TheTigerMaster
Superstar
So why wouldn't this work in Toronto?
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
So why wouldn't this work in Toronto?
aquateam
Active Member
This. I don't think that the Mayor is supposed to be able to have the power to say that their electoral campaign napkin map is now the city's top priority, since now there is that arms-length provincial agency (the ARTM) which is supposed to be in charge of that. So we will see if the Pink line goes anywhere. A couple years ago the city's top priority was a few streetcar lines and LRT on Pie-IX, ten years later we don't have anything to show for it except a couple half-finished bus lanes.
It's interesting because it's very similar to the DRL in concept: a diagonal shortcut subway into downtown to relieve their most congested line, which also serves some transit-poor areas in the north east.
I don't see how the line could go on the surface, though, if it is going to share facilities and rolling stock with the rest of the metro, which is rubber-tyred and can't run on the surface in the winter. Although it could be an orphan technology line like the SRT. Or maybe it could share facilities with the REM and use ICTS.
When was it mentioned that it would be ICTS? I don't recall details about technology choice being mentioned.
I honestly find it mind boggling that any newly built metro system in a first world country wouldn't be automated.
Somehow I don't think that particular construction methods were envisioned by Projet Montreal: at this point the line is mostly conceptual.
As for the extension to Lachine: I thought that CP and CN were absolutely intransigent about sharing their ROW, which is why the REM is tunneling 3 km in a loop around the airport instead of going 500m south in a pre-built station to reach the nearest railway (the CP ROW).
There is extra room due to the Turcot construction for a line that was meant to go to the airport, but that is next to the CN ROW, not the CP ROW.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I hope not. There’s nothing worse than politicians prescribing a particular transit technology to solve an issue.
(Okay, there are probably a few things that are worse in the world, but this is easily in the top 17 worst things)
44 North
Senior Member
Thanks for the links. Oh man what a fun read. Even if they're not built at all, between REM and this (possible) Barcelona Line 9-like "Pink Line", things seem very hopeful for affordable, dynamic subway-building in Montreal.
WislaHD
Superstar
As we know in Toronto context, the tunneling portion is actually the cheap part in subway construction.
So this is actually a very interesting method of subway construction. It would not work for terminus/hub stations (like STC is planned to be) though. They need to be larger facilities.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Station construction is the expensive part. Each station costs around $200 Million in Toronto (likely more).
Another expensive cost is the emergency exits, which the Barcelona method seemingly negates the need for nearly completely.
rbt
Senior Member
The double-stack tunnel was considered with Eglinton. Unfortunately, soil studies showed most buildings along the route would have issues staying upright without reinforcement. Simply put, the soil requires a large buffer space between the tunnel and other structures to adequately support both.
2 tunnels fits easier because the smaller diameter requires less buffer space.
IIRC, Eglinton looked at a ~13m diameter tunnel.
nephersir7
Active Member
It was mentioned when Projet Montreal held a press conference to announce their proposal.:
"The pink line would be fully automated"
"having the trains outside [tunnels] would require to have cars rolling on rails. It would be less costly than the Metro's rubber tires. Trains and stations could be climate controlled"
That particular construction method was a key part of their proposal, to refute claims that a new metro line would be too expensive. Projet Montreal worked in collaboration with people at the Polytechnique's Mobilité Chair to elaborate and validate their proposal.
CDPQ Infra acquired the rail viaduct between the Pointe-St-Charles yards and Central Station from the CN as part of their REM project. Projet Montreal is hopeful that a similar deal could be struck with CP to acquirer the passenger-only Westmount sub between Lucien Lallier station and Lachine.
The REM is a done deal. It's a matter of days (not weeks) before the construction and operation contracts are awarded. Construction is expected to start by the end of the year.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
nephersir7
Active Member
She said that the first step was getting elected, then afterwards studies would be done to assess the feasibility of the proposal.
I suppose her plan is to mandate the ARTM to commission studies after she puts her people on the ARTM's board.
Avenue
Active Member
We knew you've been lurking for the longest time.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Toronto will be using single bore tunnels on the Scarborough Subway, remember. Wouldn't be surprised to see it on the DRL either, to minimize cut and cover construction.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
If single bore is supposed to save money, and the one-stop extension costs $3.5 Billion... that does not leave my hopeful for this as a cost saving strategy.
Last edited:
aquateam
Active Member
Thank you for the links! And I never realized there was a separate passenger-only sub from Lachine to Lucien L'Allier, I would see the freight trains pass by at Dorval AMT station and assumed they used the whole length of it, or at least most of it. If they could buy that section from CP, that would be incredible, since there are way more people (and jobs) above the St. Jacques bluffs. Much more useful than putting light rail in the Turcot corridor.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Is it likely that the new DRL stations (not Osgoode, Queen, Pape) are going to have “magnificent” stations? It would seem likely with the TYSSE and the SSE’s large stations, that the TTC will continue the trend?
IMO, regular downtown stations but with better passenger flow (large hallways and no outside fare gate platform changes) should be more then adequate for a line that mostly has end to end (Relief Line South) riders.
IMO, regular downtown stations but with better passenger flow (large hallways and no outside fare gate platform changes) should be more then adequate for a line that mostly has end to end (Relief Line South) riders.