If we think there will be complaining at the north end of this plan, wait until folks in South Riverdale see some sketches. Not only will they have to put up with a doubling of GO trains whizzing by about 30 meters from their bedrooms over the next few years, they'll also get 3 years of heavy construction followed by about 60 trains an hour 20 meters from their bedrooms. Have a look at where the "Leslieville" station is; a number of houses along that stretch are only 20 meters from the existing track, and a station about 18 meters wide would completely cover DeGrassi in some places, and nearly touch houses. There are also complicated issues around the Pape/Gerrard portal area.

Are they going to expropriate a dozen or two houses? Or elevate it all high above the level of the railway tracks? Whatever they do, the issues around this stretch of the route are going to take years to resolve (nullifying the reasons for changing the plan) unless they impose something by fiat, which if done would likely cause the whole scheme to collapse at the next election.

Either way, the Frod Family magic transit crayons strike again. New colouring book, same mess.
 
If we think there will be complaining at the north end of this plan, wait until folks in South Riverdale see some sketches. Not only will they have to put up with a doubling of GO trains whizzing by about 30 meters from their bedrooms over the next few years, they'll also get 3 years of heavy construction followed by about 60 trains an hour 20 meters from their bedrooms. Have a look at where the "Leslieville" station is; a number of houses along that stretch are only 20 meters from the existing track, and a station about 18 meters wide would completely cover DeGrassi in some places, and nearly touch houses. There are also complicated issues around the Pape/Gerrard portal area.

Are they going to expropriate a dozen or two houses? Or elevate it all high above the level of the railway tracks? Whatever they do, the issues around this stretch of the route are going to take years to resolve (nullifying the reasons for changing the plan) unless they impose something by fiat, which if done would likely cause the whole scheme to collapse at the next election.

Either way, the Frod Family magic transit crayons strike again. New colouring book, same mess.

Good point on DeGrassi, something that seems to be overlooked. Carlaw extends subway access about 500m east and is far better suited as a subway stop location.

This new proposal has so many issues - it's less efficient, lower capacity and elevated in areas it really shouldn't be. The province should utilize the current plan that uses standard subway vehicles and work with the city on DRL North and DRL West.

What we're seeing here is a bit of a disaster.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue for the new plans. There are major issues, especially lack of community inputs.

1. Tight turns doesn't limit capacity. Theoretically, if every train moves at the same speed and dwells for certain amount of seconds, every train will complete the trip in the same amount of time. Thus capacity never changes regardless if the line includes a 5 minute detour or snails along at 5km/h. The 30k simply means how many people can pass through a certain point on the line as it's calculated by the (passengers) x (number of trains per hour per direction). Line capacity (ppdph) has nothing to do with the number of people carried between points A and B over a period of time. Thus the line capacity hasn't changed (on schedule) when TTC keeps adding more trip time to subways, streetcars and buses. It doesn't matter if they are all bunched up, as long as they serve every stop, don't short turn and no trips are missed, the line capacity is the same. It's definitely not a good way to measure reliability!

In the arithmetical sense, indeed a tight turn or a slow section does not limit capacity. The concern is that tight turns impose other limitations: width of trains, selection of the train maker, length of reasonably straight sections suitable for the station platforms. Once those limitations are in place, there is less chance that the line will be built to the highest possible capacity specs.

2. Right now as things stand. There is no proof ML will deliver the entire line using TBMs. Heck he could close roads (especially outside the core) and trench the line for a significantly cheaper cost than a deep tunnel under the Don River. Especially the curve east of Sherbourne doesn't run under a major road (it's west of Parliament on the map)

Good point.

5. I think the roadway is wide enough for an elevated structure. Although I would be sad if they have to rip out the green medium to put this line in. Overlea Blvd is definitely one of the better looking roads in TO.

The roadway is wide and a nice elevated line would fit. The problem is our inclination to build a dull grey concrete slab, where other world cities would build something aesthetically pleasant (and equally functional).
 
Notice that the conversation here isn’t “is this the best plan”, but rather “will this even work”.



I really can’t think of any way this is better than the DRL South and North. It’s not cheaper. It serves fewer people. It doesn’t serve Scarborough. It doesn’t provide more relief. It won’t be built faster. It doesn’t have more capacity. It can’t facilitate future growth and extensions.



