News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

You're missing the point. How are commuters in the Lansdowne corridor helped whatsoever via a Dufferin alignment? Staying on Queen till Roncesvalles could (and should result) in a station at Queen/Lansdowne/Jameson, providing not only direct relief for the 47 bus but for the thousands of low-income "priority neighbourhood" residents in the apartments just to the south along Jameson.

The reason Parkside is marketable is precisely because it doesn't need any intermediate stations between Queen and Bloor and can be trenched or cut-and-cover constructed parallel to the roadway at relative meagre expense ($175m/km ballpark). No other corridor, neither Roncy and especially not Dufferin can be built without TBM costing multibillions of dollars. Real tunneling would only need to occur between Bloor and St Clair, 2 kms versus 4.

Dipping the subway south again away from Queen is also not very wise. Like @steveintoronto said, people are trying to do way too many things with the one line. A straight direct run from Osgoode to St Joseph's then up the Keele and Weston-Galt is symmetrical and offers the most coverage (Parkdale, High Park, Junction, Silverthorn, Mount Dennis, Weston, Rexdale).



So we are in agreeance then that Jane is the wrong corridor for the DRL to route? A diagonal line from Humber College to downtown meanwhile would be truly transformative and be the most bang for our bucks.

Not needing stops between Queen and Bloor is indicative of the poor choice of route.

Lansdowne is a 5 minute walk from Dufferin. Save your money by using Parkside and you'll be forced to build a tunnel on Dufferin anyways. Again, I'm missing the point on what's so pressing about on Roncesvalles routing. Don't exactly see the crowding or cross route relief you see on a Dufferin routing. The route you're suggesting already has GO and UPX running for much of the length, what's the point? Dufferin is crowded, University is crowded, the 505 and 506 need relief.

Not going to argue my points any further, just offering my insight. You make good points and I understand your perspective even though I do not agree.
 
I think the concept of "relief line" is getting lost in the laudable but ultimately irrational attempt to do all things for all neighbourhoods.Think a 'highway by-pass' (relief route) to allow a speedy entrance and exit in travelling distance compared to the main highway that's bursting at the seams, and is not only struggling to handle the volume, it can't perform its intended purpose of rapid delivery of load.If the 'relief line' has too many stops, and undulates all over the map, it no longer becomes 'relief'....it becomes part of the problem. There is no end escape for the present Relief Line South as planned and promulgated.

This is now being realized by Metrolinx (duh!) and even Metrolinx is stretching to claim the business case is now roughly 1:1. (and warnings of that slipping as costs increase). Well no wonder! It's virtually the 'Pape Street Entitlement' subway as planned. What a waste of time, funds and effort when they should be thinking *relief* from the get get-go. Open the Relief Line in sections by all means, but only as part of an eventual greater plan. One that actually *relieves* the present subway.As for terminating downtown:
WHAT IS THROUGH‐RUNNING?

terminal-layout.png

Terminal stations, like Grand Central, are at the end of train lines. At these stations, trains come in from one direction, unload, are cleaned, and board new passenger before reversing towards the direction from which they came.
through-layout.png

Through‐running stations are all the stations between two terminals. At these stations, trains come in from one direction, unload and load passengers, and continue on in the same direction.
Terminal stations force all trains to share the limited track access in and out of the station. Because a train enters and leaves on the same set of tracks, trains cross paths as they back in or out, cutting off all traffic to the station as a single train enters or leaves. Through‐running, on the other hand, eliminates this inefficiency by running trains through the station. Terminal services are better suited for stations that do not have high ridership and many transferring passengers.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THROUGH‐RUNNING?
[...]
2. Paris RER
Before the construction of the RER, journeys between opposite sides of the Paris Metropolitan Region (known as the Ile‐de‐France) were not practical. TheRER created new north‐south and east‐west lines through the core of Paris that connected to all parts of the Ile‐de France at the new Chatelet‐ Les Halles station. By linking previously disconnected radial lines into the center of Paris, the new links dramatically cut travel time for hundreds of millions of trips every year. The RER is designed to serve simultaneously as both a relief line for overcrowded metro lines within the Paris core as well as a regional rail service. RUNfollows this same principle.

Until the late 70’s Paris’ commuter rail lines terminated at eight different stations (left). With the RER system, commuter lines use through‐running, with rail yards and terminals at the outskirts. Trains pass through the business district areas, where transfers are available between three commuter lines and six subway lines (right).
1550097290019.png


The RER allowed Paris to construct the largest purpose‐built Central Business District in Europe – La Defense – around this new connection.

3. London Crossrail
Crossrail, which is expected to open in late 2018, unites a set of four radial branch lines into a new east‐west line through the center of Greater London. The new route will dramatically speed and simplify travel across London and connect to both the London Underground and Overground networks. The opportunity to access far more of the region has sparked intensive development around some of the planned stations, including in Canary Wharf and the London Docklands. Even with a maximum capacity of more than 70,000 passengers per hour, Crossrail is expected to be at capacity from the moment it opens.

