Ontario Line Extension West of Ontario Place (Speculation)

[north-of-anything]

I don't think skipping interchange stations like Gerrard and Osgoode make sense. And those that intersect major streetcar routes (Gerrard, Sumach, Bathurst and Queen).

Still, that's not where the express benefit is found. Why not do the extensions beyond where the density is?

Where would the express benefit be found if there aren't any downtown stops that are skipped? If stops are skipped between Danforth and Sheppard, making the train stop at Dufferin, Spadina, Sumach, Gerrard, etc. negates that benefit. Riders within Toronto would be the ones getting skipped over, and riders from outside Toronto typically aren't headed to destinations along Gerrard, Sumach, Dufferin...

I understand why it's important to give streetcars connections to the rest of the system, but that can be done with local trains. If we're using New York as an example of express trains, not all express trains make stops to transfer with every line, and if we don't do the same here then we aren't really getting much of an express service.

GO passengers away from Union station? I don't see what getting people to transfer at Gerrard (have you seen how many escalators will be required to transfer?) or East Harbour (or somewhere in the west) has to do with track gauge.

Well, first of all, I personally don't support using Gerrard as a transfer point. East Harbour makes the most sense to me if you need to go to Union specifically. Secondly, if the Relief Line has RER tracks then GO passengers can simply use the TTC or PATH network from Queen as a last-mile solution. Plus, I'm sure a significant amount of Union-bound passengers are headed towards destinations between King and Bloor, which means stopping at Queen would make their commute faster.

The reason I brought up track gauge is that if we use at least two tracks of standard gauge through the Relief Line, we can completely reroute Richmond Hill service through the line, and possibly Barrie service as well. This would make it easier to upgrade RER service along the Richmond Hill corridor (since the Don Valley tracks are flood-prone and Metrolinx is not interested in flood-proofing them), which would in turn make the GO corridor a more attractive and faster alternative to downtown than Line 1. This will also draw commuters away from the Yonge North extension!

Using entirely standard gauge tracks would mean local service on the relief line would use standard gauge, which is a huge plus for Metrolinx which is using the gauge everywhere else right now. It may preclude turning the rest of the TTC's subways into standard gauge down the road, which would definitely be the hard part.

 

[Hopkins123]

Where would the express benefit be found if there aren't any downtown stops that are skipped? If stops are skipped between Danforth and Sheppard, making the train stop at Dufferin, Spadina, Sumach, Gerrard, etc. negates that benefit. Riders within Toronto would be the ones getting skipped over, and riders from outside Toronto typically aren't headed to destinations along Gerrard, Sumach, Dufferin...

I understand why it's important to give streetcars connections to the rest of the system, but that can be done with local trains. If we're using New York as an example of express trains, not all express trains make stops to transfer with every line, and if we don't do the same here then we aren't really getting much of an express service.



Well, first of all, I personally don't support using Gerrard as a transfer point. East Harbour makes the most sense to me if you need to go to Union specifically. Secondly, if the Relief Line has RER tracks then GO passengers can simply use the TTC or PATH network from Queen as a last-mile solution. Plus, I'm sure a significant amount of Union-bound passengers are headed towards destinations between King and Bloor, which means stopping at Queen would make their commute faster.

The reason I brought up track gauge is that if we use at least two tracks of standard gauge through the Relief Line, we can completely reroute Richmond Hill service through the line, and possibly Barrie service as well. This would make it easier to upgrade RER service along the Richmond Hill corridor (since the Don Valley tracks are flood-prone and Metrolinx is not interested in flood-proofing them), which would in turn make the GO corridor a more attractive and faster alternative to downtown than Line 1. This will also draw commuters away from the Yonge North extension!

Using entirely standard gauge tracks would mean local service on the relief line would use standard gauge, which is a huge plus for Metrolinx which is using the gauge everywhere else right now. It may preclude turning the rest of the TTC's subways into standard gauge down the road, which would definitely be the hard part.