This reeks of a plan that is different for the sake of being different. Absent political considerations, this is not the plan metrolinx would be putting forward. Remember, Metrolinx proposed DRL South + North, not the TTC. We know what their favoured plan is. They’ve already written a glowing analysis of the DRL South + North. The provincial government was on board, Metrolinx was on board, TTC and City Planning were on board, the mayor and virtually everyone on Council were on board. Opposition to the plan, both among politicians and voters, was absent (that’s a pretty good indication that’s it’s a robust plan). The Relief Line was finally set to begin construction within the next 12 months. We were so close to finally getting this done.

This new plan from Ford is just political, obstructionist bull crap. There’s no justification for changing the plan especially when the new plan seemingly isn’t better than the original in any aspect
 
Last edited:
Notice that the conversation here isn’t “is this the best plan”, but rather “will this even work”.



I really can’t think of any way this is better than the DRL South and North. It’s not cheaper. It serves fewer people. It doesn’t serve Scarborough. It doesn’t provide more relief. It won’t be built faster. It doesn’t have more capacity. It can’t facilitate future growth and extensions.



This reeks of a plan that is different for the sake of being different. Absent political considerations, this is not the plan metrolinx would be putting forward. Remember, Metrolinx proposed DRL South + North, not the TTC. We know what their favoured plan is. They’ve already written a glowing analysis of the DRL South + North. The provincial government was on board, Metrolinx was on board, TTC and City Planning were on board, the mayor and virtually everyone on Council were on board. Opposition to the plan, both among politicians and voters, was absent (that’s a pretty good indication that’s it’s a robust plan). The Relief Line was finally set to begin construction within the next 12 months. We were so close to finally getting this done.

This new plan from Ford is just political, obstructionist bull crap. There’s no justification for changing the plan especially when the new plan seemingly isn’t better than the original in any aspect

If all Ford had done was announce that he’s providing the $4 or $5 Billion necessary to extend the line to Sheppard, everybody would be happy. There is no rational reason to oppose such a plan; especially not when it would cost more or less the same as the Ontario Line. But Ford being Ford, he just can’t help but break everything like a bull in a china shop.
 
In the arithmetical sense, indeed a tight turn or a slow section does not limit capacity. The concern is that tight turns impose other limitations: width of trains, selection of the train maker, length of reasonably straight sections suitable for the station platforms. Once those limitations are in place, there is less chance that the line will be built to the highest possible capacity specs.
I wouldn't say TTC trains is the best option. TTC's T1's and TR's aren't exactly the best technology out there. Although they are up to modern standards in terms of size and length, they have lower acceleration than most new systems. If they use a newer technology that accelerates faster with a higher top speed (i.e. 100 km/h instead of 80 km/h), the delay caused by slow turns can be offset by faster traveling times elsewhere. The stations are space further part north of Gerrard therefore will benefit with a faster train. I'm being optimistic.

This reeks of a plan that is different for the sake of being different. Absent political considerations, this is not the plan metrolinx would be putting forward. Remember, Metrolinx proposed DRL South + North, not the TTC. We know what their favoured plan is. They’ve already written a glowing analysis of the DRL South + North. The provincial government was on board, Metrolinx was on board, TTC and City Planning were on board, the mayor and virtually everyone on Council were on board. Opposition to the plan, both among politicians and voters, was absent (that’s a pretty good indication that’s it’s a robust plan). The Relief Line was finally set to begin construction within the next 12 months. We were so close to finally getting this done.
I don't know if ML actually liked the Relief Line. There wasn't a driving force for ML to oppose the TTC plan of using their subways especially when Wynne agreed with it. I'm sure ML has a mind of their own but they are stuck listening to whoever is running Queen's Park. Mcguinty wanted a control over the LRT lines and made ML take over. TTC stopped LRT planning work and handed over the project to ML. Ford wanted control over the subway expansion and has made ML take over. TTC stopped subway planning work, handed over the work but Ford told ML to create something cheaper. I am certain Ford has no clue about subways, cost nor technology. The entire Ontario Line was created by ML because they were allowed to do so. ML would know that they would be able to control the subway once Ford takes over so its shouldn't be the issue that ML has to integrate the line with another system.

