[44 North]

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:

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

Yeah but that's not the type of system ssiguy is referring to. He's saying put a catenary on the T1/TRs, then run them on mainline railways. Writes the same thing every few months.

 

[rbt]

Station location outside of downtown is not important?

For the purpose of relieving load on Yonge, not at all. It just needs to intercept major bus route somewhere but as we know you don't even need stops at every major street (see Lawrence today; good bus ridership but intercepts subway at Eglinton).

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

Sure, but how many of those people are walk-ins on the Yonge line?

Should they have transit options? Absolutely. Does it need to be a walk-in subway option to prevent them from taking the Yonge line downtown? Probably not because they don't have a walk-in subway option today but they still find themselves on transit.

The R part of the equation is far less picky about station location than economic growth. If upgrading the RH line is $8B and DRL + Yonge extension is $15B; covering interest on the $7B gap is a lot of tax to be collected annually from the economic growth side of the equation.

You can't just put a subway train on a mainline railway and call it a day.

Absolutely true. That doesn't prevent mainline compatible equipment from reaching 2 to 3 minute headways though. Don't even need to leave North America to find that (Hudson River tunnel outside Penn Station; 24 scheduled trains per hour per direction).

 

[Edward Skira]

You're less cynical than I am. Is this just a hunch, perhaps reasonable logic applied to the need to win, or are there some palpable signs underpinning your optimism?

It is a hunch but I also feel its the smart move. $150 million is being spent designing the two lines with no real announcement? Why do this unless they have a larger plan. They know the lines are needed. And they know they need the votes. What a perfect thing to get votes a few months before a crucial (for the Liberals) election. I'd put money on it.

 

[steveintoronto]

Agree with all you state, it's my hunch too, but thought you might have something to buttress that.

Two points: Del Duca has become a liability. I'm sure if there was a poll, the clear majority would agree with that. And then the inverse: Why McGarry? If nothing of note is planned, it just invites further erosion of support.

So just did a cursory Google scan to see what shows. Still not a lot, I'm sure it took many journos by surprise, but this is telling: (Left most of this intact, but cleared the clutter. The local nuances may seem irrelevant, but we're looking for clues, and they count)

GO Train service in Cambridge? New Transportation Minister Kathryn McGarry faces high expectations
by Jeff Pickel

Posted Jan 18, 2018 10:18 am EST
Last Updated Jan 18, 2018 at 10:40 am EST

With great power comes great expectations, and it’s fair to say the expectations on Cambridge MPP and newly named Minister of Transportation Kathryn McGarry are high.

Those expectations can be summed up by one tweet from Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig.

Put simply, Cambridge wants GO Train Service.

At a recent media conference at Cambridge City Hall, Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig, North Dumfries Mayor Sue Foxton and Regional Councillor Karl Kiefer all spoke to then Transportation Minister Stephen Del Duca about the need of Go Train Service.

Now the minister of transportation is one of their own, and as Mayor Craig puts it, there is hope.

Craig says the main stumbling block is not logistical issues about track usage, it’s that no one at Queens Park cares about connecting Cambridge, ” I don’t think we are a priority, I think that’s the issue, I don’t think it’s about the availability, there is one train per hour being used by CP rail (Canadian Pacific) so that’s not an issue, it’s really about being a priority.” Said Craig.

Now, according to Craig, Cambridge has a powerful ally in their corner, “We’ve gone to Queens Park, we’ve talk to the former ministers of transportation, and nothing has transpired to give us any hope, but now with Kathryn McGarry there are great hopes riding on this.” Said Craig.

Currently GO commuters in Cambridge and south Kitchener have to rely on GO Bus Service connecting from Sportsworld Crossing Road or at Pine Bush Road and Hespeler Road.

Craig says that GO Bus is not a long term solution because it relies on the congested an unpredictable 401, “The Go Bus does not really service well because people don’t like to transfer from one type of transit to another, and also we have the bus going on the 401 the same clogged situation going by car down to Milton.” Said Craig.

