Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Northern Light]

The long and short of all this is that we don't know what's coming.

Or whether that will fly.

REM in Montreal may or may not resemble what is proposed........but the Quebec government had a good deal more latitude in its proposal; for that matter so did the feds in respect of their role.

Times have changed, governments are different.

That does not mean I am prejudging any proposed change, I can hardly bother when I have no clue what's coming.

I can take educated guesses, as many other have, but the uncertainty swing here is large.

Let me put out just one thing from the letter that should draw extreme scrutiny, total separation from Line 2.

If by that we mean no use of Greenwood yard, where does one envision a maintenance facility along this route, even in its extended form?

I won't go further, as the whole situation is too obscure just at the moment.

Suffice to say.....there is reason to be concerned about the quality of judgement by the Ford regime......even if one might question other, earlier choices by others.

 

[Rainforest]

However, like Montreal's REM, a light DRL metro would also be woefully undercapacity. Projections are 20,000 pphpd, and there isn't a light metro in the world that can accommodate that usage.

Bombardier claims that ICTS with Mk-III trains can accommodate as much as 24,000 pphpd, and that's not even the absolute maximum for that kind of systems.

Vancouver's Canada Line manages an extremely high frequency, but suffers from very short platforms and trains.

It isn't hard to imagine a light-metro line that runs on say 45-sec frequency, with 3 cars, each car having a design capacity of 150. That would be 80 trains per hour, 450 riders per train, for the total capacity of 36,000 pphpd.

So, that's not impossible. Although, hard to say if such possibility is cost effective. Tunneling under downtown would still be needed.

 

[steveintoronto]

Some posters see the greater picture of what's possible, others just can't think beyond yesterday. It's a real problem for Toronto.

I'm actually optimistic of the possibility that someone(s) at Metrolinx (note Ford's repeated referral to that, not Lindsay!) does 'get it' and has presented a scheme to the resident dimwits at QP and eventually City Hall of "how this is up and running elsewhere, proven and 'off the shelf' ready, and investors are already in the room to back this'.

Let's be honest folks, like this or not, nothing is going to be built if there's no private initiative. So for those who want to wait...for...well...forever...good luck. I'm gonna take the next train, and if Ford et al happen to stumble into some good sense, then at least someone is pushing change.

Wild guess of what's coming: a REM-style DBFOM plan to build the South and North legs of the Relief Line in one go, perhaps using lighter but still subway-ish technology. And perhaps a couple of south-of-Bloor stations removed to provide a faster "regional" ride to the core.

Thumbs up for vision, but I'm with some others in thinking it's 'too light' to serve the GTHA needs. Note though that I didn't state "Toronto's needs". Toronto has the subway, and Torontonians should be able to use it. For the exurbs, from where the extra load is swamping the subway, but their tax dollars are being used inefficiently to fund transit in Toronto, then RER is the answer. And it ain't rocket science. Torontonians are their own worst enemies when it comes to thinking little. There's many cities far ahead of us in addressing this challenge. We can learn from Montreal, and the shortcomings of REM at peak are known even before it's fully built. And that weakness is through the Mount Royal Tunnel, a whole discussion in itself as per VIA HFR, compatibility and federal regulation.

B-D subway has over 500k riders per day.
You think its not possible that this new line will have 1/3 of that?

Indeed, the small thinking boggles me. Toronto wants to be known for the "12 lane superhighway as big as Los Angeles' one". But they can't scale that thinking to rail passenger numbers.

If both the downtown tunnel and the East York tunnel can be funded, then a lot of benefits can come from using the existing rail corridors afterwards. One route can join the RH line north of Science Centre, and run to Richmond hill. Another branch can go north-east along the CP midtown corridor towards Agincourt and beyond. And, one more branch split off the tunnal somewhere south of Bloor, and join the Lakeshore East corridor.

In the west, there are as many as 5 potential corridors for RER, hence no new tunnels will be needed west of the downtown section.

