[jaybe]

It doesn't need to have less service. 2 to 3 minute frequencies is quite possible on main-line rail with sufficient spending, even to Union (or a nearby street). Sufficient, in this case, will not be trivial but is it over $10B?

I'm not sure how much station location would impact YRL (Yonge Relief Line) ridership outside of the core as 90%, or more, of the ridership will be arriving to the line via bus. I do agree completely that station locations downtown are a big deal. For a cost ($3B?) you could branch off the Don Valley and run along Queen with underground bilevel GO trains to a stop at Yonge & Queen.

The YRL as planned is perfectly acceptable. I'm disappointed in Metrolinx that at no time have they reported on what Richmond Hill line might produce at a similar capital cost. Ongoing maintenance of a partially at surface line is almost always less than an underground line.

Station location outside of downtown is not important? The RH RER line misses two priority neighborhoods: Thorncliffe and Gerrard Square, both with decent density. It also doesn't connect well with the Eglinton LRT and the Sheppard Subway. Don Mills & Eglinton, Don Mills & Lawrence and Don Mills & Sheppard all have massive development in progress that will increase density and walk-on ridership. Finally stops at Lawrence or Gerrard would make a mess of green space in the Don Valley.

The biggest negative to the RH RER option is the connection with the Bloor subway from the Don Valley. A primary driver of the DRL is to divert riders off of the Bloor line before the Yonge/Bloor intersection. The RH RER would be a difficult connection between the two lines, which defeats the primary purpose.

The RH RER proposal is a terrible option if we are trying to build a City where public transit is workable.

 

[steveintoronto]

The RH RER proposal is a terrible option if we are trying to build a City where public transit is workable. The RH RER line misses two priority neighborhoods: Thorncliffe and Gerrard Square, both with decent density. [...]

2) The alignment that I propose only has it connecting with the Richmond Hill Line just north of Lawrence. South of there, it would assume the "traditional" DRL alignment into downtown. Take that line and extend it to RHC and beyond, maximizing the "relief" part of the Relief Line, by minimizing the number of people on the Yonge corridor south of RHC.

In my proposal, I take it one step further: The extant RH line south of Lawrence would be retained for "Union Express" RER to connect with other GO services. (Perhaps every third train, depending on destination demand) One of the huge advantages to Gweed's proposal is not only relieving the TTC subways, it would also relieve Union Station, now at capacity.

There would remain the question of single or double-decker stock to do the 'local' service. I lean toward single for rate of loading and unloading due to much closer station distance on the local service and the need to minimize station dwell time.

And there's a third option Gweed and others might wish to consider (I'm non-plussed on this along with many Sydneysiders, but this is the future of city transport networks in many cases. Montreal's REM is similar but far less ample)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro

 

[Disparishun]

The RH RER line misses two priority neighborhoods: Thorncliffe and Gerrard Square, both with decent density.

The proposal above was for an RER that interconnects and continue on the RH route north of Eglinton, I'd thought. Those neighbourhoods are well south of Eglinton.

It also doesn't connect well with the Eglinton LRT and the Sheppard Subway.

This is readily remedied and, arguably, ought to be. I mean, either we continue to run the RH GO line north of Eglinton -- whether as the north end of the DRL, or as a completely parallel public transit route a couple of km over from it -- or we retire it. Either way, not much point in a transit line whose mistakes we don't fix. Oriole-Leslie and Wynford need to be seamless transfers, full stop.

Don Mills & Eglinton, Don Mills & Lawrence and Don Mills & Sheppard all have massive development in progress that will increase density and walk-on ridership.

At Eglinton and at Sheppard, they're right on the LRT/subway, and can easily transfer to an upgraded Oriole-Leslie and properly-bimodal Wynford station.

The biggest negative to the RH RER option is the connection with the Bloor subway from the Don Valley. A primary driver of the DRL is to divert riders off of the Bloor line before the Yonge/Bloor intersection. The RH RER would be a difficult connection between the two lines, which defeats the primary purpose.

I don't understand this -- why couldn't the interconnection be seamless, for those riders going all the way past Eglinton? In fact, isn't the whole point of the proposal to make it the same rolling stock (because RER), i.e. a one-stop ride with no interconnection needed?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Don Mills is going to get a lot denser. Even York Mills has several large scale intensification projects around it - lawrence is brimming with redevelopment around the Don Mills Mall, and Eglinton is home of the largest master plan in the city currently.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The proposal above was for an RER that interconnects and continue on the RH route north of Eglinton, I'd thought. Those neighbourhoods are well south of Eglinton.


This is readily remedied and, arguably, ought to be. I mean, either we continue to run the RH GO line north of Eglinton -- whether as the north end of the DRL, or as a completely parallel public transit route a couple of km over from it -- or we retire it. Either way, not much point in a transit line whose mistakes we don't fix. Oriole-Leslie and Wynford need to be seamless transfers, full stop.


