SmartTrack (Proposed)

[dowlingm]

I don't understand why we are so stiff in Toronto when it comes to transit. We must have it done with this specific technology and this specific train-set and this specific level of grade separation and this must work the same everywhere this line goes. Where is the creativity in that?

Ask Transport Canada. They are concerned with stuff like people not getting mashed when an F40PH and a Flexity hit head on. Silly and boring, I know.

Morph the DRL with the Richmond Hill line and call it SmartTrack. The line can be both multi-purpose and all-purpose.

Underwater too, from time to time.

While we are at it, find a LRT vehicle that can fit the Sheppard tunnel and be used at-grade on Sheppard East.

I don't think Hasbro make Transformers transit vehicles, but I'm not omniscient.

If Bombardier doesn't want to build a vehicle to our specifications than that's their loss, we can take our business elsewhere to a company who gladly will.

Yeah, okay.

You might find this dismissive, but consider that your comments, in particular the first above, are on the far side of the Bell curve on a board not averse to crayoning.

 

[dowlingm]

I'm wondering how much it has to do with Metrolinx and more to do with anti-Tory news reporters and papers misappropriating what Metrolinx is saying.

Metrolinx: "We are integrating all of the features of Smarttrack into RER"

Reporter: "So...Smarttrack is dead?"

Metrolinx: "no..thats not what-"

Reporter: "SMARTTRACK IS DEAD GUYS! TORY LOST!!"

I think the first "Metrolinx" "quote" is a very generous interpretation of what's happening. The real issue is that Metrolinx are confirming now, after the election, that certain features of SmartTrack were dead on arrival when people stuck their hands up right after Tory's plan issued and said "guys - this part can't work and Metrolinx are never gonna agree to this part".

If McCuaig had said back then "yeah, that's a nice pitch but not happening in the real world" when Tory was already forced to admit he would need a tunnel on Eglinton West, the "big idea" he claimed as his vision thing would have been torpedoed.

The best part is where Tory says "SmartTrack will run on TTC fares!" after which people took out a token, looked at it and said "sounds good to me", except it's looking more and more likely that an attempt is coming to convert TTC fares to fare-by-distance within the timeframe of SmartTrack first service.

 

[44 North]

Crossrail joins two east west heavy rail corridors with a new east west connecting tunnel to bring both sets of passengers through London or at least its far side from their perspective, relieving London Underground of those transfers. SmartTrack is a TTC project to promote transit in Toronto whose biggest effects will be in Mississauga (if Eglinton West alignment built) and Markham, and which pushes more passengers into the centre using existing tracks with a terminal capacity already set to be tested by RER.

This is an important point, and makes me wonder who's really behind the scenes pushing SmartTrack and a Crosstown West extn. Just focusing on SmartTrack's east branch (aka Stouffville RER), it seems pretty clear that its ridership in TO will be fairly minimal. Or that transit riders can be served better by other projects on the books already. For one, in Scarb the Line 2 extension is being built - which is more useful and probably more attractive to those in central/northern Scarb. As well, when looking at the DRL long/surface options we're shown that a DRL would eat into Stouffville GO's ridership rather significantly. And lastly, in the south end of the city a Lakeshore RER has been a priority for decades, would actually be moderately popular, and would serve Unilever just like ST.

So with SSE + Lakeshore East RER + DRL Long in place, SmartTrack East/Stouffville RER isn't all that important for TO. It mostly benefits one small area of Markham.

 

[gweed123]

My favorite solution.

I don't understand why we are so stiff in Toronto when it comes to transit. We must have it done with this specific technology and this specific train-set and this specific level of grade separation and this must work the same everywhere this line goes. Where is the creativity in that?

Morph the DRL with the Richmond Hill line and call it SmartTrack. The line can be both multi-purpose and all-purpose. While we are at it, find a LRT vehicle that can fit the Sheppard tunnel and be used at-grade on Sheppard East. If Bombardier doesn't want to build a vehicle to our specifications than that's their loss, we can take our business elsewhere to a company who gladly will.

Yup, it just makes so much more sense. It performs all of the functions of the DRL, it creates a backbone tunnel for a Toronto-based RER network (as opposed to a GTHA RER network, which is Union-centric), and it eliminates the need for the North Yonge Subway extension, since most of the ridership from that extension is coming from RHC (and the transfers occurring there). A Rapidway along Yonge south of there to Finch or Steeles should be sufficient to handle the demand of the NYCC-bound traffic, whereas SmartTrack carries downtown-bound traffic.

