Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[TheTigerMaster]

The suburbs "deserve" rapid transit, but they deserve better than subways, which are way too slow given the massive distanced that need to be covered.

Toronto's suburbs need some sort of "Toronto Overground" system. We should be looking at repurposing under-utilized corridors, such as hydro and freight corridors for long-distance, predominantly at-grade travel. Lighter, "Ontario Line"-style vehicles could be used to make elevation on an option. This system could be connected to the downtown core via the Midtown rail corridor, and perhaps through building a second subway tunnel through the Downtown core (a regional rail tunnel though the Downtown core has been proposed by Metrolinx and will inevitably be necessary). This system should be separate and distinct from the GO RER system, to avoid overloading the system with commuters from Toronto's inner suburbs.

The Gatineau hydro corridor in Scarborough is very wide, and should be able to accommodate a regional rail line bisecting the entire borough.

Totally agree, that was the plan of GO-ALRT decades ago. It should be resurfaced after the success of the REM in Montreal

That being said GO Expansion/Electrification will already be doing lots of what you are proposing on rail corridors.

While this is true we do still have some "growing up" to do in this regard. I look at the loss of the station at Lawrence East as proof that we are still trapped in a "North American" mentality when it comes to transit planning. I like anyone else want GO to transition away from being a suburban focused rail network into an urban rail network like what is seen in places like London, Berlin, or Tokyo. Yet to do this we need to stop being afraid of "stepping on toes" if you will. We dropped the GO Station at Lawrence East due to the SSE which in my opinion is the wrong thing to do. If you go to any of the previously mentioned cities, finding a subway station and a commuter rail station a block apart from each other is common. Instead over here we adopt an approach that has to justify a line or stations existence. In this case we dropped the GO Station at Lawrence in order to justify the existence of one on the SSE, when in fact you can have both since they would cater to 2 different markets. As well we use "ridership" numbers in a vacuum to justify plans, when in fact nothing in this case exists in vacuum but is part of a larger network. In this case Metrolinx saw that Lawrence East GO station would have low ridership yet looked at it as if it were in a vacuum and not part of the larger Stouffville GO Line. If we did that for all our plans the overwhelming majority of subway stations we have today wouldn't exist. Instead though we built stations like Chester, or Greenwood because even though there ridership would be quite low compared to some other stations, they were part of a larger "whole"; so any disadvantage would be offset by the contribution (however small) to the bigger picture.

Other major cities have a multitude of transit modes to address specific travel patterns. London has the Underground (similar to Toronto Subway), Overground (similar to what we're discussing right now), Thameslink (GO RER), and their busses and trams.

In Toronto, we want each mode of transit to simultaneously satisfy every travel mode. The Eglinton LRT is somehow a local and "crosstown" (regional) line. RER is somehow supposed to meet Toronto's local transit needs, while serving communities 100+ km from the core of the city. The subway is serving far flung places like VMC, Richmond Hill Centre and Scarborough Centre, while also having stops every 700 metres. A transit line can't be good at anything if it's designed to be everything to all people.

Transit modes should be catered to serve their specific markets. And, yes, that means we might have to deal with duplication of infrastructure (eg, multiple downtown tunnels), like every other real city in the world.

 

[afransen]

Whatever happened to streetcar suburbs? That was a good model to follow.

I think the modern take on a streetcar suburb might be a 'regional rail suburb'. You have surface rail ROWs, with stations every ~2km (for high average speed) and you build the community hubs around those stations. And you don't plough arterials to those stations. We make our transit stations unlivable because we insist they need to be on the intersection or 4 or 6 lane highways. It makes it unpleasant to get to those stations by walking or cycling with cars and trucks roaring past. The arterials should be on the perimeter of the transit station areas, not running up the centre. That is a model for greenfield suburb that can be built around day 1 quality transit, built to be livable and dense, and without excess infrastructure costs down the road. For some reason, we are terrified of thinking big building new surface passenger rail ROWs unless it costs $200M/km in the middle of a street or $600M/km in a tunnel beneath it. How about $20-$50M/km at grade, and put it in place (at least provisioned) before we allow any development?

 

[afransen]

We can build streetcar suburbs, which is why I do support some of Transit City's lines such as Malvern and Finch West, however streetcar suburb models only apply to area where the goal is to get from a suburb to downtown IE a feeder route. Building Crosstown Lines with Streetcars isn't building a streetcar suburb, its just bad design.

Well, a streetcar suburb implies connecting nodes of density, not continuous strips of density. The latter warrants subway with closer stop spacing.

 

[MrGoose]

I think the modern take on a streetcar suburb might be a 'regional rail suburb'. You have surface rail ROWs, with stations every ~2km (for high average speed) and you build the community hubs around those stations. And you don't plough arterials to those stations. We make our transit stations unlivable because we insist they need to be on the intersection or 4 or 6 lane highways. It makes it unpleasant to get to those stations by walking or cycling with cars and trucks roaring past. The arterials should be on the perimeter of the transit station areas, not running up the centre. That is a model for greenfield suburb that can be built around day 1 quality transit, built to be livable and dense, and without excess infrastructure costs down the road. For some reason, we are terrified of thinking big building new surface passenger rail ROWs unless it costs $200M/km in the middle of a street or $600M/km in a tunnel beneath it. How about $20-$50M/km at grade, and put it in place (at least provisioned) before we allow any development?

