Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)

[mdrejhon]

The real challenge would be to find a vehicle that meets TC standards. That is an active rail freight line.

Details to be solvable. This is a 2041+ project.

 

[micheal_can]

Details to be solvable. This is a 2041+ project.

If the DRL short is not built for them, then future construction would be prohibitive.

 

[Rainforest]

I finally realized why route #1 (Bayview) would be considered.
If they are stupid enough to not grade-separate ECLRT all the way to Don Mills, than it makes much more sense to have the interchange station on the grade-separated portion. I believe they were that stupid, and that it is too late to change that plan - a change that would have cost next to nothing if only it were done right the first time.

While the decision not to grade-separate to Don Mills is a bad one, routing the Relief Line via Bayview doesn't mitigate it in any way.

In contrast, routing the Relief Line either via Science Centre or up Victoria Park does help, by diverting the riders that would otherwise stay on the LRT till Yonge, and thus reducing the peak demand.

IMO, the Bayview route is included just for the sense of completeness. It has no advantages at all, and is virtually certain to be excluded from the short list.

 

[steveintoronto]

If DRL south is already completed, could they be limiting their possibilities for the future extension. That is why the key was to figure out how to build DRL long for as economically as possible, not how to build from Pape to City Hall.

Absolutely. It's become problematic that the TTC and then the City became the champions of this, but have next to no budget other than the stipends QP has thrown to them for the study.

With Metrolinx at the table, the one they own and whose money is on it, a lot changes. The key word is "regional".

And turn that into a metro in a 25-year masterplanning -- then the Option 3 is probably now my favourite alignment so far. With 6-coach single deck trains (Yonge Line style, but faster speeds outdoors in pantograph section) that support thirdrail+overhead catenary. You can move more people with those trains every 5mins than the existing Richmond Hill trains at their existing frequency!

Now the DRL may need to eiter be pantograph based, or dual mode (third rail and pantograph), but many of those subways already exist elsewhere including Europe.

TTC gauge puts the kibosh on what would have made so many other decisions and alternatives so much simpler. Third rail has no case to be made when the TTC track gauge has made the decision next to impossible. Even dual gauge running can't work with TTC and standard gauge, they're too close. If Toronto can pay for the DRL, then build TTC gauge and orthodox highly expensive and dated subway. Otherwise embrace the world. Overhead catenary, and 25kVAC, world's accepted modern standard, and what GO claims they were going to build.

The real challenge would be to find a vehicle that meets TC standards. That is an active rail freight line.

A lot of GO lines to be electrified are "freight lines" too. But agreed, TC have to get off their arses. Canada is even way behind the US, let alone the world on this.

 

[gweed123]

If DRL south is already completed, could they be limiting their possibilities for the future extension. That is why the key was to figure out how to build DRL long for as economically as possible, not how to build from Pape to City Hall.

Yes, the choice of technology is really key here. It does however seem like it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be TTC Subway technology.

And now, they're actually mulling this option. It becomes a real option to interline Richmond Hill RER with the TTC DRL.

The $3 GO Fares and the Metrolinx DRL funding means, amd the talk of high floor stations, means this may not be a dream after all. Oriole, after all, is the first Richmond Hill GO station - and we would lose no GO stations.

If they can commit to it, and get enough frequencies to hold the existing ridership of Richmond Hill -- smaller trains to Richmond Hill every 4-to-5 mins peak (2-to-2.5 min south of Eglinton) can be better than the existing peak-only mega GO trains. And turn that into a metro in a 25-year masterplanning -- then the Option 3 is probably now my favourite alignment so far. With 6-coach single deck trains (Yonge Line style, but faster speeds outdoors in pantograph section) that support thirdrail+overhead catenary. You can move more people with those trains every 5mins than the existing Richmond Hill trains at their existing frequency!

With it likely being a TTC Subway, my preference would then be to run an O-Train style DMU on the Richmond Hill Line north of RHC, with a direct connection to the subway at RHC. Just have a couple DMUs running back and forth between RHC and Bloomington.

The real challenge would be to find a vehicle that meets TC standards. That is an active rail freight line.

It's only a freight line north of the York Sub, correct? The corridor from the York Sub to RHC should be wide enough for 2 subway tracks and 1 rail track. It'd basically look a bit like around Kipling.

