[Leo_Chan]

lol...I give you the latest Metrolinx report! The prior claims on effectiveness as designed can barely make a business case. As soon as costs rise, it won't. And Metrolinx are still using suspect bases for that!

Here's the deal: There's no money. Now if the City wants to build a quaint little subway that serves only the Pape Entitlement, all fine and good. Show me the money.

Meantime, if the Province finances the entire line (also doubtful, there's no money, but for the purpose of argument, say there is) then surely! the majority of taxpayers in the 905 region financing it should benefit, let alone Torontonians already denied spots on subways due to the non-Torontonians swamping them to get downtown. It's a shitty way to get people downtown! Idiots built a subway to Vaughan, want to build one to Scarborough, some to Mississauga, some to the Moon via Pickering. That's not what subways are meant for! What's being built under Carlaw is a local needs convenience not a Relief Line.

The answer is some form of RER or Metro. Now if Toronto wants to pay for the toy train for the Pape Entitlement, go right ahead! But the Market, who will be the ones financing a line will look at the big picture, see what serves most people with the most consistent rate of return with the most efficient way to build it route-wise, and proceed accordingly.

And it won't be to cater to the Pape Entitlement. As it is, they'll have the 'highway' running through their backyards. If that's not good enough for them, let them walk.

By the same logic, btw, I say let Toronto toll the DVP and the Gardiner. Let the Market determine the costs of motorist wishing for their form of entitlement too. And it's damn expensive. Get the politics out of this, and the economics into it.

The best way to serve most neighbourhoods is with bus, streetcar, lrt to the closest rapid transit station. In the case of some like King, increase the Transitway to the Humber Loop. It will intersect a number of stations along the way.

How's SmartTrack coming along?

I agree with most of your points, but I just don't like the use of the term "Pape Entitlement". I agree that the current Relief Line South tries to solve too many problems at once and some poorly, but I can't see any major alignment or mode changes under the current situation and planning environment.

 

[steveintoronto]

I agree that the current Relief Line South tries to solve too many problems at once and some poorly, but I can't see any major alignment or mode changes under the current situation and planning environment.

It was on very shaky ground even before Ford became Almighty Glorious Leader. In this present political funk, I can't see much of anything being built, and Metrolinx staff were hedging their bets in the latest report.

If you read between the lines of most of what's coming out of Metrolinx, and Verster himself, who's really letting his guard down of late, it's no longer a case of "DBFOM" being a subtext, it's beyond that, and down to (in as many words) a very steep P3, if not outright Private.

On one hand, this is cause for a feeling of hopelessness, albeit I see a lot of folks uttering "well they promised this, surely they have to proceed?". Ford has been very clear: (gist) "Everything is up for reconsideration".

But here's the upside: We've almost all accepted that Private Enterprise has got to play a dominant role in this, that's a given. So take it a step further, and realize as ruthless and efficient as Enterprise can be, it's still far better to deal with honest crooks and thugs than it is to deal with Dougsters. Honest crooks are good for their word, and they won't build something stupid, like a subway to Sudbury.

All I can add is that it's very timely that the Infrastructure Bank has arrived. The timing might well be crucial to getting things done...and one of my favourite hopes: With federally chartered projects, where the Feds can out their 'share' along with Enterprise and not have to be fettered by dealing with QP. When a new regime of 'friendlies' arrives in four years, then they can 'buy in' to already started projects, or add to what's been started, and by being via the InfraBank, it's beyond political interference....mmmmm...make that direct political interference.

 

[nfitz]

Lengthen the trains from nine to twelve cars long.

Gosh, those will be truly massive trains. Would be pushing 70,000 riders per hour if they can get the frequencies fast enough. Odd that they are so much narrower than Toronto or New York City trains at only 2.78 m. I thought the concept of Crossrail originally was that they'd be using mainline standards.

The platforms are already built in the underground stations to that length, and the stations built to be able to handle the load. It's called 'foresight'.

Ah, I see. So similar as TTC has done on many of it's subway lines.