Overall Craig says he is hopeful about the future, but as many people in the Region know, hope can be dangerous when it comes to GO Transit.

http://www.570news.com/2018/01/18/g...ster-kathryn-mcgarry-faces-high-expectations/

This is fodder for another forum string, but must comment just the same: What could the 'pay-off' possibly be? CP isn't budging an inch, and CN are apparently going back on the 'special relationship'' with GO as per Missing Link.

But Wynne wouldn't risk this appointment unless there's something of real value, and soon. The electorate is tired of empty promises. Damn, now I'm sitting here perplexed again! lol...

Addendum: I'm not going to get any answers trying to factor an equation that has faulty figures and logic, so let's accept this and flip it over:

What a perfect thing to get votes a few months before a crucial (for the Liberals) election. I'd put money on it.

Accepting this to be within the realm of possibility or probability, and considering the price McGuinty paid for Oakville votes (Gas Plant cancellation, and his political reputation), how much would Wynne be willing to put on the table to 'buy' the election? She could definitely win by doing something big.

And are the Feds in on it too? A curious claim? Not really, the Feds are ramping up the Infrastructure Bank, and McCuaig is evidently still one of their 'special consultants', and we all know the omnipotent powers of the Missing Link.

A pending announcement? The Feds and QP know alike it has to happen at some point. And the Fed's path of stimulus through infrastructure investment is still on track. Even the BoC had positive comment on that days back.

Perhaps it's 'Make it big or go home' for Wynne? Perhaps CRRC or Alstom has made a massive proposal to finance and build a 'showcase' line like the DRL?

This needs its own forum string, perhaps folded in with the "Can Wynne win?" one.

 

[Leo_Chan]

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

So you want to create a Hurontario-Main LRT scenario, where it stops at Steeles rather than Queen (Brampton GO)/Highway 7 (Langstaff GO)?

Sorry for making the comparison, as it has completely different reasoning. However, stopping the Yonge Line at Steeles doesn't create a network.

 

[gweed123]

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.

South of Lawrence you're right, it doesn't make much sense. North of Lawrence however, it makes perfect sense, and is the most cost-effective route to extend relief north. Hence my proposal.

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.

Yes, the RH line crosses under Don Mills just north of the northern end of The Donway. It's a logical point at which to switch from the RH line alignment to a Don Mills Subway alignment. Like Steve mentioned, the RH line south of there can be used for the odd rush hour express train, but by and large most trains would use the tunnel.

So you want to create a Hurontario-Main LRT scenario, where it stops at Steeles rather than Queen (Brampton GO)/Highway 7 (Langstaff GO)?

Sorry for making the comparison, as it has completely different reasoning. However, stopping the Yonge Line at Steeles doesn't create a network.

If some version of RER that uses the DRL alignment south of Lawrence goes up to RHC, then extending the Yonge line anywhere north of Steeles would be overkill. Continue the Yonge BRT down to Steeles (with an easy transfer), and call it a day. Most downtown-bound people would choose to use the RL anyway. It would only be those destined for NYCC that would use the BRT.

 

[Neutrino]

I thought that was calling every condo ugly?

That too.

 

[Rainforest]

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).

I guess it is a trade-off. Going with the TTC subway specs (3-rd rail, car profile optimal for the tunnels) results in a cheaper Phase I Relief line. But, it would be a lot more expensive to expand beyond the city core.

Going with mainline rail specs (catenary, tall profile, heavy trains build for the mainline collision-strength reqs) would result in a more expensive Phase I. But, it it could be extended further for much less, turning the existing surface rail corridors into the Relief Line's branches.

If I was in charge I would study both options, and would be slightly biased towards the mainline choice.

In reality, TTC subway specs have been selected, and that's extremely unlikely to change. That's easier to understand for the political types, and much easier to fund.

Btw, standard gauge vs the TTC gauge is a very minor issue. The track could be changed any time, for a relatively minor cost. There are several other differences that are much more significant: train profile, collision strength, 3-rd rail vs catenary, voltage / vertical clearance, platform height.

