[jaybe]

Fair enough. It was touted for RER anyway, the Lansdowne Station one of a number on it for RER.
I say split the destination. Every other one down to Union (and through) and the other through the core. And every other Barrie Cor RER into the core, and alternates to Union.
Yes, by and large, I don't think there's any switches planned on/to them once outside the USRC.

View attachment 174544

Flying junction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Interesting conversation. A flyover junction could be used at Don Mills and Scarsdale to interline the northern DRL with the RH Go line. The DRL would continue North to Sheppard.

 

[nfitz]

Interesting conversation. A flyover junction could be used at Don Mills and Scarsdale to interline the northern DRL with the RH Go line. The DRL would continue North to Sheppard.

I don't think you'd ever interline the two lines. More likely you'd run parallel to them, or extend the subway the full length of the GO line (presumably with less trains north of X).

There's little benefit to even continuing GO service south of Oriole if the line extended to there, given how long and slow the travel is south of there.

But what does this have to to with West? Isn't this a North discussion?

 

[steveintoronto]

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.

This is not being done with modern systems, not least due to the incredible improvements in thrust to weight ratios (expressed as rates of acceleration and braking). It's been looked at by a lot of modern systems, and deemed not worthy in terms of return per extra cost. Bypass loops yes! At stations. REM is proposing this for sharing the Mount Royal Tunnel station(s) (one is being cancelled) with VIA HFR. There's a lot more examples on-line, I'll see if I can find and link later.

Here's how the California High Speed rail system addresses it, where both high-speed and local commuter services are to be sharing a double track mainline (this is done in a number of other places too, namely the high speed mainline from London St Pancras to the Chunnel and Japanese High-Speed and Local trains sharing a dual track)

California High-speed Train System

books.google.ca

This tech can be used no matter which gauge track or coach is used. Signalling, switches and train control have advanced to the point of not only switching the correct train to the passing loop, but also automatically controlling speeds of all trains to co-ordinate smooth choreographed operation, optimized for all traffic sharing the line. Computer simulations in the design will show if just one centre passing track shared for both directions is sufficient or if a passing loop for each direction is necessary. The design would remain two tunnel, but the station boxes, which have to be enlarged for stations anyway, are the obvious points for passing track(s) where the local trains would stop, the expresses would 'run through' on the bypass track, ostensibly between the two local stopping tracks but walled-off for safety and wind/sound suppression. In locations where the station box width is limited, the by-pass loop(s) could dive under or over the local stopping tracks.

Oddly, finding clear reference to this on-line is proving difficult, albeit the book displayed in pics is from the US Dep't of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, and a 'bible' on the subject.

Addendum: I've just found the above book published as a massive PDF file available on-line. Here's a link to one section:

Content Not Available Online - California High Speed Rail

www.hsr.ca.gov

On the centre track in station passing loop for express: This track will also serve as a 'crossover track' for trains wishing to reverse at stations which aren't normally terminal ones, or in emergencies, if a train is stalled in a station, to allow even the locals to by-pass. The more I think about this, the more this is just an improved feature of what's already done at many stations, but with 'cut and cover' it was done just outside the station.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

It's not "reinventing the wheel" it's 'Toronto doing what other world class cities have done a generation ago' (Or more, if you look at the Metropolitan in London and Paris, Berlin and many other systems). I find it ironic that you use Polish examples for LRT lines and transitways, but not European best practice when it comes to 'subway' tech.

Let me ask you: Why can't Toronto learn from the Eurpeans, Montrealers, Ozzies, Kiwis, Japanese, Hong Kong Chinese, some US cities, South Americans and whomever else may have been overlooked?

With money that doesn't exist, you want to build a toy subway train wrongly called a "Relief Line" when its designers are now admitting it barely makes a business case to be fit for purpose, but a massive demand remains unmet: Relieving the subways and building RER through the core.

Good luck attracting investors with yesterday's tech and thinking.

The problem that the past few pages has been attempting to resolve has become an asymmetrical problem. How to get a rapid transit line from point a to point b on a map in the most cost-effective manner. In that conversation, what is being omitted are: 1) Which communities are being served by this line; and 2) Which commuters are being served by this line.

The schemes utilizing the rail corridor will have greater stop-spacing between stations, less stations overall, fail to make vital connections to neighbourhoods of the west end, have significantly greater headways compared to TTC subway, with express services being touted that would outright skip neighbourhoods, and will ultimately largely serve commuters that are coming in from Mississauga, Etobicoke, and Weston-York over those who are stuck on the 501 or 504.

Besides, it is fairly self-evident that the Relief Line South is being planned as a subway, which makes all this talk of using standard gauge as moot (and more appropriate for the fantasy transit thread), unless a separate service is being suggested. (I do enjoy @north-of-anything 's hybrid proposal last page though, but if we are going to tunnel most of the way anyway, then we may as well hit Sunnyside for the interchange with Lakeshore line, and head up Roncy or Parkside to the rail corridor.)

Also FYI, Europeans and especially East Asian countries are still building subways, in addition to RER type schemes. They don't approach city-building immaturely as we do, they choose the appropriate mode that meets the desired objectives for transit on a given transit corridor, which is sometimes a metro system.