 

[Translude15]

I went to the Relief Line North Public meeting, hosted at York Mills Collegiate last night. About 50 people were there, and I'd estimate that half were representatives from the TTC, City of Toronto or Metrolinx. A 20 minute presentation that outlined the background and corridor options was provided. The intent was to engage attendees in one on one conversations to get input on what options were most attractive and why. Two interesting comments from the facilitators:

- Corridor #6, Vic Park - At first pass of the modelling, this corridor appears to have the highest ridership expectations. The person cautioned that the analysis was preliminary and is incomplete, they are in the process of integrating modelling engines from the TTC and Metrolinx. They also said an analysis of how much relief to the Yonge line would be provided by the Vic-Park corridor needed to be completed.

- Corridor #6 Curve to Sheppard - While not explicitly drawn on the map below, this was shared as an option that will be considered. The idea is for Corridor #6 to turn West at Vic Park and Sheppard. The existing Sheppard Line would become the final leg of the DRL.

Overall it was a good session. An interesting side note, all attendees drove to the meeting.

View attachment 140666

Corridors 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all interesting and could potentially be viable options. Even corridor 2 is a possibility for its likely cost savings.

Corridor 2: Hits Thorncliffe Park and also connects to the Eglinton LRT at Sunnybrook. Also connects to Line 4 at Sheppard while also offering direct connection to RH GO. The possibility of a cost-effective northern extension via RH GO to RH Centre is also in play with this route.

Corridor 3: Offers the traditional DRL North routing through Don Mills, hitting Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks, Eglinton LRT at the Science Centre but also utilizes the RH GO corridor and allows for stops at York Mills and Oriole. Also hits Line 4 at Sheppard via Leslie. Like option 2, this route allows for a cost-effective northern extension to RH Centre.

Corridor 4: The traditional DRL North routing from Pape to Don Mills/Fairview Mall. This route allows for a logical northern extension to Finch (Seneca College), Steeles and beyond.

Corridor 5: Offers traditional DRL routing from Pape to Eglinton via Science Centre. This is interesting as a connection to RH GO is made east of the DVP. This stop could also include another stop on the potential Midtown GO corridor which only adds to the value of the interchange as a key mobility hub.

Corridor 6: Also very interesting in that this route takes a more East York-centric alignment but also hits the Scarborough border by travelling north on Victoria Park. I believe this would be a good option to connect with Line 4 and eliminate the stubway association of that route. I would be interested in hearing the forecasting numbers of this alignment and how its proximity to Scarborough affects this.

This is delving into fantasy a little bit, but in an ideal world with unlimited funding, the DRL proposal would be combined with various other regional transit plans. As other posters have mentioned utilizing the DRL corridor as an RER/Metro style subway route, the DRL South would travel along King Street as opposed to Queen. This is to serve the function of alleviating Union Station without being too far north, while also providing relief to Line 1. A DRL North alignment would utilize corridor option 3, which intersects most of the traditional locations (Thorncliffe Park, Science Centre) while also utilizing the RH GO route.

The circuitous RH line through the Don Valley would become an urban park and trail south of Lawrence. This also facilitates the naturalization of the Don River into Toronto Harbour. North of Elgin Mills, the RH GO route would cut through the current gap in Richmond Hill via tunnel and meet with the existing Barrie Line at Aurora. North of Aurora, the former Barrie GO line would now become the Richmond Hill line and travel to its new terminus at Keswick.

Traversing King instead of Queen allows the DRL West to meet the proposed Liberty Village station in the west end. Similar to the re-alignment of the RH GO line, a western leg of the DRL could incorporate a re-alignment of the Barrie GO line underneath Dufferin Street instead of its current corridor. A tunnel underneath Dufferin allows for a direct connection to Line 2 at Bloor, St. Clair streetcar and the Eglinton LRT. This also provides prospective relief of the University Line while remaining in between both University and the Kitchener GO lines. Dufferin is also an ideal corridor for continued re-development. North of Eglinton, the new Barrie line tunnel would veer west, re-connecting with the existing outdoor rail corridor north of Lawrence. The previous Barrie corridor would become an urban trail and park as an extension of the existing York Beltline Trail.

North of here, the Barrie line would hit all existing stops until King City GO station. Veering east, the new Barrie line would travel along Keele to meet up with the current Barrie corridor at Bradford GO station. This would be the most expensive and intricate component of this re-alignment due to potential tunneling, crossing the Holland Marsh and land expropriation, but the idea would be to facilitate a more direct route with faster travel times between Barrie/Simcoe/Western York Region into Toronto. This route would connect with the newly developed Keswick line in the east end to become a new, lengthier 'U' around Line 1.

