[steveintoronto]

To have a simple name in the beginning it could be called the East Downtown line until it becomes more representative

Got to completely agree. I'm flummoxed with the claims I've read for this being a "relief line". Not as envisaged in "Phase 1". I'm having trouble with a lot of the figures presented, will get back to those later, but as it stands, I call it "The Pape Entitlement Line". I defy any level of government involved in this to present a *completely unbiased and non-related agency business case* for this to go ahead as presented. It's not quite as absurd as the SSE, but damn close.

*ALL* projects of this massive cost should be run past *third party audits* with figures derived from independent assays.

Transit projects often fall far short of the promises made: James

The planners, the politicians and the public, are all swept along in a furious spending binge with no guarantees of success.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...all-far-short-of-the-promises-made-james.html

[...]
Forecasting, too, has its dark side. It is here "planners lie with numbers," as Wachs (1989) has aptly put it. Planners on the dark side are busy, not with getting forecasts right and following the AICP Code of Ethics, but with getting projects funded and built. And accurate forecasts are often not an effective means for achieving this objective. Indeed, accurate forecasts may be counterproductive, whereas biased forecasts may be effective in competing for funds and securing the go-ahead for construction. "The most effective planner," says Wachs (1989, 477), "is sometimes the one who can cloak advocacy in the guise of scientific or technical rationality." Such advocacy would stand in direct opposition to AICP's ruling that "the planner's primary obligation [is] to the public interest" (American Planning Association 1991, B.2). Nevertheless, seemingly rational forecasts that underestimate costs and overestimate benefits have long been an established formula for project approval (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, and Rothengatter 2003). Forecasting is here mainly another kind of rent-seeking behavior, resulting in a make-believe world of misrepresentation which makes it extremely difficult to decide which projects deserve undertaking and which do not. The consequence is, as even one of the industry's own organs, the Oxford-based Major Projects Association, acknowledges, that too many projects proceed that should not. We would like to add that many projects don't proceed that probably should, had they not lost out to projects with "better" misrepresentation (Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl 2002).
[...]

http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/liewithnumbers.php

 

[georgevicbell]

Crosstown is the complete opposite. The P3 contract requires the whole line to be commissioned together. Even if the yard was at the Kennedy end and it was possible to run trains between Kennedy and Leslie, it probably wouldn't change the start date.

The reality is though that splitting the contract up would probably result in arguments about the tunnel being done wrong or something, with massive change orders. The point of P3 overall build responsibility is that it's up to the consortium to play nice with each other.

TBMs bought in 2010 by Metrolinx
Tunneling started in 2013 by multiple contractors (for entry/exit shafts and tunnelling work)
http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project/fact-sheets/tbm

Crosslinx contract signed in 2015
http://www.on-sitemag.com/construct...act-awarded-in-eglinton-crosstown/1003667184/

My argument is that the tunnel machines being bought in 2010 forced Metrolinx to deliver...digging the tunnels is the first, and clearly longest step...so lets get to that point before we start worrying too much about the colour of the tiles, or even how many entrances and exits each station is going to have...those decisions will never be made if there is not something driving the people making the decisions to come up with a final answer...getting politicians to even just agree on a route is tough enough...but once you tell them that if they don't decide there will be a bunch of machines sitting in a warehouse rusting then things get decided on...

 

[steveintoronto]

My argument is that the tunnel machines being bought in 2010 forced Metrolinx to deliver.

Errr...with a huge caveat. Crosstown was P3.

Let's start with the province's own website:

The contract between Crosslinx, Metrolinx and IO is valued at approximately $9.1 billion (adjusted for inflation), which reflects payments during construction, a substantial completion payment and the monthly service payments during the concession period.

Projects of this size and complexity commonly carry risks of added costs. The Crosstown contract and IO's AFP delivery model protect taxpayers by transferring significant risks to the private sector. This protection ensures the government can commit to more infrastructure projects over the long-term.

Though most construction work will be completed by early 2021, commissioning and training for the service will be carried out through to 2021 to meet the in-service date for the LRT.

At the peak of construction, Crosslinx estimates that approximately 2,500 workers will work on the project and that 90 percent of the labour will come from the Greater Toronto Area.

Crosslinx submitted the proposal that delivers the best value for Ontario taxpayers. The selection of Crosslinx is the result of an open, fair and competitive procurement process overseen by a third-party fairness advisor.

