robmausser
Senior Member
RT with higher frequencies and probably trains as long as possible. 6 or 8 car trains.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
RT with higher frequencies and probably trains as long as possible. 6 or 8 car trains.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
And how much will be outside to save on time and costs is yet to be determined.
robmausser
Senior Member
According to the Transportation Minister, the portion between Osgoode and Pape, the current "phase 1" already under planning, will not be modified in terms of the route. Just the technology used.
So it will still be underground. This much we know. The portion to Ontario Place and from Pape north could be entirely elevated.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
And will the unions insist that the trains have a driver that doesn’t actually drive the train but will just sit there with their obligatory bowl of soup, and perhaps now with a smartphone.
Even though the unions excuse can’t be about cutting existing jobs since no DRL jobs have been created yet.
Even though the unions excuse can’t be about cutting existing jobs since no DRL jobs have been created yet.
north-of-anything
Active Member
Thank goodness the extension to Eglinton is being considered right away. With all the development being planned for the Golden Mile, and all the land that COULD be developed more in East York, this is definitely necessary to draw people away from Line 1 in Midtown. Although it would be even better if the line west of Spadina was ignored so the parts with actual demand can get built first.
rbt
Senior Member
It's not horrible, although it's too early. There will be a day in the not so distant future (2040?) when building large-floorplate office development within a 1km walk of Union is effectively impossible. At that point, East Harbour and northern areas like Queen become ripe for large scale office expansion. If GO users need to transfer to get to new office developments (Barrie line to Lake Shore or Milton line to DRL) then it's far easier to have them transfer outside Union Station rather than inside Union Station.
Problem is, there's no proof (development under construction, or even much land assembly) that office development will go to these places. A detailed plan on paper which may be acted on quickly is wise, beyond that is wishful thinking.
Also, Ontario Place only ruled out residential development. Ford may believe he can sell it as a commercial district.
Most ideas sound better when you don't understand it enough to be able to identify the problems with it. Metrolinx seems to struggle with the small details at times and that assumes that Ford didn't stop all over the Metrolinx proposal to make it his own.
That said, getting any money out of Ford for downtown is an unexpected positive.
Last edited:
syn
Senior Member
This is a great example.
Ford is an effective salesperson, at least to his base. He's managed to make an LRT line seem like a great idea exactly where a heavy rail subway solution is needed.
A subway would be the best solution for future capacity (which may come far sooner than we think) and would be better for future expansion too.
I have no problem implementing light rail solutions such as this. Generally speaking, it's a great idea. This just happens to be the wrong solution for this corridor - it needs to be a higher capacity subway.
north-of-anything
Active Member
Is the proposed technology higher capacity than the Crosstown? If so, then in my opinion it's less of a mismatch than using heavy rail for Sheppard East...
rbt
Senior Member
So long as capacity targets the 25,000pphpd range it'll probably be fine. Future capacity can be met with a second 25,000pphpd line (start that EA in 2030) running down Vic Park and along Wellington.
The savings seems pretty minor though; the provincial portion of the savings (1/3rd overall) is only about $1B.
There is no way to know. A 2 car train may have capacity of 10,000pphpd and an 8 car train may hit 40,000pphpd of the same gear. Capacity has more to do with the stations design than the rolling stock, and the map provides very little about the size of the stations.
Fun fact, Lagos (Nigeria) was looking at using old Toronto subway trains for a 120,000pphpd light rail line by assembling them into trains of up to 22 cars in length. Same rolling stock but ~4x the capacity as the stations would have been half a km long.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Which raises a number of other questions, lol, not least Metrolinx' latest idea to *limit* the number of transferring TTC/GO fare paying passengers onto UPX.