 

[gweed123]

I guess it is a trade-off. Going with the TTC subway specs (3-rd rail, car profile optimal for the tunnels) results in a cheaper Phase I Relief line. But, it would be a lot more expensive to expand beyond the city core.

Going with mainline rail specs (catenary, tall profile, heavy trains build for the mainline collision-strength reqs) would result in a more expensive Phase I. But, it it could be extended further for much less, turning the existing surface rail corridors into the Relief Line's branches.

Exactly. And if you make the connections between the tunnel and the mainlines in the right locations, those extension options are quite numerous.

But yes, you're right that at this point TTC subway technology has been chosen. I don't think the options were seriously studied though. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[steveintoronto]

the RH line south of there can be used for the odd rush hour express train, but by and large most trains would use the tunnel.

Of course, if the Don Valley floods (as it is wont until the remediation at the mouth is completed) those express trains could be terminated south of the Don Mills station, and passengers change at Don Mills. If the coaches are single deck emu, then they could go down the RL to the ostensible terminal at Osgoode. This tunnel would continue to be bored west under Queen to eventually meet the Georgetown line, and continue north-west. This would form a classic "RER through running" loop, vastly more efficient for a number of reasons, well covered on-line and linked earlier in this forum. Paris, German cities and London's Crossrail are glowing examples of how this is done, Paris' RER B (which moves more passengers per hour than any other transit service) being double-decker in a tunnel bore less than the Metrolinx LRT bores.

It would be interesting to know what the demand would be Union v. change to DRL down Don Mills Rd/Pape, etc. I suspect the peak times for each wouldn't overlap, as travel to Union infers mostly follow-on travel.
Streety McCarface said: ↑

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.

Depends on what 'standard' you use. For North Am, Paris and Sydney DDs would be too cramped, which is why I'd recommend single deck, which would also entrain and detrain faster, typically with four sets of doors each side of the carriages. Catenaries aren't an issue. It's done in many, many cities.

I guess it is a trade-off. Going with the TTC subway specs (3-rd rail, car profile optimal for the tunnels) results in a cheaper Phase I Relief line.

Crossrail will run at 2.5 min intervals through the core of London in tunnels *smaller* than Metrolinx LRT ones. Stations are built deep underground for 12 car trains, but platforms only built for 10 for now until expansion is needed. Crossrail engineers looked to the future, and realized (gist) "Once you've build an bored station, you're pretty much stuck with it, so best to build it overlength with a short platform, and lengthen the platform when needed". Foresight is precious.

But, it would be a lot more expensive to expand beyond the city core.

For 'subway' absolutely. And slower speed and acceleration as typified by present stock v. metro or RER. Or modern LRT trains for that matter. I believe the greatest production model thrust to weight ratio is held by an LRV at this time. One presumes a tractive effort to match with motors on all wheels.

Going with mainline rail specs (catenary, tall profile, heavy trains build for the mainline collision-strength reqs) would result in a more expensive Phase I.

That's all about to change anyway. In the US, the present UPX trains now require PTC to meet FRA regs, since it's sharing freight lines. Meantime, passenger only or temporally separated freight operations are granted FRA waivers in many instances. San Diego Trolley has had one for over twenty years, and they own their own freight operation at night run with diesels. They run Siemens LRVs, the same as Edmonton and Calgary. Metrolinx needs a waiver from Transport Canada to run the vehicles they claim to want to, all detailed in their (nine year old?) Electrification Report.

But, it it could be extended further for much less, turning the existing surface rail corridors into the Relief Line's branches.

And with no seat change from downtown to the extent of RER territory. That saves time and money, and guarantees you retain a seat if you get one when you first board.

In reality, TTC subway specs have been selected, and that's extremely unlikely to change.

Do you have a reference for that? It's been mentioned many times, but not in any Metrolinx report IIRC, and now the TTC doesn't mention it either. If anyone has reference in an official report, please link.

Btw, standard gauge vs the TTC gauge is a very minor issue. The track could be changed any time, for a relatively minor cost.

