Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[Rainforest]

... I am hopeful that Eglinton will work well as planned. The tunnel through the congested part and surface west of Weston Road and east of Don Mills completes Eglinton into one route - the biggest problems with Eglinton have always been the part they plan to tunnel. The Eglinton-Kingston section of the "Scarborough-Malvern" route will also be successful. ...

Perhaps the Eglinton-Kingston LRT should be a part of Eglinton route, and not attempt to service Malvern, rather terminate at UTSC. Malvern will get a much faster connection via the extended SRT.

Moreover, I would consider building that Eglinton-Kingston light rail pretty soon (before the main part of Eglinton line). No, this is not the most important corridor in the city. But in the interim, it would help alleviate the bottlenecks caused by the SRT closure for upgrade (or LRT conversion).

 

[autopilot]

Agreed.

Eglinton SHOULD go from Renforth all the way to Kingston.

The upgraded SRT would cover Malvern, and down the road, when a Kingston LRT is build, it can travel up Morningside to Malvern.

----

The western part of the DRL is tricky after Dundas West - where would it go after that? I'm opposed to running it next to the Weston GO line where there will eventually be all day 2 way service to B-town.

 

[RedRocket191]

Perhaps the Eglinton-Kingston LRT should be a part of Eglinton route, and not attempt to service Malvern, rather terminate at UTSC. Malvern will get a much faster connection via the extended SRT.

Moreover, I would consider building that Eglinton-Kingston light rail pretty soon (before the main part of Eglinton line). No, this is not the most important corridor in the city. But in the interim, it would help alleviate the bottlenecks caused by the SRT closure for upgrade (or LRT conversion).

Would it be preferable to have an Eglinton line interline with the Scarborough-Malvern line, or with the Scarborough RT, assuming that the RT is converted to the same LRT technology?

 

[toraerach]

I recall reading somewhere that the twin tunnel sections on eglinton are because a few people still think it is necessary to build the underground section to subway specifications, even though there is no reason for it. Doing this is also very expensive.

It might be expensive, but it is a lot cheaper than going back and fixing the line should Eglinton ever need subway capacity in the future. It might be in 50 years or 100 years, but at some point an important road like Eglinton will reach subway density levels especially if gas prices drive more people to public transit. Things can change very quickly in the life of a city and we need to plan for the future through projects like these.

 

[kEiThZ]

Perhaps the Eglinton-Kingston LRT should be a part of Eglinton route, and not attempt to service Malvern, rather terminate at UTSC. Malvern will get a much faster connection via the extended SRT.

Moreover, I would consider building that Eglinton-Kingston light rail pretty soon (before the main part of Eglinton line). No, this is not the most important corridor in the city. But in the interim, it would help alleviate the bottlenecks caused by the SRT closure for upgrade (or LRT conversion).

This is pretty much exactly what I proposed in a letter to my city councillor. It makes no sense to extend the current Scarborough RT using the ART vehicles. Instead, they should replace the line and extend it to Malvern using new Transit City LRVs. This project would have far less impact on the community than the eyesores that the ART lines would be and would easily accomodate Malvern's transit needs at a lower cost. It would allow Malvern Town Centre to be designated as a local bus hub and improve both comfort and speed for Malvern commuters. Most importantly it would get rid of the orphan ART system and create commonality with the other TC lines. For example this would allow the Morningside LRT to be routed west on Sheppard and back down the proposed RT extension ROW to STC thereby connecting UTSC with both the major hubs for Scarborough, Kennedy and STC.

Also, while many are railing against spending billions on light rail for Malvern, the reality is that the Sheppard line and the Morningside line will barely touch Malvern. It is only because the Morningside line will terminate at MTC that it can be called a Malvern line. It is really meant to serve U of T Scarborough. The Sheppard line will not terminate in MTC and have only a handful of stops in the neighbourhood. The prime beneficiaries will be communities that are further east. So pointing out that billions are being spent on transit for Malvern is rather dubious. There is really only one line that matters to Malvernites and that's the extension of the RT in whatever form it takes from Scarborough Town Centre to Malvern Town Centre.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Both Sheppard and Morningside are in Malvern and will theoretically serve Malvern...the fact that they don't reach Malvern Town Centre (which will never be a substantial bus hub because almost no one lives north of east of it) and the schools and toers next to the mall just reinforces how Transfer City is not a well thought out plan that certainly does not have the interests of transit riders at heart. I say theoretically because they really aren't that useful and building elaborate, overkilling lines where simple bus service is or can be sufficient, instead of diverting these small fortunes to larger and vastly more useful rapid transit lines, is a recipe for both fiscal and travel time disaster.

edit - The best option, and the only one that makes sense, would be to extend the Danforth line to STC, run Eglinton to Markington (or possibly as far as Lawrence, though Lawrence itself should get a line, which complicates terminus points). Transfer City lines can run up McCowan and to Malvern from STC, even along Ellesmere. The only connection to UTSC that matters is from the west, and the only connection to Malvern that matters is from Kennedy station via STC.

 

[kEiThZ]

Agreed that BD line should be extended to STC. The only place my suggestion would defer would be to scrap the currently planned RT extension and replace it with a TC LRV line that goes down Consilium, Corporate, Progress and then hydro ROW from Sheppard to Malvern Town Centre.