Something completely lost on the TTC's vision of a 'Relief Line'

Not sure where that's coming from - the Relief Line design hasn't even got to that stage yet. They might well be running shorter trains initially. The ultimate demand numbers I've seen are in the 20,000s or so, with ultimate capacity pushing 40,000. So it's not like there's any anticipation that it will be at capacity day one - particularly with only South being built!

... with the apparent cancellation of HS2.

Good grief ... I've got to check the news. Have they lost their minds? I thought they'd already started construction at Euston. Oh well, I guess there are going to be some extreme spending cuts with what's to come ... perhaps they can bring back ration books when they bring back their allegedly blue passports (I've looked at mine very closely - I'll swear they are closer to midnight black than navy blue).

 

[steveintoronto]

Gosh, those will be truly massive trains. Would be pushing 70,000 riders per hour if they can get the frequencies fast enough. Odd that they are so much narrower than Toronto or New York City trains at only 2.78 m. I thought the concept of Crossrail originally was that they'd be using mainline standards.

They are being built to UK Mainline gauge. That being said, the tunnel bore is less than the Eglinton Crosstown's, barely larger than the TYSSE. A lot depends on how you count the tunnel linings.

The total route length is 118·5 km, which will be electrified at 25 kV AC 50 Hz. While Crossrail will be built to a UK mainline loading gauge, Cross London Rail Links has confirmed it will not be suitable for double-deck stock because the increased cost of tunnelling and rebuilding existing lines would be disproportionate to the extra capacity gained.
[...]
TfL sees Crossrail's key role as relieving London Underground, particularly the small-profile Central Line, while Mayor Ken Livingstone's statements have focused on the Heathrow Airport — City of London — Docklands axis.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/london-crossrail-gets-the-go-ahead.html

And the same applies to RER in tunnel. Virtually no-one save those who've already bored larger tunnels does it DD now. The prior presumed efficiencies of doing so for short distance commuter just doesn't justify doing it. Sydney has taken a former DD tunnel and relined it for single decker Metro. Montreal has done same in the Mount Royal Tunnel (albeit the dust has yet to settle on that case as per VIA HFR access)

Not sure where that's coming from - the Relief Line design hasn't even got to that stage yet. They might well be running shorter trains initially. The ultimate demand numbers I've seen are in the 20,000s or so, with ultimate capacity pushing 40,000. So it's not like there's any anticipation that it will be at capacity day one - particularly with only South being built!

Quite the opposite, Metrolinx now think RL south will be almost under-capacity if not connected further. But built to be an actual relief line to bypass the entire subway, it could operate at levels higher than the present subways. And built as RER to do it. London and almost all cities with sophisticated transit won't build any more subways other than short extensions to what's already built. NYC and London have sworn never to build a new one again. Paris expanding hers, but the economics are for mainline trains through-running in tunnels. Nowadays it's RER or Metro in tunnel where needed, surface where possible.

Good grief ... I've got to check the news. Have they lost their minds? I thought they'd already started construction at Euston. Oh well, I guess there are going to be some extreme spending cuts with what's to come ... perhaps they can bring back ration books when they bring back their allegedly blue passports (I've looked at mine very closely - I'll swear they are closer to midnight black than navy blue).

To add clarity, the announcement hasn't been made to cancel, but everything is on ice. Costs are way out of control. They should have learned from Crossrail, which like all projects of its size, go over budget and late, but from the already opened sections, shows every indication of being a massive success.

If done from scratch again, the three overlaid signalling systems would be melded into one. That's what's cause most of the delay.

(RE: Building longer platforms for future needs)
Ah, I see. So similar as TTC has done on many of it's subway lines.

The answers below are taken from an email response from City Planning.
[...]
Vertical Alignment and Tunnelling

Through much of the alignment of the Relief Line South (RLS), the line will be tunnelled through bedrock, unlike all previous lines in Toronto which have avoided going that deep. The level of bedrock is shown on the alignment drawings.

