Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[thettctransitfanatic]

That's not what I stated! Go back and quote me exactly. I stated (gist) "We have enough crowding as it is in Toronto, why extend it to the exurbs where it takes crowding over-capacity".

Without travellers from outside the city, riding on flat TTC fares (check out where many of the cars at TTC parking lots come from) subsidized by Torontonians, depriving Torontonians of spaces on the trains that were built for them, not outsiders, then the subways with a few tweaks could handle the load.

In the event, I can add another new twist to the claim:
https://medium.com/@MikePMoffatt/examining-the-exodus-out-of-toronto-b10384daffb5

Being discussed here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/planned-sprawl-in-the-gta.20816/page-31#post-1434699

Toronto subways were built for Torontonians, except for the ridiculous extension up to Vaughan, while Torontonian's real needs were ignored. The overflow comes from outside of Toronto in most cases. And that's my point. As to internal crunch, it looks like (according to StatsCan figures) Toronto proper is shrinking!

Lots of people who park their cars at say, Kipling and Islington station, are outsiders. They really are parking there because they wanna avoid all the downtown traffic like the rest of us, but for the people who live in the inner-city, they have less space to relax and breathe.

 

[Neutrino]

@steveintoronto Even if we were to take all the commuters who drive and park at Finch off the subway, that would only amount to 2-3 thousand people, or 2-3 trains. Wouldn't make a dent in the Bloor Yonge crush. Plus many who park at Finch are fellow Torontonians, not nasty 905ers taking up our spaces on the train. So that reduces the number of 905 commuters (and relief effect of kicking them off) even further. I really doubt that kicking off a few 905ers from Line 1 will alleviate crowding in the slightest.

The exurbs are better served by GO if and only if those commuters are heading to the financial district. I imagine many have destinations other than in vicinity of Union. Any relief line will need robust last mile bus service otherwise it will flop. Goes for both standard TTC subway and through running RER. But if relief is operated by Metrolinx, that throws more wrinkles into the picture. We've seen what a bitch it was doing something relatively minor like moving Oriole station to Leslie. Inspires no confidence they will get something large like 5-10 major bus routes right. On top of that we saw what happened and continues to stink up the joint with fare integration on TYSSE. TTC local bus routes connecting with a provincially operated through running RER sounds like a disaster to me. Perhaps ECLRT can serve as a good model to follow in terms of city/province governance and ownership. Regardless, issues of ownership will have to be hammered out in advance and once again I have no confidence given how incompetent all parties involved in Toronto transit have been over the years.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

With the sordid maglev smirk we're now dealing with I'm actually thinking this could be some narrow-bodied LIM setup.

Wonder if it could be something along the lines of the Toei Oedo line in Tokyo.

View attachment 179015

LIM trains don't have motors, which saves a tremendous amount of space. This allows for narrower tunnels and theoretically cheaper project costs.

However, tunnelling is fairly cheap (it's the stations that are expensive), which makes me doubt that this will save a significant amount of money. The Eglinton Crosstown tunnelling contracts amounted to $500 Million, so I'd expect any savings due to narrower tunnelling to be in the range of $50 Million. These LIM trains would need their own maintenance and storage facilities which would probably wipe out all those savings.

Stations are the most expensive part of subway contraction, so any major savings are likely coming from there. Perhaps Metrolinx will propose to use the station boring method used in Spain (basically they use a vertically oriented TBM to bore out the stations. There stairs, and station access is provided via elevator).

 

[Kyle Campbell]

LIM trains don't have motors, which saves a tremendous amount of space. This allows for narrower tunnels and theoretically cheaper project costs.

However, tunnelling is fairly cheap (it's the stations that are expensive), which makes me doubt that this will save a significant amount of money. The Eglinton Crosstown tunnelling contracts amounted to $500 Million, so I'd expect any savings due to narrower tunnelling to be in the range of $50 Million. These LIM trains would need their own maintenance and storage facilities which would probably wipe out all those savings.

Stations are the most expensive part of subway contraction, so any major savings are likely coming from there. Perhaps Metrolinx will propose to use the station boring method used in Spain (basically they use a vertically oriented TBM to bore out the stations. There stairs, and station access is provided via elevator).

I always thought those stations are such a neat idea

Although some of them actually do have seemingly endless escalators

 

[p_xavier]

In a weird coincidence, the CDPQ has two new requests for proposals for transit evaluation experts for new projects. One is for Québec, the other is for outside Québec. Wynne had refused collaboration in transit projects from Québec in her tenure.

