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

Just reading up on this now, and I'm confronted with two polar opposite headlines:
B.C. government won’t match transit funding in federal budget
Frances Bula

VANCOUVER — Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2017 10:06PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2017 10:27PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...it-funding-in-federal-budget/article34393421/

B.C. government will match federal funding for Metro Vancouver transit expansion
Jennifer Saltman
More from Jennifer Saltman

Published on: March 31, 2017 | Last Updated: March 31, 2017 6:27 PM PDT
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...er-transit-announcement-coming-friday-morning

I'll have to get back to that later and find out why the polar opposite. The latter one is a week later, perhaps there was a shift...

Edit to Add: Found a moment to read this. From the latter above:

[It was a change of tune for Fassbender, who previously committed to funding one-third of major projects in Phase 2 with no dollar amount attached.

Fassbender said the province was waiting until the federal money — about $2.2 billion over 11 years announced in last week’s budget — was in play to finalize its contribution.

“We had to do an analysis as to what the impact of the federal and the Trudeau government’s commitment to this region was,” Fassbender said. “We’ve done that work, we’ve sat down as a government and said that we can demonstrate clearly our support by matching the federal funding.”]

Interesting...

Put it into this context: There is a election where they are battling for there lives on May 9th, and could not do anything negative. Another example is the Calgary Green Line... has city and federal funding but the province is not comitting or denying fundng.
 
BC's provincial government is not a model to emulate:
-They've imposed that any transit funding needs to come from a dedicated revenue source, approved by referendum. Meanwhile, a $4 billion mega-bridge to farmland is being built despite no business case, against the wishes of the council of Mayors, and paid for it out of general revenue
-They've rolled back road tolls/mobility pricing as a vote-buying scheme for the next provincial election
-They've been generally reliant on the Federal government's largesse for capital expansion, while simultaneously denying municipalities the revenue tools they've asked for for sustainable funding (e.g. Ontario gave Toronto the ability charge vehicle registration fees, but Toronto hasn't implemented them. Vancouver has been asking to be able to implement them but the province hasn't let them).
 
BC's provincial government is not a model to emulate:

Vancouver has had problems, but done things a lot better in many cases than Toronto. We have to learn from their successes, and their failures, as well as our own.
April 28, 2017 by Steve
A Contrary View of Ontario’s 2017 Budget


With the release of Ontario’s budget for 2017, City Hall launched into predictable hand-wringing about all the things Toronto didn’t get with the two big-ticket portfolios, transit and housing, taking centre stage. Claims and counterclaims echo between Queen Street and Queen’s Park, and the situation is not helped by the provincial trick of constantly re-announcing money from past budgets while adding comparatively little with new ones.

There was a time when budgets came with projections of three to five years into the future, the life of one government plus some promise of the next mandate, but over time the amounts included within that period simply were not enough to be impressive. Moreover, in a constrained financial environment, much new spending (or at least promises) lies in the “out years” where “commitment” is a difficult thing to pin down, especially if there is a change in government.

Toronto has “out year” problems, but it has even more pressing concerns right now, today and for the next few years. Very little in the provincial budget addresses this beyond the authority to levy a hotel tax, and a gradual doubling of gas tax grants for transit over the next five years. These add tens, not hundreds, of millions to a City budget that runs at $12 billion.
[...]
There are two major problems with both Ontario’s support for transit and Toronto’s politically-motivated budgets:

  • In both cases, the focus is on capital projects, building and buying infrastructure, with little regard for the cost of operating new and existing assets.
  • Past decisions on transportation spending have locked billions of dollars into a few projects for short-term political benefit at the expense of long-term flexibility.
Toronto perennially assumes that there will be new money somewhere to backfill the shortage in its capital budget. The Trudeau economic stimulus plan was the most recent magical relief Toronto expected, but it came with dual constraints: Toronto gets a fixed amount over the life of the program, and Ottawa will not contribute more than 40% to any individual project. Toronto had hoped that Ontario would chip in, possibly at the 30% or even 40% level, leaving the City with a manageable, if challenging, task of finding money to pay its share for the backlog of projects. The Ontario budget is quite clear – Toronto is already getting lots of provincial money and at least for now, there’s nothing new to spend.