A secondary DRL would travel along the Queensway/Queen Street from Mimico/Park Lawn in the west to the Beaches in the east end. A northern extension along Victoria Park would be the ideal northern progression of this line and follow the approximate routing of Corridor 6. This Queen/Queensway corridor would be a precursor to re-aligning the Milton GO line along the Queensway in Etobicoke and into downtown and the east end. Again, this idea is one of fantasy and a lengthy construction timeline with adequate funding.

My gut feeling is perhaps Metrolinx is seriously considering these kinds of developments to combine suburban and exurban travel patterns with intra-city patterns. To me, combining GO train service with TTC level metro frequencies is a no brainer in terms of spurring ridership throughout the GTA. Depending on the fleet and track gauge used, smaller train sets can travel faster than both current GO trains and TTC subways. It's absolutely an idea worth pursuing.

 

[mdrejhon]

Interesting to hear! Eliminating the Don Valley railroad tracks was actually an option -- that's definitely DRL+RH interlining actually being talked about, for real.

While I hate to see railroad tracks removed, those slow problematic floody sections have no stations.... So no loss of ridership.

DRL simply doubles as a bypass for Richmond Hill GO's problematic Don Valley section. And DRL does have stations, many of interest to existing Richmond Hill riders -- like those trying to get to Bloor destinations, and have to double-back using TTC today. Win-win-win.

I have to agree that.... Don Valley.... presents some special environmental and flooding challenges.... and is made redundant with DRL+RH interlining. So on that note, that's a fantastic addition of a brand new park + railtrail + practical commuting cycle route -- in a city that sorely needs an improved Don Valley environment.

I agree, Option 6 actually may be preferable but might cost more $ per rider because of the extra tunneling requirements.

So..... Why don't we build one more north-south LRT with the financial savings of Option 3 versus Option 6 ????

(e.g. maybe Victoria Park Avenue or another alignment reasonably close to the northern parts of Option 6) with the money we save with Option 3?? A new north-south link for Crosstown with RER between Don Valley and Scarborough. Then we can get more than the ridership combined and Option 3 + Option 6 benefits combined. Grid out the rapid transit system better. Basically, a north-south LRT east of Don Valley and west of Scarborough, linking RER to Crosstown. We'll get more riders and the Option 6 benefits, for less money-per-rider, while getting fantastic DRL+RH interlining for cheaper.

 

[sixrings]

So..... Why don't we build one more north-south LRT with the financial savings of Option 3 versus Option 6 ????

(e.g. maybe Victoria Park Avenue or another alignment reasonably close to the northern parts of Option 6) with the money we save with Option 3?? A new north-south link for Crosstown with RER between Don Valley and Scarborough. Then we can get more than the ridership combined and Option 3 + Option 6 benefits combined. Grid out the rapid transit system better. Basically, a north-south LRT east of Don Valley and west of Scarborough, linking RER to Crosstown. We'll get more riders and the Option 6 benefits, for less money-per-rider, while getting fantastic DRL+RH interlining for cheaper.

I was thinking the same thing but I dont want Scarborough to think wer're forcing LRT down their throats. If it was me id take the savings and convert Sheppard to LRT and make a Sheppard crosstown. This would also help sheppard riders not need to transfer once at donmills and then again say at leslie if thats where the DRL goes...

 

[Leo_Chan]

Corridors 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all interesting and could potentially be viable options. Even corridor 2 is a possibility for its likely cost savings.

Corridor 2: Hits Thorncliffe Park and also connects to the Eglinton LRT at Sunnybrook. Also connects to Line 4 at Sheppard while also offering direct connection to RH GO. The possibility of a cost-effective northern extension via RH GO to RH Centre is also in play with this route.

Corridor 3: Offers the traditional DRL North routing through Don Mills, hitting Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks, Eglinton LRT at the Science Centre but also utilizes the RH GO corridor and allows for stops at York Mills and Oriole. Also hits Line 4 at Sheppard via Leslie. Like option 2, this route allows for a cost-effective northern extension to RH Centre.

Corridor 4: The traditional DRL North routing from Pape to Don Mills/Fairview Mall. This route allows for a logical northern extension to Finch (Seneca College), Steeles and beyond.