SEAO : Consulter un avis

www.seao.ca

 

[BurlOak]

LIM trains don't have motors, which saves a tremendous amount of space. This allows for narrower tunnels and theoretically cheaper project costs.

However, tunnelling is fairly cheap (it's the stations that are expensive), which makes me doubt that this will save a significant amount of money. The Eglinton Crosstown tunnelling contracts amounted to $500 Million, so I'd expect any savings due to narrower tunnelling to be in the range of $50 Million. These LIM trains would need their own maintenance and storage facilities which would probably wipe out all those savings.

Stations are the most expensive part of subway contraction, so any major savings are likely coming from there. Perhaps Metrolinx will propose to use the station boring method used in Spain (basically they use a vertically oriented TBM to bore out the stations. There stairs, and station access is provided via elevator).

Agree that the tunneling is the cheap component. The advantage here with the smaller tunnel is that it may be able to go above the YUS, rather than under. It likely could not be done on Queen and would have to be done a bit farther south where it's a touch deeper, and not directly above a station. Smaller tunnel and shallower means less disruption during cut-and-cover construction, and much easier ventilation and emergency exits. Another advantage is the it can handle curves better (tighter radius). If EglintonLRT was combined with SRT with this technology, and maybe Sheppard converted to it, then there would be a strong case to do it for DRL - at the time, no point in having any LRT, why have an orphan technology.

 

[BurlOak]

And from the right side:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...mburg-s-bahn-automation-agreement-signed.html

But, but, but...they speak a different language! It will never work...can't do that here...too many words. This is common practice over much of Europe.

Steve, I think your prediction is right - but I am not sure exactly what that is.
The hints from Ford (and others) are a different technology, larger than a Relief line, and serving more people. Sounds reasonable.

So when Ford makes his announcement, what will it be?

• A tunnel from City Hall to Don Mills/Lawrence, and then continuing on the Richmond Hill corridor?
• Will it be elevated from the Don Valley and beyond?
• Will the tunnel extend west to the rail corridor?
• Will the Barrie line run through the tunnel?
• Will other lines run through this?

There are a slew of possibilities, but you have spent so much time convincing people that something like this is possible, I can't recall if you actually predicted what specific plan Ford will announce to replace the current plan of heavy subway from Osgoode to Pape.

 

[steveintoronto]

@steveintoronto Even if we were to take all the commuters who drive and park at Finch off the subway, that would only amount to 2-3 thousand people, or 2-3 trains. Wouldn't make a dent in the Bloor Yonge crush. Plus many who park at Finch are fellow Torontonians, not nasty 905ers taking up our spaces on the train. So that reduces the number of 905 commuters (and relief effect of kicking them off) even further. I really doubt that kicking off a few 905ers from Line 1 will alleviate crowding in the slightest.

So before I research reference and quote and link, let me get your point straight: You're in favour, as I quoted @WislaHD as stating, for prioritizing extending the Yonge leg up to RH?

I think that had we built the Relief Line 50 years, we would be looking towards investing in GO-RER within Toronto now. As evidenced by the demand of some neighbourhoods (like Weston) that aren't well serviced by subway lines, there is potential within the 416 for greater commuter rail integration.

But first, we need to build the necessary capacity on the Yonge Line (to enable the Richmond Hill extension), to intercept our trunk arterial bus routes on the east-end of the city in order to greatly reduce commuter times for Scarborough and North York residents, and to build a workable alternative to the Yonge Line to provide essential network redundancy.

Underscore is mine.

That certainly isn't the view of the TTC, Metrolinx, the City, Yurek, The Star, Globe, the majority of Torontonians polled and others.
Relief line must be the top priority for Toronto’s subway system
By Star Editorial Board
Sun., Nov. 25, 2018

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/edi...-top-priority-for-torontos-subway-system.html
(Edit: At the time of the above linked article, Yurek was non-committal. He has since gone on record as his and the Ford admin acknowledging the pre-eminent need for the RL).

And here's the challenge in researching figures to buttress that point:

Early estimates indicate the first phase of the Relief Line would cost at least $6.8 billion, while the Yonge Extension would run $5.6 billion.

The Metrolinx report asserts that, even with the first phase of the Relief Line in operation, if the Yonge Extension is built, the network will be over capacity by 2041.