At Eglinton and at Sheppard, they're right on the LRT/subway, and can easily transfer to an upgraded Oriole-Leslie and properly-bimodal Wynford station.


I don't understand this -- why couldn't the interconnection be seamless, for those riders going all the way past Eglinton? In fact, isn't the whole point of the proposal to make it the same rolling stock (because RER), i.e. a one-stop ride with no interconnection needed?

The current corridor makes no sense for RER (it runs inside the don valley, would require insane amounts of watershed reworking, could lead to serious pollution, cost a fortune, doesn't connect well with the existing subway (even if it runs in tunnels south of Sheppard)) and as a result, will be a colossal failure as a relief to the Yonge line. Think about it; if there's the slightest inconvenient transfer, take Leslie-Oriole, everyone that currently takes the bus to don mills, the Sheppard subway to Yonge will not even bother with the RER Relief line, especially since the yonge transfer is so convenient. It makes significantly more sense to build it as a subway to Don Mills so that people feeding into don mills do not have to use the Sheppard subway. It would kill it entirely, yes (shortfalls by lost riders for those transferring at don mills could be made up by people from Yonge taking Sheppard to Don Mills, then the relief line south if they work along Don Mills), but it actually incentivizes people in Toronto to use the system.

 

[steveintoronto]

Don Mills is going to get a lot denser. Even York Mills has several large scale intensification projects around it - lawrence is brimming with redevelopment around the Don Mills Mall, and Eglinton is home of the largest master plan in the city currently.

I took a quick glimpse at the map to consider Gweed's mentioning of Lawrence as the point of divergence of the RH line to a future Relief Line. In fact, it would be slightly north of there just on the northern cusp of Don Mills.

 

[ssiguy2]

Some of you guys are misunderstanding what I meant when I said that the DRL should compatible with RER.

I was NOT suggesting using the DVP at all. I think they should follow the exact same routing and stations they are planning now with the DRL but simply use catenary subway trains like Cleveland and dozens of other Metro systems in the world. By doing this RER trains could also use the Queen/DRL line for convenience and as an essential backup route if there was ever an incident or major delays at Union.

By using catenary the line would also be much easier and infinitely cheaper to expand north of Eglinton as it could then use the current RH rail corridor as opposed to having to build a totally new system north of Eglinton from scratch. It could be run by the TTC and be a TTC subway just like the one planned but simply using catenary for RER compatibility and northern expansions in the future

 

[44 North]

Some of you guys are misunderstanding what I meant when I said that the DRL should compatible with RER.

I was NOT suggesting using the DVP at all. I think they should follow the exact same routing and stations they are planning now with the DRL but simply use catenary subway trains like Cleveland and dozens of other Metro systems in the world. By doing this RER trains could also use the Queen/DRL line for convenience and as an essential backup route if there was ever an incident or major delays at Union.

By using catenary the line would also be much easier and infinitely cheaper to expand north of Eglinton as it could then use the current RH rail corridor as opposed to having to build a totally new system north of Eglinton from scratch. It could be run by the TTC and be a TTC subway just like the one planned but simply using catenary for RER compatibility and northern expansions in the future

You can't just put a subway train on a mainline railway and call it a day. That doesn't work, and I don't think any regulation would allow it.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Some of you guys are misunderstanding what I meant when I said that the DRL should compatible with RER.

I was NOT suggesting using the DVP at all. I think they should follow the exact same routing and stations they are planning now with the DRL but simply use catenary subway trains like Cleveland and dozens of other Metro systems in the world. By doing this RER trains could also use the Queen/DRL line for convenience and as an essential backup route if there was ever an incident or major delays at Union.

By using catenary the line would also be much easier and infinitely cheaper to expand north of Eglinton as it could then use the current RH rail corridor as opposed to having to build a totally new system north of Eglinton from scratch. It could be run by the TTC and be a TTC subway just like the one planned but simply using catenary for RER compatibility and northern expansions in the future

Building the tunnels with standard gauge trains would be a bigger pain; double-decker EMUs with catenaries would require much larger tunnels than a typical third rail, and their's no connectivity with the existing system. Why must we have 2 gauges for one city's transit needs? Just keep the Toronto gauge, then future things like Eglinton's future conversion to a subway wouldn't be a hassle and could be interconnected with Lines 1 and 2. We also don't know the platform situation being proposed by RER, so only time will tell if dual feeding EMUs are an option (like LIRR).

 

[crs1026]

That's a pretty big design shift just to use as a contingency.

It's a matter of keeping one's eye on the ball. The downtown portion has to have subway sized platforms and subway stop spacing. Sure, one could build the tunnel to accommodate EMU's, and one could mount pant's on top of a TR, so that both vehicles are compatible.....but could one interleave RER trains into a flow of subway trains?