Ontario is hardly innocent in this whole exercise having meddled for years with Toronto’s transit plans, most notoriously in Scarborough where the whole subway extension debate was twisted to suit political aims. After leading Toronto down the garden path on the SSE, Ontario has capped its project funding leaving Toronto to handle the cost of its ever-changing plans.

Queen’s Park loves to tell Toronto how much provincial money is already spent for Toronto, if not in Toronto, and the distinction gets blurry. GO Transit improvements, for example, will bring more service into Toronto benefiting the core area business district, but they will also improve commuting options for people outside of the City itself.

Before the fiscal crash of 2008, when Ontario was running surpluses, the typical way to handle project funding was to hive off surplus funds at year end into a trust account. That is how the provincial share of the TYSSE was handled. By contrast, Ottawa operates on the pay-as-you-play basis, and only turns over subsidies after work has been done. Each approach suits the spending and accounting goals of the respective governments. In a surplus situation, one wants the money “off the books” right away, but in a deficit, the spending is delayed as long as possible. Further accounting legerdemain arises by making the assets provincial to offset the debt raised to pay for them.

To put all of this into context, here is a review of projects proposed or underway in Toronto.
[...]
“Downtown” Relief Line

The DRL has progressed into the level of a detailed review pending a Transit Project Assessment, and $150 million was provided by Queen’s Park for detailed study of the route. From a political point of view, the line faces two major challenges. First, it continues to be portrayed by many politicians as a sop to “downtown” even though the primary beneficiaries will be those from the inner suburbs now jammed onto the BD and YUS subways. The benefit will be particularly strong if the route goes north to at least Eglinton, if not beyond to Sheppard.

However, work on this line, even if it can overcome political hurdles, won’t start until well into the 2020s and this is beyond the scope of any funding promises we might see in current budgets.
[...]
Summary

Ontario’s budget is a disappointment in what it does not do for municipal transit in Toronto, but I have to take the contrary view that if this forces some real examination of priorities, the result might not be entirely bad. Ontario is spending elsewhere, although on a handful of high-profile projects, and large chunks of the province can reasonably wonder what they will see beyond the already announced gas tax bump.

The real challenges for Toronto lie in shifting local spending priorities from capital to operating budgets, and in the danger that a new provincial government could turn off the tap permanently as happened twenty years ago with Mike Harris.
https://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/28/a-contrary-view-of-ontarios-2017-budget/#more-17489

Change is imminent, and many of the manic dreams Torontonians have been sold (with their own provincial tax money) just aren't going to happen unless Tory et al wake up and realize the City itself must raise funds. And road tolls never were going to do much anyway, so no use bringing up that old saw (sore?) horse.
 
Okay, I guess time will tell.
What do you mean? They released a draft map showing both Finch and Sheppard East 3-4 years ago. And TTC is now talking about the line number and colours on the map of various new lines (Finch, Sheppard East, Downtown).
 
Let me clarify my initial statement, because it was not very clear. What I was saying is that, in nearly a decade QP has not committed any funding for the contruction of any new or extended transit lines within or significantly servicing the City of Toronto.
This is also false. RER will significantly serve the City of Toronto. The whole point of RER is to transform the system from a suburban rush hour shuttle to a rapid transit system that effectively serves the entire network, including downtown.
 
This is also false. RER will significantly serve the City of Toronto. The whole point of RER is to transform the system from a suburban rush hour shuttle to a rapid transit system that effectively serves the entire network, including downtown.
Whether that's true or not (and I really don't think it's going to provide much service, with the talk of 15-minute frequencies and higher fares - there own modelling showed that ridership would double with TTC fares, and double again with more frequent trains - however QP isn't willing to put that type of money in) it still is neither "new or extended transit lines". The lines aren't new. The lines aren't extended. Increasing the frequency has been discussed for years, as have this handful of new stations.
 
