Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

I look forward to seeing Tory put forward the Relief Line property tax levy.

AoD
Something's got to give. Things are getting pathetically surreal. I've got to add that I can't see any way forward for significant transit/transport investment in Toronto (and the GTHA) without some form of private enterprise multiplier of gov't investment: The Investment/Infrastructure Bank. It becomes the only default option.
Refurbishment or replacing it with LRT were both viable options, but you are overestimating the possible savings with the former. It wasn't just change for the sake of change.
  • From the EA: "In 2009 a life cycle cost analysis was performed which led to the decision to use LRT technology on the Scarborough RT"
  • The costs for maintaining the current system or upgrading it were so high, the TTC commissioned an engineering study in 2005 to assess its full range of options. Which concluded that "converted and extending the line to Malvern costs roughly the same as upgrading the current line using ICTS technology" (source: Transit Toronto)
  • An older report noted that the cost of replacing the line with LRT to Malvern would cost as much as extending the RT to Malvern using ICTS
  • ICTS technology is as expensive to operate as a subway, but with far less capacity. (source: Transit Toronto)
  • The tracks and systems are old and need replacement. But rebuilding it using ICTS tech is much more expensive than LRT. And the Ellesmere tunnel would need to be rebuilt since the turn is too sharp for newer vehicles.
  • Requires a separate maintenance facility with a dedicated staff and parts, whereas an LRT line would have a shared facility with the Sheppard LRT.
  • It would still remains an orphan technology that relies on a sole-source of many materials for maintenance and replacement.
    • The TTC can't just go to Detroit or Vancouver and borrow their spare parts. They have needed to build up a large spare parts inventory and maintenance knowledge. They need to purchase the rolling stock and many of the replacement parts from Bombardier and only Bombardier.
    • Converting to LRT would allow for a standardization of equipment and maintenance to the rest of the system, and allows the vehicles to be produced as part of the larger Transit City LRT purchase.
That is applicable also to a suggestion in the Yonge Subway Extension for Docklands Light Rail type vehicles in Toronto. They are ill-suited for a number of reasons (In London, due to utilizing old rail RoWs, they affected an economy) and would be even more orphaned than the SRT vehicles.
 
Perhaps they should have called it less impact on single detached residential instead.

Hey, to be fair, there are a lot of semis on Pape. Really nice, 3-storey Victorian or ~1900–1910 semis that have all been fully gutted and redone, but not all single-detached.

My concerns with the Carlaw alignment are:

  1. The cost increase (and the precedent it sets for 'buying off' rich homeowners with increased cost to the project)
  2. What does this do to train performance with that S-curve? Does it reduce the allowed speed, or is it close enough to the station that it doesn't matter? I don't see anything in the slide excerpts above, so maybe it's not actually a concern?
  3. If I look at that alignment drawing above, doesn't this actually have the tracks directly under some houses on Pape just north of Riverdale shopping centre?
 
Hey, to be fair, there are a lot of semis on Pape. Really nice, 3-storey Victorian or ~1900–1910 semis that have all been fully gutted and redone, but not all single-detached.

My concerns with the Carlaw alignment are:

  1. The cost increase (and the precedent it sets for 'buying off' rich homeowners with increased cost to the project)
  2. What does this do to train performance with that S-curve? Does it reduce the allowed speed, or is it close enough to the station that it doesn't matter?
  3. If I look at that alignment drawing above, doesn't this actually have the tracks directly under some houses on Pape just north of Riverdale shopping centre?

It maybe nice, it doesn't mean worthy of preservation by default. In any case, the ship seem to have sailed on that one, I am more curious as to what, if any this change in alignment will cost. Don't think point 3 is a huge issue - the original proposal foresee the track running under houses elsewhere.

AoD
 
It maybe nice, it doesn't mean worthy of preservation by default. In any case, the ship seem to have sailed on that one, I am more curious as to what, if any this change in alignment will cost. Don't think point 3 is a huge issue - the original proposal foresee the track running under houses elsewhere.

AoD
I was more just being sarcastic :)

And as I look at Google Street View, there are actually a bunch of the ~1910s boxy working-class 2-storey semis there too. As an owner of one of these same boxy 2-storey semis, on Strathmore Blvd, where the subway is about 3x shallower than the Relief Line will be, and without the benefit of rubber pads under the tracks... all I can say is, you guys on Pape would have had it easy. And it's pretty damn nice having a subway right outside your door (not so nice having it rattle the pictures on the wall in the basement... but the Relief Line will be nothing like the 2-line).

Anyway, off-topic discussion over. What's your view on whether the new alignment will impact train performance?
 
Anyway, off-topic discussion over. What's your view on whether the new alignment will impact train performance?

2-3 minutes of driver convenience shouldn't have been Gardiner East's deciding factor against reclaiming our waterfront.
A few extra seconds and a bit of wheel screech shouldn't be the Relief Line's deciding factor against improved city building.
 
That is applicable also to a suggestion in the Yonge Subway Extension for Docklands Light Rail type vehicles in Toronto. They are ill-suited for a number of reasons (In London, due to utilizing old rail RoWs, they affected an economy) and would be even more orphaned than the SRT vehicles.

