TheTigerMaster said:
Are 3 min frequencies even physically possible?
Click to expand...

Yes with a significant investment and more than a bit of land expropriation to continue to allow longer-distance GO service. A pair of tracks dedicated to the service with zero interference from any other GO services would be required.

For a North American example see the tunnels under Hudson River from Penn station to New Jersey. They've been handing 24 trains per track during the peak AM hour for over a decade.
 
rbt said:
Yes with a significant investment and more than a bit of land expropriation to continue to allow longer-distance GO service. A pair of tracks dedicated to the service with zero interference from any other GO services would be required.

For a North American example see the tunnels under Hudson River from Penn station to New Jersey. They've been handing 24 trains per track during the peak AM hour for over a decade.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should rephrase my question.

Anything is possible with enough money. But how much investment would be needed? There's never been a solid number put down, but I've seen estimates well beyond what a relief line would cost.
 
I doubt there is an official cost estimate available for a high frequency version of ST. If RER is running 2 way service at 15 min headways, and you want ST on say five min headways, sharing tracks is not an option. For the Stouffville line, you would be basically building a new line beside the GO line.

New tracks beyond a 2 track GO pattern means new overpasses and underpasses. And land expropriation. Plus the cost of the tracks and electrification and signals. Plus stations. Would you like parking with that?

You are getting into the same ballpark as a relief ine, definitely.

- Paul
 
That's why Smarttrack is redundant. If every GO line runs at 15 minute frequencies, they would combine to have frequencies anywhere from 3.75 to 7.5 minutes in the central part of the city. Obviously that's an oversimplification, but you get the idea. I still think that Smarttrack will get rolled into the RER system and not be a separate layer. At most it will result in a few more stations and accelerated fare integration. Which of course would be a good thing.
 
crs1026 said:
You are getting into the same ballpark as a relief ine, definitely.
Click to expand...

Mass expropriation of land (half old industrial, other half residential) makes it very challenging politically, so a number would never be put on it even if it was 1/4th the price of a DRL.


It would still be cheaper than DRL + Danforth Extension; expropriation costs would be unusually high though the actual build (and long-term maintenance!) would be much-much cheaper as Rosedale type stations would be less than half the cost of Sheppard type stations.

Absolutely no parking (aside from a couple spaces for staff) are necessary or wanted. You don't put 500k passengers on a line via parking lots. Feeder bus integration would be essential.


As for expropriation, I count about 25 residential properties between Sheppard and LakeShore, plus another 10 industrial. Should be able to pickup all of them for less than $750M. Some of that land (once the building is demolished for track-space) can be consolidated, re-zoned, and sold off to developers after construction.

Lake Shore needs expansion too but from satellite maps it appears squeezing in a 4th or 5th track isn't too bad (park land, parking lots, etc.; say $1B for expropriation) until around Coxwell at which point we might as well follow the DRL plan and dive underground.
 
Last edited:
MisterF said:
That's why Smarttrack is redundant. If every GO line runs at 15 minute frequencies, they would combine to have frequencies anywhere from 3.75 to 7.5 minutes in the central part of the city. Obviously that's an oversimplification, but you get the idea. I still think that Smarttrack will get rolled into the RER system and not be a separate layer. At most it will result in a few more stations and accelerated fare integration. Which of course would be a good thing.
Click to expand...
That is why SmartTrack needs to be converted into a Toronto-specific fare zone with more Toronto stations along the GO-RER corridors.

SmartTrack doesn't need to be an extra service. It doesn't need to have a ridiculous spur. It doesn't need its own track or rolling stock. It just needs to be a simple 416-specific fare zone that is labeled on our subway map with additional stations in the 416.

