Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Gweed also makes a good point I've neglected to mention. The RH SmartTrack trains would enter the downtown tunnel while the RH GO-RER trains would go to Union. That is another key reason for differentiating services.

MisterF said:
There's no reason to think that Smarttrack or the TTC in general will be any cheaper than GO over the same distances when fares are integrated.
Click to expand...
I am hoping it is distance-based. SmartTrack/GO-RER stations inside the 416 pay cheaper fare than in the 905.

wopchop said:
If these plans are basically the DRL route (tunneled) south of Lawrence, then I don't understand how these plans are any cheaper than the Long Relief Line that they looked at in the report, which only went to Sheppard.

Sure, you are saving on tunneling costs by only tunneling south of Lawrence, but you are also adding significant costs by extending the line all the way to Langstaff. The Lawrence - Langstaff at-grade portion is probably 5 - 6 times longer than Lawrence to Sheppard along Don Mills. You also need to add in the cost of grade separation for the Doncaster Diamond, and a costlier station at Gerrard Square to support the switching service that is being described, as it needs to be able to simultaneously send trains downtown via tunnel and to Union at-grade via the rail corridor.

Yeah, I get that the idea is to provide a DRL as well as an improved RH GO line, but if you look at the numbers in the Metrolinx relief study, it is pretty clear that the few passengers who take RH GO hardly matter (and would be better served by GO RER), and that the bulk of the ridership is being redirected from Yonge (ie. coming from points east).
Click to expand...
The cost savings would be from not having to spend an exuberant amount of money on the repairs, Don flooding damages and realignment of the Richmond Hill corridor south of Lawrence, as we would be combining corridors with the DRL.

The 'extra costs' of extending to Langstaff are present in any case because the RH corridor will need to be electrified and converted to RER at some point anyway. The more complicated Gerrard Square interchange is worth the extra dollars to create this kind of service.

I don't think you can compare this scheme with the reported numbers of relief by GO as this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The utility and dynamics of the line completely changes to an electrified, rapid, subway-level-frequency corridor that goes directly to our CBD and destinations west and east of it rather than to Union, interchanging with Sheppard, Eglinton and Bloor-Danforth along the way. Nothing like the present RH-GO.
 
wopchop said:
If these plans are basically the DRL route (tunneled) south of Lawrence, then I don't understand how these plans are any cheaper than the Long Relief Line that they looked at in the report, which only went to Sheppard.
Click to expand...

They aren't. But if the goal is the greatest amount of relief to the Yonge line for the dollars being spent, the RH RER DRL (holy acronym soup, Batman) is the best bet.

wopchop said:
Sure, you are saving on tunneling costs by only tunneling south of Lawrence, but you are also adding significant costs by extending the line all the way to Langstaff. The Lawrence - Langstaff at-grade portion is probably 5 - 6 times longer than Lawrence to Sheppard along Don Mills. You also need to add in the cost of grade separation for the Doncaster Diamond, and a costlier station at Gerrard Square to support the switching service that is being described, as it needs to be able to simultaneously send trains downtown via tunnel and to Union at-grade via the rail corridor.
Click to expand...

It would need to be upgraded as part of the RER project anyway, so you're just piggybacking 2 transit projects onto a single corridor upgrade.

wopchop said:
Yeah, I get that the idea is to provide a DRL as well as an improved RH GO line, but if you look at the numbers in the Metrolinx relief study, it is pretty clear that the few passengers who take RH GO hardly matter (and would be better served by GO RER), and that the bulk of the ridership is being redirected from Yonge (ie. coming from points east and not Thornhill/Richmond Hill).
Click to expand...

Looking at the current RH line, even with a few infill stations north of Sheppard, is hardly an accurate comparison. The RH RER DRL would have stations at every major concession on the way to Union or the CBD, which means intercepting nearly every major E-W bus and RT route east of Yonge. Same alignment and similar station locations as the 'traditional' DRL south of Lawrence, with similar headways. The only difference would be the rolling stock.
 
Last edited:
gweed123 said:
They aren't. But if the goal is the greatest amount of relief to the Yonge line for the dollars being spent, the RH RER DRL (holy acronym soup, Batman) is the best bet.



It would need to be upgraded as part of the RER project anyway, so you're just piggybacking 2 transit projects onto a single corridor upgrade.



Looking at the current RH line, even with a few infill stations north of Sheppard, is hardly an accurate comparison. The RH RER DRL would have stations at every major concession on the way to Union or the CBD, which means intercepting nearly every major E-W bus and RT route east of Yonge. Same alignment and similar station locations as the 'traditional' DRL south of Lawrence, with similar headways. The only difference would be the rolling stock.
Click to expand...