RER in segments will run a lot more frequently than every 15 minutes. Other developed cities have headways with their RERs at 2.5 minutes or less. No matter how you cut it, the way to relieve the present subway system is to offer alternative and faster ways, with greater capacity in lieu of subways, and RER in tunnel certainly does that. And the City doesn't have to worry about financing it. Not that the City can even finance a subway at this point in time, or ever will at this rate.

Not only that, for the same or similar investment, the RER passengers would, in many cases, have a single ride out to the regions from downtown. You'd think that would be music to the ears of the SSE boosters, but hey...

Edit to Add:
[Crossrail will operate up to 24 trains per hour during the peak between Whitechapel and Paddington. The new signalling system will incorporate Automatic Train Operation to support the delivery of a high-frequency metro service and will also be capable of enhancement to 30 trains per hour through the central section at a later date.”]
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-awards-signalling-system-contract

This system is also compatible with the trains running through onto the existing heavy rail lines (although still generations ahead of anything on Canadian rail lines, and on only a few metro lines, Vancouver being one)
[Due to the integration of Crossrail’s central section with the existing National Rail network, Crossrail services will need to operate with existing signalling and safety systems installed at either end of the Crossrail tunnels.

The successful contractor will work closely with the future rolling stock provider to deliver compatible on-board equipment. In accordance with normal practice, the rolling stock will also be capable of operating with the European standard ETCS Level 2 signalling system and with the principal legacy signalling systems found on UK rail infrastructure.]

There may be a problem of language understanding how the Brits can manage this, perhaps we could hire some interpreters to assist understanding it?
 
Last edited:
RER in segments will run a lot more frequently than every 15 minutes.
At peak perhaps, if you include express trains. More frequently at peak maybe - but not a lot more frequently.

There's been no indication from Metrolinx of such frequencies that I have seen. Do you have a reference, or are just making assumptions.

Other developed cities have headways with their RERs at 2.5 minutes or less.
We aren't other cities. Other cities have built completely new downtown stations and tunnels. They also distribute commuter trains among several downtown terminals, rather than one. We are doing none of that.

No matter how you cut it, the way to relieve the present subway system is to offer alternative and faster ways, with greater capacity in lieu of subways, and RER in tunnel certainly does that.
There's nothing in the RER plans that relieve the subways much. The Richmond Hill line isn't going to relieve Bloor-Yonge. The Stouffville line isn't going to relieve the Bloor line, much (it might even make it worse, with those travelling to UT and other points north of Queen), getting on the Danforth subway at Kennedy.

And the City doesn't have to worry about financing it.
Sure it does - the city has promised to pay the extra costs of adding the additional stations in Toronto - along with the Crosstown West LRT.

Not that the City can even finance a subway at this point in time, or ever will at this rate.
Sure it can. There's lots of ways to finance it - the city just doesn't have the gumption.

Crossrail will operate up to 24 trains per hour during the peak between Whitechapel and Paddington.
I'm well familiar with Crossrail - we are building nothing like Crossrail.

There may be a problem of language understanding how the Brits can manage this, perhaps we could hire some interpreters to assist understanding it?
I don't see any need for any ethnic slurs.
 
We aren't other cities. Other cities have built completely new downtown stations and tunnels. They also distribute commuter trains among several downtown terminals, rather than one. We are doing none of that.

He's talking about individual lines. The Paris RER runs each line at frequencies similar to our subway - up to 30 trains per hour. While they do have tunnels, that has more to do with the city predating rail travel - it's the same reason for why New York's commuter trains don't go into downtown Manhattan. And they distribute passengers among several stations but they still have ridership numbers that dwarf Union. Gare du Nord has nearly 100 million passengers per year (Union has 60 million) on two commuter rail and two subway platform sets. La Defense has 45 million passengers on a single set of subway and commuter rail platforms.
 
steveintoronto said:
RER in segments will run a lot more frequently than every 15 minutes.
At peak perhaps, if you include express trains. More frequently at peak maybe - but not a lot more frequently.