With that, we achieve everything we've set out towards, Tory keeps his election promise and saves face, we save billions of dollars and we have a modern RER transit system serving Toronto suburban areas. AND we would have the money leftover for the Relief Line.
 
crs1026 said:
Quite possibly. Your list does not include any expertise relevant to the core of transit building - ie urban planners, transportation engineers, civil engineers, railroaders, transit operators, etc. That's ST's huge flaw IMHO, great on sizzle but wouldn't know a good steak if he chewed on it. Ultimately, ST is still a napkin proposal. Every new Tory pronouncement underlines this. Hopefully the staff studies arrive soon to put some meat in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Correct, ST is flawed and very vague on the technical front. But I think that's part of the proverbial dance. Us here on UT are pretty much in unanimous agreement that ST is really the three standalone projects of Stouffville RER, Kitchener RER, and a Crosstown West extn - which is what I believe Tory, Wynne, and Trudeau knew it'd be all along. But if the Liberal trifecta had Tory divulge too many details/specifics, it would've detracted from the amateurish authenticity of his plan. And made it seem like he's working alongside the Libs / Metrolinx (something many Toronto centrist / right-leaning voters might dislike). This is why I think the ST presentation map was purposefully ugly and sloppily made (e.g with Line 2 being red, ST being a weird off-green colour, etc)...y'know, just to make it seem like a typical local-level pol's napkin plan. So while being adamant that it will be built, Tory also acted coy about the whole thing - as if it's his plan and his alone.

And agreed with your other points. I think Tory didn't want to align ST with the Prov's plans or give details about 'transit-building' and engineering because that would've brought the plan back down to earth and made it less sexy. He presented a big U-shaped line, said the word "subway", said "relief", and incl the former boroughs - all things a transit-starved public want to see. But if he talked in depth about bilevel GO trains, at-grade crossings, flyovers, and premium-priced GO service (at frequencies much lower than rt/subway) - many would've ignored it in favour of the meatier all-subway Doug plan. Personally I think we're in for another couple years of vague coyness about ST until Tory, Wynne, and Trudeau unanimously drop "SmartTrack" from their vocab and start doing photo ops for the three separate projects that really make up SmartTrack.

Back to the topic of this thread, and how this all plays out alongside plans for the DRL... I really don't like the way things are headed (although I'm still hopeful we could get something very cool in place by 2031, even if it isn't the typical DRTES route). While Toronto's planning dept and TTC are very serious that the line must be a heavy rail subway line using one of four routing options; the non-TO aloof alternative YRNS has left the door wide open to other options (or a combo of individual cheaper options). Who will be the victor in this battle royale? Toronto's proper RL plan, or the alternative relief plans (backed by a politicized and Lib-friendly Metrolinx, York Region, Fed Liberals, Prov Liberals, and Tory - a more or less Municipal Liberal)? Although the City's RL public meeting has been delayed from late 2015 until sometime early this year, I really hope we stick to our guns and keep our RL criteria and shortlisted routes.
 
I don't really understand why there is no progress on funding this line - at the least the city can start to collect the base amount needed and put it in a fund...once the fund is started it will be easier to go to the province and feds with asks for money...

We know this thing is going to cost north of 3B$...and it will have a few phases that will eventually make it north of 8B$....so from the cities perspective planning for at least 1/3 of that is prudent...

Planning should focus on:
1. What is the route - once this is figured out we can start buying properties along the line (storage and stations)
2. Design of the tunnel - once we know the basics we can buy the TBM's
3. Design of the stations - once we know the basics we can build the headwalls
4. Everything else - left to the province and feds...

This project will move much faster if there is dedicated funding and dedicated resources...getting EA's done can happen in parallel with a lot of the above.
 
On January 1, 1946, by an overwhelming majority of 79,935 to 8,639 the city of Toronto’s electorate voted to authorize the Toronto Transportation Commission (AKA Toronto Transit Commission) to construct both a Yonge St. and a Queen Street rapid transit line. Still waiting for the Queen Street rapid transit line, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. There was a referendum for a downtown rapid transit line, but it has been ignored since then.

See link.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Perhaps I should rephrase my question.

Anything is possible with enough money. But how much investment would be needed? There's never been a solid number put down, but I've seen estimates well beyond what a relief line would cost.
Click to expand...

For a GO line to have subway-like frequencies I think it needs complete grade-separation (from both road and rail) along its entire route. With GTS and USRC this is more or less done already. But the Stouffville section requires far too many road/rail grade grade-separations for it to be similar to a subway/metro - at least for the next decade/s. And frankly, I still am confounded why Stouffville GO is even been forwarded as a priority for electrified RER. AD2W is way more than sufficient, was what was originally planned, and in the 2008 Mlinx modelling (with all the Big Move in place) Stouffville's ridership is very low.