London-crossrail.jpg







Crossrail will connect currently separated parts of Greater London and improve transit through the City’s core. Image Credit: Crossrail Ltd. (Both pics)

1550097412555.png


[...]
http://www.rethinknyc.org/through-running/

Many neighbourhoods in Toronto can and should be serviced by buses and streetcars, and then connect to the closest or most convenient heavy rail station or LRT. What Toronto needs more than anything is a *Relief Line* to take that load off of the subways, and speed travellers in and out of the *core* of Toronto.

If it isn't obvious by now, I don't know when it will be: *Funds are limited*! Non-existent in the case of Toronto, and disappearing from the province. Heavy rail transit in Toronto is going to have to come from somewhere else. Already been discussed, and it will be further soon,

Meantime it's well past time for Toronto and surrounding regions to grow up, realize what the real challenge is, and find ways to build it. It's not like world class cities haven't been here and *already found solutions*! (And they're not conventional subways)

Some have done an excellent job. It's now Toronto's turn, and until the City of Toronto can put some cash on the table (how's SmartTrack coming along there?) there's no choice but to think regionally, and *Think Big*...big enough that it's a viable proposition, viable enough to attract private capital, as well as the Fed share going into it instead of to the Province. And the Fed contribution will be seed money in the Infrastructure Bank so it's multiplied...usually 4:1 going by other nations' experiences.

And those "other nations" are at least a generation ahead of us on this. Isn't it time to learn from them? Lots more examples and discussion at link:
http://www.rethinknyc.org/through-running/

(Apologies for the formatting mess above. The new forum software remains buggy when used on Linux operating systems)
 

Attachments

  • 1550097383247.png
    1550097383247.png
    274.3 KB · Views: 279
Last edited:
3) Dufferin should get it's own underground LRT like Eglinton, with LRT stop spacing. It can terminate at Eglinton, or continue above ground.
Underground LRT is just as expensive if not more than a subway.

If going up Dufferin, the last station would be (1) Ossington or Shaw and Queen, and then the big 90 degree curve would begin. The next station would be (2) Dundas/Dufferin. Next would be (3) Bloor/Dufferin. North of Dufferin, you could have (4) Dupont, (5) St. Clair, (6) Rogers, (7) Eglinton, (8) Lawrence, and (9) Yorkdale West. There are no real routes that lead towards the northwest.

I think the obvious routing after Yorkdale West is a short duplication through Downsview and interlining with Sheppard.

If going up Parkside/Keele, stations could be at (1) Ossington or Shaw and Queen, (2) Dufferin/Queen, (3) Landsdowne/Queen, (4) Roncessvales/Queen/King, then the more gentle curve to go up Parkside, and likely an express run to (5) Keele/Bloor (but a nice cut-and-cover portion to save costs). North of Bloor, it would be (6) Annette/Dundas/Keele, (7) Keele/Weston/St. Clair, (8) Rogers/Weston, (9) Eglinton/Black Creek, (10) Lawrence/Jane, (11) Jane/Wilson, (12) Jane/Sheppard, (13) Jane/Finch.

I much prefer this option over duplicating service along the GO corridor, which again, is going to have RER service up and running by the early 2020s.
 
Underground LRT is just as expensive if not more than a subway.
?
Subway stations are also more expensive to build, so fewer stops are built with longer distances between them. It costs more to build. ... Subways cost an average of $300 million per km. LRT is $100 million per km for surface routes and $250 million for underground routes.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) FAQs | Toronto Environmental Alliance

https://www.torontoenvironment.org/campaigns/transit/LRTfaq
 
Underground LRTs require moving all the same utilities as subways do, and the cost of building stations (by far the most expensive cost) is there for both.

The LRT tunnel is wider than the subway tunnel as well, which I imagine has their own cost implications.

The reason why LRT on Eglinton makes sense is because it can be extended at-grade on sections of the Eglinton corridor where tunnel doesn't make sense. (Though, I am increasingly of the opinion that the Scarborough section should have been tunelled but whatever.) This approach wouldn't make sense on the Dufferin corridor as there wouldn't be at-grade sections.
 
The reason why LRT on Eglinton makes sense is because it can be extended at-grade on sections of the Eglinton corridor where tunnel doesn't make sense. (Though, I am increasingly of the opinion that the Scarborough section should have been tunelled but whatever.) This approach wouldn't make sense on the Dufferin corridor as there wouldn't be at-grade sections.

Actually there might be a possibility to build Dufferin LRT with some at-grade sections. Something like this: tunneled from Queen to the former Belt Line (just north of Eglinton); in exclusive lanes from the Belt Line to Wilson (space is available there); and in mixed traffic south of Queen. However, the ratio of tunneled to at-grade will not look good.

That's why I kind of like the Dufferin corridor for RL West, if RL isn't mainline rail. If we want to extend RL West beyond Liberty Village to increase its workload, and at the same time, want to relief Dufferin, both goals can be reached by taking the RL up Dufferin. Obviously, it would need to divert north-west from Dufferin at some point, to avoid duplication with the Spadina line.

