Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Kitsune]

We're forgetting a couple key points here though. The distance from Jarvis Street to Parliament Street is one kilometre, that's far enough apart to justify the duo station scenario. Assuming 100 metre platforms this is cut down to 800 metres, which is the same average spacing as the central Eglinton Crosstown where population density is less but no one says anything about. That also means a station at Queen and Sherbourne would be over a kilometre away from Yonge (too far apart through such a dense built-up part of the City) and 1.2 kilometres from the next station at King and Sumach.

The scenario I'm proposing suggests much more equalized and reasonable stop spacing. Yonge to Jarvis would in fact be further apart than 400 metres assuming the Yonge Station is situated to the west side of the intersection as planning drawings suggests. The Jarvis station likewise could fill in the block between Jarvis and George Sts (making the walk to Sherbourne relatively easy vs the planned Sherbourne stop situated east of Sherbourne, double the walking distance back to Jarvis). With this new spacing the Parliament St station could be accommodated before the line transitions southwards to King and Sumach. Also the Sumach station doesn't have to be in a street grid and could have mutliple access points depending on how its built (with entrances even to as far as Lower River St).

With the cancellation of that planned development near Sherbourne, there's nothing else there worthy of a subway stop compared to both Jarvis and Parliament Sts. Case in point:


and near Queen and Parliament:


This is a fight worth having. And if were going to spends upwards of $15 billion on DRL Long anyway, what difference does $200 million really make to make the line be of more use to the most number of people possible? This should be a top priority. DRL done right, not cheapened out on to save face.

Have you seen what is already built in the area Queen / Sherbourne ? You can't go skipping over existing development just because its already there, and its a lot more then currently exists around Parliament / Queen. And remember - Parliament and Jarvis do not have stops on Line 2, and no is crying over spilled milk on that. Also the stations are 200 meters long. and to go from the Yonge-Queen to (lower?) Sherbourne is 819.49 meters.

 

[44 North]

I addressed that in the post prior wit: "Waivers" from TC. This is how the "O Train" in Ottawa is run, and at least one length of track it runs on is freight at night. ("Temporally separated") San Diego's runs in tunnels, on mainline tracks and goes to the border with Mexico from San Diego, and has done so for decades. It's the fourth largest passenger load of any LRT system in the US.

I have to repeat, the following model is built and run in North Am to do exactly that, except this goes further than 600-750 VDC overhead or third rail, this is also available dual voltage and current, to match what GO RER will run under: (25kV AC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_S70

You can, if the appropriate pick-up shoes are attached. Quite a few systems in the world do this.

Ottawa says otherwise. If Ottawa's O-Train was partly sponsored by Transport Canada, as well as CN and CP, and given a waiver from regs....why couldn't Toronto? Ottawa is expanding their system right now, using a competitor to the Siemens S-70 itemized above, and being assembled nearby by Alstom.

I'm in no way an expert/amateur in this field so I really have no idea, and you definitely would know more than me. But those examples seems to me to be LRVs, which are built with significantly higher crash standards and afaik are in a different category than subway/metro vehicles. I'm not really talking about LRVs, or focusing on whether power pickup is from overhead or 3rd rail, rather the notion posited by ssiguy that we can order subway vehicles and operate them on mainline railways. Are there any waivers that would allow, say, a Movia to operate on the same track as GO, VIA, or a freight train? I doubt it, but then again I don't know.

 

[ssiguy2]

What I am talking about is very simple............build the DRL but don't use 3rd rail. Build the DRL exactly as proposed from Yonge to Eglinton via Pape but just build it as a catenary subway. In other words do exactly what your closest Metro system does namely the Cleveland Red Line. It is a subway/metro in every sense of the word but simply draws it's power from catenary and thus the track is standard gauge.

This would make northern extensions much easier as they could use the current GO/RER Richmond Hill corridor as opposed to having to build a brand new subway route. Same thing going west where it could eventually continue as a tunnel to roughly Liberty Village and then join up with the Lakeshore West GORER line. It means there would be a relief line for all RER trains to relieve Union and trains could leave from Yonge & Queen to all points just as the do from Union by, as an example, running half of all RER trains thru Queen and the other half through Union on an alternating basis. For example if there are 10 RER trains leaving from Burlington {or Oshawa or Brampton or Stoufville etc} every hour simply have 5 using the Queen Street corridor and 5 using Union. If the DRL North needs more service to Eglinton then they could simply add more trains and have them short-turn there.

Using standard gauge allow the DRL to easily expand because once out of the inner city it can simply make use of current infrastructure while if built as 3rd rail even areas outside the core will need totally new infrastructure that is MUCH more expensive and time consuming.

 

[steveintoronto]

the notion posited by ssiguy that we can order subway vehicles and operate them on mainline railways.

I think this is where the confusion is occurring, as he didn't posit that, although in the case of New York's LIRR and others, it is "mainline" in the sense that the freight operations are also hosted *temporally* on the passenger routes, and on some freight only trackage during the day.

The New York and Atlantic Railway (NY&A) (reporting mark NYA) is a short line railroad formed in 1997 to provide freight service over the tracks of the Long Island Rail Road, a public commuter rail agency which had decided to privatize its freight operations. An affiliate of the Anacostia and Pacific Company, NY&A operates exclusively on Long Island, New York and is connected to the mainland via CSX's line over the Hell Gate Bridge. It also interchanges with New York New Jersey Rail's car float at the 65th Street Yard and US Rail of New York in Yaphank, New York.[1] Its primary freight yard is Fresh Pond Junction in Queens. The NY&A officially took over Long Island Rail Road's freight operations on May 11, 1997. The initial franchise was for 20 years.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_and_Atlantic_Railway

LIRR carries more passengers than any other railroad in the US. It is third rail *over-running* the same as the TTC and almost the standard worldwide. However, sections are also shared with Amtrak, and so those sections have high voltage AC catenary as well as third rail. In London, UK, where Thameslink passes through the core, trains not only switch to catenary from third rail, they also switch voltage and current form, 25kV AC north of London, to the third rail 750VDC south.