I like this idea and the logic behind killing two transit birds with one stone approach to the Yonge/DRL dilemma. That said, why hasn't Metrolinx listed this as an option for the YRNS? Do you suppose this has even been considered?
 
Translude15 said:
I like this idea and the logic behind killing two transit birds with one stone approach to the Yonge/DRL dilemma. That said, why hasn't Metrolinx listed this as an option for the YRNS? Do you suppose this has even been considered?
Click to expand...
The problem I see with this proposal is that if you were coming from Sheppard east you would be arriving at Donmills via LRT or Bus. Then you would need to transfer to a subway for one stop to then transfer to this RH RER DRL scheme. People hate transfers and unless sheppard is going to convert the subway to LRT that is going to be one massive hurdle to jump.
 
sixrings said:
The problem I see with this proposal is that if you were coming from Sheppard east you would be arriving at Donmills via LRT or Bus. Then you would need to transfer to a subway for one stop to then transfer to this RH RER DRL scheme. People hate transfers and unless sheppard is going to convert the subway to LRT that is going to be one massive hurdle to jump.
Click to expand...
Very true, though I think one forced transfer is not the end of the world, especially if the commute time overall decreases.

I still wish we can procure an LRT vehicle that can run in the subway tunnel with minimal reconstruction but such logic is a pipe dream in this city.
 
WislaHD said:
Very true, though I think one forced transfer is not the end of the world, especially if the commute time overall decreases.
Click to expand...
The Scarborough Subway extension is based almost solely on ONE transfer. Don't underestimate it. Also WislaHD you live at Y&E, why would you prefer a smarttrack extension on Eglinton West versus a western ROW LRT. To get to mississauga you are going to have to take a transfer which wouldnt need to be there with a LRT...
 
sixrings said:
The Scarborough Subway extension is based almost solely on ONE transfer. Don't underestimate it. Also WislaHD you live at Y&E, why would you prefer a smarttrack extension on Eglinton West versus a western ROW LRT. To get to mississauga you are going to have to take a transfer which wouldnt need to be there with a LRT...
Click to expand...
On my map? As I explained in the transit fantasy thread, I made the map in line with current SmartTrack plans with a stated preference for a Kitchener-Pearson alignment and Crosstown extension.

I am kinda dismayed how Midtown has no connections with the greater regional network. Personally, I believe network connectivity to be just as vital to a transit network as achieving ridership goals and whatnot. The beauty of NYC, European and Asian transit networks is that there are no shortage of routes you can take to your destination. Even with a fully developed GO-RER system, there is no possibility of me commuting from Y-E to Square One or even to Guelph or Kitchener, unless the Midtown corridor is activated somehow.

edit: Maybe I am jumping the gun a little. Commuting to Mt. Dennis and then transferring onto GO-RER may not be the worst commute ever.
 
Part of me thinks this is all a moot issue getting people to commute so far. I think anyone younger than 30 is going to make a effort to live closer to where they work. It's the older generation which was ok with long drives for cheaper property. The younger generationdont even want to mow a lawn yet alone commit to commuting
such distances . Anyways if the miway was converted to LRT which connected to the crosstown you couldstill get toMCC in decent time compared to today.
 
Heres my quick edit... im ok with everything else.... although I think Finch and Sheppard LRTs should be added.
 

Attachments

  • Toronto_SmartTrack2.png
    Toronto_SmartTrack2.png
    219.6 KB · Views: 275
TheTigerMaster said:
Steve on YRNS.

http://stevemunro.ca/2015/06/23/yonge-relief-network-study-june-2015-update/
Click to expand...
I think his conclusion sums it up nicely: "This is not to minimize the importance of GO, but to recognize that there are two separate markets and one “solution” cannot serve both of them."

It also shows that there's so much demand for mass transit in this city that both of these huge projects (RER and DRL) are essential. It's not one or the other and there's no single line that would solve all our problems.
 
sixrings said:
Part of me thinks this is all a moot issue getting people to commute so far. I think anyone younger than 30 is going to make a effort to live closer to where they work. It's the older generation which was ok with long drives for cheaper property. The younger generation dont even want to mow a lawn yet alone commit to commuting such distances.
Click to expand...

That's not so simple.

A single person may chose renting vs owning, and move with a relative ease to be closer to job, then move again if the job location changes.

But those with families often do not have such flexibility. Two working spouses may have jobs located far apart, therefore one of them will have to commute a long distance no matter where they live. Many children do not adjust well when they have to change kindergarten or school too often. If you have a set of doctors, weekend activities etc in your current neighborhood, it may require a lot of effort to find replacements at a new location.

At the same time, many jobs are unstable these days. In a number of occupations, you should expect to be changing your job every few years.

In many cases, a family not burdened with home ownership will still chose to stay in a location that requires a long commute.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top