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

[44 North]

Re: the discussions about possibilities for GO-related DRL options. Let's not forgot that Metrolinx did give us a few interesting ideas:

Then we have a mammary-shaped proposal. If built, it can be colloquially referred to as the boob tube:

As well, they did offer brief musings about ideas using the valley:

And does anyone know when exactly the Phase II - Long List of Options will be coming out? Shouldn't it have been released by now? I'm very much looking forward to it.

Who says they have to be side by side - why not stack them in one tunnel?

Ah, good thinking. Stacked definitely makes sense.

 

[dunkalunk]

As well, they did offer brief musings about ideas using the valley:
View attachment 40708

That's the Richmond Hill GO line and 15 minute RER service does make some sense, although it's beyond me where you'd reasonably be able to put a GO Station between Gerrard St (likely to be flooded once every two years) and Don Mills north of Lawrence on the existing alignment

 

[mdrejhon]

I'm trying to buy a pre-construction condo or loft somewhere close to the vicinity of the future DRL. I'm hoping that I'll luck out with the timing, and reap the benefits not long after move-in day lolol. I've always assumed it will be along Queen, but some of the diagrams here are showing the alignment further south to intersect w/ union??

Tip for GTHA opps.... If you're not picky on location, pay attention to Hamilton and its LRT debate, as well as the already-under-construction GOTrain developments. Hamilton's LRT will be built sooner than Toronto's DRL (unless you consider SmartTrack as the DRL).

(...Property values are going up fast in some non-depressed neighborhoods, but many adjacent areas are still depressed and cheap. It's a mix of the very depressed and the rapidly bouncing. Look at what happened to Hamilton's Locke street (even boring houses rocketed to Oshawa/Pickering values), houses are now expensive along there. More of these mixed-gentrification events (for better or for worse) will be happening elsewhere in certain areas of Hamilton. See nice renovated house for over half a million, walk only a few blocks, similar-size live-inable renovatable opportunties for $250K or less. Detached! It's really a mix of expensive neighborhoods nearby cheap neighborhoods, ripe for profitting off a fix-me-upper as the improving areas expand. Former downtowner who bought a house in Ham. I commute to my Toronto job by GOTrain. 4 bedroom detached near proposed LRT route, for same price as a tiny 1-bedroom condo in downtown Toronto. Similar houses as mine in 416 Toronto cost more than 3x more. Mortgage for less than the Toronto rent I paid...)

 

[44 North]

Brief musing on idea using the Don Valley. That's the Richmond Hill GO line and 15 minute RER service does make some sense, although it's beyond me where you'd reasonably be able to put a GO Station between Gerrard St (likely to be flooded once every two years) and Don Mills north of Lawrence on the existing alignment

They did say "improved usage of rail in the valley", which is vague and more than likely means your interpretation of using the standard Richmond Hill line. But they did also mention the abandoned Don Sub - which would entail quite a major change than the standard RH line. And if you look at their map, it's quite obvious that it uses the Don Branch. (edit: perhaps it's not obvious. One that map is kinda low-quality, so it's hard to tell. But they did mention it at least, so I think musings plural works) But you're 100% correct that a station where they claim (Cherry), or in the DRTES (Queen) is highly suspect. I don't see it working either.

 

[dunkalunk]

They did say "improved usage of rail in the valley", which is vague and more than likely means your interpretation of using the standard Richmond Hill line. But they did also mention the abandoned Don Sub - which would entail quite a major change than the standard RH line. And if you look at their map, it's quite obvious that it uses the Don Branch. (edit: perhaps it's not obvious. One that map is kinda low-quality, so it's hard to tell. But they did mention it at least, so I think musings plural works) But you're 100% correct that a station where they claim (Cherry), or in the DRTES (Queen) is highly suspect. I don't see it working either.

I actually think Cherry can work quite well as a GO station on the Richmond Hill Line, as well as a GO RER station.

 

[Conrad Black]

Fun discussion about the line up the Don but ultimately a big waste of time. There is absolutely no chance this will happen. Putting a line through Riverdale Park will never happen. Ever. The political firestorm would be massive.

 

[gweed123]

I continue to be mystified why Smarttrack keeps getting mentioned as something more than a line on a map with fairly arbitrary stop spacing and generally fanciful promises about capacity.

We will get GO RER, but assuming favourable TTC fare integration, it's not going to have the frequency or capacity to obviate the need for a DRL in some form.

Unless the two projects are integrated into one. 905 GO RER uses Union and the rail corridors, 416 GO RER uses the rail corridors in the suburbs and a Central Tunnel through downtown. This would accomplish even more relief than a TTC subway would, because the branches of such a line could extend much further into suburban areas than any new TTC subway could, unless that TTC subway came with a budget in the tens of billions.