A route that I think is very much possible to see subway-like frequencies is the Richmond Hill line. And not as an upgrade to improved GO/RER, but rather a complete shift into the subway/metro category (i.e complete grade-separation, high platforms, automation, very high frequencies, etc). Considering its similarities to the DRL's route, I think this would work with the two morphed together as one line. Example: the City's Option A or D plan for the south end, Mlinx's Surface/Long for the central section, and a fully grade-separated RH corridor to RHC in the north end. This isn't so much an RER, but more like a subway that uses sections of the GO corridors - not unlike the GO-ALRT plan of yore.

If you read the original Richmond Hill BCA, the case for improvements is fantastic. And the (previously) promised improvements by 2031 destroys the Yonge North extension's ridership - which is exactly why subway + GO improvements were dishonestly omitted from the Yonge North BCA. 43 trains inbound from the current ~4, express RHC-Union in 29mins, enormous ridership growth (and diversion potential)... No wonder they excluded these numbers for the York Region section of the subway extension. And while the Prov came out with their RER grand plan, the RH line will be getting almost no improvements or attention. So, hopefully the Prov tweaks their YRNS and RER promises to include some of these proposals - which are realistic IMO.
 
44 North said:
A route that I think is very much possible to see subway-like frequencies is the Richmond Hill line. And not as an upgrade to improved GO/RER, but rather a complete shift into the subway/metro category (i.e complete grade-separation, high platforms, automation, very high frequencies, etc). Considering its similarities to the DRL's route, I think this would work with the two morphed together as one line. Example: the City's Option A or D plan for the south end, Mlinx's Surface/Long for the central section, and a fully grade-separated RH corridor to RHC in the north end. This isn't so much an RER, but more like a subway that uses sections of the GO corridors - not unlike the GO-ALRT plan of yore.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind seeing in the long run, subways from RHC being interlined with a Relief Line LONG option north of Lawrence, to boost Relief Line frequency from 3.5 minutes down to 2.35 minutes (akin to Line 1) south of Lawrence.

You would have Leslie station (moved Oriole Park) competing with a Sheppard-Don Mills station on the Relief Line, but I don't think that is a huge issue. It provides Richmond Hill travelers with an interchange with Line 4 and gives direct access to North York General Hospital to Relief Line passengers.

A repurposed Old Cummer station on Finch would save the trouble of extending the Relief Line north to Finch-Don Mills.
 
Last edited:
44 North said:
A route that I think is very much possible to see subway-like frequencies is the Richmond Hill line. And not as an upgrade to improved GO/RER, but rather a complete shift into the subway/metro category (i.e complete grade-separation, high platforms, automation, very high frequencies, etc). Considering its similarities to the DRL's route, I think this would work with the two morphed together as one line.
Click to expand...

I really like this idea. Use the Don Branch/Leaside spur routing from Queen St up to Oriole. Only the short stretch up the old CN Spur line would need to be underground, and tht's not prohibitive because it's not that long and there would be only one underground station (Lawrence) required. Possibly it could be cut and cover, reducing costs further. North of Bond Ave, it can be the "surface subway" Tory has gone on about. It can terminate at Union, with an east-of-Union station platform similar to how UPE has a west-of-Union platform.

There would be no connection to Bloor, but that's not the end of the world, especially if you build a medium-long DRL that went as far as a connector station at Thorncliffe. The money that will otherwise be spent on flood mitigation in the lower Don can go to the DRL. I wonder if the Thorncliffe-Donlands-Queen part could be TTC gauge LRT similar to Crosstown.... then you could tunnel west across downtown and have 501/504 trams use the tunnel also for that part of their route. There's a savings compared to full subway tunnelling, and you solve the problem of low speeds and auto conflicts on 501/504. I wonder if a Crosstown sized underground tram would do enough to relieve Yonge/Bloor, assuming the shift in far-north ridership off Yonge to the ST type Don line.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top