Corridor 5: Offers traditional DRL routing from Pape to Eglinton via Science Centre. This is interesting as a connection to RH GO is made east of the DVP. This stop could also include another stop on the potential Midtown GO corridor which only adds to the value of the interchange as a key mobility hub.

Corridor 6: Also very interesting in that this route takes a more East York-centric alignment but also hits the Scarborough border by travelling north on Victoria Park. I believe this would be a good option to connect with Line 4 and eliminate the stubway association of that route. I would be interested in hearing the forecasting numbers of this alignment and how its proximity to Scarborough affects this.

This is delving into fantasy a little bit, but in an ideal world with unlimited funding, the DRL proposal would be combined with various other regional transit plans. As other posters have mentioned utilizing the DRL corridor as an RER/Metro syyle subway route, the DRL South would travel along King Street as opposed to Queen. This is to serve the function of alleviating Union Station without being too far north, while also providing relief to Line 1. A DRL North alignment would utilize corridor option 3, which intersects most of the traditional locations (Thorncliffe Park, Science Centre) while also utilizing the RH GO route.

The circuitous RH line through the Don Valley would become an urban park and trail south of Lawrence. This also facilitates the naturalization of the Don River into Toronto Harbour. North of Elgin Mills, the RH GO route would cut through the current gap in Richmond Hill via tunnel and meet with the existing Barrie Line at Aurora. North of Aurora, the former Barrie GO line would now become the Richmond Hill line and travel to its new terminus at Keswick.

Traversing King instead of Queen allows the DRL West to meet the proposed Liberty Village station in the west end. Similar to the re-alignment of the RH GO line, a western leg of the DRL could incorporate a re-alignment of the Barrie GO line underneath Dufferin Street instead of its current corridor. A tunnel underneath Dufferin allows for a direct connection to Line 2 at Bloor, St. Clair streetcar and the Eglinton LRT. This also provides prospective relief of the University Line while remaining in between both University and the Kitchener GO lines. Dufferin is also an ideal corridor for continued re-development. North of Eglinton, the new Barrie line tunnel would veer west, re-connecting with the existing outdoor rail corridor north of Lawrence. The previous Barrie corridor would become an urban trail and park as an extension of the existing York Beltline Trail.

North of here, the Barrie line would hit all existing stops until King City GO station. Veering east, the new Barrie line would travel along Keele to meet up with the current Barrie corridor at Bradford GO station. This would be the most expensive and intricate component of this re-alignment due to potential tunneling, crossing the Holland Marsh and land expropriation, but the idea would be to facilitate a more direct route with faster travel times between Barrie/Simcoe/Western York Region into Toronto. This route would connect with the newly developed Keswick line in the east end to become a new, lengthier 'U' around Line 1.

A secondary DRL would travel along the Queensway/Queen Street from Mimico/Park Lawn in the west to the Beaches in the east end. A northern extension along Victoria Park would be the ideal northern progression of this line and follow the approximate routing of Corridor 6. This Queen/Queensway corridor would be a precursor to re-aligning the Milton GO line along the Queensway in Etobicoke and into downtown and the east end. Again, this idea is one of fantasy and a lengthy construction timeline with adequate funding.

My gut feeling is perhaps Metrolinx is seriously considering these kinds of developments to combine suburban and exurban travel patterns with intra-city patterns. To me, combining GO train service with TTC level metro frequencies is a no brainer in terms of spurring ridership throughout the GTA. Depending on the fleet and track gauge used, smaller train sets can travel faster than both current GO trains and TTC subways. It's absolutely an idea worth pursuing.

Interesting to hear! Eliminating the Don Valley railroad tracks was actually an option -- that's definitely DRL+RH interlining actually being talked about, for real.

While I hate to see railroad tracks removed, those slow problematic floody sections have no stations.... So no loss of ridership.

DRL simply doubles as a bypass for Richmond Hill GO's problematic Don Valley section. And DRL does have stations, many of interest to existing Richmond Hill riders -- like those trying to get to Bloor destinations, and have to double-back using TTC today. Win-win-win.

I have to agree that.... Don Valley.... presents some special environmental and flooding challenges.... and is made redundant with DRL+RH interlining. So on that note, that's a fantastic addition of a brand new park + railtrail + practical commuting cycle route -- in a city that sorely needs an improved Don Valley environment.

I agree, Option 6 actually may be preferable but might cost more $ per rider because of the extra tunneling requirements.

So..... Why don't we build one more north-south LRT with the financial savings of Option 3 versus Option 6 ????