This has advantages including the avoidance of existing utilities, better stability for construction near existing buildings, and better noise isolation. The tradeoff is that some of the stations are quite deep, and this will add to access time between the surface and platform level, and even between platform levels at interchanges. The short vertical links well known at Bloor-Yonge and St. George are not the kind of connection one will find for the RLS.

The tunnels would be built in two drives from a common launch site at the future Broadview-Eastern station location. One pair of TBMs will drive west toward Osgoode Station while the other pair drives east and north to Pape Station. The latter two machines would be plucked out of the north tail track area at Pape Station, turned around, and then would drive south and around the curves forming the wye linking with the existing Danforth Subway.

All of the stations are designed for full six-car train operation.

Relief Line South Station and Alignment Plans

Detailed study of the southern portion of the proposed Relief Subway Line from Pape & Danforth to Osgoode Station is now underway including public consultation sessions on the design. Two of th…

stevemunro.ca

 

[nfitz]

Not sure the point of all that quoted text - so much easier to just write a few words, than vomit cut-and-paste everywhere ...

There's no indication what TTC is planning to run day one. I'm surprise you were unaware that TTC didn't run most of their lines at ultimate capacity initially. Heck, lines 3 and 4 can still have extended trains and platforms beyond current without the herculean effort that would be necessary for most lines.

 

[steveintoronto]

Not sure the point of all that quoted text - so much easier to just write a few words, than vomit cut-and-paste everywhere ...

Then look it up yourself next time. Have a nice day.

 

[nfitz]

Then look it up yourself next time. Have a nice day.

The problem here is that you just state stuff that isn't necessarily true. And when someone points it out, you don't simply clarify something, or say oops. You spray so much unreadable quotes and links everywhere, that there's no indication of what you are even trying to say. I simply assume when you vomit like that everywhere, that you know you were wrong, and want to distract everyone with 'other stuff', and don't bother to read 90% of it ...

 

[north-of-anything]

I think there's some confusion going on here when it comes to what the goals of this extension are. I think there is a good solution for each scenario but not necessarily all of them.

If the Relief Line is built to RER specifications, then it's most important that we have 3+ tracks, or some other means to run both local and express services separately. Nobody (I hope) is suggesting that a train that makes stops in Simcoe County is going to also hit St. Clair, Ossington, Bathurst, and University. I personally believe that the Barrie route should be partially or fully rerouted through the Relief Line if possible. The Barrie corridor having faster service within Toronto should be able to help relieve the Dufferin corridor, since most of Dufferin south of the 401 is walking distance from either the Barrie Line or Line 1 (which is under capacity in that stretch above Bloor, isn't it?)

If the Relief Line is built with the TTC gauge, then it should serve the rest of Queen. I prefer if it goes up to Humber Loop to better connect South Etobicoke, maybe combined with improved transit along Roncesvalles Avenue. If not, the Parkside alignment would be fine, but it's a bad idea to say ecological issues can be sidestepped with "surely we have better technology now".

Another argument for using the Barrie corridor instead of the Kitchener corridor is that people near the Barrie corridor are more likely to be going down Yonge right now. Particularly, Vaughan. Those are the people who are part of the Yonge overcrowding, and their needs should be addressed.

 

[Jaye101]

Personally I think the DRL between Gerrard square and Dufferin should be Quad tracked. Two TTC gauge tracks, two GO tracks. West of Dufferin an RER tunnel can eventually connect to Lakeshore West at Roncesvalles when the demand warrants it.

Union will be overcapacity in the near future. We've been talking about this Lakeshore tunnel under Union for years. It would seem like an excellent opportunity to direct passenger traffic away from Union.

What I do not agree with is conflating RER with Toronto's Subway.

 

[north-of-anything]

Personally I think the DRL between Gerrard square and Dufferin should be Quad tracked. Two TTC gauge tracks, two GO tracks. West of Dufferin an RER tunnel can eventually connect to Lakeshore West at Roncesvalles when the demand warrants it.

Union will be overcapacity in the near future. We've been talking about this Lakeshore tunnel under Union for years. It would seem like an excellent opportunity to direct passenger traffic away from Union.