 

[44 North]

That's the Richmond Hill GO line and 15 minute RER service does make some sense, although it's beyond me where you'd reasonably be able to put a GO Station between Gerrard St (likely to be flooded once every two years) and Don Mills north of Lawrence on the existing alignment

I was going by their cruddy map, and assumed their Cherry was the same as the DRTES’ Queen/Bayview. But you’re correct that a SmartTrack (or RH) station at Cherry Street proper would make sense. It seems a bit odd that we’ve raised such a plan as SmartTrack to priority status - with what another poster mentioned are ambiguous stations that may never happen; but have seemingly ignored serving the Port Lands area. The Port Lands, Lower Don Lands, Keating, and East Bayfront are way larger than the Unilever site, and farther along in terms of planning and development. Although we haven’t yet tackled the naturalization of the river’s mouth (which is an unfunded Billion dollars in its own right), with many properties and development contingent on it being built (even Unilever to some extent assoc. w/ flooding, zoning, insurance) – I think a station at Cherry would be very beneficial to the second city being built along our eastern downtown waterfront. I've had some earlier rants about waterfront transit in another post (QQ BRT I think).

Fun discussion about the line up the Don but ultimately a big waste of time. There is absolutely no chance this will happen. Putting a line through Riverdale Park will never happen. Ever. The political firestorm would be massive.

Metrolinx’s studies of using the valley aren’t contingent on crossing at Riverdale. There are other possibilities that use the valley, as the screenshot shows on the previous page. And although I think it is doable to cross at Riverdale (contrary to what some posters think; I’ve given my reasons why) - I also don’t see it being presented. Maybe longlisted, but I don’t believe the Prov has the fortitude to follow through. Perhaps 20 years ago. An election could very well ride on that one specific issue. But using the same logic re: opposition to rail in a valley (which is already a heavily-used transport corridor), much of SmartTrack/RER and its stations may also prove to be very problematic and politically unpopular. Look at the Queen or Gerrard station sites. Parks will probably be destroyed, and stations cantilevered above the street and next to homes. That seems less realistic than a short section of EL along a parks soggy periphery, next to two highways and a current rail corridor, several hundred metres from homes.

As an aside, I may make a new alignment for my fantasy map. Or rather, adjustments to use as little park space as possible. I believe it is promising to cross the valley at/around that point. The pedestrian bridge linking the parks would have to be removed and rebuilt, River St/Bayview ramp rebuilt, and Bayview and DVP would have a section of EL above short stretches (which is doable). Another poster mentioned something like this a few days ago, and it’s logical. If it allows for the opportunity to save two billion dollarydoos, and have the DRL actually get built, I think it’s worth pursuing.

 

[ehlow]

I continue to be mystified why Smarttrack keeps getting mentioned as something more than a line on a map with fairly arbitrary stop spacing and generally fanciful promises about capacity.

We will get GO RER, but assuming favourable TTC fare integration, it's not going to have the frequency or capacity to obviate the need for a DRL in some form.

I continue to be mystified why people assume that SmartTrack cannot run at a subway-like frequency, if necessary.

DRL is a line on a map at this point as well.

Re: Union issues, we could be looking at a SmartTrack tunnel after it's built & running as Gweed mentioned (and envisioned on his GO REX maps).

 

[gweed123]

I continue to be mystified why people assume that SmartTrack cannot run at a subway-like frequency, if necessary.

DRL is a line on a map at this point as well.

Re: Union issues, we could be looking at a SmartTrack tunnel after it's built & running as Gweed mentioned (and envisioned on his GO REX maps).

Exactly. If designed properly, SmartTrack (aka GO RER Toronto) can provide more efficient transit service to the outer 416 via the rail corridors, while at the same time providing subway-level service to the shoulder areas of downtown via a Central Tunnel. The service in the outer 416 may only be every 15 mins due to branching, but when they overlap in the Central Tunnel, you can easily get subway-level service. In the suburbs, you'd take a lot of pressure off of the bus network, which wouldn't be needed nearly as much to carry passengers over long distances to reach the subway network. GO RER stations along the routes would provide many more opportunities for transfers.

As a side note, rather than using "GO RER DRL Tunnel" (which is a mouthful), I think that Central Tunnel is a good way to describe the downtown part of the GO RER Toronto network. Just my personal opinion on that though, and wanted to clear up any confusion by what I meant by Central Tunnel.

 

[JGHali]

Unless the two projects are integrated into one. 905 GO RER uses Union and the rail corridors, 416 GO RER uses the rail corridors in the suburbs and a Central Tunnel through downtown. This would accomplish even more relief than a TTC subway would, because the branches of such a line could extend much further into suburban areas than any new TTC subway could, unless that TTC subway came with a budget in the tens of billions.