If DRL West's east-west segment doesn't match the Bloor Line's stop spacing (i.e. Spadina, Bathurst, Trinity-Bellwoods/Gore Vale, Ossington, Dufferin, Lansdowne and Roncesvalles) it's almost a fruitless endeavour.

If you need an express service that bypasses downtown, take the GO. It'd be so absurd to have the Crosstown Line with lesser surrounding density wind up with better stop spacing than a subway through the actual core.

 

[steveintoronto]

If the Relief Line is built to RER specifications, then it's most important that we have 3+ tracks, or some other means to run both local and express services separately.

This is not being done with modern systems, not least due to the incredible improvements in thrust to weight ratios (expressed as rates of acceleration and braking). It's been looked at by a lot of modern systems, and deemed not worthy in terms of return per extra cost. Bypass loops yes! At stations. REM is proposing this for sharing the Mount Royal Tunnel station(s) (one is being cancelled) with VIA HFR. There's a lot more examples on-line, I'll see if I can find and link later.

Another argument for using the Barrie corridor instead of the Kitchener corridor is that people near the Barrie corridor are more likely to be going down Yonge right now. Particularly, Vaughan. Those are the people who are part of the Yonge overcrowding, and their needs should be addressed.

But don't overlook the exquisite symbiosis of RER as planned, with RER as proposed to assume the Carlaw RL alignment and connect it up each end. Even Private Enterprise has limits financing this kind of infrastructure (sure as hell the Province isn't going to be spending anything beyond what it already has on this)(And it's already DBFOM as it is). So combining as many symbiotic projects into one, other than looping all over the place to serve Entitlements and maximizing investment in one heavy duty trunk will rule the day. Both legs can easily be accommodated. Crossrail and other nations' systems can now achieve less than 2 min headways on their central core trunks. Initially, Crossrail is to achieve every 2.5 mins, to be bettered later as capacity is increased. IIRC, some Japanese lines are already well below 2 mins (both examples in tunnel, btw!), so if the legs hosted RER (or like Metro) each @ every 10 minutes, every 5 mins through the core would be absolutely no problem.

Union will be overcapacity in the near future.

Actually not! This has been one of the Metrolinx greatest lies. It's not the station, it's the western throat on the USRC. Union can and will do a lot more with less platforms and state of the art signalling and control, and getting Transport Canada off their sorry asses to reassign speed limits and yard designations in a modern way. There is a good case to be made to by-pass Union, but it's not the station's limitations itself, it's the need to then transit further north to the core from Front Street. A tunnel through the core (probably under Queen) alone proffers massive relief. Many wouldn't ever have to set foot on the subway. They might have to connect with buses, streetcars, but so be it. That spells 'RELIEF' for tired aching subways.

We've been talking about this Lakeshore tunnel under Union for years. It would seem like an excellent opportunity to direct passenger traffic away from Union.

It wouldn't be that hard to add in terms of engineering, the cost to benefit though would have to make the case.

I would say none of the above as neither have been mentioned to my knowledge.

Perhaps the term "speculative" in the surmise might cover that?

I think there's untapped benefit to slimming the trains down

I don't agree with what you're trying to achieve in this case, but do agree with the concept, inverted: Five across seating with standard European UIC carriage gauge trains. And it's done by shortening the carriages so that when they go around bends, the overhang is greatly reduced. Think the Flexity streetcar. With five bogies instead of three,
See:

And:

https://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/Events/Supporting%20Documents/BT/bombardier-transportation-Regio-2N-datasheet-en.pdf

 

[BurlOak]

If DRL West's east-west segment doesn't match the Bloor Line's stop spacing (i.e. Spadina, Bathurst, Trinity-Bellwoods/Gore Vale, Ossington, Dufferin, Lansdowne and Roncesvalles) it's almost a fruitless endeavour.

If you need an express service that bypasses downtown, take the GO. It'd be so absurd to have the Crosstown Line with lesser surrounding density wind up with better stop spacing than a subway through the actual core.