The Crosstown is a light rail transit line that will run across Eglinton Avenue between Mount Dennis (Weston Road) and Kennedy Station. The 19-kilometre corridor will include a 10-kilometre underground portion between Keele Street and Laird Drive. The 25 stations and stops will link to bus routes, three subway stations and various GO Transit lines. It will include a maintenance and storage facility and operations and control centre.

Crosslinx's proposal provides an innovative approach with new, fully accessible stations designed using Metrolinx's principles of Design Excellence, upgrades to streetscaping, trail and pedestrian connections, including bike lanes, providing the largest single expansion of bicycle parking in Toronto's history.

Under separate Metrolinx contracts, tunnels and utility work began in 2011 and significant progress has been made with tunnelling on the western segment between Black Creek Drive and Allen Road. When in service, the Crosstown will provide service that is up to 60 percent faster than bus service today.

Metrolinx and IO are working together to deliver the Crosstown, which will remain publicly owned, controlled and accountable. [...]

http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Contract-Awarded-for-Crosstown-LRT-Eglinton-Crosstown-LRT/

Good luck trying to convince many others in this string on the wisdom of that, or the similar Crossrail model in London. They just don't want to know. They have all the answers....because, well, because....that's what the Masters say!

Politics
Metrolinx versus TTC: a public-private partnership for the Eglinton Crosstown?
By Stephen Spencer Davis | December 1, 2011 AT 11:55 am

The Toronto Star reports that Metrolinx is considering snubbing the TTC on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, opting instead for a public-private model to build and operate the $8.2 billion project that wouldn’t involve the city’s transit authority. Apparently, if Metrolinx does go the private partnership route, it will create the biggest public transit project in the province, one that’s administered by Infrastructure Ontario (the government agency that handles alternative financing and procurements). And, according to the Star, the TTC isn’t interested in that approach. Transportation Minister Bob Chiarelli says the model would ensure that cash for Ford’s beloved Sheppard subway extension doesn’t disappear into the Eglinton line—so you can guess how the mayor feels about the idea. Read the entire story [Toronto Star] »
[...]

http://torontolife.com/city/toronto...c-private-partnership-for-eglinton-crosstown/

Ontario government shaves $2-billion off Eglinton Crosstown LRT price tag
Oliver Moore - URBAN TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

TORONTO — The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Nov. 03, 2015 8:06PM EST

Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 03, 2015 8:09PM EST

The Ontario government has finalized a $9.1-billion contract with a private consortium to finish construction of the Eglinton Crosstown light-rail project and maintain it for a generation.

The contract was revealed earlier this year by members of the consortium, but Tuesday’s announcement by Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca was the first word on the final cost. According to the government, going with a public-private partnership model helped shave about 18 per cent off an earlier projection of the price tag.

“Because the private sector was able to come in, take a look at this process and provide the most competitive bid possible, we’ve managed to bring that 30-year contract to design, build, finance and maintain the Crosstown in at $2-billion [less], versus the original internal estimate,” Mr. Del Duca told reporters after speaking at a conference hosted by the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships.

The Eglinton Crosstown is one of the few transit success stories in Toronto. It survived the anti-LRT mood of the last city council and is due to enter service in 2021, a year behind schedule.

The tunnelling for the 19-kilometre Crosstown – 10 kilometres of which will be underground – has long been under way. The contract touted Tuesday is for the remainder of the work, including the stations and the finishing work within the tunnels. The contract is with Crosslinx Transit Solutions, a partnership of more than 26 companies that includes such heavyweights as SNC-Lavalin and Bank of Nova Scotia. [...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nton-crosstown-lrt-price-tag/article27085427/

And some of those TBMs are now surplus. Guess where they could be boring next? (In all fairness, the heads might have to be re-optimized for different soil/rock conditions, but head refurbishment is par for the course even on a continued dig for one project).

And the bore (cross-section) is the one needed for GO RER EMUs, as well as the LRVs being used on Eglinton. Just don't let the Pape Entitlement crowd know the TBMs are 'second-hand' though...

Have Crosslinx proffer a bid on doing DRL, and study connecting it to Crosstown now, GO RER later. They'd have immense know-how by now. And keep the City out of it...unless the City comes to the table with some cash. And pigs fly...

but once you tell them that if they don't decide there will be a bunch of machines sitting in a warehouse rusting then things get decided on...

That's far too rational and reasoned. They'll never get that sort of logic. Any Council that approves a single stop subway to STC at the loss of all other project funding is not safe to run day-care, let alone play with real machines. Or God forbid, procreate.

