Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Further to Burl's posts and those of others, and points I've been making, Steve Munro's blog today is a must read:
https://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/24/an-invitation-to-dinner/#more-17478

Especially note his observations on Crosstown. (Corrected "Crosslink" from earlier post, trying so hard not to upset the locals by posting "Crossrail") It pertains to more than just this string, but is especially germane to points we've been discussing.

I'm rushing out the door, late again, but had to correct that. Thanks AD!
 
Last edited:
Further to Burl's posts and those of others, and points I've been making, Steve Munro's blog today is a must read:
https://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/24/an-invitation-to-dinner/#more-17478

Some very interesting quotes:

Meanwhile, the perceived importance of a “Relief” subway line adding capacity into the core crawls slowly upward in the political agenda. Even with RER and SmartTrack, whatever it might be, there are severe capacity issues on the subway system, and these will only worsen with demand growth inside Toronto and added by a planned extension to Richmond Hill. The “Downtown” label on a Relief Line was always misleading, artificially reducing the importance of more rapid transit to the core as a regional challenge and benefit.

These are fundamental issues in network planning for the updated “Big Move” and for any assumptions about subway “relief” using the rail network.
 
Last edited:
Great and very comprehensive Munro blog. My take away is that neither City Council nor TTC appreciate the regional context we are in. There's suspicion about whether Metrolinx will address city transit priorities. I'd argue that Metrolinx can finally be that non-politicized third party, if only the City will cede some control. It offers promise that highly politicized projects like the Scarborough subway won't get the better of transit planning, as long as political pressure from the Province and City are kept at bay. It might also mean more provincial funding of transit projects. It's painfully obvious that the DRL has the best chance of getting funded and having the greatest reach in the shortest time frame if integrated into RER. This requires resolving fare integration across the GTA for once and all. If ST is implemented with a TTC-type fare only within Toronto, it undermines the regional system that should be the new reality. However, paying a premium for transfers to and from the GO system and for short runs within the GO network undermines the integration of TTC within a regional transit network. It has to be versatile and affordable.

A distance-based fare system, with transfer discounts between GO and municipal transit systems and a reasonable premium for the long-distance, express service offered by GO, is the way to proceed. It means that most (all?) new transit projects with tracks should be interoperable with RER and that a smart, distance-based fare system gets implemented system-wide. Small scanners at all entries and exits would make it possible for users either to carry scannable codes on cards or store these codes on devices. Users could keep the same code forever if they liked. Another option is cards with chips that are remotely captured at all system portals. There are many possibilities. We have a partially implemented Presto card. I'm not sure how functional Presto is. Maybe it can suffice or remain in place until the new system is implemented. The fare system needs to be settled to integrate the regional network.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that Metrolinx can finally be that non-politicized third party,

Seriously? Metrolinx is one of the most politicized agencies of the Government of Ontario, and they're certainly not "third party". When have you ever seen Metrolinx speak against Liberal party policy? How many times have we seen Metrolinx fight to keep information secret to protect Liberal MPPs? Metrolinx exists solely to implement the Liberal's transportation agenda. Don't let the kool aid and propaganda fool you.
 
It's a very valid point! The "relief" aspect being touted with the latest iteration is really questionable, that's why I refer to it as the "Pape Entitlement Line". I just can't put faith into the case as being touted.

Build a Relief Line? By all means! But if they do it, do it big, and do it to stone many birds with one kill. If they can't do it all first go, then build it such that it accommodates many needs later, not just the Entitled on Pape and there-abouts. This is going to be (ostensibly, I don't think it will remain in the City's hands) "the most expensive subway Toronto has ever built".

If that doesn't underline the case of of doing many things for many people I don't know what does. The (ostensibly Queen) east-west segment can't be separated from the north-south, and it must be *run-through* at each end, so that *NO* transfer onto the subway is needed in many cases. The purpose must be to *intercept* present subway use, not divert segments of it with band-aid fixes.

And it should be built full bore, Crosstown cross-section, such that initially (and perhaps later too in mixed traffic) it uses LRVs (the surplus of which Metrolinx is now having to deal with) but built dual-voltage (an offered option for Flexities, run in a number of nations that way) such that RER use (loading gauge and catenary supply) is accommodated later by being same. Stations alone, even lengthened, will be far cheaper to build without high-platforms. Edmonton and Calgary not only build this way, they are also moving to low platform to do it.
TRs are higher capacity trains than Flexities because a) being high floor, there are fewer compromises where subfloor components intrude into the cabin, and b) being about 25% wider. The presumption is that capacity will be needed, especially when Line 2 not just needs relief but is actually down, like this morning. Gerrymandering the size/type of the trains on the basis of bailing Metrolinx out of its issues with Bombardier makes little sense and when that was not the option taken for the SSE. Additionally, one of the possible outcomes with relief line is a connecting tunnel to Greenwood Yard (with the Kipling Line 2 yard assumed in commission). Not so useful for 750V catenary vehicles.