Actually not in modern bored tunnel construction. The concrete sleepers which lock the gauge are placed with laser point accuracy, and concrete then poured between and atop of them. It's a relatively simple matter to change wheel gauge (in most cases, depending if the spindle is shouldered or not) by heat and pressure, track gauge in tunnel, not so easy. They now build the gauge to be permanently fixed. An option could be included at inception of construction to do a later re-gauging, but it would interfere with a number of systems, let alone being incredibly expensive and force the complete shutdown of a line for a year or so.

Crossrail publish some incredibly good videos on-line on their website on this.

There are several other differences that are much more significant: train profile, collision strength, 3-rd rail vs catenary, voltage / vertical clearance, platform height.

That's down to Transport Canada, not world class best practice. All of this has been done is being done very successfully elsewhere in cities generations ahead of Toronto. If Toronto wants to continue the "TTC gauge uniqueness game", then let them. It shuts the door on a lot of off-the-shelf proven and affordable alternatives. If Metrolinx aren't using it for the LRVs, then who is? Toronto and one other city (which I forget) in the world. Planned oddness. Never a great idea in engineering, let alone economics. Plus it slams the door on ever integrating TTC gauged infrastructure into the regional rail network.

 

[Rainforest]

Do you have a reference for that? It's been mentioned many times, but not in any Metrolinx report IIRC, and now the TTC doesn't mention it either. If anyone has reference in an official report, please link.

Just realized that you are right, technically. I haven't seen it written down anywhere that TTC specs will be used.

That said, they did not mention the possibility of interlining the future DRL extensions with mainline tracks outside the city core. That kind of removes the incentive to use mainline-compatible trains in the central tunnel.

 

[gweed123]

Just realized that you are right, technically. I haven't seen it written down anywhere that TTC specs will be used.

That said, they did not mention the possibility of interlining the future DRL extensions with mainline tracks outside the city core. That kind of removes the incentive to use mainline-compatible trains in the central tunnel.

Yes, it hasn't been officially ruled out, but there's little indication that it was also even seriously considered "ruled in", either. From all of the documentation on the Relief Line that I've seen, it's been pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will be a TTC subway, with barely more than a cursory glance (if that) at different technology options.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just realized that you are right, technically. I haven't seen it written down anywhere that TTC specs will be used.

That said, they did not mention the possibility of interlining the future DRL extensions with mainline tracks outside the city core. That kind of removes the incentive to use mainline-compatible trains in the central tunnel.

Thanks for confirming that. I've been taken to issue many times pointing that out, and scoured the reports again a few weeks back to find any *official* mention. Since Metrolinx took the leadership role on the study, and declared the northern leg theirs completely, let alone any and all funding coming from QP with some matching from the Feds, even the TTC has been very careful in their wording.

One aspect that some posters have raised in the (gist) 'interconnectedness or not' of a line not to TTC gauge, all the time overlooking that the 'TTC gauge with the spur to Greenwood Yards' would require a ramp(s) to do that, is only that would be required to interconnect the Lakeshore Line to the Relief Line. Those same ramps could/would not only connect a standard gauge line to the Lakeshore tracks, but allow *interlining* of the Lakeshore tracks to the RL such that Osgoode could be used, at least with Lakeshore East trains, or some of, as a relief for Union, and a fairly large segment of passengers not having to use the TTC at all, only surface routes if that.

As you and some other posters realize, the 'relief' in 'Relief Line' is not to integrate with the subway as much as 'relieve it' and *all* catchment in the regions overloading any and all the lines.

Addendum: Just reviewing the TTC/City's earlier documents, where they do allude to subway trains, but even then, they couch that with "assuming".

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94624.pdf

The $150M study now underway must examine all options. I prefer the RER one, but the Metro one, for those preferring 'subway like vehicles' must also be considered. That would allow interlining with the Metrolinx LRTs.