Edit to Add: Just following my own links even further back, and this speaks volumes:

TTC may not run the Eglinton Crosstown LRT
Metrolinx is toying with the idea of a public-private partnership in hopes of bringing the project in quickly and on-budget.

[...] Fare integration would be a minor problem compared with some of the complications of having the Crosstown privately operated, Stintz said.

“The largest hurdle will be how the line crosses over with the TTC’s lines, the interchange points, Yonge and Eglinton and at Bathurst and Allen Rd. If for some reason there’s a problem on the Crosstown line, what is the TTC’s response? Will they be expected to provide shuttle bus service or other service to meet those passengers?” she wondered.

“Ultimately it’s a Metrolinx project and it’s their money… . Metrolinx is the planning agency for transit and transportation for the GTA, and if this is the way they want to proceed, really there’s not much more we can do about it,” she said.[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2011/11/30/ttc_may_not_run_the_eglinton_crosstown_lrt.html

If she insists....cue John Tory's snivels, make that begging, make that demands...that the Province cough up for everything and anything, and now. Or else...

 

[georgevicbell]

Errr...with a huge caveat. Crosstown was P3.

Let's start with the province's own website:

http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Contract-Awarded-for-Crosstown-LRT-Eglinton-Crosstown-LRT/

Good luck trying to convince many others in this string on the wisdom of that, or the similar Crossrail model in London. They just don't want to know. They have all the answers....because, well, because....that's what the Masters say!

http://torontolife.com/city/toronto...c-private-partnership-for-eglinton-crosstown/


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nton-crosstown-lrt-price-tag/article27085427/

And some of those TBMs are now surplus. Guess where they could be boring next? (In all fairness, the heads might have to be re-optimized for different soil/rock conditions, but head refurbishment is par for the course even on a continued dig for one project).

And the bore (cross-section) is the one needed for GO RER EMUs, as well as the LRVs being used on Eglinton. Just don't let the Pape Entitlement crowd know the TBMs are 'second-hand' though...

Have Crosslinx proffer a bid on doing DRL, and study connecting it to Crosstown now, GO RER later. They'd have immense know-how by now. And keep the City out of it...unless the City comes to the table with some cash. And pigs fly...

The tunnels weren't P3 - as it says in the article...

Under separate Metrolinx contracts, tunnels and utility work began in 2011 and significant progress has been made with tunnelling on the western segment between Black Creek Drive and Allen Road. When in service, the Crosstown will provide service that is up to 60 percent faster than bus service today.

Tunnels for DRL, SSE and Yonge should be started all together at the same time...buy 10 or 12 TBMs - however many we need - and the rest will all fall into place...but if we want to spend the next 3 years discussing which style of contract we want P3, P2, P4, IO, TTC...we still won't have any tunnels...

 

[steveintoronto]

The tunnels weren't P3 - as it says in the article...

Under separate Metrolinx contracts, tunnels and utility work began in 2011 and significant progress has been made with tunnelling on the western segment between Black Creek Drive and Allen Road. When in service, the Crosstown will provide service that is up to 60 percent faster than bus service today.

Tunnels for DRL, SSE and Yonge should be started all together at the same time...buy 10 or 12 TBMs - however many we need - and the rest will all fall into place...but if we want to spend the next 3 years discussing which style of contract we want P3, P2, P4, IO, TTC...we still won't have any tunnels...

Indeed, your point on the TBMs and tunnels is correct, albeit that's by default, rather than design, as the project changed after being started. But it clearly makes your point. And mine.

[...]
Timeline
2010
On July 28, 2010, Metrolinx ordered four tunnel boring machines (TBMs) from Caterpillar at a cost of $54 million.[31] Each TBM is 10 metres long, 6.5 metres in diameter and weighs 400 tons. They bore 10 metres per day, 16-20 metres below the surface.[32] The TBMs were named Dennis, Lea, Humber, and Don. The names were chosen by Jason Paris, a moderator of the Urban Toronto blog and forums. Dennis is named after Mount Dennis, Lea is named after Leaside, Humber is named after the Humber River, and Don is named after the Don River. The names Dennis and Lea combined allude to the poet Dennis Lee.[33][34] By the time all four machines reach Yonge Street, enough dirt will have been removed to fill the Air Canada Centre to the height of the CN Tower.[35]
[...]
2011
In October 2011, the first part of tunnel construction began with the construction of a launch shaft for tunnel boring machines (TBMs) at Black Creek Drive.