The notion of running on street north of Danforth was proposed and roundly criticised given the narrow ROW on Pape, so really you're talking about on street running once you hit Thorncliffe and running up to Don Mills/Eglinton. Even assuming a wye (I wouldn't, since there's no design provision) where would the yard for an LRV operated line be, since using Mount Dennis would be out of the question?
 
Additionally, one of the possible outcomes with relief line is a connecting tunnel to Greenwood Yard (with the Kipling Line 2 yard assumed in commission). Not so useful for 750V catenary vehicles.
I made special point a number of times with "dual voltage/current options" *as run in a number of cities already*. That option is available on any series of any large builder of LRVs at this time. Greenwood becomes a moot point in terms of servicing and storage unless Metrolinx buys a chunk of space. Since you mention the "connecting tunnel"...then project that further...if it's full bore, that's a connection to RER right there, bingo, Greenwood or not. RER will be be 25kVAC, and with 750VDC, that's a very common dual-mode option.
[The S70/Avanto can be configured to operate on various overhead power supplies. The Avantos ordered for France are dual voltage, capable of operating on 750 V DC when running on tram or light rail tracks and on 25 kV AC when running on main line tracks. The vehicles operating in Paris currently operate on AC only; its DC capabilities will not be used until an extension of the current line to Montfermeil is completed.[2]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_S70
And that's the US built one! All of the big names offer dual-mode power supply options.

The notion of running on street north of Danforth
I never stated or intimated that. Quite the opposite. I have stated a number of times to "run up the Don Valley to Steeles"...and perhaps later, business case permitting, since it would be "very deep tunnel" continuing the alignment north from the Don Valley connection to the Science Centre. I've mentioned numerous times that the 'tunnel will emerge onto the Don Valley'. At no time have I mentioned street running, save for at the western end and the possibility of run-through on the King Transit Mall for LRVs, but that would drive up costs significantly if the tunnel will extend westward with the TBMs left in place anyway.

so really you're talking about on street running once you hit Thorncliffe and running up to Don Mills/Eglinton.
????

You may be talking that, I certainly wasn't. I was stating "tunnel", and that leg may be rendered as an unwise investment if the catchment is already served by running around Don Mills via the Don Valley and intercepting it further north and east.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? Metrolinx is one of the most politicized agencies of the Government of Ontario, and they're certainly not "third party". When have you ever seen Metrolinx speak against Liberal party policy? How many times have we seen Metrolinx fight to keep information secret to protect Liberal MPPs? Metrolinx exists solely to implement the Liberal's transportation agenda. Don't let the kool aid and propaganda fool you.
And the City is even worse. Choose your weapon...

Meantime, the best option is outlined by Munro, and mentioned many times by myself prior: Crosstown. It's far from perfect, it needs more work, and at arm's length...which brings us to the Infrastructure Bank and Infrastructure Ontario.

Globe and Mail should have an article of note in the next few days on that. McCuaig's ascension to the InfraBank wasn't just a random occurrence...
 
Meantime, the best option is outlined by Munro, and mentioned many times by myself prior: Crosstown. It's far from perfect, it needs more work, and at arm's length...which brings us to the Infrastructure Bank and Infrastructure Ontario.

The best option in what sense?

And the City is even worse. Choose your weapon...

No municipal agencies are accountable only to secretive Liberal Party ministers.
 
The best option in what sense?
To satisfy your rant of having to keep evil, despicable, devil worshiping, baby eating politicians at arm's length.

It's called "third party oversight". Been discussed here at length, and as mentioned, Munro discusses it too.

No municipal agencies are accountable only to secretive Liberal Party ministers.
Hey, Tory's your man...
 
Luckily for us, no municipal agency answers to Mr Tory. They're accountable to 45 politically unaffiliated members of council.
Who vote overwhelmingly for a one stop subway with absolutely no business case, and no comparison to one.

That's a pretty hard act to follow...
[...]
Indeed the TTC has become infected with a similar problem recently where whatever new award(s) they manage to win take pride of place at meetings while serious discussion about ridership and service quality await reports that never quite seem to appear. Budgets do not offer options conflicting with Mayor Tory's insistence on modest tax increases. Getting an award for the "We Move You" marketing campaign is cold comfort to people who cannot even get on a bus or train because there is no room.
[...]
Who Decides?

The great irony in this exercise is that the substantive policy decisions both at the City and Province are not made by the Boards of their respective transit agencies, but by their political masters. At both levels, the focus lies on construction, capital projects with lots of opportunities for photos in front of heavy equipment and empty lands about to become big holes in the ground. Far less is heard about the quality of day-to-day service, or how growing demand for local transit will be funded and operated.