 

[WislaHD]

Ask Transport Canada. They are concerned with stuff like people not getting mashed when an F40PH and a Flexity hit head on. Silly and boring, I know.

Yes, silly that.

If only there was a proposed solution posted last page that would grade separate commuter trains from freight trains between Lawrence and downtown.

If we want this line electrified and frequent, I'm guessing it would require its own track or something north of Lawrence towards Langstaff? I don't know, I am not a land surveyor and don't know where to find detailed rail maps. (You are free to enlighten me!) Judging from Google Maps, there looks to be more than enough space along the corridor.

We can't let the byzantine regulations of Transport Canada (who are piggy backing off of America's railway regulations) to stifle Toronto's progress on the commuter rail front forever. In the long-run it is just going to bring us a competitive disadvantage against other cities. I am therefore all for great planning and engineering solutions to circumvent the challenges posed by Transport Canada. There is one currently proposed to move heavy freight out of the Milton corridor using some bypass for instance. Why can't we relocate our commuter rail in the DRL tunnel we intend to build anyway, and away from the freight?

I don't think Hasbro make Transformers transit vehicles, but I'm not omniscient.

I for one welcome Hasbro's entrance in the transportation industry.

There are vehicles in operation in The Netherlands and I believe in Glasgow that can fit the challenges posed by our Sheppard predicament. We've discussed these things in lengths in other threads already and it doesn't need repeating. Fact of the matter is they exist. I trust that Toronto is a significant enough city with enough weight that we shouldn't have problems negotiating a vehicle with specialized specifications. Companies should be thrilled to have business with us.

Yeah, okay.
You might find this dismissive, but consider that your comments, in particular the first above, are on the far side of the Bell curve on a board not averse to crayoning.

Sometimes the right solution requires a little out of the box thinking. Engineers can be creative, they just need a little push from urban planners in the right direction.

 

[Rainforest]

Underwater too, from time to time.

The southern end of Richmond Hill line is, indeed, not very useful for high-capacity service, both due to being in the floodpath and due to being away from any dense nodes.

But the northern end can useful. There are several potential ways to utilize it.

My preference would be for the line to take the "DRL Long" tunnel path, Downtown - Pape - Overlea - Thorncliffe - Science Centre - Don Mills & Lawrence, to just north of Lawrence where the existing Richmond Hill track crosses under Don Mills. From the point, I would switch from the tunnel run to the surface Richmond Hill corridor going up north. Obviously, such scheme is only possible if DRL uses mainline-compatible rolling stock (a choice that would have its own pros and cons).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The southern end of Richmond Hill line is, indeed, not very useful for high-capacity service, both due to being in the floodpath and due to being away from any dense nodes.

But the northern end can useful. There are several potential ways to utilize it.

My preference would be for the line to take the "DRL Long" tunnel path, Downtown - Pape - Overlea - Thorncliffe - Science Centre - Don Mills & Lawrence, to just north of Lawrence where the existing Richmond Hill track crosses under Don Mills. From the point, I would switch from the tunnel run to the surface Richmond Hill corridor going up north. Obviously, such scheme is only possible if DRL uses mainline-compatible rolling stock (a choice that would have its own pros and cons).

Perhaps they should twin the whole thing - 2 tracks for DRL, 2 tracks for RER. Sure it'd be more expensive but it will probably save ourselves from a lot of headaches later on - and it also leaves open the possibility of the DRL taking a different route from RER in the future northward.

As to using mainline-compatible rolling stock - the one benefit maybe not having to worry about where to put the depot as much.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

Perhaps they should twin the whole thing - 2 tracks for DRL, 2 tracks for RER. Sure it'd be more expensive but it will probably save ourselves from a lot of headaches later on - and it also leaves open the possibility of the DRL taking a different route from RER in the future northward.
As to using mainline-compatible rolling stock - the one benefit maybe not having to worry about where to put the depot as much.
AoD

The 2-track/4-track thing is the elephant in the room - the one that, respectfully, the engineers understand well while the more artsy-planners may just be realising. A 2-track right of way is eminently doable, and is fairly inexpensive because much of the existing civil works along the line are already built to accommodate it. Whereas a 4 track line is much more expensive, because it is twice as much track to build, and potentially wider than the existing right of way (potentially necessitating expropriation and new ea's) and because much of this existing civil work would have to be torn down and rebuilt. RER has the prior claim to the first two tracks, and it is plain fallacious for ST proponents to claim that "the lines are already there" - if the service frequency and speeds/stops plan drives one to a 4-track solution.