 

[steveintoronto]

Also FYI, Europeans and especially East Asian countries are still building subways, in addition to RER type schemes.

Even if this premise is accepted, where's the money?

When do people ever get it? To build infrastructure, it takes investment. And in today's climate here in the GTHA, there is no money.

What has to be presented is a scheme that maximizes efficiencies and does as many things that satisfies a large and constant demand enough that it can make a business case.. On the basis of that case, inevitably with a degree of subsidy to build and operate, investors will be only too glad to partake.

What boggles me is to see some of the hard-right posters as starry-eyed as the left wing idealists on the fallacy of believing we can all have subways at our doorsteps.

Where's the money? The TTC is already in need for $33B just to stop drowning, let alone enter a swimming contest. Where's the SmartTrack station funding?
Doug Ford has the easiest job of being Pied Piper with such willing participants dancing to his merry meanderings. And some fools actually believe him.

It's a very simple question: Where's the money?

Toronto has ‘alarming’ lack of transit funding compared to other cities, report finds
By BEN SPURRTransportation Reporter
Tues., Nov. 20, 2018

Toronto’s transit system is precariously funded, inefficiently governed and expensive to ride, but still attracts more passengers than comparable networks in other major North American cities, according to a new report.
The report, called Mixed Signals, was authored by non-profit transit advocacy group CodeRedTO and will be released at city hall Tuesday.

To compile the document the organization compared the fares, network design, budgets and governance structures of transit systems in Toronto and seven other metropolitan areas: Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Houston, Washington, D.C., Vancouver, and Montreal. [...]

Toronto has ‘alarming’ lack of transit funding compared to other cities, report finds

Advocacy group CodeRedTO also found the city’s system is inefficiently governed, with a “locked door” between the TTC, a city service, and Metrolinx, the provincial organization that runs the Go network and Presto fare-card system.

www.thestar.com

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Where's the money?

The money resides with political will.

Toronto could raise it's property tax. The Province could grant Toronto more revenue sources such as a sales tax or road tolls. Toronto could utilize TIF districts as suggested by Tory for his SmartTrack. Unlike with SmartTrack, they would actually work for the Relief Line. Toronto and Queen's Park can look at how to use the new Infrastructure Bank to attain the remaining funding for the project. The Federal government could also decide to end Canada's unfortunate distinction of being the one and only G20 nation to not have a regular transit fund at the federal level, which is ridiculous considering how much of Canada's population and economy is derived from cities which depend on their metro systems.

Or you know. We can find money by not doing outrageously stupid things like the Gas Plant Scandal or the Scarborough Subway.

Where the money comes from however, is an entirely separate concern from what is good transit planning. All of these plans suggested, be it subway or commuter rail, is going to cost several billion dollars.

What boggles me is to see some of the hard-right posters as starry-eyed as the left wing idealists on the fallacy of believing we can all have subways at out doorsteps.

Transit shouldn't be politicized. It is what has gotten us into this mess. It is fallacious argument in any case. Subways at our doorsteps are appropriate when the density/catchment area of the transit corridor is suited for subway. You decrying about the "Pape Entitlement" doesn't make it any more or less true.

 

[steveintoronto]

The money resides with political will.

And we if we all hold our hands together and sing? We can do anything!

Where's the money!

Downtown Relief Line – Steve Munro

Posts about Downtown Relief Line written by Steve

stevemunro.ca

And to intercept the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed:

The City of Toronto is investing $55.52 million and the province committed $150 million to Metrolinx to work with the city and TTC to advance planning and design of the Relief Line.

As well, the federal and provincial governments announced that they were committing to nearly $9 billion in funding for Toronto’s priority transit projects, including this project.

“Working with other levels of government, we have secured $205 million in funding for planning work on the Relief Line,” said Tory, adding that after an extensive period of public consultations, station locations and an actual alignment for the route have been approved by City Council.

“We’re moving forward with a realistic, long-term transit plan approved overwhelmingly by city council and supported by the other governments,” he said.

Provincial government approves Toronto's downtown relief line | Urbanized

According to Mayor John Tory, the relief line's environmental assessment has been approved by the Minister of Environment.

dailyhive.com

And if you click on the link in this article "committing to nearly $9 billion in funding"...it takes you to this. Note the date!
Province and feds commit $9 billion for Toronto transit projects
Yasmin AboelsaudMar 14, 2018 2:37 pm

Ford has put the kibosh on all spending until, well, until he says so. And no provincial cash? No Federal cash...

So where's the money?

Let me try one more time: The money is in private hands.

Toronto and Queen's Park can look at how to use the new Infrastructure Bank to attain the remaining funding for the project.

? And the Infrastructure Bank finances projects how?

Overview. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is the responsible Minister for the Canada Infrastructure Bank. ... The Bank will use federal support to attract private sector and institutional investment to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.Jan 21, 2019
Infrastructure Canada - Canada Infrastructure Bank

https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/CIB-BIC/index-eng.html

And I shouldn't have to point it out yet again, but I will: No business case, no investment. And that's as apolitical as you can get.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I don't understand why you are hammering on the business case for the Relief Line. This was put to bed in June 2016 when the City released the business case for the Relief Line. Thankfully I already have these images saved on my PC, so for your viewing pleasure @steveintoronto .