 

[Rainforest]

Would it be preferable to have an Eglinton line interline with the Scarborough-Malvern line, or with the Scarborough RT, assuming that the RT is converted to the same LRT technology?

This is a good question. I would favor interlining Eglinton with Eglinton , for two reasons:

1) Generally, it is easier for passengers to navigate a grid made of straight E-W and N-S lines. Such a grid reduces transfers.

2) Technical capacity / vehicle frequency limits will be similar for the Eglinton tracks on either side of Kennedy (both lines in a street median ROW), whereas the converted Scarborough RT will be able to handle a higher frequency as it is fully grade-separate (and, likely, it will need a higher frequency). Therefore, if Eglinton west of Kennedy is interlined with the new SRT, some of SRT trains will have to short-turn at Kennedy anyway.

 

[Whoaccio]

It might be expensive, but it is a lot cheaper than going back and fixing the line should Eglinton ever need subway capacity in the future. It might be in 50 years or 100 years, but at some point an important road like Eglinton will reach subway density levels especially if gas prices drive more people to public transit. Things can change very quickly in the life of a city and we need to plan for the future through projects like these.

Do tunnels know the difference between LRVs & subways? The frontal profile of an LRV is hardly much smaller than the frontal profile of Paris' newest rolling stock or the London Tube, if at all.

EDIT: Apparently, the Porto Metro's (which looks like the closest thing to the crosstown line) trains are 2.65m in width. That is identical to Berlin's wide profile train series and bigger than their 2.3m narrow profile. I guess it might not be ideal, but I don't see how using narrower tunnels would preclude upgrading to a 'subway.'

 

[toraerach]

Do tunnels know the difference between LRVs & subways? The frontal profile of an LRV is hardly much smaller than the frontal profile of Paris' newest rolling stock or the London Tube, if at all.

EDIT: Apparently, the Porto Metro's (which looks like the closest thing to the crosstown line) trains are 2.65m in width. That is identical to Berlin's wide profile train series and bigger than their 2.3m narrow profile. I guess it might not be ideal, but I don't see how using narrower tunnels would preclude upgrading to a 'subway.'

That is true. Many metro systems around the world use different-sized vehicles for different tunnel widths. It makes sense and I've been thinking about it a lot. I don't know how enthusiastic the TTC would be with another line-specific vehicle in addition to the RT. I realize the two are completely different as one is an orphan technology and the other would just be a different kind of subway vehicle, but I could forsee some hesitation on their part.

 

[nfitz]

Do tunnels know the difference between LRVs & subways? The frontal profile of an LRV is hardly much smaller than the frontal profile of Paris' newest rolling stock or the London Tube, if at all.

It's not just width. London's tube trains are about 2.6 metres wide (compared to about 3.1 m in Toronto), but also the height - about 2.9 m in London compared to 3.7 in Toronto ... and that's at the centre, you have to duck somewhat going out the door of a London train, because of the circular nature of the vehicle roof. While a CLRV is only about 2.6 m wide, the height is about 3.6 m, so would require tunnels about the same as a Toronto subway train - perhaps more so with overhead catenary.

 

[Rainforest]

Do tunnels know the difference between LRVs & subways? The frontal profile of an LRV is hardly much smaller than the frontal profile of Paris' newest rolling stock or the London Tube, if at all.

But what is the point in the (future) replacement of Eglinton LRT vehicles with subway vehicles of approximately same size? That won't add capacity.

In that case, a better use of funds would be to build the central section (Black Creek to Laird, or better yet Jane to Don Mills) to a kind of LRT+ standard, like what you described in another post. In particular, the underground platforms should have provisions for long, 5-6 car trains.

The peripheral sections (west of Jane and east of Don Mills) could then start as no-frills surface light rail, but rebuilt as underground LRT+ in future if the demand warrants it.

That strategy will save the pain and costs of closing and upgrading the central section. In addition, a partial compatibility with other future LRT lines will be retained. Obviously the 6-car trains will not be able to run in street median ROWs of other lines for revenue service, but separated cars could be moved around the system for maintenance or fleet redistribution purposes.

 

[CapitalSeven]

What Rainforest describes is pretty much what Ottawa is planning to do - longer platforms to provide future capacity, making a technology (and platform height) change unnecessary. Closing the grade-separated section off from the street-running portion, and operating it differently, is a more significant and less disruptive change.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Agreed.

The western part of the DRL is tricky after Dundas West - where would it go after that? I'm opposed to running it next to the Weston GO line where there will eventually be all day 2 way service to B-town.

If the western portion is indeed going to be Dundas West (it could also be Keele). The line could continue to follow Dundas West to an eventual connection with the St Clair and Jane LRT lines in the St Clair, Jane, Dundas West triangle. Creating a significant multi modal transit node, including the possibility of a crosstown GO station. From there it would be a short jaunt under Jane/Scarlet to get to the Eglinton line if need be.

 

[Whoaccio]

But what is the point in the (future) replacement of Eglinton LRT vehicles with subway vehicles of approximately same size? That won't add capacity.

I don't really think there is a point. If the crosstown line is managed properly, theoretical capacity of the underground section should be metro-ish. The only difference I could see would be putting in high platforms. That is why it doesn't make sense to me to have the tunneled section run in double tunnels for the sake of 'future proofing' the line. It just seems like an excuse to inflate the project.