[steveintoronto]

I'm well aware of the issues with power transmission, and the reason why railroads are generally switching to higher voltages. I'm referring however to the specific instance of dealing with voltage on the vehicle.

There are of course other things at play as well. For instance, if you are using a 600Vdc power system - such as on the TTC's streetcar and subway fleet - there is no need to use an onboard power transformer on the vehicles. This has advantages in terms of your ongoing maintenance, as that is a heavy device that you no longer have to lug around on each train, saving wait and a little bit of wear-and-tear. Yes, you have more substations that are required to feed the network - but does that additional cost get negated by the long-term savings?

(This of course has changed with the advent of AC traction, although it comes with a weight penalty as well. Is the savings in maintenance of an AC motor worth the weight penalty that comes along with the use of the additional hardware required to make it run?)

For the record, as much as Siemens may be at the forefront for a lot of industrial power design, I'm not sure that they are when it comes to switching power supplies/multi-voltage transformers in railway use. They do good work, sure - but so have a lot of other companies, such as ABB and Alstom.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Energy Management

First use of new Siemens railway transformers in the Rhine valley network of DB Regio
Erlangen, 2017-Sep-11

• First application starting 2020 in 24 DB-Regio Mireo trains
• New transformer type Tractronic® Thinity lighter and more efficient than existing models
• Rugged design allows flexible installation

Siemens will use the new transformer type Tractronic® Thinity for the first time in 24 articulated trains based on the Mireo train platform. The railway transformer is a key component since it feeds the train's power supply and thus guarantees interference-free rail traffic. Thanks to the new design, the transformer is considerably lighter and more efficient than existing models with the same rating. It also offers maximum flexibility for all installation situations with its intelligent construction. Starting 2020, the 24 Mireo trains will operate regional rail services (Regionalbahn RB) on the Offenburg – Freiburg – Basel/Neuchâtel (Switzerland) line, and on Sundays in the Kaiserstuhl from Freiburg to Endingen/Breisach. They will cut travel time for this route by 30 minutes.
[...]

https://www.siemens.com/press/en/pr...se/2017/energymanagement/pr2017090420emen.htm

But the discussion is getting away from the two points first raised: Coach length (of which you posted then erased quickly thereafter yesterday), and the use of modern power systems in lieu of ancient third rail tech.

Toronto, for some reason, is unable to embrace better ways of doing transit, albeit the LRTs are a positive exception to that. Crosstown may be having teething problems, but ostensibly lessons will be learned. Crosslinx v. Metrolinx court decision will ostensibly clarify how DBFOM proceeds in Ontario, as well it should. The Ont-Cons are now openly speaking of 'privatization'.

Whatever, building the Relief Line 'third rail' is using yesterday's methods. If it is built P3 (a highly likely prospect) then almost inevitably, it won't be third rail.

As for any problem you still have with traction xfrmrs:
Applicability of Solid-State Transformers in Today’s and Future Distribution Grids
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8007304/

I don't have a link handy right now, but they are in development for traction purposes. With Siemen's Tractronic, the weight savings were significant enough to surpass solid state scaling in cost and ease of maintenance (let alone intrinsic protection during component failure...xfrmrs are sometimes used purely for 'isolation') that any weight disadvantage to DC only control is rendered almost moot.

And Siemens are well up on switching supplies.
https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mo...and-systems/pages/components-and-systems.aspx

Note the Cdn connection from this Railway Gazette article, albeit not sanctioned by Siemens:

GERMANY: Siemens has begun final assembly of the first of its first Miro electric multiple-units.

The Mireo concept for a lighter, quieter and more energy-efficient successor to the Desiro Main Line family of commuter and regional EMUs was announced at InnoTrans 2016.

DB Regio became the launch customer when it placed a firm order for 24 three-car units in February 2017. These 160 km/h EMUs are to be used on Offenburg – Freiburg – Basel/Neuenburg and Freiburg – Endingen/Breisach services which DB is to operate for 12½ years from June 2020 under the Rheintal Netz 4 contract awarded by the Land of Baden-Württemberg.

They will be the first EMUs to use Siemens’ Tractronic Thinity traction transformers, which are designed to be more efficient and up to 25% lighter than previous transformers of the same rating.