It could make sense in some ways, but Ford et al had best get their story straight. Again, I can imagine Metrolinx staff and execs hiding behind their desks at this time.
aquateam
Active Member
I have to disagree: stopping the trains just short of their destination and forcing a transfer is an awful idea. European cities are spending billions of dollars to connect disjointed rail terminals across their downtowns (e.g. RER, Crossrail, Boston) and we would be spending hundreds of millions to reduce the utility of the GO network? And even assuming that it were a good idea, we only need to look at what's happening in Scarborough to see how much money we are willing to spend to avoid a transfer, so it's clearly a political non-starter.
The Mascouche Line (which has paltry ridership) is being stopped short as a sacrifice to free up the Mount Royale tunnel, not as a ploy to prevent overcrowding of Central station. In exchange, at least they are getting easier access to the green and blue lines.
If Union station capacity is really such an issue, there are a few options that actually benefit riders:
- Reconfigure Union station's platforms. Instead of spending 15 years transforming Union into a "retail destination," Metrolinx could have been consolidating tracks and widening platforms. In other countries there are stations with far fewer tracks than Union handling many times as many passengers as Union station (e.g. Châtelet-Les Halles ).
- Electrify to allow shorter stop spacing, pair and through-run the trains and stop at satellite stations closer to some destinations (Spadina, Cherry) to spread out the passenger load.
- Building a conventional DRL with convenient transfers reduces demand at Union by about 20%. Unfortunately, the current favoured design of the DRL is optimized against diverting GO ridership.
- Having done those 3 things, the RER tunnel scheme that keeps being repeated on this forum would also divert ridership while opening up new origin/destination trips.
MisterF
Senior Member
Wow look, a rapid transit map that includes GO lines! So it can be done. Someone alert the TTC!
To be fair (yes I know, being fair to Ford is a stretch, but humour me here), it does say "Ontario Place/Exhibition". So it's possible that the station would actually be at the Exhibition GO station. It would provide extra rapid transit options to Liberty Village and GO commuters coming from the west. And it could divert large numbers of riders away from Union, as has been discussed over the last few pages. I agree that the station at Ontario Place would be dumb, but at Exhibition would make a lot more sense.
I'd say that RER is more crucial than any transit project apart from the relief line. Er, Ontario line.
The sooner people start calling it Line 3 (or whatever the number ends up being) the better.
Subway demand isn't determined by the terminals.
syn
Senior Member
That's the thing.
We're paying a premium to build heavy rail in the suburbs when we could do the same here for relatively little more.
Let's not forget that Ford-produced transit plans are notoriously underpriced. Just 5 years ago they proposed 32km of new subways (not underground LRTs) for $9 billion.
As easy as they made it sound at the news conference, I can imagine this going well beyond the $10.9 billion price tag.
rbt
Senior Member
crs1026
Superstar
It sounds like the core component of the Relief Line (ie the central tunnelling alignment) won’t really be much different. I wonder how much of the Ford version can remain scalable to a full scale transit vehicle some day.
- How much cheaper is a slightly smaller tunnel bore - why not leave them TR sized?
- Will stations be downsized? It’s vital that they remain large enough or extendable - we should not make the same mistakes as the Canada Line.
-Similarly, is the elevated structure any smaller than would be needed for a full size TR, and how much money is actuallysaved if it is built smaller?
Perhaps there is a middle ground - plan for expandability to something the size of a NYC or Chicago 8-car trainset, which is less than TR but more than Skytrain. I’m skeptical that Ford is avoiding penny wise, pound foolishness.
- Paul
- How much cheaper is a slightly smaller tunnel bore - why not leave them TR sized?
- Will stations be downsized? It’s vital that they remain large enough or extendable - we should not make the same mistakes as the Canada Line.
-Similarly, is the elevated structure any smaller than would be needed for a full size TR, and how much money is actuallysaved if it is built smaller?
Perhaps there is a middle ground - plan for expandability to something the size of a NYC or Chicago 8-car trainset, which is less than TR but more than Skytrain. I’m skeptical that Ford is avoiding penny wise, pound foolishness.
- Paul