There's been no indication from Metrolinx of such frequencies that I have seen. Do you have a reference, or are just making assumptions.
"Express trains"? Heathrow Express will no longer run as such, but the point is moot. It's *headway* whether they run to Timbuktu or Land's End. And no, GO haven't projected doing this, that's exactly the point! Why haven't they? It's technically possible. Germany was running twice as many trains an hour through Hamburg in the Twenties than Union is today. With half the tracks! THAT is how out of date Ontario and Cdn rail is. In the event, during peak, GO already run on 7 min headways for some trains travelling west out of Union. In the case of the Paris, London, NY and elsewhere RER, that's on two tracks.

steveintoronto said:
Other developed cities have headways with their RERs at 2.5 minutes or less.
We aren't other cities. Other cities have built completely new downtown stations and tunnels. They also distribute commuter trains among several downtown terminals, rather than one. We are doing none of that.
We sure aren't. You got that one right. And again, that's the point. Ontario is almost a hundred years behind in signalling and train control systems, let alone vision. "But we can't be compared to other cities because they're far ahead of us".

steveintoronto said:
No matter how you cut it, the way to relieve the present subway system is to offer alternative and faster ways, with greater capacity in lieu of subways, and RER in tunnel certainly does that.
There's nothing in the RER plans that relieve the subways much. The Richmond Hill line isn't going to relieve Bloor-Yonge. The Stouffville line isn't going to relieve the Bloor line, much (it might even make it worse, with those travelling to UT and other points north of Queen), getting on the Danforth subway at Kennedy.
Why isn't there? Oh that's right, we can't do things like other cities do, because, well, we can't.

steveintoronto said:
And the City doesn't have to worry about financing it.
Sure it does - the city has promised to pay the extra costs of adding the additional stations in Toronto - along with the Crosstown West LRT.
Errr...OK. If you wish. With what money? The point is that Ontario can finance RER, Ontario can build it, and Ontario can run it. Cuts out the problematic middle-man. No more listening to Tory snivelling. No more castles of fantasy in the sky.

steveintoronto said:
Not that the City can even finance a subway at this point in time, or ever will at this rate.
Sure it can. There's lots of ways to finance it - the city just doesn't have the gumption.
And that's exactly the point.

steveintoronto said:
Crossrail will operate up to 24 trains per hour during the peak between Whitechapel and Paddington.
I'm well familiar with Crossrail - we are building nothing like Crossrail.
Exactly again. Why not? Many other cities are. Oh I forgot, we can't do anything like the others. It's not that we're different, but they are.

steveintoronto said:
There may be a problem of language understanding how the Brits can manage this, perhaps we could hire some interpreters to assist understanding it?
I don't see any need for any ethnic slurs.
lol...Oy Mate! I'm a Dual. I've never considered myself dual ethnic though. That's hilarious...Not to mention it was a play on words, but whatever...it certainly makes the point.
 
Last edited:
He's talking about individual lines. The Paris RER runs each line at frequencies similar to our subway - up to 30 trains per hour. While they do have tunnels, that has more to do with the city predating rail travel - it's the same reason for why New York's commuter trains don't go into downtown Manhattan. And they distribute passengers among several stations but they still have ridership numbers that dwarf Union. Gare du Nord has nearly 100 million passengers per year (Union has 60 million) on two commuter rail and two subway platform sets. La Defense has 45 million passengers on a single set of subway and commuter rail platforms.
Exactly, on some issues we agree, and NYC is even increasing the extent of RER (LIRR into Grand Central with East Side Access) into the core to bypass the need for many passengers to use the subways. They're also planning new RER tubes across the Hudson.
East Side Access is a public works project being undertaken by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York City. It is designed to bring the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) into a new East Side station to be built below, and incorporated into, Grand Central Terminal. The new terminal and connecting tracks are expected to cost $10.178 billion and are scheduled to start service in December 2022.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access