Gore Vale is not much of a road. Ossington does not go south of Queen. I could see the station being between Strachan and Shaw. The Ossington Bus makes a jog and goes down Shaw - so either way the bus serves the new station. So Ossington is 200m from the subway - plus all on the bus get delivered to the station. Dovercourt is the bad area - which about 500m walk to the nearest subway - or 300m walk (for elderly) to a bus (at Ossington) that will take them to the subway.

 

[steveintoronto]

If you need an express service that bypasses downtown, take the GO.

This is a strawman argument. And no-one is touting it to "bypass downtown". It's the diametric opposite. That's what it's all about...a "Relief Line".

New GO/RER Stations
New GO RER Stations
Bloor-Lansdowne GO Station
Spadina-Front GO Station
Current Work (August 2018)

In 2017, Metrolinx completed an Environmental Project Report (EPR) for the Barrie Rail Corridor Expansion (BRCE) Project. The BRCE Project included the provision of a second track between Lansdowne Avenue in the City of Toronto and Allandale Waterfront GO Station in the City of Barrie; upgrades to existing GO Stations; and a new train layover facility. Subsequently, Metrolinx identified the need to add new stations that had not been evaluated in the initial EPR, including two new stations in Toronto – Bloor-Lansdowne GO Station and Spadina-Front GO Station. [...]

smarttrack.to

This domain may be for sale!

smarttrack.to

More stations to connect you to rapid transit

We’re delivering more access to GO, across our region.
GO Expansion is more than just adding more trains (from 1,500 to 4,000 weekly trips by 2025), it will transform the region with frequent, two-way all-day rail service, more than doubling the number of GO Transit riders by 2031. Sixty-six GO Rail stations currently serve our customers daily. It’s also about a more connected network. To help make those connections a reality, we’re delivering new stations across our region. Adding more stations will mean 350,000 more people will live and work within walking distance of frequent rapid transit, with better options to travel locally and connect with the entire region.
Overview
Six of our new stations are part of the City of Toronto’s SmartTrack program, designed to introduce new urban stations in the City of Toronto, with frequent GO Train service on the Kitchener, Lakeshore Eastand Stouffville lines.

• Finch-Kennedy (Stouffville Line)
• Lawrence-Kennedy (Stouffville Line)
• Gerrard-Carlaw (Lakeshore East / Stouffville Line)
• East Harbour (Lakeshore East / Stouffville Line)
• King-Liberty (Kitchener Line)
• St. Clair – Old Weston (Kitchener Line)

For more information on SmartTrack, please go to http://smarttrack.to/
We’re also building 6 new stations across the Barrie and Kitchener lines, giving you new ways to access all-day, two-way GO Trains:

• Spadina-Front (Barrie Line)
• Bloor-Lansdowne (Barrie Line)
• Kirby (Barrie Line)
• Mulock (Barrie Line)
• Innisfil (Barrie Line)
• Breslau (Kitchener Line)
• [...]

• http://www.metrolinx.com/en/greaterregion/regions/newstations.aspx

How many stations do you need in the downtown? And who is going to pay for them all? And how much redundancy do you need of 'RER to subway' service?

Do you want people to use 'the highway'? Then don't put cloverleafs at every major intersection. Some still don't seem to understand that there's going to be *one shot" at financing this, if at all. So why wouldn't you combine the two for the price of one + a premium to achieve far more for the return vs cost?

The dream of a subway servicing every neighbourhood is gone...

 

[north-of-anything]

To better illustrate my point, here's a quick and dirty sketch of what I think the Relief Line could look like. Blue is local service, green is GO. GO trains would completely bypass every station with a smaller icon at a minimum, only Eaton Centre, East Harbour, and one station west of Strachan are really necessary for GO.

Running both services through this corridor is almost like two tunnels for the price of one. Keeping local service and GO service completely segregated is a huge part of why transit in Toronto is a joke.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Since when do Old Toronto neighbourhoods lack rapid transit access? Aren't there already multiple streetcar routes that go through this area? It would be more economical and practical to maintain and improve those services... like we should be doing anyways.