A second phase of the Relief Line that would push the subway up to Sheppard Ave. would be required by that time to prevent the system from exceeding capacity.

The Metrolinx presentation didn’t include figures to back up its analysis. An agency spokesperson said it would be “premature” to release the data because Metrolinx is still working on its business case for the first phase of the Relief Line.

Relief line must open before Yonge North subway extension, Metrolinx

"Metrolinx is still working on its business case for the first phase of the Relief Line." We now know from the latest report that the business case is just barely above one, with the proviso, as bolstered by the latest claim for cost doubling, of increasing in cost substantially, thus reducing the business case for the southern leg of the RL alone as not being able to come even close justifying itself on a business case.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 • The Relief Line South alignment identified by the City of Toronto as preferred, has a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) above 1.0, demonstrating the project’s value; however, since it is close to 1.0, it is highly sensitive to costs, so more detailed design work and procurement method choice will be of importance to maintain or improve this initial BCR. • Forecasts suggest that Relief Line South will attract ridership to unequivocally justify subway-level service; transit-oriented development opportunities can further boost ridership. • Transit network forecasts show that Relief Line South needs to be in operation before the Yonge North Subway Extension. Relief Line North provides further crowding relief for Line 1.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...dMtg_ReliefLineBusinessCaseDevelopment_EN.pdf

 

[sixrings]

I always thought those stations are such a neat idea

Although some of them actually do have seemingly endless escalators

I got dizzy watching this commute from platform to exit once. I would likely go insane if I had to do this every day. Plus it takes 3-4 minutes to get from platform to exit with out any other pedestrians trying to at the same time. Also it feels like every time I use the ttc the escalator I out of service. So many things I would hate about this. But sure it’s underground which the drl needs to be. But I don’t know how subway advocates can justify this yet at the same time complain about outdoor platforms on the lrt lines with a straight face.

 

[steveintoronto]

Steve, I think your prediction is right - but I am not sure exactly what that is.
The hints from Ford (and others) are a different technology, larger than a Relief line, and serving more people. Sounds reasonable.

I can't recall if you actually predicted what specific plan Ford will announce to replace the current plan of heavy subway from Osgoode to Pape.

I haven't predicted what he will announce, only ball-park possibilities that appear to fit. There's only one known: He's not bringing much if any cash to the table. It will have a massive second and third party private investment factor. (Ostensibly involving the Fed InfraBank and large Fed direct contribution)

My hunch of 'what it will be' from studying what's happening in other leading cities? Highly likely the flavour of the last two-three decades: a 'Metro' (in the providers' definition of the term, which is why I capitalized it. Generically, "metro" can mean anything, including a bus system.

To see what I mean, Google 'metro rail vehicles' or 'metro trains'. It's a specific category of almost always standard rail gauge (albeit they can build them however you want, with attendant price increase) rolling stock that the Alstom Metropolis represents, but the concept is being built by many competitors. It is by far the most popular form of providing solutions to the needs that Toronto and many cities have.

Key to guessing what Ford might me is "stand-alone". That indicates not it's inter-operability mechanically with present TTC or GO trackage, but the supplier financing of the project. My guess is a consortium or a deep-pocketed supplier (Siemens and Alstom are just two with the ability to finance their own projects, though they'd rather do it in league with other investors) has promoted a scheme to do it all 'off the Province's books'.

Addendum: Yet again, I'd like to emphasize I'm neither for nor against private investment owned transportation, I'll go with whatever can be supplied, and in Ontario's case, since government is avoiding direct investment, private appears to be the only game in town, and Tokyo has been mentioned by a couple of posters a number of times. Here's a template to consider:

Why Tokyo's Privately Owned Rail Systems Work So Well

1. STEPHEN SMITH

OCT 31, 2011
Large cities with cash-strapped transit agencies would do well to study Japan's rail history
There are megacities, and then there's Tokyo. With a metro-wide population of 35 million, it's the undisputed king of megacities, comfortably beating even the closest competitors in mainland Asia and the Americas. For Americans, the term "megacity" conjures up images of crowded slums in cities like Mumbai or São Paulo, with bare bones infrastructure and roads made impassible by the sheer mass of traffic. But in Tokyo, people move quite efficiently. Tallying up exactly how many people ride trains in the greater Tokyo region is difficult due to the proliferation of independent railways, but it's safe to say that the number rivals the total population of many mid-sized megacities.