But if the Relief Line is mainline rail, then the appeal of sticking to the existing rail corridors in the west will be too great, and Dufferin will lose out. Worse for Dufferin, but arguably better for the system as a whole.
 
Worse for Dufferin, but arguably better for the system as a whole.
Which is exactly why I've promoted the idea of Dufferin being LRT, tunnelled where necessary. Made the point a number of time in this and other strings. It will be far cheaper and faster to build compared to conventional subway, and have the added huge benefit of being standard gauge LRT and thus possible to interconnect with Eglinton and other future LRTs.

There's a very good reason the "PreMetro" is used in Europe, especially Belgium and Brussels.

A Charleroi Metro tram at Parc station
A premetro is a tramway or light railway which includes segments built to rapid transit standards, generally as part of a process of conversion to a metro-standards railway usually by the construction of tunnels in the central city area.[1]
[...]
The modern premetro concept began in 1960s Germany, as rising traffic congestion due to auto ownership led to the construction of new transit systems. Rather than building costly metro lines immediately, some cities built only the downtown tunnels. They could be used by existing tram lines in the short term, with the intention of full metro conversion later - hence "pre-metro".[3] The idea spread to other European countries in the 1970s, especially Belgium, where such systems were explicitly named premetros.[3]
[...]
See also
Any kind of major project for Dufferin is way down the list for probabilities. The best to be hoped for is lateral (east-west connections) to heavy rail lines.

At this point in time, Toronto still hasn't and can't fund the SmartTrack stations...
 
I much prefer this option over duplicating service along the GO corridor, which again, is going to have RER service up and running by the early 2020s.
You're an optimist. What kind of vehicles are these going to be? I know what Metrolinx has promised for almost a decade. It's just that, words. And now "everything is up for review" - Ford.

So I'm delighted to know that RER will be running past my back door by the "early 2020s".
 
You're an optimist. What kind of vehicles are these going to be? I know what Metrolinx has promised for almost a decade. It's just that, words. And now "everything is up for review" - Ford.

So I'm delighted to know that RER will be running past my back door by the "early 2020s".
173924



http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0207_BoardMtg_CapitalProjectsQuarterly_EN.pdf

Things are progressing. I guess early-mid 2020s was optimistic, but 2025 is listed as the in-service date.
 
My swampland real cheap is ready and waiting right now. Give you a great deal, Honest...

Any idea on how this is coming along?
Metrolinx negotiations with CN Rail ongoing for Kitchener GO

Higher volume service to Kitchener will take 'a number of years,' says official
CBC News · Posted: Nov 29, 2017 2:11 PM ET | Last Updated: November 29, 2017

Things are moving along with Metrolinx plans for the Kitchener corridor, but not as fast as Waterloo region residents may want.

"I know people in Kitchener are very anxious, but the initial indications for the [freight train] bypass is that it's quite a substantial amount of work," said Gord Troughton, director of the Kitchener corridor infrastructure.

The company is negotiating with CN Rail to build a 30-kilometre freight bypass in order for passenger trains to use the existing rail owned by CN between Georgetown and Bramalea. Waterloo Regional council was updated on the decision in August.

Troughton told CBC News they are currently working on a feasibility study of the freight bypass and will finalize the agreement for early next year.


How's electrification looking? You didn't answer my question on "what type of trains" are going to run this "RER all day" service.
 
Last edited:
We're probably going to have only diesel RER in 2025.
It's sure looking that way...and to be objective, they should just admit that and start planning accordingly. Electric is the way to go, without doubt, but Plan D (Diesel) must be considered.

I was reading up last night (by chance, delving on something else) at Railway Age on SNCF (France) rural region rail and the experimental proposal for fuel cell. The French aren't being starry eyed on it. The contract includes the whole energy cycle and infrastructure. It's a huge cost. Diesel it's looking to be...for better or worse.
 
If the Relief Line is made as an RER/GO/EMU/whatever corridor, where exactly would it surface in the west? Ideally it would be made to connect back up with either the Kitchener or Barrie lines, right?

There are two three helpful ways I can see it going if this ends up being the case:
  1. West on Queen until a stop at Roncesvalles, then up Parkside and Keele, and rejoining the current Kitchener line near the Davenport Diamond.
  2. West on Queen until Strachan-Bathurst area, then either curving south to rejoin the corridor near Liberty Village, or continuing straight and resurfacing between Queen-Dufferin and Dundas-Bloor
  3. (edit) Curving north from Ossington, surfacing near Dundas-Lansdowne, continuing north as the Barrie line
 
Ideally it would be made to connect back up with either the Kitchener or Barrie lines, right?
Or both! I hadn't thought of the advantage to having it service the Barrie Corridor, but that could be the Relief needed for the Dufferin corridor. Perhaps every other one could go up the Barrie and Georgetown corridors? Meantime, every other RER on the Georgetown corridor could continue to Union and out the east side to do Unionville. The Relief Line would then, without having to change trains, serve a much greater catchment area.

It's presumed for the above that the crosstown leg of the Relief Line would join the Georgetown Corridor in the Parkdale area or south of.
 

Back
Top