I disagree with making the tunnel half TTC gauge, if only because now is a perfect opportunity to switch to using a standard gauge for local rapid transit. Those two tracks should still be reserved for local service only, though.

I do agree that directing traffic away from Union Station is something we need to be able to do. My issue with putting Lakeshore in a tunnel west of Dufferin is that Lakeshore West and Lakeshore East might as well be continuous. If Lakeshore West goes through a tunnel, where does Lakeshore East come out? West of the Don River? East of the Don River? Either way, that is a lot of tunnelling, and might result in losing the Exhibition GO station - a notable destination for GO riders.

This is why I've suggested tunnelling the Barrie line east of Dufferin into the Relief Line, to resurface north of Lawrence and continue as the Richmond Hill GO line.

 

[Leo_Chan]

To be honest, which of is more likely at this point, triple track Relief Line TTC gauge or double track tunneled standard gauge? I would say none of the above as neither have been mentioned to my knowledge.

 

[nfitz]

Personally I think the DRL between Gerrard square and Dufferin should be Quad tracked.

Some subway lines are double-tracked in each direction to run express trains.

If we were to run express trains, it's hard to identify more than 1 or 2 stations between Dufferin and Pape that one would skip. Surely it's north of Danforth and west of Dufferin that would benefit most from double-tracking.

Gosh, that would make it very expensive. On the other hand, it would allow you to build stations closer together - such as you see in New York City compared to what we are proposing on many recent Toronto lines ... though that would also add cost.

Good job the federal government can legally just print money!

Not sure why one would use a different gauge - particularly with the plans to connect the new line to Line 2 at Pape station. There's no cost savings from changing the gauge ... and it would create a lot of inconvenience. I'm not sure why anyone would suggest such a thing!

 

[north-of-anything]

If we were to run express trains, it's hard to identify more than 1 or 2 stations between Dufferin and Pape that one would skip.

Pretty much every station besides Yonge, East Harbour, and possibly one of Bathurst/Spadina can be skipped by express service.

Not sure why one would use a different gauge - particularly with the plans to connect the new line to Line 2 at Pape station.

Not sure why an interchange station requires all tracks - tracks that don't actually intersect - be in the same gauge. At most the local service tracks can be TTC gauge to have access to Line 2's facilities, but if you don't have standard gauge tracks running through, it's a big missed opportunity to divert GO passengers (and maybe even VIA) away from Union Station. Is there any practical reason for express service to Riverdale, East York, etc. that barely have the ridership for a local service?

 

[44 North]

Kinda off topic, but one thing I'd be curious about is let's say RL trains lost half a metre in width compared with T1/TR. So 3.14m to 2.64m, but otherwise TTC gauge. Could it still use the conventional subway tracks and specifically the existing third rail. I guess the question is more how far to the outside of the existing train is the third rail power supply. Seems like the shoe is well under the the T1/TR, so with a narrower train it could still work.

I think there's untapped benefit to slimming the trains down (e.g building 3-4 track sections on a tighter budget), though do think using existing TTC nonrevenue tracks/facilities is obviously helpful. I'd be on board to see it pursued.

 

[nfitz]

Pretty much every station besides Yonge, East Harbour, and possibly one of Bathurst/Spadina can be skipped by express service.

I don't think skipping interchange stations like Gerrard and Osgoode make sense. And those that intersect major streetcar routes (Gerrard, Sumach, Bathurst and Queen).

Still, that's not where the express benefit is found. Why not do the extensions beyond where the density is?

Not sure why an interchange station requires all tracks - tracks that don't actually intersect - be in the same gauge. At most the local service tracks can be TTC gauge to have access to Line 2's facilities, but if you don't have standard gauge tracks running through, it's a big missed opportunity to divert GO passengers (and maybe even VIA) away from Union Station.

GO passengers away from Union station? I don't see what getting people to transfer at Gerrard (have you seen how many escalators will be required to transfer?) or East Harbour (or somewhere in the west) has to do with track gauge.