Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

ssiguy2 said:
There is an alternative which even Miller LRT-or-nothing-fans would embrace: Bombardiers Flexity Link LRT trains. They are standard legacy TTC length {I believe up to 40 meters} but are designed for more distance based transit, kinda of like a cross between an LRT and a commuter rail train.
Click to expand...

First of all, are those trams running on mainline tracks anywhere in North America? I am pretty sure that Transport Canada / FRA rules will preclude them from such use if they do not have mainline collision strength.

Secondly, even if they could run on GO tracks, there would be a frequency / capacity problem at Union. In order to operate off track in suburbia, the trains have to be short, and thus have capacity several times less than a standard GO train. But on the other hand, the Union rail station capacity is largely limited by the number of trains per hour rather than the train size. If you run small trains, you have less capacity at that critical point.
 
Yonge Express Line

I agree that the DRL should most definitely precede a Yonge Express Line, but one of the common complaints about a Yonge Express Line is the feasibility of running two new tunnels down Yonge and the monolithic excavation that would entail.

However would a YEL actually require two new tunnels? Is it not feasible to build one tunnel only and have the train operate based on time and demand e.g. running southbound during AM and northbound during PM?
 
New alignment time:
q9vEm7Y.jpg


ALL CAPS stations interchange with the GO network. Unlike most other alignments, the line dips south in order to serve and in order to build upon the Leslie Street Barns as a maintenance/storage facility for the DRL vehicles until the line is extended and one can be built further out.
 
Rainforest.........

The Alstom version Combino Dualis can be quite substantial with 2.65 meter width and 52 meter length with top speed of 100 km per hour on the main railway line and 70km on the roadway.

They would have been a hell of a better choice for UPX.
 
Almost anything would be better for UPX. The main problem with UPX is its exorbitant cost, that rules it out as an everyday transit option for anyone. At that cost, it does not even make sense to run a more frequent service or longer trains.

Once you consider lines that are part of TTC fare systems, all problems I mentioned above still remain. Will Combino Dualis pass the Transport Canada mainline regulations? If not, then it cannot run on mainlines unless all freight is shifted to night time, or to other routes altogether.

And regarding the size ... 52 m is nice, and you can even have 2-car trains, but no more than that if you operate on street. A GO train can be 300 m long and it can have bi-level coaches, its capacity is at least 3-4 times greater than that of the said Combino Dualis 2-car train. If you could run Combino trains at very high frequency and on multiple lines, that may not be such a big issue. But if you are limited to about 10-min frequency due to mainline signals and rules, then those street-worthy short trains will severely limit the trunk line's capacity.
 
I don't know about Transport Canada but they are used in Germany, France, and the UK and a system is being built in Adelaide so I'm sure Transport Canada could work around it. This would be especially true if the lines are for transit only and GO does own many lines.

Montreal is considering a system for the West Island and the Rail for the Valley in Vancouver is also interested. Basically these units and service are just a modern version of the old interurbans. As for GO, the reality is that GO is essentially a 905 service and relatively very few Torontonians take the thing due primarily to it's high fares.

As you know GO just greatly increased it's Lakeshore frequency but that won't make a hoot of difference to people in Toronto itself as they still don't see it as an option. This service would be strictly for Torontonians so the 52 meter trains, would be enough capacity if running every 5 minutes or better and it would do wonders for relief of the Yonge Line.

This is not only a financially viable option but a far, far superior service than spending $1.5 billion on a little 6 km subway which only will reduce commute times for no more people than it does now all for the sake of getting rid of a transfer. This is also something that could be implemented very quickly............no endless environmental reviews, very few nimbys as they would still be primarily running on current transit corridor but be far quieter and less polluting than current GO trains, standard TTC fares, and relatively few stations to build as many are already built. The biggest issue is simply buying the trains and delivery but seeing there are many different supplier..........Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, Skoda, there could be several different purchases at the same time using different suppliers due to non- proprietary technology. The $1.5 billion for the tiny SRT could be used to buy the entire fleet and leave plenty left over for garage/maintenance centre.

Torontonians cannot wait, nor afford, another 15 year delay on a DRL that may never even come. It is a proven fact that if young people who take transit when it maybe more necessary due to finances are far, far more likely to take it when they get older and can afford a car. This a solution that could be introduced and up and running in a few years not decades and give Torontonians the service they desperately need.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
Reading about possible DRL alignments, there's an article in The Overhead Wire on Twin Cities Alignment Madness and the Perfect Network that makes for interesting reading as well. See this link. It talks about the use of freight railway lines as alignment for transit. Especially when they were built originally to serve industrial areas.
Click to expand...

The article makes me think of two things.