Though crowded during rush hour, the rail networks of Japan's three largest metropolitan areas – Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka – are perhaps the most efficient in the world. The country's flagship high-speed line, the Tokaido Shinkansen, has operated for almost half a century without a single derailment or collision, and in 2007, its average departure delay was a mere 18 seconds along its 320-mile route. But high-speed rail only scratches the surface. The real marvel lies in the mesmerizing tangle of workaday metro and commuter lines, which no Osakan or Tokyoite would think of trying to cram all onto one map (here's what happens if you try).

Beyond the astonishing size and quality of the networks, Japan's three major metropolitan areas, sometimes called the Tokaido megalopolis after its Edo-era road, are also home to a vibrant free market in transportation. Singapore and Hong Kong also have private companies, but competition is weak compared to Japan's dizzying array of independent firms. Japan has by no means a completely free transportation market – even the private companies receive low-interest construction loans and are subject to price controls and rolling stock protectionism – but at the moment, it's the closest thing this planet has.
[...]

https://www.citylab.com/transportat...rivately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/18/tokyos-privately-run-subway-is-tops.html

Make no mistake, I don't espouse privatizing the TTC or Metrolinx. No company or consortium would dream of buying them anyway, both are in poor shape, the TTC is in terrible shape, but there's massive opportunity for investment in stand alone projects to fill a gaping void in GTHA transit need.

And that's what I think is 'on the table' at Metrolinx HQ.

 

[WislaHD]

WHAT? How can you tout the need for local stops, relief, funding from wherever other than QP, and then proffer jacking more people into the straw running on Yonge Street as it is?

I don't even have to make the case for not extending the Yonge line north, the City, TTC, independent professionals and riders have all made it so well. Line 1 and 2 need relief, not further loading.

So before I research reference and quote and link, let me get your point straight: You're in favour, as I quoted @WislaHD as stating, for prioritizing extending the Yonge leg up to RH?
Underscore is mine.

That certainly isn't the view of the TTC, Metrolinx, the City, Yurek, The Star, Globe, the majority of Torontonians polled and others.

I wasn't going to respond but since I've been brought back in the latest chain of comments...

Let's be clear on a few things. I am not fervently in support of the Yonge North Extension, precisely because there is inadequate capacity on the Yonge Line to support such an extension. There isn't disagreement on this point, I am thoroughly on the same side as the TTC and the City in this matter. However, this isn't MY personal call to make. The politics will demand that the Yonge North extension be built because the ridings in York Region are battleground ridings between the Liberals and the Conservatives at both the provincial and federal level. I am of the opinion that we shouldn't sacrifice good transit planning for politics, but this is not the reality that lays before us. I would like to stop being quoted out of context.

Now, this isn't to make the Yonge North extension seem like a horrible idea. If we consider the Yonge North extension in isolation, it has an excellent case for proceeding (at least to Steeles anyway). It has excellent ridership projections especially compared to everything else we've built in the past 30 years, it will support significant residential development along the corridor, it will resolve the bus problem at Yonge+Steeles, and it will connect to the planned mobility hub at Yonge & Hwy-7. Many of the riders on this proposed extension are ALREADY coming onto the system via bus to Finch Station. This extension would make those existing passengers commutes much shorter and easier, which are one of the goals of transit planning. There are worse things to spend money on. You can look to Scarborough for ideas if you would like.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the Yonge North extension with you. If you want to have that debate, feel free to invite @TJ O'Pootertoot to the discussion.

I'm considering two things: (1) the Yonge North extension will likely proceed anyway due to politics, and; (2) It isn't actually a terrible investment, it just requires capacity to open up on the Yonge Line, without which, it should not proceed.

There are things that we can do to open up capacity on the Yonge Line to allow for the Yonge North extension. The most discussed option is proceeding with the Relief Line scheme to Sheppard, as planned. This line would intercept enough feeder bus routes to the Yonge Line that it frees up the necessary capacity to allow for the Yonge North extension.

 

[44 North]

Wonder if it could be something along the lines of the Toei Oedo line in Tokyo.

Yeah possibly something like this. But beside the mode the real question people should be asking is the routing north of Danforth. It's a pretty vital step and not something to be glossed over. Metrolinx has yet to release their update on that matter which I'm fairly certain was promised well before the election. Now they supposedly have something, but won't show it.