If one falls back on a two-track solution, the train spacing will have to be greater or the RER will have to make all the same stops as ST. This lowers capacity - the other elephant. Exactly what is the required capacity per hour for RER? for ST?

Until Tory, ML, TTC, and Toronto Council have an adult conversation about this - we are all just blowing smoke with our own personal visions and suggestions.

Re mainline-compatible rolling stock, I wonder if there is leverage for Transport Canada to be told to reconsider its margins. I recently rode a British HST at 125 mph over level crossings - and an even faster Pendolino that shared its route with antique steam locomotives. No one in the UK sounds concerned about their technology choices, nor did I feel at risk at the time. Yes, it's trading lives for dollars (assuming an accident is inevitable) but we do that anyways - this might be a more prudent tradeoff.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

Perhaps they should twin the whole thing - 2 tracks for DRL, 2 tracks for RER. Sure it'd be more expensive but it will probably save ourselves from a lot of headaches later on - and it also leaves open the possibility of the DRL taking a different route from RER in the future northward.

As to using mainline-compatible rolling stock - the one benefit maybe not having to worry about where to put the depot as much.

AoD

My preference would be to have the tunnel just be twin track, but the surface section be 3 or 4 track. That way you can run express trains until about York Mills, which would shave enough time off of a long distance trip, even if you are stopping at every station inside the tunnel.

If you don't want to 4 track the entire stretch, you can add passing tracks around stations only, although that would complicate operations.

 

[diminutive]

Perhaps they should twin the whole thing - 2 tracks for DRL, 2 tracks for RER. Sure it'd be more expensive but it will probably save ourselves from a lot of headaches later on - and it also leaves open the possibility of the DRL taking a different route from RER in the future northward.

As to using mainline-compatible rolling stock - the one benefit maybe not having to worry about where to put the depot as much.

AoD

I wonder if it wouldn't be more practical to go the other way and replace the Richmond Hill Line with a segregated, non-mainline rail system. Using mainline rail on any kind of DRL would massively inflate tunnelling costs versus other forms of rapid transit (bigger tunnels, bigger stations, shallower grades, flatter curves ect...)

The line would run through an EW tunnel downtown (for example, King), before turning north and running along the surface of the Bala sub. The line would cross the DVP and Don River, tunnel to an interchange w/Broadview Station, before exiting and climbing to run parallel to the Belleville sub. After interchanging with the ECLRT, the line would enter a stacked tunnel under the old Leaside spur (I'm assuming there would be too much opposition to run along the surface here, but it should be possible to build a stacked cut-cover tunnel for cheaper than boring). The line would rejoin the Richmond Hill Line and run along that more or less along the current route.

It may be cheaper versus building a four track electrified railway.

 

[dowlingm]

Any at-grade track expansion in the Richmond Hill line within the 416, particularly where it would involve widening existing ROW or other supporting works which would require significant tree clearance and/or impact on the waterway is also going to encounter heavy scrutiny from conservation groups (and rightly so).

 

[crs1026]

Any at-grade track expansion in the Richmond Hill line within the 416, particularly where it would involve widening existing ROW or other supporting works which would require significant tree clearance and/or impact on the waterway is also going to encounter heavy scrutiny from conservation groups (and rightly so).

You make a good point that applies equally to all our discussions about potential new routes - be they LRT, subway, heavy rail, whatever. Any new line built into the Don Valley habitat will trigger a very costly EA that will point out just how much flora and fauna resides in the Don Valley, and will likely demand some very substantial and costly mitigation. It's likely cost-effective to draw our notional lines so they stay out of the Don Valley altogether.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

SmartTrack can largely be rolled into GO RER with only minimal additional capital cost (assuming the Eglinton West section is dropped). If you do a bare bones upgrade compared to what was going to be done for RER, and poured the rest of that money into a Central Tunnel, an East York Tunnel, and electrification of the Richmond Hill line north of Lawrence, you'd basically be getting the benefits of both. You'd be following a very similar alignment to the DRL Long, and you'd be able to run SmartTrack branches from every GO RER line through the Central Tunnel, further maximizing relief.