Within Toronto, the TTC faces stagnant ridership, but a good case can be made that a major problem is one of capacity – there simply is no room for more people to board. All the marketing campaigns in the world are undone by one long wait as bus after bus, streetcar after streetcar, train after train pass by with no room for a would-be passenger.

Regionally, growth in transit demand will place a huge burden on municipal governments. The existing market share for transit in the 905 is small, and so growth represents a larger degree of change than it would in Toronto. Moreover, with a small existing market, the political appetite for more transit spending is weak.

There is also the basic issue that “regional” travel is not only aimed at Toronto’s core, important though that is, and that transit’s market share cannot be improved if it ignores a major segment of regional demand going nowhere near downtown.

As GO improves its services, especially with frequent all-day operation, the park-and-ride model with its ratio of two parking spaces for every three commuters will collapse. No station can be a “mobility hub” if there is little mobility in the form of local transit to serve it. Queen’s Park’s attitude is that this is a local problem, and yet, at a minimum, Metrolinx owes everyone detailed projections of how local systems must evolve as the GO/RER network builds out.

Within Toronto, the overlay of a GO network on the TTC brings the question of how the bus network should be oriented. For example, should bus routes in Scarborough force-feed “SmartTrack” services rather than the existing subway/RT? What happens when the SSE opens with its 30+ bay terminal at the Town Centre? Will Agincourt become a ghost station?

This brings us to the challenge that as an informal gathering, the two Boards may choose to meet in private. This would undercut the value of a discussion where public statements can inform public debate. That may not be to Metrolinx’ or TTC’s liking, but if there is information to be “shared” this should take place where we can all hear what is said.

I wish the TTC Board well in their Metrolinx dinner dates, but fear that they are doomed to wait a long time for deep and meaningful conversations.

There will be a lot of fish on the menu.
http://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/24/an-invitation-to-dinner/

As mentioned prior, the Crosstown model is discussed and linked, but alas, it can't shoot down Black Helicopters.
 
Last edited:
The DRL should not be built by Toronto or the TTC as that is a guarantee that it will never get built

The DRL should not be viewed as just a relief on Y&B and little else but rather a rapid transit line in it's own right giving all Torontonians a viable way to get downtown from all areas of the City and GTA. Due to Toronto's very small subway system, it is probable {not just possible} that RER will overtake the subways in ridership levels. Cities with smallish subway systems often have RER/O-Bahn systems with higher ridership and thats fine. A DRL for RER could serve all trains coming into the city from all areas, provide an essential alternative to Union, and help not just relieve Y&B but rather the entire YUS & BD lines.

By providing city wide service to downtown it helps relieve the lines BEFORE they reach the inner city areas like Pape...........the people outside the old city actually get downtown much faster and the people on the current lines may , god forbid, actually get a seat. A standard subway DRL serves just one area of the city while a RER tunnel provides comprehensive service to all people coming into the city as well as those coming from Don Mills.

Also RER is infinitely easier to expand than any subway system. A DRL subway would terminate at Eglinton and probably sit there for 50 years until they extend it. A RER along the same route would mean the system could be extended 20km north quickly and cheaply by using the current rail corridor of the Richmond Hill line by slowly electrifying the line, adding stations, twin tracking, and grade separation.

This shouldn't even be up for debate..........the DRL must be RER and run by Metrolinx. Toronto/TTC subway guarantees it will only be useful for a smaller ridership potential and worse of all guarantees that it will never get built in the first place.
 
No, it was a reward to a loyal liberal who did dutifully did the Liberal bidding on transit. He now has a more comfortable job, compared to the one he'd lose in 14 months time.
And the same could be said for Jennifer Keesmaat and all the present staff and most of the councillors at City Hall.

I can't present a more compelling case of mass insanity and blind allegiance to it than the one-stop Scarborough subway extension. Then again, to some, climate change is a hoax...

No, it was a reward to a loyal liberal who did dutifully did the Liberal bidding on transit. He now has a more comfortable job, compared to the one he'd lose in 14 months time.
That's an odd claim to make since the CEO of ML is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor. Maybe some misunderstanding of how these things work? I think you'd find, if your knees stop knocking together, is that McCuaig had had enough of exactly the 'Liberal Overlords' at QP and accepted a posting in a position to get at arm's length from that.
the DRL must be RER and run by Metrolinx.
The bottom line on this is simple, and Burl should know better than to talk out of both sides of the mouth: The City want to build a subway? Fine. Raise their own money.

If Ontario does it with Ontario taxpayer money, then it must reflect the needs of Ontarians, and that's a regional approach.

How's Brown coming along with promising to finance Toronto's next subway Burl?
 
Last edited:
That's an odd claim to make since the CEO of ML is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor. Maybe some misunderstanding of how these things work?
Sorry, I should have realized that the Lieutenant Governnor combs through the resumes and sits on the interview panel.

The Corporation is composed of the members of its board of directors. The board is composed of not more than 15 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.
https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141460
 

Back
Top