East Side subway construction
For the first time in New York City history, new tunnels will allow the Long Island Rail Road to access Grand Central Terminal. This East Side Access and the Second Avenue subway line will ease the commute into midtown Manhattan and along the East Side.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...bway-line-gallery-1.1251407?pmSlide=1.1273262

And next:
Penn Station Access is a public works project proposed by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York City. The goal of the project is to allow Metro-North Railroad commuter trains to access Penn Station on Manhattan's West Side, using existing trackage owned by Amtrak. Metro North trains currently terminate exclusively at Grand Central on Manhattan's East Side. The project would complement the ongoing East Side Access project, and would commence in two separate phases. The first phase would add four new stations on the Northeast Corridor line in the Bronx and route some New Haven Line trains to Penn Station, while the second phase would add two more stations on Manhattan's West Side on the Empire Connection, which would be served by the Hudson Line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Station_Access

Headway?
[When finished, the line will accommodate 24 trains per hour at peak traffic, cutting down on commute times from Long Island, and opening up access to John F. Kennedy International Airport from Manhattan's East Side. Collected here are images of the progress to date, deep beneath Queens and Manhattan.]
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/02/the-tunnels-of-nycs-east-side-access-project/100462/

Here's from 2009, Crossrail now almost matching this:
(Paris RER)Line A measures 107 km from end to end, which compares with 103 km for Crossrail. It includes 25 km of tunnel, while Crossrail will have 27 km. Both routes have seven inner city stations, and there are 46 stations on both systems. Line A tunnels are generally single-track bores with a diameter of 6·4 m, which is also intended to be the diameter for the Crossrail tunnels.

Train operations will also have similar service objectives. Line A in Paris now carries more than 60 000 passengers per hour in the morning peak on each track, similar to the forecast figure for central London. Platform widths are also expected to be similar, at around 6 m.

The maximum speed of Line A rolling stock is 120 km/h, with an average commercial speed in the city centre of 49 km/h. Maximum station dwell time in the centre is 50 sec. This and other design targets have been achieved through careful matching of the rolling stock and signalling. Sacem is able to achieve 2 min headways between trains, allowing operators to provide a consistent level of service at 27 trains an hour. Without Sacem, the interval between trains would be 2½ min. Crossrail has similar aspirations, with automatic train operation an option under consideration for the central tunnel section.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...Ms-cross-city-line-follows-the-rer-model.html

That's "60,000 pass/p/hr each track" of the two extant tracks, total 120,000 pass/p/hr. Note the tunnel diameter is the same or slightly less than what Toronto is now boring for the Spadina extension and the Crosslink tunnels. We could be doing so much more with them.

By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Follow on Twitter
on October 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM

Federal financing could be in place in two years to build two new rail tunnels under the Hudson River that would augment the crumbling 106-year old rail tunnels used daily by commuters, said U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Agreements for federal funding of the Gateway Project could be in place by 2019, with construction starting shortly after then, Schumer said at a press conference with U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez , D-N.J., Amtrak and Port Authority officials Friday morning.
[...]
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/schumer_new_hudson_river_rail_tunnel_could_be_fund.html

And the best we can do in Toronto is 15 min headway for RER? Getting back to that "World Class City" thing...
 
Last edited:
I don't understand. If the lack of terminals is a barrier to Crossrail type frequencies for RER, won't the addition of the Unilever and Pearson hubs facilitate greater frequency?
 
I don't understand. If the lack of terminals is a barrier to Crossrail type frequencies for RER, won't the addition of the Unilever and Pearson hubs facilitate greater frequency?
The lack of terminals per-se is only applicable in terms of Union Station being at saturation point. So yes, 'satellite' stations could/would help. Bathurst is being touted as one too. But the reason Union is at saturation has far more to do with an almost century old signalling and train control system than it does with the amount of tracks or even the type of rolling stock.
It also has to do with "through-running" (or lack of):

[...]
In a through-running rail system, trains that carry passengers to and from the urban core do not terminate in the central business district (CBD); instead, all rolling stock travels through the CBD and terminates beyond the central core of the city, often at a much less busy station. In other words, the city center is located along the middle of a train route, not as the first or last stop. This is an efficient system because it decreases the amount of time required for each train to dwell at the high-traffic platforms in the city center. In the case of Penn Station, eliminating the existing conflicts by instating through-running would increase the busy station’s capacity by as much as 25% without adding tracks.