This whole debate shouldn't be able DRL vs SmartTrack, it should be about "how do we morph SmartTrack so that it includes a DRL?".

My favorite solution.

I don't understand why we are so stiff in Toronto when it comes to transit. We must have it done with this specific technology and this specific train-set and this specific level of grade separation and this must work the same everywhere this line goes. Where is the creativity in that?

Morph the DRL with the Richmond Hill line and call it SmartTrack. The line can be both multi-purpose and all-purpose. While we are at it, find a LRT vehicle that can fit the Sheppard tunnel and be used at-grade on Sheppard East. If Bombardier doesn't want to build a vehicle to our specifications than that's their loss, we can take our business elsewhere to a company who gladly will.

Yup, it just makes so much more sense. It performs all of the functions of the DRL, it creates a backbone tunnel for a Toronto-based RER network (as opposed to a GTHA RER network, which is Union-centric), and it eliminates the need for the North Yonge Subway extension, since most of the ridership from that extension is coming from RHC (and the transfers occurring there). A Rapidway along Yonge south of there to Finch or Steeles should be sufficient to handle the demand of the NYCC-bound traffic, whereas SmartTrack carries downtown-bound traffic.

So how you are going to run a SmartTrack like service more frequently than 15 minutes? Metrolinx has doubts about being able to do that. And if we are to redirect all RER trains in a downtown tunnel, how on earth are you going to fit them all? Are you proposing an underground 14+ track corridor along Queen Street in Toronto? How much will that cost?

While I appreciate the creativity, I think some stiffness comes from analysis at Metrolinx, and the original plan as to where, when and how our most effective transit solutions will occur. And they are flexible when it makes sense (i.e. going with a subway between Pape and Don Mills, as opposed to surface LRT/BRT as originally planned).

SmartTrack is nothing more than drawing on a napkin, and it was flawed from the start. It should absolutely be a DRL vs SmartTrack debate, because morphing a flawed plan into something we need is setting up to fail.

 

[gweed123]

So how you are going to run a SmartTrack like service more frequently than 15 minutes? Metrolinx has doubts about being able to do that. And if we are to redirect all RER trains in a downtown tunnel, how on earth are you going to fit them all? Are you proposing an underground 14+ track corridor along Queen Street in Toronto? How much will that cost?

While I appreciate the creativity, I think some stiffness comes from analysis at Metrolinx, and the original plan as to where, when and how our most effective transit solutions will occur. And they are flexible when it makes sense (i.e. going with a subway between Pape and Don Mills, as opposed to surface LRT/BRT as originally planned).

SmartTrack is nothing more than drawing on a napkin, and it was flawed from the start. It should absolutely be a DRL vs SmartTrack debate, because morphing a flawed plan into something we need is setting up to fail.

Firstly, all RER trains wouldn't be directed into a downtown tunnel, just ones that are Toronto-specific RER services (aka SmartTrack). The 905-centric RER services (the bulk of what Metrolinx is planning) would still go into Union. At full build-out, you'd be looking at 4 branches of the Toronto-specific RER service, overlaid on top of the full RER network.

The concept of SmartTrack as a Toronto-specific overlay to the region-wide RER network has some validity. The implementation may need some work though. The basic idea that you should have two tiers of RER service makes sense: one with more local stop spacing that serves principally Toronto and the inner 905 hubs, and another that serves the bulk of the 905 and runs semi-express through the 416.

 

[rbt]

And if we are to redirect all RER trains in a downtown tunnel, how on earth are you going to fit them all?

More than a few locations comfortably run GO's entire commuter load through a 2 track tunnel. The RER-A line alone carries 300,000,000 trips per year (~1 million per weekday); still around 2 times GO's entire peak load (5x total weekday load but RER has very high off-peak ridership).

That wasn't the proposal but it is practical with technology widely available to do exactly that. You might continue to send the diesel express to Union and have electrified service run through the tunnel with 2 or 3 stops downtown (Jarvis, Bay, and Spadina).