- Paul

 

[Cobra]

Always thought that if Richmond Hill was ever to have a subway, the Relief Line should go there. The Yonge line should end at Steeles

 

[steveintoronto]

Some of you guys are misunderstanding what I meant when I said that the DRL should compatible with RER.

I was NOT suggesting using the DVP at all. I think they should follow the exact same routing and stations they are planning now with the DRL but simply use catenary subway trains like Cleveland and dozens of other Metro systems in the world. By doing this RER trains could also use the Queen/DRL line for convenience and as an essential backup route if there was ever an incident or major delays at Union.

By using catenary the line would also be much easier and infinitely cheaper to expand north of Eglinton as it could then use the current RH rail corridor as opposed to having to build a totally new system north of Eglinton from scratch. It could be run by the TTC and be a TTC subway just like the one planned but simply using catenary for RER compatibility and northern expansions in the future

A number of posters have their minds made up and fail to read correctly.

Streety's claims for the valley don't pertain north of...well, where it leaves the valley oddly enough, and north of Doncaster junction, it's used by VIA and CN freights too. Paralleling that with a RoW is certainly not going to be like building the Bridge over the River Kwai.

And as stated prior, the following isn't my favourite, it's the cause of much angst in Sydney right now much like REM is in Montreal, because they are re-using heavy rail tunnels and downrating them to use as Metros.

Here's the specs for the Sydney Metro:

Rolling stock

Nose of Sydney Metro train at 2017 Royal Easter Show

Interior of Sydney Metro train at 2017 Royal Easter Show
Twenty-two 6-car Alstom Metropolis electric multiple units have been ordered for the network. Each single deck train will feature two dedicated areas for prams, luggage and bicycles. There will be three doors per side per carriage and no internal doors between the carriages.[49] In a 6-car configuration the trains will sit 378 people, with a total capacity of 1,100.[50]

A life-size model of the new train has been built for use on public display, including at the annual Sydney Royal Easter Show.[51][52] It consists of the front carriage, including its distinctive nose. Members of the public are able to tour the inside of the mockup. It is approximately 75% of the length of the final design for the new carriages, having two doors instead of three.[53]

The first six-carriage Sydney Metro train arrived in Rouse Hill on 26 September 2017 and will undergo testing in the coming months.[54]

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

These trains use 750vdc overhead catenary, as ssiguy2 writes.

Many more details here, the project is already under construction, dwarfs anything in Toronto, and will be ready in a few years.
https://www.sydneymetro.info/northwest/construction-overview

 

[crs1026]

Streety's claims for the valley don't pertain north of...well, where it leaves the valley oddly enough, and north of Doncaster junction, it's used by VIA and CN freights too. Paralleling that with a RoW is certainly not going to be like building the Bridge over the River Kwai.

If the suggestion is simply that somewhere up past Lawrence, the RL could run on the surface, and squeeze into the same ROW as the GO line, I'm all ears. I wonder how CN would feel since it's their property north of Doncaster.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Sure, one could build the tunnel to accommodate EMU's, and one could mount pant's on top of a TR, so that both vehicles are compatible.....but could one interleave RER trains into a flow of subway trains?

That's a pretty big design shift just to use as a contingency.

It's a matter of keeping one's eye on the ball. The downtown portion has to have subway sized platforms and subway stop spacing. Sure, one could build the tunnel to accommodate EMU's, and one could mount pant's on top of a TR, so that both vehicles are compatible.....but could one interleave RER trains into a flow of subway trains?

- Paul

Let's not confuse what's been proposed further. The short answer to your questions is "Yes, it's already being done in some cities", but that's not what's being proposed.

Consider:

The Alstom Metropolis is a family of electric multiple units built by Alstom designed for high capacity rapid transit or metro rail infrastructure systems. The trains are in service in 22 major cities around the world, representing more than 3000 cars, including Singapore, Shanghai, Budapest, Warsaw, Nanjing, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Lima, Santiago, Chile, Barcelona, Istanbul, Santo Domingo, Chennai and Kochi. Amsterdam ordered 23 Metropolis trains; the first one came into operation June 2013. Xiamen also ordered some Metropolis trainsets for the Xiamen Metro. Trains can be run in configurations of 2 to 10 cars using manned or unmanned operations.

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

Would this system be able to host the present Metrolinx LRTs? Absolutely...they wouldn't even have to be dual current bi-mode. This is not my favoured choice, but vastly superior to the proposal by some that it be "TTC subway cars"...which is no longer, if it ever was, appearing in the official reports released so far. There has been no official statement as to what kind of vehicles are to be used.

If I'm mistaken, then someone please post reference.

 

[steveintoronto]

If the suggestion is simply that somewhere up past Lawrence, the RL could run on the surface, and squeeze into the same ROW as the GO line, I'm all ears. I wonder how CN would feel since it's their property north of Doncaster.

- Paul

It doesn't have to be on their property.