LIM trains don't have motors, which saves a tremendous amount of space. This allows for narrower tunnels and theoretically cheaper project costs.

However, tunnelling is fairly cheap (it's the stations that are expensive), which makes me doubt that this will save a significant amount of money. The Eglinton Crosstown tunnelling contracts amounted to $500 Million, so I'd expect any savings due to narrower tunnelling to be in the range of $50 Million. These LIM trains would need their own maintenance and storage facilities which would probably wipe out all those savings.

Not sure about a tremendous amount of space. The Innovia supposedly comes with a regular rotary motor option and I don't think its dimensions are any different than the LIM model. And there are obviously super small subways with conventional motors. Slimmed down trains are something I'm still interested in. But nothing wacky. Still think TTC gauge and 3rd rail is optimal, even if half a metre narrower.

And agreed there'd be no savings going with LIM. But I'm sure there are politicians being wooed by companies marketing an off-the-shelf affordable solution (that's not off the shelf, not affordable, nor a good solution). Bombardier is basically banned from S.Korea for having successfully pulled this off.

 

[steveintoronto]

@WislaHD : Thank you for clarifying your stance, but I added more than needed when I quoted you to put it in context.

I would like to stop being quoted out of context.

I don't know how much context you need to be added to your quotes, but I quoted you exactly. You could admit that it was misleading, but not through any lack of context I provided. Here's more context:

Another poster states:

I guess this makes sense from a regional perspective, but it does make me wonder: If the Relief Line was built 50 years ago, would we be debating about an Express Relief Line vs second local subway line through downtown now?

We could answer that by looking at what is happening on the west. Remember, we already build a "Relief Line". It is called the University-Spadina Line.

I think that had we built the Relief Line 50 years, we would be looking towards investing in GO-RER within Toronto now. As evidenced by the demand of some neighbourhoods (like Weston) that aren't well serviced by subway lines, there is potential within the 416 for greater commuter rail integration.

But first, we need to build the necessary capacity on the Yonge Line (to enable the Richmond Hill extension), to intercept our trunk arterial bus routes on the east-end of the city in order to greatly reduce commuter times for Scarborough and North York residents, and to build a workable alternative to the Yonge Line to provide essential network redundancy.

I took extra care to underline the point essential to furthering discussion:

But first, we need to build the necessary capacity on the Yonge Line (to enable the Richmond Hill extension), to intercept our trunk arterial bus routes on the east-end of the city in order to greatly reduce commuter times for Scarborough and North York residents,

and then notated that:
"Underlining is mine".

I provided the rest for context. That's more of an effort made to include context than most posters. I realized your sensitivity to being exactly quoted, so went the extra overcrowded mile to provide the context for it.

Some posters claim I include too much, others claim I don't include enough. The middle of the road is a dangerous place to be, you get hit from both directions.

Perhaps what I quoted wasn't your intended gist. The onus is then on you to clarify it, not take me to issue. I will continue to quote you and others exactly, as I request others do for my posts.

 

[WislaHD]

Steve, I think your prediction is right - but I am not sure exactly what that is.
The hints from Ford (and others) are a different technology, larger than a Relief line, and serving more people. Sounds reasonable.

So when Ford makes his announcement, what will it be?

• A tunnel from City Hall to Don Mills/Lawrence, and then continuing on the Richmond Hill corridor?
• Will it be elevated from the Don Valley and beyond?
• Will the tunnel extend west to the rail corridor?
• Will the Barrie line run through the tunnel?
• Will other lines run through this?

There are a slew of possibilities, but you have spent so much time convincing people that something like this is possible, I can't recall if you actually predicted what specific plan Ford will announce to replace the current plan of heavy subway from Osgoode to Pape.

This would be an acceptable alternative. I would just bring in a Cosburn stop.

If we proceed with this type of configuration, I wish the tunnel was double-tracked and allowed by-passing at stations, to allow express and local services.

 

[Neutrino]

So before I research reference and quote and link, let me get your point straight: You're in favour, as I quoted @WislaHD as stating, for prioritizing extending the Yonge leg up to RH?

How the hell did you get that from what I posted? JHC. Not to mention you didn't answer my question. Let's try again. I'm curious to know how governance, fare and local bus integration will work if a RER style relief line is owned by the province/Metrolinx. Can you enlighten me on that? It seems like a piece missing from your discussion of RER style relief.