On November 9, 2011, in Keelesdale Park, Mayor Rob Ford and then-Premier Dalton McGuinty officially broke ground on the new project.[36]
2012
In May 2012, TTC staff released a report saying that completion of the Eglinton Crosstown was unlikely by 2020 and that a more realistic in-service date would be 2022–2023. The main reason given was that the project management had been transferred from the TTC to Infrastructure Ontario which uses the Alternative Finance and Procurement strategy. That strategy would use a private contractor to complete the project, effectively requiring that contractor to redo all design work already completed by the TTC.[37] The TTC also warned that Metrolinx’s aggressive timeline would lead to severe construction-related disruptions to communities and traffic because large stretches of the Eglinton Avenue would have to be torn up concurrently to meet deadlines.[1]
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_5_Eglinton

This is an even more a positive reason to approach the RL as a Metrolinx project. I completely agree on the concept of getting *full bore* tunnels in the ground, once a route has been agreed upon. The same as what the TTC is proposing now? Perhaps...perhaps not. I have serious questions on their design methodology...and that's something the P3 consortium might address, or better yet, the Infastructure Bank along with InfrOntario.

 

[Hopkins123]

Are you saying that essentially the DRL should become an east-west connector between the Stouffville, Richmond Hill, and Barrie/Georgetown train lines? And are you saying that the DRL trains should be able to essentially enter these rail corridors and use the existing railway tracks or that the DRL subway/LRT should just interline or travel within the same GO corridors, but not on the existing tracks? I see tremendous versatility and cost savings in using existing north-south rail corridors, not to mention that if this was done in the first phase of DRL construction, we'd essentially have a giant J line up and running from Steeles and Kennedy (Milliken Station) to Mount Dennis and Pearson Airport very quickly, even in the first phase.

Extensions beyond Dufferin/Queen and the Queen/Broadview Unilever site to the east and west along Queen could happen later on, but essentially the infrastructure is already there to run north-south along existing rail corridors, so why not simply have the DRL trains enter them? This will be easy at the Unilever site, where there's plenty of room to build an interface between the DRL and the Stouffville Rail Corridor, but what would that interface look like at the Georgetown/Barrie rail corridor at Queen and Dufferin? That's a more complex project. Also, there is no current plan for a DRL station where the Richmond Hill rail corridor would cross the DRL, unless the planned King-Sumach station is shifted east. I think it should be shifted and I think having the DRL be inter-operable with RER lines on existing rail corridors is brilliant and the way to go. It means, however, that Metrolinx and the province (essentially GO leadership) has a greater role to play here. That was the point of creating Metrolinx.

The biggest bang for the buck comes from building the DRL as part of the larger RER network. Really, all we'd be giving up in the first phase of DRL construction is a Queen-Carlaw station (we could still tunnel from Gerard to Pape Station), but we'd be gaining three north-south routes with DRL station stops at all the existing and planned GO stations on these existing north-south routes. The money that would've been used to tunnel under Carlaw/Pape could be used to tunnel the DRL west beyond Osgoode Station to Queen and Dufferin/Gladstone, allowing for the addition of multiple stations between University Ave. and Dufferin along the Queen alignment. Brilliant.

I may be in the minority here, but I value the east-west segment of the DRL moreso than the north-south segment. Anyone seeing the congestion of the 504/501/505 plus all the busy trippers south from the Bloor Line (510, 511, 63, 29, 47) should agree that a first phase at least reach Queen and Roncesvalles.

 

[M II A II R II K]

But if you could only choose one phase at once then going to the Science Centre should get priority.

Especially since Eglinton Yonge would need relieving as soon as it opens and those on Don Mills would head south instead of West to get downtown relieving the whole Yonge Line.

You would even relieve Sheppard!

 

[steveintoronto]

I may be in the minority here, but I value the east-west segment of the DRL moreso than the north-south segment. Anyone seeing the congestion of the 504/501/505 plus all the busy trippers south from the Bloor Line (510, 511, 63, 29, 47) should agree that a first phase at least reach Queen and Roncesvalles.

It's a very valid point! The "relief" aspect being touted with the latest iteration is really questionable, that's why I refer to it as the "Pape Entitlement Line". I just can't put faith into the case as being touted.