1. The density map that was posted here a few years ago which should be used, as with the Twin Cities example, to plan transit. Rather than place it where it is convenient (read cheaper).
2. That placing the DRL on the rail ROW, "because it's there" also ignores that transit needs to be where people are and the different modes of transit serve different uses. The rail ROW are better suited to long range 'regional' service, subways should serve density, and LRT local trips.
 
dunkalunk said:
New alignment time:


ALL CAPS stations interchange with the GO network. Unlike most other alignments, the line dips south in order to serve and in order to build upon the Leslie Street Barns as a maintenance/storage facility for the DRL vehicles until the line is extended and one can be built further out.
Click to expand...

No need those 2 subway station as one is only need with walkway to them. It would Bay St as well connection to Union.

Otherwise, stations are right.
 
drum118 said:
No need those 2 subway station as one is only need with walkway to them. It would Bay St as well connection to Union.

Otherwise, stations are right.
Click to expand...

I opted for the additional station at Simcoe Street to help diffuse demand on the PATH network during rush hour and after events at the ACC and Skydome. It would also act as a catalyst to fill out the western portion of the PATH network. The two stations would also provide more obvious and shorter connections with St. Andrew and King stations
 
dunkalunk said:
I opted for the additional station at Simcoe Street to help diffuse demand on the PATH network during rush hour and after events at the ACC and Skydome. It would also act as a catalyst to fill out the western portion of the PATH network. The two stations would also provide more obvious and shorter connections with St. Andrew and King stations
Click to expand...

Those loads would be low to what you would find in the London or Paris system when transferring between lines or the rail stations.

Outside of events at the Skydome, ridership would be low and have something sitting under used most of the time is a waste of money. Anyone going to ACC would use Yonge.
 
The trouble with all those plans is that there is no money and there won't be for ages, if ever.

A GO Rex system using the LRT tram-trains could cover the entire city bringing TRUE rapid transit to every area of the city for less money. It's called value for the dollar. The little SRT could buy an entire fleet and be up and running in no time and Scarberians would actually be able to get downtown in a reasonable amount of time as would people in all areas.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Reading about possible DRL alignments, there's an article in The Overhead Wire on Twin Cities Alignment Madness and the Perfect Network that makes for interesting reading as well. See this link. It talks about the use of freight railway lines as alignment for transit. Especially when they were built originally to serve industrial areas.
Click to expand...

The Overhead Wire said:
If you learn one thing from this post. Connecting people to dense employment drives transit ridership, so run the transit from where the people live to where they work in the highest densities. No brainer.
Click to expand...

Ok, while TOW's conclusions is something of a truism it ignores that, at least in the North American context, most rapid transit riders connect from some other kind of transit (bus, park-n-ride, streetcar...) and, with a few exceptions, walk in ridership isn't particularly significant.

That doesn't completely obviate TOW's point drawing lines on a map and disregarding everything else will usually result in sub-optimal routes, but a route doesn't have to pass (in the most expensive manner possible) right through the most dense employment or residential clusters in order to serve those clusters.

Also, in your typical North American post-WW2 urban area (Toronto included), density clusters are usually not even arranged in a way that would allow obvious corridors.

In planning any rapid transit line several things have to be considered; immediate residential/commercial density, ability to connect to other forms of transit, potential for redevelopment or future intensification and so forth. Likewise, all of those have to be balanced against cost.

Take the Junction. We could imagine a DRL station either being placed at Dundas and Keele, which would presumably draw the most local ridership, or we could imagine one placed a few hundred meters to the East in the rail corridor. The rail corridor station probably wouldn't have much lower ridership ultimately because it would be just as convenient for transfer riders. Marginally, it's unlikely a station at Dundas and Keele would attract enough riders to justify it's premium.

Similarly, even stations built in the Allan Expressway usually aren't much lower ridership than their Yonge counterparts.
 
diminutive said:
Similarly, even stations built in the Allan Expressway usually aren't much lower ridership than their Yonge counterparts.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

Eglinton: 79,670
Eglinton West: 21,510 (27% of Yonge)

Lawrence: 25,040
Lawrence West: 21,940 (88% of Yonge)

York Mills: 28,400
Wilson: 19,620 (69% of Yonge)

Sheppard: 75,190
Downsview: 38,710 (51% of Yonge)

IMO, only Lawrence West meets the "aren't much lower ridership than their Yonge counterparts" definition, and that's a bit of a push because Lawrence Station (on Yonge) has aberrantly low ridership owing from its "missing" eastern bus feeder. (Admittedly, Sheppard and Downsview probably aren't the best pairing to draw conclusions from, although whatever distortion the former gets from being fed by a subway is countered in part by Downsview's heavy north-south bus feeders from York U and elsewhere.)

Demographically, the Allan ridershed is a lot less affluent than the Yonge one, so I imagine all things being equal you'd expect higher ridership there rather than lower. The built form definitely plays a major part.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top