DB Regio placed a second Mireo order in August 2017, covering 57 three-car units for use on S-Bahn Rhein-Neckar services.

In November 2017 Siemens and Canadian fuel cell technology company Ballard Power Systems announced an an agreement to develop a 200 kW fuel cell suitable for powering Mireo EMUs, with an initial deployment planned for 2021.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...mbly-of-first-siemens-mireo-emu-underway.html

 

[steveintoronto]

And it would be there, I wonder what the impact would be of these very large Elizabeth line trains loading a lot more people, onto already crowded platforms.

But who knows, perhaps they've got the frequencies sorted out, that this won't be a problem. And (unlike Union GO trains), not everyone will be getting off the Elizabeth line at one stop.

Here's the first thing that shows when Googling "Crossrail platforms"

Floor-to-ceiling platform screen doors. Crossrail has installed floor-to-ceiling platforms screen doors at each of the eight new underground stations on the Elizabeth line – that's roughly 4 kilometers of platformedge screens in total.
Crossrail station fit-out - platform screen doors - Crossrail
www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/railway-systems/platform-screen-doors

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/design/platform-level-to-escalators-consistency-and-familiarity

As for "frequencies" they're every 2.5 mins in the central tunnel core. The platforms are future-proofed to be extended, but each nine car train is touted to carry 1500 passengers as is, more in the future.

Modern designs and methods allow such things...

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Toronto's subways using third rail power is "old technology", meanwhile it's streetcar network still uses pick up poles (vs say caternary)???

Yes yes i know ive waded way into the deep end.

 

[steveintoronto]

Toronto's subways using third rail power is "old technology", meanwhile it's streetcar network still uses pick up poles (vs say caternary)???

Yes yes i know ive waded way into the deep end.

The poles are an excellent example of how Toronto, especially the TTC, is behind the times. Steve Munro has written about this many times.

Example (2007):

[...]
Meanwhile, we can also expect to see the TTC admit that their long adherence to trolley pole power collection is simply unworkable for the new fleet. We already know that the ALRVs were de-tuned to have lower acceleration than the CLRVs because they drew too much power for a trolley shoe pickup. Riders on ALRV-operated routes have suffered a few decades of sluggish operation thanks to that situation.

Any new cars must be capable of operation on new suburban lines and possibly even as a standard for the GTA. The performance required for these operations cannot be achieved without pantographs.

After years of rebuilding Toronto’s overhead in trolley pole configuration, the TTC will have to revisit its entire network and resume a process that, in part, started with the overhead on Spadina 10 years ago.[...]

https://stevemunro.ca/2007/11/09/the-evolution-of-a-streetcar-specification/

Although the catenary must be compatible, pantographs offer huge advantages.
http://lrt.daxack.ca/Overhead/

 

[Jago88]

The poles are an excellent example of how Toronto, especially the TTC, is behind the times. Steve Munro has written about this many times.

Example (2007):

https://stevemunro.ca/2007/11/09/the-evolution-of-a-streetcar-specification/

Although the catenary must be compatible, pantographs offer huge advantages.
http://lrt.daxack.ca/Overhead/

They are rolling out the catenary, I have seen quite a few of them on the Spadina route, maybe Queens Quay too

 

[ssiguy2]

So I have yet to hear a valid reason why the DRL shouldn`t be catenary like your nearest neighbor Cleveland.

The majority run on standard gauge used by any RER system Toronto eventually develops. They can have the same platform heights, offer a viable relief from Union, allows some RER lines to use the DRL tunnel, catenary is more reliable over 3rd rail in areas of heavy snow, are safer if someone accidentally falls onto the tracks, cost the same as 3rd rail and are completely off-the-shelf technology, offer far easier and cheaper northern expansions past Eglinton by being able to use existing standard gauge routes, trains can be articulated, could save money by the TTC and GO sharing the same storage and maintenance facilities, and of course have the same capacity, frequency, and comfort as 3rd rail. What am I missing?

So what exactly does a 3rd rail system have over a catenary? Why is catenary not being discussed and equally important have any of you contacted ML, TTC, or City Hall for feedback? Also I have never seen an article from Steve Munro about catenary subway for the DRL and RER/subway potentially using the same DRL tunnel.

 

[micheal_can]

So I have yet to hear a valid reason why the DRL shouldn`t be catenary like your nearest neighbor Cleveland.