What is this relief line supposed to be relieving again?

Those streetcar lines are near or above capacity. That alone is motive enough to build a rapid transit (read subway) in that corridor.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I think there is a lot of reinventing the wheel going on in this thread.

Subways in urban areas work as promised. We have three (Bloor-Danforth, Yonge, and Spadina) as examples. We are building another along Eglinton (it's a subway using LRT technology, mmkay?).

I don't see why the Relief Line, especially on the west end (where providing relief to Bloor Station isn't a priority), needs to be anything other than the frequent, high-capacity, regular stop-spacing, subway line servicing dense, urban areas that we've traditionally built before Sheppard. A subway line on Queen should have been built 50 years ago.

 

[steveintoronto]

Running both services through this corridor is almost like two tunnels for the price of one. Keeping local service and GO service completely segregated is a huge part of why transit in Toronto is a joke.

I may quibble with your particular details, but the concept is excellent, and practised in quite a few world leading cities. May I suggest that the RER stays on the Georgetown Corridor and the locals go up the Barrie one? I was just thinking that a flyover would be needed for the south line (eastbound) off the Barrie line to the main Georgetown Corridor to maintain tight headways and not foul the opposing lines doing a flat junction connection. Also station boxes can be built large enough to allow a centre 'run-through track' past stopped locals. Local and express are run on some Japanese lines with two tracks, the non-stopping in fact being high-speed trains. They use 'passing loops' at the stations. The tech exists and is in practice.

I think there is a lot of reinventing the wheel going on in this thread.

It's not "reinventing the wheel" it's 'Toronto doing what other world class cities have done a generation ago' (Or more, if you look at the Metropolitan in London and Paris, Berlin and many other systems). I find it ironic that you use Polish examples for LRT lines and transitways, but not European best practice when it comes to 'subway' tech.

Let me ask you: Why can't Toronto learn from the Eurpeans, Montrealers, Ozzies, Kiwis, Japanese, Hong Kong Chinese, some US cities, South Americans and whomever else may have been overlooked?

With money that doesn't exist, you want to build a toy subway train wrongly called a "Relief Line" when its designers are now admitting it barely makes a business case to be fit for purpose, but a massive demand remains unmet: Relieving the subways and building RER through the core.

Good luck attracting investors with yesterday's tech and thinking.

 

[north-of-anything]

I think there is a lot of reinventing the wheel going on in this thread.

Subways in urban areas work as promised. We have three (Bloor-Danforth, Yonge, and Spadina) as examples. We are building another along Eglinton (it's a subway using LRT technology, mmkay?).

I don't see why the Relief Line, especially on the west end (where providing relief to Bloor Station isn't a priority), needs to be anything other than the frequent, high-capacity, regular stop-spacing, subway line servicing dense, urban areas that we've traditionally built before Sheppard. A subway line on Queen should have been built 50 years ago.

Why can't we do both?

All I'm suggesting is that the same tunnel in the west end be used to host local rapid transit and longer-distance transit. They don't have to actually interline. They can even diverge at the rail corridor with the subway continuing underground if that's necessary. It's just frustrating to see most new infrastructure proposals exist in isolation and in piecemeal.

(Also if Eglinton and its standard gauge is considered a subway, then so too should a Relief Line with standard gauge.)

 

[north-of-anything]

I may quibble with your particular details, but the concept is excellent, and practised in quite a few world leading cities. May I suggest that the RER stays on the Georgetown Corridor and the locals go up the Barrie one? I was just thinking that a flyover would be needed for the south line (eastbound) off the Barrie line to the main Georgetown Corridor to maintain tight headways and not foul the opposing lines doing a flat junction connection. Also station boxes can be built large enough to allow a centre 'run-through track' past stopped locals. Local and express are run on some Japanese lines with two tracks, the non-stopping in fact being high-speed trains. They use 'passing loops' at the stations. The tech exists and is in practice.