Here's what's radically changed since Metrolinx took leadership on this, and assuming the northern leg in all respects:

Metrolinx see this quite differently. It's more about *diverting* and intercepting the regional load from going onto the TTC subways rather than redirecting flow already on the subway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

How long will it be before shovels are in the ground to even build the Relief Line?

Not just Canada, but the USA as well. Meanwhile...

From this link.

China’s Investment in Subways Puts the U.S. to Shame

Seven of the world's 12 largest subway systems are now in China, and the country isn't about to stop building. Chart: Yonah Freemark

In America, we spend tens of billions of dollars on transportation infrastructure each year — mostly on roads that induce driving and traffic, increase carbon emissions, and claim a shocking number of lives. The nation’s political leadership is currently dithering about how to pay for a $200 billion infrastructure package that promises more business-as-usual spending. And the Trump White House is withholding funds for transit expansion projects across the country for ideological reasons.

Meanwhile, China is currently in the midst of the most ambitious subway construction boom the world has ever seen. The implications for the future of the country — as well as the global climate — are huge. Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic takes a look at the dizzying pace of rapid transit expansion in dozens of Chinese cities:

A country largely bereft of metros in the 1990s now has more than 5,000 kilometers of metro lines, more than four times the U.S. figure, which has increased very slowly since the 1960s. 25 Chinese cities now have systems, and the number is rising every year.

Of the 12 largest metro networks in the world by length, seven are now in China. As of December 2017, Guangzhou’s metro passed New York’s Subway in length, and Beijing and Shanghai have by far the longest systems.

Some estimates suggest that Chinese cities will have more than 10,000 kilometers of metro lines by 2020. That’s in addition to the almost 1,000 kilometers of bus rapid transit, hundreds of kilometers of tramways, and massive commuter rail systems that have been built in cities around the country — not to mention the enormous high-speed rail network that has been constructed since 2007.

This investment in metro capacity has been met by a popular shift in how people get around. Current Chinese metro lines collectively carry about twice as many riders as the entire American public transportation network, buses, trains, and all.

The “riding habit” — the frequency of transit use per capita — has risen quickly in city after city. Guangzhou and Beijing now have greater use of their systems than any American city except for New York, with the average resident there taking 189 and 167 rides per year, respectively, compared to 230 per year in Gotham. Beijing and Shanghai systems now each carry more than ten million daily riders, the two highest figures in the world. And they have both doubled their ridership since 2010. It seems likely that the other cities following their path in line construction will eventually follow their lead in ridership, too.

Metro construction in China is largely the product of a massive central government investment. Between 2010 and 2015, the nation spent the equivalent of $189 billion on such lines, and between 2016 and 2020, it is expected to spend between $262 and $308 billion more. The U.S. government dedicates about $2.3 billion per year in total for all transit projects, so less than one-fifteenth of the Chinese investment.

Obviously, one reason China is able to pull off a massive infrastructure initiative like this is its top-down one-party dictatorship. But messy American democracy has managed to build large-scale public works before. Today, however, austerity and anti-urbanism define federal policy here, and high costs inhibit what cities can do on their own. In the “act of comparison” to China, Freemark says, “the illness of American planning is made apparent.”

More recommended reading today: The Urban Edge explains how millennial migration has reshaped downtown Phoenix and Houston, and why those sustaining that growth might be a challenge. And the Tampa Bay Times says bus rapid transit could be the answer to the region’s mobility problems — but not if it gets watered down.

 

[Streety McCarface]

How long will it be before shovels are in the ground to even build the Relief Line?

Not just Canada, but the USA as well. Meanwhile...

From this link.

China’s Investment in Subways Puts the U.S. to Shame

Seven of the world's 12 largest subway systems are now in China, and the country isn't about to stop building. Chart: Yonah Freemark

There are these things called building permits, zoning bylaws, public consultations, and environmental assessments that are required in Canada and the United States. There's also workplace safety, structural integrity, backlogs of maintenance, a completely different layout of cities, and a significant population difference that must be considered in North America. Even the 4.1 km Minatomirai line in Yokohama Japan (Another country associated with efficiency) took 11 years to build.