The majority run on standard gauge used by any RER system Toronto eventually develops. They can have the same platform heights, offer a viable relief from Union, allows some RER lines to use the DRL tunnel, catenary is more reliable over 3rd rail in areas of heavy snow, are safer if someone accidentally falls onto the tracks, cost the same as 3rd rail and are completely off-the-shelf technology, offer far easier and cheaper northern expansions past Eglinton by being able to use existing standard gauge routes, trains can be articulated, could save money by the TTC and GO sharing the same storage and maintenance facilities, and of course have the same capacity, frequency, and comfort as 3rd rail. What am I missing?

So what exactly does a 3rd rail system have over a catenary? Why is catenary not being discussed and equally important have any of you contacted ML, TTC, or City Hall for feedback? Also I have never seen an article from Steve Munro about catenary subway for the DRL and RER/subway potentially using the same DRL tunnel.

Height requirements. This line will be underground. Due to that, the tunnels need to be sized to fit the cars and all the mechanicals for the line. Requiring more height for the catenary would mean a larger tunnel diameter and that means more cost.

 

[steveintoronto]

Height requirements. This line will be underground. Due to that, the tunnels need to be sized to fit the cars and all the mechanicals for the line. Requiring more height for the catenary would mean a larger tunnel diameter and that means more cost.

Crossrail tunnel is 6.1m when lined (6.2m bore), less than Crosstown's 6.5m. The case for making a tunnel LRT and metro compatible is bold. And Crossrail trains and competitors meet these specs:

Key technical aspects of the trains :
• Maximum Length – 205 metres
• Top Speed – 145 kph (90mph)
• Acceleration – up to 1 m/s2 (comparable to metro trains)
• Power Supply – 25 KV AC from the overhead line, with potential to convert to 3rd rail capability
• Signalling Systems:
• Automatic Train Operation in the central tunnel section
• ETCS signal protection provision for surface running
• Compatibility with ‘legacy’ train-protection systems until ETCS is fully installed on
the national network
• Full Air Conditioning for passengers and drivers
• Evolutionary, not revolutionary technology for utmost reliability from day one
• Strict requirements for weight and suspension design to minimise wear-and-tear on the track
• Each train will have a 350 tonne upper weight limit (unladen)
• Energy-saving features including regenerative braking, real-time on-board energy metering and
‘intelligent control’ of heating and cooling systems
• Energy efficiency of 24 KWh per train kilometre (equivalent of 55g CO 2 per passenger kilometre)
• Compliance with the latest international safety standards for trains running in tunnels
• Continuous updating of passenger journey information
• Integration with Platform Screen Doors at the central section stations

"Crossrail Rolling Stock (Rolling Stock Technical Fact Sheet)". Crossrail. February 2012.

This isn't rocket science. This family of trains (Aventra) has been available for a number of years and already proven. Built by Bombardier.

Meantime, as per Third Rail: From Rail Engineer

Has third rail had its day?

• 10th April 2013
• Peter Stanton BSc CEng FIMechE FIET FPWI

This fascinating question was posed and debated at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ headquarters during a recent seminar organised by the Railway Engineers’ Forum (REF). The REF, a grouping of the railway interests of the engineering and associated professional bodies, aims to hold a joint technical seminar once a year. With the emphasis on growing electrification and the possible spread of 25kV into traditional third rail electrified areas, this was felt to be a subject ripe for debate. One can argue that putting wires up is easy while managing the changeover is not. In principle, many trains are dual system or can easily be made so and economics will drive the change which will commence with the recently-announced freight spine.
[...]
AC or DC?

A study of history reveals two great protagonists – Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison: Tesla for AC and Edison for DC. In the United Kingdom, the Edison corner won the day as the country has a large proportion of the world’s DC electrified railway.

However, the situation in regard to energy costs has changed hugely since those early days, as have attitudes towards safety. Would anybody really countenance laying down metal bars, electrified at 750 volt DC, all over the transport infrastructure nowadays?

Development costs of DC systems are also high. Peter Dearman pointed out that the fairly recent spend on power supply reinforcement in the South only enabled the railway to stand still in traction capability terms.

