already going to be running EMUs and diesel bi-levels on the same lines. Not to mention a mix of train lengths on each line. It would be very possible to use single-level EMUs on routes bound for the Central Tunnel, and bi-level EMUs on routes bound for Union.

I envision the routes that would use the Central Tunnel to be the "inner" GO routes, serving mainly Toronto and the inner 905, while the Union-bound routes would be routes serving primarily the 905. As a result, the stop spacing on the 416 routes would be more akin to subway-like stop spacing as opposed to GO-like stop spacing, so using single-level EMUs that are easier to board and exit would actually be preferable. The only real requirement is that they have the same door height as the bi-levels, in order to be able to use the same platforms if necessary (at stations outside the tunnel).
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The Relief Line from Downtown to Sheppard will cost $7.4 Billion. Brining it to Finch would bump that up to $8.2 Billion approximately. Not a huge amount of money considering the usage the line would get.
Click to expand...

It is hard for me to remember the exact cost estimate, but let's assume that there will be th
gweed123 said:
I should point out that there's nothing preventing GO from using a mix of rolling stock types. Heck, they're already going to be running EMUs and diesel bi-levels on the same lines. Not to mention a mix of train lengths on each line. It would be very possible to use single-level EMUs on routes bound for the Central Tunnel, and bi-level EMUs on routes bound for Union.

I envision the routes that would use the Central Tunnel to be the "inner" GO routes, serving mainly Toronto and the inner 905, while the Union-bound routes would be routes serving primarily the 905. As a result, the stop spacing on the 416 routes would be more akin to subway-like stop spacing as opposed to GO-like stop spacing, so using single-level EMUs that are easier to board and exit would actually be preferable. The only real requirement is that they have the same door height as the bi-levels, in order to be able to use the same platforms if necessary (at stations outside the tunnel).
Click to expand...

Doesn't the overhead catenary have to be the same height everywhere? It may well have to be high enough to accommodate double-stacked freight trains. Thus, the loading gauge for GO trains has to be very large everywhere.

It's possible that we might see a downtown GO tunnel in the far future to deal with Union Station capacity issues. Maybe the UP Express spur will eventually be rebuilt to allow regular GO trains to serve the airport, and maybe far in the future some sort of spur will be built to serve Square One. I can't see underground GO trains making sense anywhere else. The proposal to run GO trains along the DRL is pure fantasy and does not make sense.
 
ponyboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Paris double decker RER-B trains are 4.2m in height, Sydney's are 4.3m in height; a Toronto LRV (Eglinton) is 3.8m in height.

So, the tunnel would need to be a roughly 40cm to 50cm larger than Eglinton in diameter, less than 10% diameter increase, assuming overhead fixed rail is used. That's not a massive difference. Eglinton's entire tunnelling contract was something like $500M and is a much longer bore than what might be needed through downtown.
 
Last edited:
Translude15 said:
1) What about building the DRL Long past Finch, swinging it west underneath (or within) the hydro corridor and connecting to Old Cummer Station? That allows a connection for RH Line passengers to jump onto the DRL should they require it. If that's too arduous even a stop between York Mills and Lawrence on Don Mills would do the trick.
Click to expand...
I proposed exactly this in the Transit Fantasy Map thread, except I would scrap the RH-GO line completely, and run the DRL all the way to Richmond Hill on the RH-GO corridor. I will repost my proposal, seeing as @ponyboy has created several excellent writeups on the topic of sharing corridors in the past 3 pages.

--------------
Here is a proposal for the Relief Line north of Sheppard.

The basic premise is that we utilize the Finch Hydro Corridor to connect the Relief Line subway from Finch and Don Mills to then reach the CN tracks used by the Richmond Hill GO line. From there, the subway runs either on the surface or underground to the interchange at Richmond Hill Centre station on the Yonge North extension.

The southern section of the Richmond Hill GO line is very slow due to the many many curves, and it is subject to frequent flooding. "Correcting" the alignment in order to electrify and convert the GO line to GO-RER is a very costly undertaking. Additionally, it's route is too far west for any interchange with either Eglinton, Danforth or the Relief Line before reaching Union. The Relief Line would be quicker and more frequent than RH-GO under this configuration, so RH-GO's existence is pretty much redundant.

This proposal would maximize Yonge Subway relief by capturing most York Region downtown-bound commuters, as most riders will opt for the 'express' subway service to downtown via Don Mills. The line also intercepts Steeles and Finch East bus routes (along with Sheppard, York Mills, Lawrence and Eglinton Crosstown). This proposal also relieves Union Station by shifting the RH-GO ridership onto the Relief Line and thus to an alightment point along Queen.

What happens to the Richmond Hill GO line? Metrolinx could still continue to operate the line as an express route through York Region to a terminus at Richmond Hill Centre Station, I suppose. When the RH-GO crosses Don Mills just north of Lawrence and enters its alignment through the ravine, it is actually a very scenic route. My suggestion is actually abandoning this rail corridor and converting it into a dual pedestrian path and cycling superhighway. Between this section and the former Old Cummer station, I would extend the cycling superhighway alongside the CN tracks and connect it with the cycling path on the Finch Hydro Corridor. We could end up with a substantial cycling highway network through the core of the city!


vwpbGjO.jpg


(The reason why I opted for this alignment over an interchange with Leslie/Oriole GO, is because I wanted to fully utilize Sheppard-Don Mills as an interchange station (especially with SELRT), to connect with the development potential at Finch-Don Mills, and to connect with Seneca College)
 
I doubt it's to fund DRL. Could be SmartTrack related or RER.
 
Let's just hope and pray that the announcement is for the DRL. After all, Toronto has been waiting for a subway under Queen Street since 1910. Just build it already!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top