You'd be terrified of ploughing down peoples houses too if you had to try and do it.

Think about the levels of nimbyism in North America. We can't build the Ontario Line above ground because nimbys think it'll destroy the the neighborhood. And thats along an existing ROW Do you really think that actually tearing down people's houses to make a new ROW would ever fly?

It'd take 100 years of litigation to secure the land to do that.

 

[nfitz]

Think about the levels of nimbyism in North America. We can't build the Ontario Line above ground because nimbys think it'll destroy the the neighborhood. And thats along an existing ROW Do you really think that actually tearing down people's houses to make a new ROW would ever fly?

I'm missing something here ... if tearing down houses along a new ROW wouldn't fly, why is it okay to tear down houses beside an existing right-of-way?

 

[afransen]

You'd be terrified of ploughing down peoples houses too if you had to try and do it.

Think about the levels of nimbyism in North America. We can't build the Ontario Line above ground because nimbys think it'll destroy the the neighborhood. And thats along an existing ROW Do you really think that actually tearing down people's houses to make a new ROW would ever fly?

It'd take 100 years of litigation to secure the land to do that.

I think you confusing things. Building elevated along existing arterial ROWs may only require expropriating property at stations. For the discussion of 'regional rail suburbs' using surface alignments, I was talking about how we approach greenfield development (ie, before there are houses or neighbourhoods).

 

[MrGoose]

I think you confusing things. Building elevated along existing arterial ROWs may only require expropriating property at stations. For the discussion of 'regional rail suburbs' using surface alignments, I was talking about how we approach greenfield development (ie, before there are houses or neighbourhoods).

There isn’t that much space to do that anymore.

Maybe if we were having this conversation in the 60s.

 

[MrGoose]

I'm missing something here ... if tearing down houses along a new ROW wouldn't fly, why is it okay to tear down houses beside an existing right-of-way?

They’re not tearing down houses along an existing ROW. They’re just adding another pair of tracks along an ROW that can accommodate them and you have nimbys rising up.

 

[afransen]

There isn’t that much space to do that anymore.

Maybe if we were having this conversation in the 60s.

There is the strip between Milton/Georgetown and Mississauga/Brampton, and then along the north edge of Brampton east into York.

 

[afransen]

They’re not tearing down houses along an existing ROW. They’re just adding another pair of tracks along an ROW that can accommodate them and you have nimbys rising up.

Nimbys always and everywhere will complain. I don't think they will be successful with their complaints about Ontario Line.

 

[MrGoose]

There is the strip between Milton/Georgetown and Mississauga/Brampton, and then along the north edge of Brampton east into York.

I suppose you could, though the Brampton one would be difficult to connect to an existing GO Line unless the Bolton sub becomes GO one day.

I don't think you'll ever see a politician propose something like that though.

Nimbys always and everywhere will complain. I don't think they will be successful with their complaints about Ontario Line.

They won't be but it'll be annoying.

 

[afransen]

I suppose you could, though the Brampton one would be difficult to connect to an existing GO Line unless the Bolton sub becomes GO one day.

I don't think you'll ever see a politician propose something like that though.

Not because it is impossible, but because we are anchored on the current model of transit and development. Use existing ROWs only to limited effect and at tremendous expense, and only try to fix new development 30 years after it goes in.

We should know that politicians never lead. They find parades and get in front of them.

 

[44 North]

Absolutely, we should be pushing for Eglinton West to be elevated. Unfortunately no politicians are offering that option. Its either underground, or smack dab in the middle of the street, and between those 2 options, underground is better. However if you want to start a movement to elevated Eglinton too, I'd gladly stand by your side.

"Smack dab in the middle of the street" lol...as it was designed to be. Crosstown is not a subway line. Argue about the decade and a half-old decision to use LFLRVs and in median all you want, but as it stands today Crosstown is an LRT. On top of that the ridership modelling for west of Jane peters off quite a bit.

I've been an advocate of building a light metro system across Eglinton when the decision was doable. Now that's long past. What we have now is a low-floor urban tram, and tunneling it through central Etobicoke is ridiculous. It actually makes more sense to continue it as the LRT design it was meant to be (and is - east of Leslie). Maybe with a couple duck unders/overs not unlike @ Don Mills.

 

[nfitz]

They’re not tearing down houses along an existing ROW. They’re just adding another pair of tracks along an ROW that can accommodate them and you have nimbys rising up.

This isn't true. They aren't staying exclusively in the existing ROW.

 

[KhalilHeron]

This isn't true. They aren't staying exclusively in the existing ROW.

Farrr less than for an entirely new row