There could be some quibbling on detail, all addressable, but absolutely true. Many cities have done exactly as you envision. The only example I see as being problematic, and this is where HFR and GO come into the picture, is CP. We need the ByPass to make the Midtown happen. But you're right. And technically by law, there's nothing to block tunnelling under the CP RoW to follow it where they don't want catenary. With a will, a way can be found.

However, like Montreal's REM, a light DRL metro would also be woefully undercapacity. Projections are 20,000 pphpd, and there isn't a light metro in the world that can accommodate that usage.

Bingo! And the bottom line is that if it costs you 'X' to build a limited subway, you can build something that handles multitudes more for only 'X' + 50%. That would include by-pass tracks at some stations for express and multi-use of metro, RER and HFR. This is already being done in other nations, the Japanese do it exquisitely and timed within seconds.

It ain't rocket science. And extant examples abound.

 

[nephersir7]

However, like Montreal's REM, a light DRL metro would also be woefully undercapacity. Projections are 20,000 pphpd, and there isn't a light metro in the world that can accommodate that usage.

Really, it's just a matter of having adequate platform length. Make it longer and don't call it light.

The new Sydney Metro, which basically uses the same tech as Montreal's REM is designed for 40,000 pphpd capacity.

 

[Rainforest]

Let me put out just one thing from the letter that should draw extreme scrutiny, total separation from Line 2.

If by that we mean no use of Greenwood yard, where does one envision a maintenance facility along this route, even in its extended form?

Good point. If it is a light metro, and completely separate from Line 2, then it needs a new yard located pretty close to the route.

And if it is electrified RER, then it needs an electrified route to wherever the yard is located. Unless we want to create a ridiculous situation of having to use diesel locos for hauling the electric trains between the yard and the service area.

 

[Amare]

B-D subway has over 500k riders per day.
You think its not possible that this new line will have 1/3 of that?
The DRL projections were about 20k per hour (per direction). You think 10x this in a day is not possible?

The way he's going with things, no I dont. Especially if he decides to go with the Canada Line style model of under-building and straining future capacity; but we'll have to wait and see what the province's official "plan" is.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Ford says one little hint: It's not just going to be a downtown relief line.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1111016758792675328

That's a downtown Relief Line. Sound so like Ford is fearing calling it that

 

[Streety McCarface]

Bombardier claims that ICTS with Mk-III trains can accommodate as much as 24,000 pphpd, and that's not even the absolute maximum for that kind of systems.

Vancouver's Canada Line manages an extremely high frequency, but suffers from very short platforms and trains.

It isn't hard to imagine a light-metro line that runs on say 45-sec frequency, with 3 cars, each car having a design capacity of 150. That would be 80 trains per hour, 450 riders per train, for the total capacity of 36,000 pphpd.

So, that's not impossible. Although, hard to say if such possibility is cost effective. Tunneling under downtown would still be needed.

I'm not going to trust one company's claims with regards to maximum capacity, after all, they are trying to sell the product to us. No one believes the 250 passengers per LFLRV metric, so why should they believe that one MKIII train can carry 600 people but a TR can only carry 1100 (note that Mark III platforms are 80 meters long, while TRs are 140 meters long), unless something is wrong with the layout the TTC is using.

This entire narrative being pushed by ford is dangerous. I surely hope the city (and the province for that matter) does not accept this and they protest. Every sane person agrees that this line should be built ASAP, and they also believe the line should have a capacity exceeding 30K PPHPD. Building a line with a maximum capacity of 25K PPHPD on a corridor that is projected to have an opening day ridership of 20K PPHPD is one of the dumbest things you can do, especially for a civil project as large and as complicated as the relief line.

 

[steveintoronto]

And if it is electrified RER, then it needs an electrified route to wherever the yard is located. Unless we want to create a ridiculous situation of having to use diesel locos for hauling the electric trains between the yard and the service area.

Bear in mind that the phrase "Stand alone" and other distinct reference (gist) "not connected to the subway at all" have been made. To the best of my knowledge, neither was a through running connection to RER stated either, so my guess would be RER EMUs or metros. The latter might be more likely if private investment is over 50%, and that's contingent on sole-sourcing a supplier who's part of the consortium.