There is massive technological development in AC systems already, and this advance is transferrable to renewal in DC areas as well as new development in non-electrified regions. A particular example is in the application of IEC 61850 dealing with rationalised feeding architecture.

The seminar was intended to fully debate the subject and was not confined to purely engineering and technical presenters. Peter Dearman was therefore followed by Michael Woods who is head of operations and management research at the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB).

RSSB had enabled a research project, T950, investigating the economics of the third rail DC system compared to other electrification systems. This research, carried out on behalf of the Future Electrification Group (a sub-group of V/TE SIC – the Vehicle/Train Energy System Interface Committee), has considered the long-term options for modification to or replacement of the 750V DC third rail electrified system.

Michael has had considerable experience in managing a third rail DC railway and also has a useful eye for history. He came up with a very relevant quote from Silvanus P Thompson FRS, president of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in 1904, who said ‘live rails … will soon be a thing of the past’.

Following that historical interlude, Michael then moved on to set the agenda for the rest of the day by presenting a list of the potential benefits of changing to a 25kV OLE system which could include:
» Reduction in the capital cost of renewal;
» Reduction in energy consumption and carbon footprint on a ‘like for like’ basis;
» Reduced sensitivity to ice and snow;
» Reduced track maintenance and renewal costs; » Increased system performance enabling reduced journey time, reduced fleet size and increased route capacity;
» Increased line speed above 100mph in some specific cases;
» Reduction in risk of electrocution of lineside workers and trespassers;
» Reduced distribution charges and costs of electrical control;
» Energy and operational cost savings from the electric operation of freight and cross-country passenger services.
[...]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2013/04/10/has-third-rail-had-its-day/

Author of the above:

Peter Stanton BSc CEng FIMechE FIET FPWI
SPECIALIST AREAS
Electrification, traction power supplies and distribution networks

Peter Stanton undertook, between 1968 and 1972, a ‘thin sandwich’ degree course at City University, London, sponsored by British Railways Midlands Region and with practical training at Crewe and Willesden.

In 1980, following a spell as Area Maintenance Engineer at King’s Cross, Peter took on the interesting and challenging role of being the Personal Assistant to the British Railways Board Member for Engineering. As such, he was project manager for several major inter-regional inter-functional schemes.

Under Railtrack, Peter became Engineering Manager for Infrastructure Contracts, based in Birmingham, and then Electrification and Plant specialist for the West Coast Route Modernisation under Network Rail.

Since 2007, as an independent consultant, he has worked on the national electrification programme, Dubai Metro Red Line, Network Rail Crossrail, and Great Western Electrification. He sits on the Railway Technical Advisory panel of the IET and the Conference and Seminars Committee of the Railway Division of the IMechE.

 

[ssiguy2]

Height requirements. This line will be underground. Due to that, the tunnels need to be sized to fit the cars and all the mechanicals for the line. Requiring more height for the catenary would mean a larger tunnel diameter and that means more cost.

What`s the difference between that and the Eglinton Line? Also any POTENTIAL minor extra costs is an obscene bargain over the long-term alternative of having to a RER tunnel downtown to relieve the eventual overcapacity of Union. Frankly with all the benefits of a catenary DRL, it shouldn`t even be a valid discussion...…….catenary`s benefits for a DRL are huge over a 3rd rail.

I am also a realist. This is Toronto and one thing the city has proven time is logic is not a necessity in Toronto transit planning. It would require the city to put the travelling public first as opposed to their transit fiefdoms having to actually work together. It would require Toronto to get out of it`s stale mentality that because we used something before we now have to use it in perpetuity .
Of course it would also require you guys to write ML, The Star, City Hall, the TTC, and Steve Munro about the idea to get the ball rolling.

 

[steveintoronto]

This is Toronto and one thing the city has proven time is logic is not a necessity in Toronto transit planning. It would require the city to put the travelling public first as opposed to their transit fiefdoms having to actually work together. It would require Toronto to get out of it`s stale mentality that because we used something before we now have to use it in perpetuity

Agreed with all save "The Star and Munro" both of who have written passionately on the need for more dynamic thinking on the part of Toronto.