The Barrie corridor needs RER as well. From personal experience, the train fills fast before even entering Vaughan. This is why I'm saying Barrie and Richmond Hill should get its own rapid transit corridor in addition to Kitchener-Stouffville, which I would personally continue through Union. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Barrie tracks are the northernmost tracks on the CN bridge in Parkdale, so those tracks should be the easiest to divert downwards off the bridge.

On the other hand, I don't know very much about trains and I couldn't tell you the logistics of how trains could actually pass over each other.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Barrie corridor needs RER as well.

Fair enough. It was touted for RER anyway, the Lansdowne Station one of a number on it for RER.

...(the) Kitchener-Stouffville, which I would personally continue through Union.

I say split the destination. Every other one down to Union (and through) and the other through the core. And every other Barrie Cor RER into the core, and alternates to Union.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Barrie tracks are the northernmost tracks on the CN bridge in Parkdale, so those tracks should be the easiest to divert downwards off the bridge.

Yes, by and large, I don't think there's any switches planned on/to them once outside the USRC.

On the other hand, I don't know very much about trains and I couldn't tell you the logistics of how trains could actually pass over each other.

Flying junction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hopkins123]

View attachment 174534

To better illustrate my point, here's a quick and dirty sketch of what I think the Relief Line could look like. Blue is local service, green is GO. GO trains would completely bypass every station with a smaller icon at a minimum, only Eaton Centre, East Harbour, and one station west of Strachan are really necessary for GO.

Running both services through this corridor is almost like two tunnels for the price of one. Keeping local service and GO service completely segregated is a huge part of why transit in Toronto is a joke.

You're missing Spadina, which is significant because Spadina/Queen would be the more suitable intersection for the GO/DRL interchange station as it's busier than Bathurst.

 

[Hopkins123]

Those streetcar lines are near or above capacity. That alone is motive enough to build a rapid transit (read subway) in that corridor.

The Queen (or King) corridor needs far more alleviation than the Dundas and College corridors. Over 90,000 passengers per day ride the 501 and 504/514 compared to around just 50,000 on the 505 and 506. Central Dundas from about Ossington to Carlaw is within easy walking distance of Queen. With stops spaced every 700 metres apart the maximum catchment of ridership from King to Dundas, from Roncy to Carlaw is achievable.

We can implement things short of a subway up Dufferin to address crowding on the 29, a situation that will drastically change regardless once there's new parallel subways along both Queen and Eglinton taking demand and pressure off of the Bloor-Dufferin station.

 

[nfitz]

If stops are skipped between Danforth and Sheppard, making the train stop at Dufferin, Spadina, Sumach, Gerrard, etc. negates that benefit.

I'm not seeing how that works. Are you suggesting that if the train skips stops, making the trip shorter, getting to Danforth, that it then somehow loses that time by stopping at downtown stations? Do you suggest longer dwell times for express trains?

I'm not seeing it ...

Riders within Toronto would be the ones getting skipped over, and riders from outside Toronto typically aren't headed to destinations along Gerrard, Sumach, Dufferin...

I understand why it's important to give streetcars connections to the rest of the system, but that can be done with local trains. If we're using New York as an example of express trains, not all express trains make stops to transfer with every line, and if we don't do the same here then we aren't really getting much of an express service.

Well, first of all, I personally don't support using Gerrard as a transfer point. East Harbour makes the most sense to me if you need to go to Union specifically.

If you are on the GO train, why would you get off anywhere if you are going to Union? You'd just stay on the train. If you were on the DRL and wanted to go to Union, you'd rarely change to GO at either station ... you'd change at Queen - because Line 1 runs every 2-3 minutes, and you'll still be looking at 10-15 minutes for a GO Train.

Secondly, if the Relief Line has RER tracks ...

That's not the plan. That was completely different and dead Metrolinx plan looking at ways of dealing with GO congestion at Union Station ... which if it ever proceeds would likely be using an underground terminal south of Front between Yonge and Bay.

This thread is about the TTC subway line.