 

[robmausser]

l this is that we don't know what's coming.

I'm not going to trust one company's claims with regards to maximum capacity, after all, they are trying to sell the product to us. No one believes the 250 passengers per LFLRV metric, so why should they believe that one MKIII train can carry 600 people but a TR can only carry 1100 (note that Mark III platforms are 80 meters long, while TRs are 140 meters long), unless something is wrong with the layout the TTC is using.

This entire narrative being pushed by ford is dangerous. I surely hope the city (and the province for that matter) does not accept this and they protest. Every sane person agrees that this line should be built ASAP, and they also believe the line should have a capacity exceeding 30K PPHPD. Building a line with a maximum capacity of 25K PPHPD on a corridor that is projected to have an opening day ridership of 20K PPHPD is one of the dumbest things you can do, especially for a civil project as large and as complicated as the relief line.

LOL you are already bringing pitchforks to a hypothetical assumption that people are making on this board.

 

[steveintoronto]

LOL you are already bringing pitchforks to a hypothetical assumption that people are making on this board.

And most of the dismissal or cynicism is for what's extant already elsewhere. These aren't flights of fancy.

Sydney Metro was mentioned in one of the posts, and Sydney has looked ahead to provide platform length for eight car trains.(RL South is for six) Even that might prove limited, but the headways are key:

[...]
Impact of the project on the city and community
Metro means a new generation of world-class fast, safe and reliable trains easily connecting customers to where they want to go.

When services start in the first half of 2019, customers won’t need timetables – they’ll just turn up and go with a train every four minutes in the peak.

Sydney Metro, together with signalling and infrastructure upgrades across the existing Sydney rail network, will increase the capacity of train services entering the Sydney CBD – from about 120 an hour today to up to 200 services beyond 2024. That’s an increase of up to 60 per cent capacity across the network to meet demand.

KEY FACTS

• 15.5km twin metro railway tunnels
• 5 Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs)
• 6 new station boxes
• Sydney Metro has the ultimate capacity to run a train every two minutes in each direction under the Sydney CBD
• 99 000 pre-cast tunnel segments built on site at Marrickville
• [...]

• https://www.bechtel.com/projects/sydney-metro/

These are off-the-shelf Alstom Metropolis vehicles, almost identical to the REM ones.

The Alstom Metropolis is a family of electric multiple units built by Alstom designed for high capacity rapid transit or metro rail infrastructure systems. The trains are in service in 22 major cities around the world, representing more than 3000 cars, including Singapore, Shanghai, Budapest, Warsaw, Nanjing, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Lima, Santiago, Chile, Barcelona, Istanbul, Santo Domingo, Chennai and Kochi. Amsterdam ordered 23 Metropolis trains; the first one came into operation June 2013. Xiamen also ordered some Metropolis trainsets for the Xiamen Metro. Trains can be run in configurations of 2 to 10 cars using manned or unmanned operations.
[...]
Systems which use Metropolis cars

• Amsterdam Metro
• Barcelona Metro
• Budapest Metro
• Buenos Aires Underground
• Caracas Metro
• Chennai Metro
• Hanoi Metro
• İstanbul Metro
• Kochi Metro
• Lima Metro
• Los Teques Metro
• Lucknow Metro
• Montréal REM (Starting from 2021)
• Nanjing Metro
• Panama Metro
• Paris Metro
• Riyadh Metro
• Santiago Metro
• Santo Domingo Metro
• São Paulo Metro
• Shanghai Metro
• Singapore MRT
• Sydney Metro (Starting from 2019)
• Taipei Metro (Starting from 2020)
• Warsaw Metro
• Xiamen Metro
• Mumbai Metro (Starting from 2021)

Production

• France: Valenciennes
• Poland: Alstom Konstal in Chorzów
• Spain: Santa Perpetua de Mogoda
• Brazil: Lapa[1]
• China: CRRC Nanjing Puzhen in Nanjing and Shanghai Alstom (joint venture between Alstom and Shanghai Electric) in Shanghai
• India: Sri City, Andhra Pradesh
• [...]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

We certainly couldn't have anything like that. Much too modern, efficient, affordable and proven...