This opinion piece today from YorkRegion.com makes your point on Toronto's fettered thinking: (I was taken aback at how objective this piece was accepting its source, and how it spells out the SSE and Toronto's egocentric reference. Remember, Toronto has yet to provide her share of funding for the few SmartTrack stations, let alone subways):

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018

Uploading TTC subway system may offer route to better regional transit
OPINION 07:00 AM Vaughan Citizen


The provincial government appears to be laying tracks toward uploading at least part of Toronto’s transit service.

Premier Doug Ford sounds eager to see the province assume responsibility for maintaining and building Toronto’s subway system in order to get new subway lines built and to better forge a seamless regional transportation network. Under the proposal, the TTC itself would remain in charge of operating the lines and collecting fares.

And while more information about what that might look like won’t be forthcoming until after consultations with Toronto and other GTA municipalities, the idea certainly has some merit.

Uploading some or all of the TTC has been considered by numerous provincial governments over the years, but never pursued. However, given the state of transit planning in Toronto and the growth occurring in the city and the municipalities surrounding it, the timing may be right.

While expansions such as the Spadina subway extension to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and the Eglinton crosstown are certainly positive steps forward for transit in the city and the GTA, they are but two projects of many — the Yonge North extension to Hwy. 7 in Richmond Hill and the downtown relief line among them — that are still desperately needed.

Over the past decade or so, a number of transit visions — Transit City and former mayor Rob Ford’s (Premier Ford’s late brother) subway crusade among them — have come and gone with current Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack being the latest and its future looks murky at best. The proposed $3.35-billion one-stop Scarborough subway appears to be little more than a politically motivated fiasco waiting to happen.

Premier Ford has said he’s fine with the notion of a Scarborough subway, although he favours the original three-stop vision that makes it a somewhat viable — although considerably more expensive — replacement for the aging six-station Scarborough RT, and wants the downtown relief line and Yonge north extension built also and as quickly as possible.

There’s a sense of urgency on the premier’s part, and that’s good because while York and Peel, for example, have made considerable progress on their own rapid transit projects since the Liberal government’s MoveOntario 2020 was announced in 2007, Toronto seems either incapable or unwilling to think about transit in a regional sense. It remains focused on its own local interests to the point where even something as basic as fare integration becomes a seemingly insurmountable hurdle.

Ultimately, when it comes to uploading the TTC’s subway, the devil will most certainly be in the details. However, if done properly to remove parochial politics from the equation, the move has the potential help to make inter-regional transit service truly “the better way.”

https://www.yorkregion.com/opinion-...m-may-offer-route-to-better-regional-transit/

I disagree on using the subway for regional purposes, it's already loaded to breaking point, and to travel that distance by subway is slow, inefficient, and expensive to build and operate. It's yesterday's technology expected to do tomorrow's demands.

But the regions are right in expecting to be connected. The way to do it is with RER and/or metros, the latter of which could actually be the latest versions of LRTs such that they can run on street like the busways York has already established, and continue all the way down to Toronto's core in tunnel where density requires it, looped through downtown's core, and west out the other side. It should be built to be be fully RER single deck EMU and LRT compatible (Either or both types of vehicles can be dual voltage hybrids, as used in the UK, France, Germany and pending in Australia and other nations) and share the same RoW. This would allow the proposed 'vanilla 4 car subway' capacity to be provided initially by LRT vehicles only until the tunnel is fully connected out the west end to the Georgetown Corridor, and then host through-running RER trains. Or both, signalling and control permitting.

But alas, it's going to take the uploading of the subway system to get Toronto to think outside the old-fashioned box. And I don't trust Ford to get this right.

But on the other hand, if Ford doesn't make this 'regional' the wrath of the 905 will be upon him.

If the City can come up with the financing...then they can build it however they like. But alas...

What`s the difference between that and the Eglinton Line?

This is an excellent point, and for all the wrong reasons, I agree with Doug and Bob on this: It should have been in tunnel the entire length. Why? So it can be future proofed as RER in tunnel/metro. The tunnel and station requirements would be the same, *possibly* gradients might be an issue, but modern metros and RERs have the same traction factors and power to weight ratios as trams, and the catenary voltage can either be a dual 'piggyback' supply (I won't go into the technical details of this, it's sometimes termed 'phantom power' in electronics, basically it's DC superimposed onto AC)(it's touched upon here: http://www.semi-group.com/business-lines/transport/railway-electrification.html?lang=en ) or the vehicles run hybrid voltage, and as later demand increases on Eglinton (which is sure to happen) it can be through-running at each end onto existing GO RER tracks.