While other cities such as Paris and London have multiple central business districts, New York has one in Manhattan. This means that few passengers are traveling across the city so much as into the city. In terms of train service, this produces a one-way flow – inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. The efficiency of through-running is most evident when comparing Penn Station to stations with similar service loads. For instance, Paris’ Gare de Châtelet – Les Halles serves almost half a million passengers a day who connect between three commuter rail lines and six subway lines. Châtelet – Les Halles has 7 tracks and 4 platforms that serve 120 trains per hour, compared to Penn’s 21 tracks and 11 platforms that serve 100 trains per hour at maximum capacity. Paris’ ability to accommodate a larger volume is made possible by the station’s use of through-running.

Unlike European cities, New York’s commuter system is run by multiple agencies and crosses multiple political boundaries. Unification will require the cooperation of multiple autonomous federal, state, and municipal governments, as well as private shareholders. [...]
http://www.rethinkstudio.org/throughrunning/

Note that last paragrah:
"Unlike European cities, New York’s commuter system is run by multiple agencies and crosses multiple political boundaries. Unification will require the cooperation of multiple autonomous federal, state, and municipal governments, as well as private shareholders.",

That's exactly the case with Toronto, although the US cities are well ahead of us and planning accordingly.

In the case of the Relief Line, it doesn't have to go through Union, quite the opposite. It can be run as RER in tunnel to/from Osgood (the present planned terminus for the subway iteration) along the same alignment as the latest touted for the Pape Subway, albeit with a softened curve at the south (RER cars are projected to be ten feet longer than the present TTC subway cars), and instead of terminating at Danforth, it runs through tunnel to the Don Valley, where it emerges and intersects with a station and/or joins the Don Valley (Richmond Hill) GO line, which will be double tracked up to Steeles. The present diesel service will continue running express into Union with a stop at the intersection, and at Queen/King. The frequent RER service would only run up to Steeles as north of there the line is CN's, and wouldn't be electrified.

Since the TTC plans for ramps off the tunnel to access the Lakeshore Line East to get to Greenwood for maintenance and storage, they can be used by RER for Lakeshore East RER service for alternate trains to access Osgoode Station, the others continuing to access Union. It relieves the subways, it relieves Union. And it won't cost any more to build than if it were subway, perhaps even less due to simpler platform needs, and the rolling stock being the new electric RER fleet. There is also the option to use it with dual voltage mode LRVs 25kVAC/750VDC until it becomes part of the RER network, at which time with a waiver, the LRVs could interline with the RER and tie into LRT lines. (RER will use 25kVAC catenary, LRVs are available from all major suppliers in dual mode form, including the Flexities)

Once the eastern/northern leg is finished, the Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) at Osgoode continue boring west under Queen to the Georgetown corridor, and then connect on the extant RER lines north/west. Osgoode then becomes a "run-through" station with a choice of destinations north and west, (ostensibly as far as Bramalea until the Missing Link is finished) and up the Don Valley and/or along the Lakeshore East line east and/or up the Lincolnville line.
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
RER in segments will run a lot more frequently than every 15 minutes.
In Toronto? One might hope so - but you have no evidence of that, and it contrasts with stuff coming out of Metrolinx.

"Express trains"? Heathrow Express will no longer run as such, but the point is moot.
I was talking about GO. There's express trains now on the RER routes, which will continue.

Not sure what your comment about Heathrow Express is based on - I haven't seen any definitive decision that there still won't be express trains between Heathrow T2T3 and Paddington. I'm not sure the relevance either, as they have indicated there will still be non-stop express between the Elizabeth Line stations of Reading and Paddington.

With what money?
No idea - I don't know what John Tory is smoking. Even his rejected road tolls weren't going to provide enough money.
 

Back
Top