Now we all get to witness how ML plans differently and the little feedback from the community on alignment and station location. It seems like they picked their stations already. When we finally went forward and letting the city plan instead of the TTC, we go backwards to this.

I agree that the Relief Line is close to ready to go and now Ford has helped push the start date by at least year. They better have some good plans if they want to finish this by 2027.
 
What’s with the secrecy on this project?

Now TBH, REM was also developed under a similar level of secrecy, although it was by the Caisse (and rubber-stamped by the government once it was nearly ready to go).

That being said, this is a publicly-funded government- so it should at least try to be accountable to its citizens.


Also- an interesting little note from 2012- what's old is new again?
admin.php

 
Last edited:
I don't know if ML actually liked the Relief Line. There wasn't a driving force for ML to oppose the TTC plan of using their subways

Again, it was Metrolinx that proposed the plan that City Planning adopted, on more or less the same alignment. Metrolinx went through several dozen options, and determined the DRL South + North was the best configuration. The City then came on board, with Metrolinx offering to design the Northern portion, as the City handles the South. Why would Metrolinx oppose the line they conceptualized? Unless you want to suggest Metrolinx’s Yonge Relief Network Study was politically motivated (something I see no evidence for). Is that what you’re suggesting?
 
Last edited:
Again, it was Metrolinx that proposed the plan that City Planning later came on board with. Metrolinx went through several dozen options, and determined the DRL South + North was the best configuration. The City then came on board, with Metrolinx offering to design the Northern portion, as the City handles the South. Why would Metrolinx oppose the line they conceptualized? Unless you want to suggest Metrolinx’s Yonge Relief Network Study was politically motivated (something I see no evidence for). Is that what you’re suggesting?

Also keep in mind that the findings of the YRNS was pretty damn robust. I haven’t seen any opposition to the premise that the DRL North needed to be build asap, and certainly before DRL West. We’ve seen a lot of opposition to the SRT plans, Sheppard East and Finch West plans, the Crosstown, etc... The DRL North is the first proposal in a long time that had no opposition to it, which is a pretty good indication that it was apolitical in nature, and a robust plan.

Now it seems Metrolinx wants to move forward with DRL West first. What fundamentally changed between 2015 and now to make DRL West the priority over North? Was there any planning rationale for this, or was the political environment the only thing that changed?
 
Last edited:
Doug Ford has changed his mind on above-ground transit — but it’s unclear he’s even noticed

From link.

When my colleague Ben Spurr revealed some details from the confidential transit plans for Premier Doug Ford’s new Ontario Line on Tuesday, it was interesting to note that a significant portion of it runs outdoors, above ground. And that because of that it may need to use smaller light rail trains rather than conventional subway cars.

This isn’t the biggest concern about the idea, by any stretch, or the most significant thing to debate. But it is a detail worth taking a moment to look at.

Because anyone who has been anywhere near Toronto transit discussions for the past decade will remember a time not long ago when Doug Ford and his brother more or less declared above-ground light rail Public Enemy No. 1. Most locals won’t need me to rehash the Scarborough RT replacement debate, but in a nutshell: a shovel-ready light rail project that was fully funded by the province that would have run in an existing dedicated corridor above ground was torpedoed at the insistence of the Ford brothers. Instead they were in favour of tunnelling an underground subway line. Even though the subway line would have fewer stops, and take longer to build and cost billions of dollars more.

This seemed unnecessary to many of us. But the Ford brothers and their allies insisted above-ground transit — even above ground transit that doesn’t share a road with cars — was second-class goods that was beneath what the city’s residents deserved, and that only tunnels were acceptable.

Maybe we tend too much to attribute the decisions and controversies of Rob Ford’s mayoralty to his brother who is now the premier. But Doug Ford pointed at this particular decision repeatedly — characterized as delivering a subway for Scarborough — as a qualification of his for the premiership. And on the very first day of his campaign, emphasized the importance of the above-versus-below ground distinction, scoffing at his opponents vision of a “two-tiered transit system that all the people in Scarborough have to stand out in the freezing cold in the winter and everyone else in the city gets rapid underground transit,” he said.