Discussions here: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/742/t/158605.aspx http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/168818.aspx re mostly the NYC systems.

Using standard gauge allow the DRL to easily expand because once out of the inner city it can simply make use of current infrastructure while if built as 3rd rail even areas outside the core will need totally new infrastructure that is MUCH more expensive and time consuming.

I think it has to be this way. It will cost slightly more to build (larger diameter tunnels needed, present LRT tunnels being built might be large enough, if not, the loading gauge is close, so Toronto has experience doing this) but in the long term, in flexibility and world standards of available rolling stock, it would be asinine to not build it this way, and make it part of the RER relief on Union Station, and as Guy writes, do run-throughs, like Crossrail is doing in London, to mainlines at the ends with possibility of connecting junctions to other points.

Why build new obsolescence? It's the Province and Feds who will be financing this, Toronto is broke, so build it standard track gauge to GO standards, and as part of the GO system so that RER can utilize it as well as dual-voltage/current tram-trains. The contentious point will be platform height, necessarily low level.

 

[Forgotten]

*periodic reminder that bureaucrats are directed by the mayor and Council*

Right down to the convenient memory lapses and omissions? We don't need to pay them for that. Just let Tory and Fletcher interns do that.

Have you seen what is already built in the area Queen / Sherbourne ? You can't go skipping over existing development just because its already there, and its a lot more then currently exists around Parliament / Queen.

Just to be clear, we're talking about Schnitzel Queen and Alfie's?

It's relevant to review what the official plan says. From University and to the west, expect Queen Street in 50 years to look like Danforth today because "Neighbourhoods" and "Mainstreet character" and "heritage" means it's untouchable. All so our fair city can have an express line to 100 Queen Street West.

 

[W. K. Lis]

...
It's relevant to review what the official plan says. From University and to the west, expect Queen Street in 50 years to look like Danforth today because "Neighbourhoods" and "Mainstreet character" and "heritage" means it's untouchable. All so our fair city can have an express line to 100 Queen Street West.
View attachment 101751

Sure that is not a typo? Do you mean 1001 Queen Street West (CAMH)?

 

[torontologist]

Sure that is not a typo? Do you mean 1001 Queen Street West (CAMH)?

If transit planning in this city continues the way it has been going for the last 10 years, a direct line to CAMH may be necessary for those of us at wit's end.

 

[WislaHD]

One thing that could be a benefit of the Carlaw-Pape jig (theoretically at least) is if we ever decided to route a nonrevenue spur to Greenwood Yd via the rail corridor. South of the Gerrard station the NE-SW alignment could make this more optimal if a Line 2 wye is cost prohibitive. That's just my theory tho.

View attachment 101343

This is what convinces me about the Carlaw alignment, ultimately.

 

[Hopkins123]

If transit planning in this city continues the way it has been going for the last 10 years, a direct line to CAMH may be necessary for those of us at wit's end.

If the DRL isn't shovel-ready within the next 10 years, I think a lot of us wit's end transit-philes will be committed there.

 

[ADRM]

FWIW (admitting the worthiness is definitely debatable), Tory did cite the RL as the city's top priority for fed-prov funding at his press conference today (followed by Eglinton E LRT and Waterfront LRT).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If the DRL isn't shovel-ready within the next 10 years, I think a lot of us wit's end transit-philes will be committed there.

Why blame ourselves? I can think of quite a few others who should be consigned there instead for their role in this.

AoD

 

[Cobra]

If the DRL isn't shovel-ready within the next 10 years, I think a lot of us wit's end transit-philes will be committed there.

I think the Feds would be on board with their Infrastructure fund as they gave a lot of money to the planning and engineering of the line. It's up to the city to get it shovel ready and Queen's Park to be all in regardless of who's Premier.

 

[WislaHD]

I think the Feds would be on board with their Infrastructure fund as they gave a lot of money to the planning and engineering of the line. It's up to the city to get it shovel ready and Queen's Park to be all in regardless of who's Premier.

Yup. I think this investment bank idea is going to be the saviour of our transit necessities, and this is a concept that typical conservatives can get behind of as well.

It is up to the cities to get projects shovel ready.

 

[Cobra]

Yup. I think this investment bank idea is going to be the saviour of our transit necessities, and this is a concept that typical conservatives can get behind of as well.

It is up to the cities to get projects shovel ready.

Historically, typical conservatives are not against infrastructure investments. 2 bad recent apples (Harris and Harper) changed that perception. They are the exception, not the rule

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

One thing that could be a benefit of the Carlaw-Pape jig (theoretically at least) is if we ever decided to route a nonrevenue spur to Greenwood Yd via the rail corridor. South of the Gerrard station the NE-SW alignment could make this more optimal if a Line 2 wye is cost prohibitive. That's just my theory tho.

View attachment 101343

I highly doubt Metrolinx will be open to that if you're proposing it at-grade. Besides, a new yard should likely be required for a fully built relief line (with lots of potential sites near Don Mills and York Mills or Wynford), and wouldn't there be some benefit to connecting Line 2 to said yard?