The second image is for the Relief Line North, not the western extension. But the important thing to note is "All Day Boardings" under Option 3, which is 304,400.

For reference, Bloor-Danforth in 2018 is 527,640.

Now, for reference, the Lakeshore West GO line is the closest regional equivalent to what a Relief Line on a rail corridor would look like. Lakeshore West's daily ridership is (roughly) 48,493 according to the 2018 Metrolinx GO Expansion business case.

The poor business case you are referring to, is much better than pretty much any of the rail corridors that we are currently putting billions of dollars into for RER.

And if the language in the first image is not clear enough, it suggests that the Relief Line is being planned with TTC gauge.

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't understand why you are hammering on the business case for the Relief Line. This was put to bed in June 2016 when the City released the business case for the Relief Line. Thankfully I already have these images saved on my PC, so for your viewing pleasure @steveintoronto .

All very nice, but reality takes precedence, and I've posted, linked and discussed this more than a few times:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20190207/20190207_BoardMtg_ReliefLineBusinessCaseDevelopment_EN.pdf

Where's the money? Perhaps you need some help on this: Metrolinx is hedging...and they're trying to deliver the news in as graceful a way as possible, both for the City's feeble attempt (in all fairness, knowing that there's no money to do it right) and that as presented, the City's plan has no hope in seeing the dark of day as presented, and QP isn't going to finance this. And Metrolinx to save their own sorry arses for getting this so wrong before, and still muffing it for the sake of political face-saving. (Can't upset the Subway Song sung by the Glorious Leader)

Again, in all fairness, this present QP regime isn't going to finance much of anything save for pork-barrel appointments.

The obvious truth is that it's going to have to be financed by Private Investment. You alluded to that yourself in a prior post. I quoted you, although you seem to believe that milk comes from the government. Damn the cows...

And Private Investment need a business case a hell of a lot stronger than "close to 1.0". Where we do agree is the necessity of the Infrastructure Bank to be involved in this. I wrote extensively on it prior, including legal context and reference, including Section 92 relevance and the various Acts, including Transportation, Railways, etc, and SCC citations of the legal status of federally chartered railways, (which includes "street railways and tramways", btw) which means if the InfraBank is involved in putting a consortium together, application can be made for federal status "For the general advantage of Canada" and QP will have little to no say over the project. Serves them right. What sensible investor would want to have anything to do with morons pretending to be grownups? And doing it horrendously...

The Province would be welcome, of course, to join the consortium. After they commit the money...

And if the foolish Ford foamed fist filled words of anger (gist) "You can't compete against Metrolinx!" he wouldn't have a shaky leg to stand on. Example of jurisdiction? Just ask VIA Rail...

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The Relief Line South on it's own is a stub line, and doesn't provide substantial benefit beyond relieving Bloor-Yonge station (which by the way, Metrolinx studied back in the day and found that rail corridor alignments for the Relief Line fail to provide substantial relief to the Yonge Subway compared to the present Relief Line South+North plan). The business case for the Relief Line should improve drastically once the Relief Line North is built. I expect we'll see those numbers sometime in late 2019?

I did dig this line up from the 2016 Business Case: "Since the Relief Line is a local transit service intended to provide alternative routes on a heavily congested TTC transit network, in addition to serving key city building objectives, local economic benefits are not truly captured in this BCR."

 

[steveintoronto]

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20190207/20190207_BoardMtg_ReliefLineBusinessCaseDevelopment_EN.pdf

 

[north-of-anything]

The schemes utilizing the rail corridor will have greater stop-spacing between stations, less stations overall, fail to make vital connections to neighbourhoods of the west end, have significantly greater headways compared to TTC subway, with express services being touted that would outright skip neighbourhoods, and will ultimately largely serve commuters that are coming in from Mississauga, Etobicoke, and Weston-York over those who are stuck on the 501 or 504.

Besides, it is fairly self-evident that the Relief Line South is being planned as a subway..

You make a good point. The problem is commuters coming in from Weston-York are using the same general area to enter the downtown. I still stand by my belief that the Relief Line tunnel should have provisions for GO service to be diverted away from Union because of this. But if the Roncesvalles area needs to be served, then it can't be served by GO and there would need to be a split, where GO trains surface to join the corridor and local trains continue westbound along Queen. I would suggest it look like this, where GO trains do not stop at unlabeled stations.

Oh, and I still say this is possible and preferred, since a project being dismissed once doesn't mean that corridor or general idea can never be considered ever again, or else nobody would be talking about Sheppard East. Nothing's impossible until shovels are in the ground.

 

[Neutrino]

Nothing's impossible until shovels are in the ground.

And sometimes not even then.

 

[nfitz]

And sometimes not even then.

Good point. The McGuinty government deferred their own Sheppard East LRT after shovels were already in the ground, the the Sheppard East LRT local office had opened. They may be some older local examples as well.

And then there's those Gardiner overpass structures they built in Scarborough ...

 

[Neutrino]

And Eglinton West.