 

[rbt]

I believe Ford bit hard onto Option 2/3 from the DRL North EA, which strongly hinted at combining the Richmond Hill line into the DRL. A Yard for that situation is very easy to provide as you can shove it out near Gormley or Bloomington.

The "new technology" may be similar what ION installed so freight and lighter passenger vehicles (like a Toronto Rocket or LRV) can share space.

A BART scale design rather than REM scale (very similar systems aside from train size) would have sufficient capacity to do both jobs for several decades. Certainly brings the fare integration problem to the front and center; no getting around a fare-by-distance styled integration with free ttc transfer for that line.

Some delays ahead if the above is the new plan though. Some chunks would need to complete an EA for a single DBFOM for the line; so DRL in 2034?

 

[BurlOak]

Suffice to say.....there is reason to be concerned about the quality of judgement by the Ford regime......even if one might question other, earlier choices by others.

If we go back 8 years, another Ford agreed to a combined Eglinton Scarborough LRT. We know Ford didn't come up with the idea, but we know it was the best means of serving STC. Metrolinx was behind that, and even completed a Benefit Case to confirm it was a better choice than either the "Transfer LRT" or the subway extension. The reason we got into this whole mess we are in is because Toronto (Council and MPPs at the time) decided it was more important to attack Ford, then to build good transit.
Here we are again. We know Ford didn't come up with this new plan, but it's easy to believe that there is a better plan than the DRL short. Although I don't like how Ford is being coy, it is likely that history will repeat itself and many will choose to attack Ford rather than have good transit.

 

[BurlOak]

Some posters see the greater picture of what's possible, others just can't think beyond yesterday. It's a real problem for Toronto.

I'm actually optimistic of the possibility that someone(s) at Metrolinx (note Ford's repeated referral to that, not Lindsay!) does 'get it' and has presented a scheme to the resident dimwits at QP and eventually City Hall of "how this is up and running elsewhere, proven and 'off the shelf' ready, and investors are already in the room to back this'.

Let's be honest folks, like this or not, nothing is going to be built if there's no private initiative. So for those who want to wait...for...well...forever...good luck. I'm gonna take the next train, and if Ford et al happen to stumble into some good sense, then at least someone is pushing change.
Thumbs up for vision, but I'm with some others in thinking it's 'too light' to serve the GTHA needs. Note though that I didn't state "Toronto's needs". Toronto has the subway, and Torontonians should be able to use it. For the exurbs, from where the extra load is swamping the subway, but their tax dollars are being used inefficiently to fund transit in Toronto, then RER is the answer. And it ain't rocket science. Torontonians are their own worst enemies when it comes to thinking little. There's many cities far ahead of us in addressing this challenge. We can learn from Montreal, and the shortcomings of REM at peak are known even before it's fully built. And that weakness is through the Mount Royal Tunnel, a whole discussion in itself as per VIA HFR, compatibility and federal regulation.
Indeed, the small thinking boggles me. Toronto wants to be known for the "12 lane superhighway as big as Los Angeles' one". But they can't scale that thinking to rail passenger numbers.
There could be some quibbling on detail, all addressable, but absolutely true. Many cities have done exactly as you envision. The only example I see as being problematic, and this is where HFR and GO come into the picture, is CP. We need the ByPass to make the Midtown happen. But you're right. And technically by law, there's nothing to block tunnelling under the CP RoW to follow it where they don't want catenary. With a will, a way can be found.
Bingo! And the bottom line is that if it costs you 'X' to build a limited subway, you can build something that handles multitudes more for only 'X' + 50%. That would include by-pass tracks at some stations for express and multi-use of metro, RER and HFR. This is already being done in other nations, the Japanese do it exquisitely and timed within seconds.

It ain't rocket science. And extant examples abound.

If your right on RER, then two things become obvious.

1. how lacking Toronto planning is;
2. how uploading rapid transit to the province is the obvious best choice.

 

[hw621]

SmartTrack 2.0 it is...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1111220942926172160