I wasn’t making a suggestion about the vehicles, rather the type of line/infrastructure and the service it provides. Whether DLR (or Line 3 for that matter) switched to Flexity LRVs, MkIII, B2K, MPM10, Movia, etc, the service provided - and benefit to transit users - is still pretty much identical.
 
Again, you're doing the exact thing that you're accusing everyone else of doing, siding with politicians and their decisions that fits their preferences. At least be big enough to admit it because I've done enough reports in my life to know that I can frame them to fit the desired outcome. As long as politics is part of transit planning, it's all BS. The article below is truly telling and goes back to what I said.

I felt that the LRT plan was the most reasonable to begin with, which is why I was siding with it for the reasons I listed. It doesn't mean I'm not open to other alternatives like refurbish the SRT, and admittedly even the experts seem to be divided on this. I've seen various reports say that the LRT conversion was the best solution, while others say that upgrading the technology was the way to go. By the way, I just found out that the original Transit City plan for the RT "retained the 2006 plan to upgrade it to newer ICTS technology and extend it to Sheppard. However, in October 2010, the TTC and the City of Toronto completed an EA that recommended the conversion to LRT technology". (link)

Regardless, it's a moot point anyway now that the ridiculous subway plan is moving ahead. At one point I tried to make peace with it just to finally put this debate behind us, but nothing substantial is being done to bring down its cost which has reached the point where now it's starting to jeopardize other transit projects. That's not acceptable.
 
I think it'll be interesting to see the DRL cost estimates start to skyrocket even more than SSE's did and see how the reaction to that goes.
I fear you are right, and one of the reasons I think best to skip the entire "subway" thinking, and kick it up to full bore RER in tunnel. There is a way to incrementally achieve this, by first aiming at this link (which is what the short DRL is) as an LRT in tunnel. That means the overhead catenary, track gauge and platforms are all compatible with later connecting it through to extant RER Rights of Way. Even the catenary voltage/current can be compatible (25kV AC) for direct use by RER, and ditto signalling, such that with a DoT waiver (it has to happen at some point anyway) LRTs and RER can share the same track as done in a number of nations far ahead of us (The Karlsruhe Model). These LRVs can be dual-voltage/current models as are run in Paris, many cities in Germany and elsewhere so that they can run-through onto street RoWs like Queen, King, etc.

There are many competing suppliers that build these, and for many more cities, but just to show how close Toronto is to this:
[Main article: Flexity Link
The Flexity Link tram-train has dual voltage capabilities and is compatible with mainline railway regulations (e.g. BOStrab) that permit operation on both urban tram networks and mainline railways, reducing transport infrastructure costs. Although this particular model is only used in Saarbrücken,[12] a recent order has been made for dual-voltage Flexity Swift vehicles in Karlsruhe, where the tram-train concept was pioneered.[13]]

[The Flexity Link is a low-floor tram-train manufactured by Bombardier Transportation. It is designed to be able to run both on an urban tram network and on main railway lines, in order to provide direct journeys into a city's centre without passengers having to transfer from a regional train to a tram.

Flexity Link sets are currently used on the Saarbahn in and around Saarbrücken, Germany. Previously, they were used on the Karlsruhe Stadtbahn in Karlsruhe.

The Flexity Link's principal competitors in the tram-train market are the RegioCitadis and Citadis Dualis from Alstom, and the Avanto from Siemens. Most other members of Bombardier's Flexity family are not designed for tram-train operation, except for a fleet of Flexity Swift vehicles ordered by Karlsruhe for its Stadtbahn.]
Flexity official site
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Link

Why put out vast amounts of money to be stuck with Toronto's orphaned subway stock when for the same expenditure, so much more could be had?

"Subways, Subways, Subways". When does Toronto ever get it?
 
Last edited:
If there's an EA on the demolition of the SRT, it should fail. This is the wasteful destruction of perfectly usable infrastructure. It should be stopped on environmental grounds, apart from the misappropriation of tax dollars, which it surely is.
 
I think it'll be interesting to see the DRL cost estimates start to skyrocket even more than SSE's did and see how the reaction to that goes.

These cost increases will be lightly reported until completion like most other projects. No matter what the cost escalation I wouldn't expect any major reaction unless something drastic changes on the Scarborough transit front. Then it would be chaos. I dont believe that will happen given the support for the plans on the table aside from the details in the designs.

As long as the DRL is managed properly, I could care less about the standard cost overruns no matter how high because its caused by low ball estimates. Nothing is getting cheaper. Just build and start working to develop a better transit funding model for the future so we can keep expanding.
 
I think it'll be interesting to see the DRL cost estimates start to skyrocket even more than SSE's did and see how the reaction to that goes.

Exactly. It's highly hypocritical for someone to criticize the escalating costs of the SSE as an excuse not to even bother building it, yet in the same brush advocate for a $20 billion DRL long.

Either the whole region gets subway expansion or none of us do. Infighting among ourselves over which area is more deserving is what's holding us back.

Not to flog a dead horse, but I can't help but keep hearkening back to Jane Whitfield's circa 2006 mayoral campaign plan to expand the subway network incrementally by 2 kilometres per year. A never-ending construction scheme would of had us closer to finishing SSE, DRL and even Sheppard by now.
 

Back
Top