Build a Relief Line? By all means! But if they do it, do it big, and do it to stone many birds with one kill. If they can't do it all first go, then build it such that it accommodates many needs later, not just the Entitled on Pape and there-abouts. This is going to be (ostensibly, I don't think it will remain in the City's hands) "the most expensive subway Toronto has ever built".

If that doesn't underline the case of of doing many things for many people I don't know what does. The (ostensibly Queen) east-west segment can't be separated from the north-south, and it must be *run-through* at each end, so that *NO* transfer onto the subway is needed in many cases. The purpose must be to *intercept* present subway use, not divert segments of it with band-aid fixes.

And it should be built full bore, Crosstown cross-section, such that initially (and perhaps later too in mixed traffic) it uses LRVs (the surplus of which Metrolinx is now having to deal with) but built dual-voltage (an offered option for Flexities, run in a number of nations that way) such that RER use (loading gauge and catenary supply) is accommodated later by being same. Stations alone, even lengthened, will be far cheaper to build without high-platforms. Edmonton and Calgary not only build this way, they are also moving to low platform to do it.
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
[The two pioneering Canadian LRT cities, Calgary and Edmonton, located in the western province of Alberta, are both planning a major shift in their design and operating philosophies.
[...]
Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents.][...]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...algary-edmonton-adopt-low-floor-approach.html

Toronto is so incredibly dated in approach. No wonder we're in the mess we are. Yesterday's answers to Tomorrow's failures.

 

[BurlOak]

I may be in the minority here, but I value the east-west segment of the DRL moreso than the north-south segment. Anyone seeing the congestion of the 504/501/505 plus all the busy trippers south from the Bloor Line (510, 511, 63, 29, 47) should agree that a first phase at least reach Queen and Roncesvalles.

Better co-operation on the Scarborough situation could have helped the East West demand as well. Too bad everyone played politics instead of thinking transit.

View attachment 106404

 

[steveintoronto]

But if you could only choose one phase at once then going to the Science Centre should get priority.

I think it all has to be done in one massive project with the Province in charge overseen and operated by Metrolinx. It must combine the disparate RER and subway approaches into one. The segments first built must come down to engineering challenge more than politics, (where best to build shafts to launch TBMs, etc). Agreed though that the most pressing segment would be in the east first, and to just do it from Danforth to Osgoode would do little to address the greater purpose. If the line is RER future compatible, then the leg south from the Don Valley to Osgoode would make sense with run-through in the north from Steeles down the present GO line doubled and into tunnel north of Pape. Later, a tunnel, if deemed necessary, could be pushed north from there to the Science Centre. That will be very pricey, however, due to tunnel depth. What would make more sense is to open the leg to Osgoode with the TBMs continuing west towards the Georgetown Corridor and then north, perhaps a leg over to the Lakeshore line later, but a study would have to show sufficient demand to make the business case. In the event, Union Station overcrowding would be relieved, the subway would be greatly relieved, Queen St/centre core would be served, and run-through greatly adds to efficiency of operation.

Costly? Very...but compared to throwing away money at the incredibly flaccid four-car subway now being proposed, much better to spend twice the amount, and get multiples more for the investment, and GO was going to have to find a solution for a mid-core loop anyway. Not to mention that the City has no money to bring to the table, so why allow them to play choo-choo on their terms, and blow the wad doing it?

Better co-operation on the Scarborough situation could have helped the East West demand as well.

I note you state "situation" and not "subway". The solution is using RER, your map has an endless stream of cigarettes and magazines. Your morning shave would be spent by the time you got to your downtown destination with all those stops.

The answer is RER, and then distribute locally from there. And not with subways as we know them...my apologies if what your map indicates is surface LRT utilizing the extant rail corridors in many cases.

 

[BurlOak]

I note you state "situation" and not "subway". The solution is using RER, your map has an endless stream of cigarettes and magazines. Your morning shave would be spent by the time you got to your downtown destination with all those stops.

The answer is RER, and then distribute locally from there. And not with subways as we know them...my apologies if what your map indicates is surface LRT utilizing the extant rail corridors in many cases.

Problem is, Metrolinx and provincial Liberals don't want to give up track to include a SmartSpur with the RER.

 

[steveintoronto]

Problem is, Metrolinx and provincial Liberals don't want to give up track to include a SmartSpur with the RER.

It's a very valid point. And I think we'd both agree, it's not likely to resolve with the present levels of governing involved. I'm no great fan of Metrolinx' executive decision, save that compared to the City, they're far closer to embodying a regional sense of transportation need.