(e.g. maybe Victoria Park Avenue or another alignment reasonably close to the northern parts of Option 6) with the money we save with Option 3?? A new north-south link for Crosstown with RER between Don Valley and Scarborough. Then we can get more than the ridership combined and Option 3 + Option 6 benefits combined. Grid out the rapid transit system better. Basically, a north-south LRT east of Don Valley and west of Scarborough, linking RER to Crosstown. We'll get more riders and the Option 6 benefits, for less money-per-rider, while getting fantastic DRL+RH interlining for cheaper.

Something crazy like this?

 

[Translude15]

Interesting to hear! Eliminating the Don Valley railroad tracks was actually an option, with the DRL+RH interlining ideas that are actually being discussed for real.

While I hate to see railroad tracks removed, I have to agree that.... Don Valley.... presents some special environmental and flooding challenges.... and is made redundant with DRL+RH interlining. So on that note, that's a fantastic addition of a brand new park + railtrail + practical commuting cycle route -- in a city that sorely needs an improved Don Valley environment.

I agree, Option 6 actually may be preferable but might cost more $ per rider because of the extra tunneling requirements. Why don't we build a couple more LRTs with the money we save with Option 3?? Then we can get more than the ridership combined and Option 3 + Option 6 benefits combined. Basically, a north-south LRT east of Don Valley and west of Scarborough, linking RER to Crosstown. We'll get more riders and the Option 6 benefits, while getting DRL+RH interlining!

I think the main issue with option 6 as LRT is O'Connor is pretty devoid of space for a surface routing. Any rapid transit would have to be underground along O'Connor. I believe an underground route would be ideal, especially with a lengthier timeline of 50+ years.

 

[Translude15]

Something crazy like this?
View attachment 141113

Yes, pretty much, except the Barrie Line would continue north to Bradford and continue as usual to Barrie. That would be the trickiest part due to tunneling, land expropriation and crossing the Holland Marsh.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Yes, pretty much, except the Barrie Line would continue north to Bradford and continue as usual to Barrie. That would be the trickiest part due to tunneling, land expropriation and crossing the Holland Marsh.

How much does it cost for tunneling under a rail corridor (assuming quadruple tracking isn't possible and freight needs 2-way service) compared to tunneling under a road?

 

[micheal_can]

While I hate to see railroad tracks removed, those slow problematic floody sections have no stations.... So no loss of ridership.

DRL simply doubles as a bypass for Richmond Hill GO's problematic Don Valley section. And DRL does have stations, many of interest to existing Richmond Hill riders -- like those trying to get to Bloor destinations, and have to double-back using TTC today. Win-win-win.

And the province ensures that the Northlander can never return to it's old rout ever. The RH line is the one that it used to follow in the GTA after tracks were removed between Washago and Barrie.

Doing this is akin to removing the elevated Gardiner sections. Sounds good on paper, and for the locals it is great. But from those beyond that section, it really can be a very bad thing.

 

[mdrejhon]

Something crazy like this?

Not quite what I meant by LRT, but, crazy concept!

And the province ensures that the Northlander can never return to it's old rout ever. The RH line is the one that it used to follow in the GTA after tracks were removed between Washago and Barrie.

Doing this is akin to removing the elevated Gardiner sections. Sounds good on paper, and for the locals it is great. But from those beyond that section, it really can be a very bad thing.

Hmmmm. Never realized.

But how about a Richmond Hill transit interchange terminal to tie three terminuses together?
- Yonge extension
- Relief Line via RH south routing.
- Diesel service north of RH.

Basically, continue diesel trains north of Richmond Hill, even GO trains, but terminate them at Richmond Hill where the two subways converge (Yonge Line and Relief Line).

Many, many more transit options opens up for Northlander passengers that way.
Getting closer to their destination with fewer transfers and/or less double-backing, if your final destination is not near Union. Adding the fancy interchange terminal at this natural transit convergence point, will still cost less than Don Valley flood remeditation anyway. And save enough money to.....resurrect more Northlander-style service, maybe?

 

[mdrejhon]

What's the boresize of the DRL tunnels planned?

Is there enough room to park a collapsed pantograph on top of trains? (How much extra clearance is needed, to park an unused, retracted pantograph?)

Because if Option 2 or 3 are chosen for Relief Line North to interline with Richmond Hill (DRL = RER), we might need dual electric modes (third rail and pantograph) if the outdoor sections use catenary instead of third rail.

We have to protect for this possibility.