He appears to have changed his mind somewhat. Since he’s now in the position of replacing a fully underground subway line the city was ready to get to work on with an idea for a longer, partly-above-ground line that may use light rail.
I emphasize that on its merits, in isolation, this is a distinction that doesn’t trouble me at all. I think (and the city’s existing transit network shows — as do those of many other cities) that trains running above ground can be just great, and that light rail is often the best choice in a particular corridor. I thought that in Scarborough, and I’m willing to consider it here, in principle.

The larger problem with Ford’s new idea is that it is, at this stage, just that: an idea, rather than a plan. It may be a good idea to extend the line further north (indeed, I think it likely is), and building bridges over the river rather than tunnelling under it may make a lot of sense. I have no strong opinion on the type of train used — though a lot of other operational concerns (storage and maintenance yard space, interchangeability of cars with other lines, capacity at a given frequency of service) certainly hinge on it.

Those elements require study and design and budgeting and rebudgeting. Meanwhile, the plan that has been developed and approved by the city over years and years was pretty close to being ready to go. The fear with Ford’s revision of the plan is not about its elevation. It’s about whether it will be able to be built in a reasonable time frame, or without overspending precious budget dollars.

Or whether, after scrapping the old plan, the new one will actually be built at all. That is always the legitimate and consuming concern in any transit discussion in Toronto.

So the reason this change of positions — from being the enemy of above-ground light rail to the proponent of it — is noteworthy is not anything troubling about the substance. That may actually be encouraging, if there was any reason to suspect it would be consistently applied.

Instead, it may tell us something about the premier’s rhetorical positioning on issues. Here he seemed to be against something steadfastly, immovably, as a core part of his brand. He was not just an opponent of it, he sneered at it and dismissed it as insulting. Until suddenly his own behaviour in government shows him proposing exactly that thing. People are allowed to change their minds — often they should. But the premier hasn’t noted any change of heart, and until now at least, it seems possible he hasn’t even noticed that this reflects one.


But if he isn’t paying attention to such things, maybe it’s all the more essential that the rest of us should.

Doug Ford's brain must hurt when he uses it. May need a new one.

 
In the arithmetical sense, indeed a tight turn or a slow section does not limit capacity. The concern is that tight turns impose other limitations: width of trains, selection of the train maker, length of reasonably straight sections suitable for the station platforms. Once those limitations are in place, there is less chance that the line will be built to the highest possible capacity specs.

Extremely tight turns may impose those kinds of limits on the equipment. But there doesn't seem to be any indication in those maps that will be the case.

Consider the turn from Front to Yonge, or from Yonge to University. Those turns are restricted-speed turns, but any Toronto subway car is capable of making them.

I wouldn't say TTC trains is the best option. TTC's T1's and TR's aren't exactly the best technology out there. Although they are up to modern standards in terms of size and length, they have lower acceleration than most new systems. If they use a newer technology that accelerates faster with a higher top speed (i.e. 100 km/h instead of 80 km/h), the delay caused by slow turns can be offset by faster traveling times elsewhere. The stations are space further part north of Gerrard therefore will benefit with a faster train. I'm being optimistic.

Toronto's subway cars are capable of matching the acceleration of most modern high-performance rapid transit systems - by virtue of being designed, largely, as a modern high-performance rapid transit system. Even though the system may have started to be designed in the 1940s, the first generation of 75 foot long Toronto subway cars were the template for just about every modern North American subway car design since (as well as a bunch of them elsewhere in the world).

(There are operational reasons why the TTC may not operate their trains as fast as you'd like - but that's a different conversation.)

As for wanting higher speeds, there's no reason why that can't be done with the current equipment. But the there are trade-offs to it, plus the fact that those higher speeds won't be possible underground without totally redesigning the tunnels.

Dan
 
As for wanting higher speeds, there's no reason why that can't be done with the current equipment. But the there are trade-offs to it, plus the fact that those higher speeds won't be possible underground without totally redesigning the tunnels.

Dan
curious, what needs to be done to make the tunnels capable for higher speed? more ventilation? measures to reduce air pressure?
 

Back
Top