And as for anything 'Smart' we have to immediately discount it, as touted. Getting back to RER corridors, a lot of the Lakeshore/Georgetown corridor could become magnitudes more efficient in full four track mode. Even three track with state of the art signalling and control. Your 'comprehensive' route in from Scarborough could be done by LRT running beside the RER tracks, as you infer, but the LRTs would be Metrolinx, not City, so that all the tracks could be optimized for throughput and speed.

You appear to have an engineering background, make some profound comments, but we do disagree in where we see resolution coming from. By default, with all the faults, I see it being Metrolinx and RER.

And Crosstown is a template of how that can be achieved.

 

[Euphoria]

An RER compatible DRL that can meet and enter the Richmond Hill, Georgetown, Uxbridge, and Barrie GO corridors should constitute the first phase, with a short connection between the Gerard RER station and Pape Station. That would provide an extremely comprehensive transit network giving relief not only to the TTC but the GO network bypassing Union. This is such a compelling routing from a regional perspective that Metrolinx and the Province should back it.

I wouldn't worry about the smaller extensions west to Roncesvalles or east beyond Unilever under Queen, as that will all come after this critical core network is constructed. There is also the the potential for spurs running to Little Italy and Bloor east of the Barrie corridor, along Dufferin or under the parks of Garrison Creek running up to Eglinton. You could eventually have a spur down to an RER station under the Rail Deck Park at Bathurst, say a ROW for the Bathurst streetcar to Queen, as Bathurst is wide from Front to Queen. You could later extend the DRL in the east to Eglinton and perhaps the Sheppard subway. The Richmond Hill GO corridor might facilitate this. It doesn't matter. To do any of these extensions you still need that core network in the first phase, because it immediately creates a massive J from Unionville to Pearson and beyond, incorporating a large swath of the core from Pape to Dundas West.

 

[BurlOak]

It's a very valid point. And I think we'd both agree, it's not likely to resolve with the present levels of governing involved. I'm no great fan of Metrolinx' executive decision, save that compared to the City, they're far closer to embodying a regional sense of transportation need.

Maybe because its their mandate and not TTC's mandate. Based on it being their mandate, I think they are doing a rather poor job.

And as for anything 'Smart' we have to immediately discount it, as touted.

Maybe its not "Smart", but there are a lot of potential riders from the Malvern, Centennial, STC corridor that could be served by a direct link since 1) they are quite far to travel by subway, and 2) they contribute to the crowding at at Y-B.

Getting back to RER corridors, a lot of the Lakeshore/Georgetown corridor could become magnitudes more efficient in full four track mode. Even three track with state of the art signalling and control. Your 'comprehensive' route in from Scarborough could be done by LRT running beside the RER tracks, as you infer, but the LRTs would be Metrolinx, not City, so that all the tracks could be optimized for throughput and speed.

You appear to have an engineering background, make some profound comments, but we do disagree in where we see resolution coming from. By default, with all the faults, I see it being Metrolinx and RER.

And Crosstown is a template of how that can be achieved.

Likely I don't have a good enough understanding of train scheduling and operation. How closely can trains run, do all crossings need to be grade-separated, how to manage a 3 track system and will trains interfere with each other. I know it is done elsewhere, but somehow I doubt that Toronto could accomplish something like this. They couldn't figure out interling in the 1960's. The ECLRT costs $6B+ and they couldn't figure out how to interline even 2 LRT routes on such an expensive piece of infrastructure.
That's why I think in more simpler terms - create a new line that serves as many as possible for a little cost as possible. I understand the publics desire for rapid, reliable transit that grade-separation provides.

 

[steveintoronto]

I know it is done elsewhere, but somehow I doubt that Toronto could accomplish something like this.

Your cynicism is not only shared by me, it's been studied and published by others who see Union Station, for instance, because of an almost century old signal and control system, as one of the most inefficient major train stations in the developed world. I'm told by reliable and extremely connected sources that Union Station, with the ETCS system, even level 1, Union could more than double throughput and at a much higher speed. That would still leave it below what some German cities accomplished in the Thirties!

That's why I think in more simpler terms - create a new line that serves as many as possible for a little cost as possible.

Ironically, the cheapest way to get multiples more performance from the extant GO system at the most economical cost is a state of the art (or at least one from the last two decades) signal and control system.

See attached file. I have more, but until I review it to redact proprietary info, this will have to do for now.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control