Too late now....but the systems are very compatible. It's done in Paris, Karlsruhe, and about 15 other cities.

 

[micheal_can]

RER, as in using GO service in tunnels?
RER as in bilevel coaches?
RER, as in connected to the freight lines?

Relief line should be a subway. Not LRT and not RER.

 

[44 North]

Agreed with all save "The Star and Munro" both of who have written passionately on the need for more dynamic thinking on the part of Toronto.

Yeah but you guys are talking about diff things so I wouldn't hinge your arguments on what ssiguy is saying. You argue that RER should be hugely different than proposed, Crossrail-esque, and we should plan more dynamically than proposed (e.g in lieu of but following Queen Subway/RL alignment). Don't agree but fair and not unlike what others have said on here for years.

Ssiguy's posts are flawed to the point I question whether he's been to Toronto. Right now he's saying unequivocally that RER is high-platform single-level when - other than a single recent off the cuff remark by Mlinx's new leader - all evidence, docs, and PR points to low-platform bilevel. He also claims that all GO track and future RER network is fully grade-separate. They're not. Then we see claims that we can run off-the-shelf subways like the Movia on tracks that see freight, commuter/intercity trains, and cross roads at-grade - no Qs asked...all it needs is a pantograph! This falsehood is then backed up with a misrepresentation of Cleveland, a city that supposedly runs subways trains on mainline tracks (even tho it doesn't since it runs on tracks bought by the city and separated from the mainline). He used to incessantly do the same thing about 4th rail LIM: 'Toronto so dumb, just buy off-the-shelf linear induction...like Vancouver'.

Tram-trains, Karlshune, Crossrail-like systems all fair enough arguments to go about things in diff ways, though can get annoying when not in the right thread. However glibly claiming that Toronto's dumb because we can put a subway on GO tracks and GO trains (that don't exist yet) into subway tunnels - as if it's a simple panto v 3rd rail debate - is pretty useless.

 

[steveintoronto]

Relief line should be a subway. Not LRT and not RER.

Fine, then pay for it. The City could barely afford the EA, and still hasn't produced the funding for the few SmartTrack stations left from the magnificent muddle of Toryspeak.

Ford has a vocal loop for "subways, subways, subways"...but he has no money. Just read every other line he speaks to realize that.

So who is going to build it? Goddo? It's going to have to be P3 with a massive emphasis on "Private". Every other third line Ford utters (under his breath most of the time) is "privatization". It rhymes with 'subways'....

So what private enterprise is going to build with yesterday's methods, costs and conundrums?

Over to you...

 

[steveintoronto]

all evidence, docs, and PR points to low-platform bilevel.

Where? Show me reference newer than three years ago showing or stating that...Verster has gone out of his way to state that (gist) "nothing is decided".

UT had an interview and article w/ Verster by...here you go:
Union Station and GO RER: Metrolinx's Phil Verster on the Future
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future

It's been months since I've read or discussed that w/ the author, Johnathan English, who has a blog on-line as well as research articles. What Verster revealed in that article has been repeated a number of times, but the importance of it seems to have eluded an awful lot of posters of late.

I'll quote and itemize later...

Quick grab:

In effect, GO RER would mimic overseas regional rail systems, with trains running from one side of the region to the other through downtown along dedicated track paths, which Verster says would “greatly add to our capacity through the corridor.” This problem, and possible solutions, was discussed in greater detail in an earlier article.

 

[Kitsune]

Field testing will be / is underway now at Several Locations: http://www.ttc.ca/Service_Advisories/Construction/ReliefLine_testing.jsp

Construction Areas:

• Queen Street and Sherbourne Street
• Bayview Avenue and Lauren Harris Square
• Sunlight Park Road
• Frizzell Avenue west of Pape Avenue - starting as early as August 16 until late September
• Bain Avenue west of Pape Avenue - starting as early as August 20 until late September
• Lewis Street north of Eastern Avenue - starting as early as August 23
• Pape Avenue north of Danforth Avenue near Pape Station - two locations starting as early as September 10 until November
• Dingwall Avenue east of Pape Avenue - starting as early as September 12 until mid October

And note... even if you are legally parked in these areas they will tow your vehicle.