Sure, if you essentially build SmartTrack as a subway with subway capacity and headways, then it will serve the same purpose as a DRL.

But it won't have anything to do with GO RER and won't be fund-able with Tory's TIF.

I continue to be mystified why people assume that SmartTrack cannot run at a subway-like frequency, if necessary.

DRL is a line on a map at this point as well.

Re: Union issues, we could be looking at a SmartTrack tunnel after it's built & running as Gweed mentioned (and envisioned on his GO REX maps).

Because subway-frequency and subway-stop-spacing costs money. A lot of money. So do lengthy tunnels through downtown. Tory's premise is that you can build a lot of new stations with electrified trains running at 15 minute intervals, all while using existing rail infrastructure, though "possibly" some tunnelling somewhere. And all this at no net cost to taxpayers, because tax-increment financing will take care of everything. I'm not sure how one "easily" gets "subway-level" service.

It's a fanciful plan based on a series of faulty premises which takes existing GO RER plans and draws a line on a napkin (using an outdated Google Streetview) from Mount Dennis to the airport.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Sure, if you essentially build SmartTrack as a subway with subway capacity and headways, then it will serve the same purpose as a DRL.

But it won't have anything to do with GO RER and won't be fund-able with Tory's TIF.

SmartTrack as designed can't, and won't serve as a Relief Line. It will increase usage on Line 1 south of Bloor, increase crowding at Union Station, and only marginally reduces crowding at Bloor-Yonge. SmartTrack also fails to provide the same downtown rapid transit coverage of the Relief Line

Conversely, the Relief Line lowers usage of Line 1 south of Bloor, relieves crowding of Union Station, significantly reduces crowding at Bloor-Yonge Station and significantly increases downtown rapid transit coverage.

Of course, SmartTrack has other objectives, which is why the project may be worthwhile. But it cannot be a replacement for RL.

 

[ehlow]

Sure, if you essentially build SmartTrack as a subway with subway capacity and headways, then it will serve the same purpose as a DRL.

But it won't have anything to do with GO RER and won't be fund-able with Tory's TIF.



Because subway-frequency and subway-stop-spacing costs money. A lot of money. So do lengthy tunnels through downtown. Tory's premise is that you can build a lot of new stations with electrified trains running at 15 minute intervals, all while using existing rail infrastructure, though "possibly" some tunnelling somewhere. And all this at no net cost to taxpayers, because tax-increment financing will take care of everything. I'm not sure how one "easily" gets "subway-level" service.

It's a fanciful plan based on a series of faulty premises which takes existing GO RER plans and draws a line on a napkin (using an outdated Google Streetview) from Mount Dennis to the airport.

I find it mystifying that in a reply quoting my post, you put quotes around the word "easily", as if I had used that word. If you look at my post, I never used the word "easily", or even any word that's equivalent to that word.

Of course it costs money to run frequent service and build stations. It costs money to do that whether you build a DRL or spend that money on SmartTrack, or any other transit line, either way it costs money to run service.

Any increase in service on GO or the TTC requires money. Running the new trains on the Spadina extension or the new Eglinton line will require money.

Also SmartTrack never went to the airport. It goes to the border of Mississauga around the Eglinton-Renforth area, where office parks are. "Airport Corporate Centre" isn't the airport itself.

 

[gweed123]

Sure, if you essentially build SmartTrack as a subway with subway capacity and headways, then it will serve the same purpose as a DRL.

But it won't have anything to do with GO RER and won't be fund-able with Tory's TIF.

GO RER won't have anything to do with SmartTrack? I guess someone forgot to tell Metrolinx that, because their December board meeting featured quite extensively on how they were working on ways to integrate ST with RER. It seems that Metrolinx is looking at SmartTrack as a Toronto-specific sub-service of GO RER.

As for Tory's TIF, I think as it stands right now it's a red herring, because the current implementation of SmartTrack will run exclusively on GO corridors, with the exception of the Eglinton West branch, which is likely to be dropped. All of that tab is being covered by Metrolinx. Now, if a Central Tunnel was built to route SmartTrack away from Union, then a TIF may be in order, and would actually be pretty effective considering the amount of development in downtown and in the east and west shoulders of downtown, which the Central Tunnel would all hit.

 

[crs1026]

GO RER won't have anything to do with SmartTrack? I guess someone forgot to tell Metrolinx that, because their December board meeting featured quite extensively on how they were working on ways to integrate ST with RER. It seems that Metrolinx is looking at SmartTrack as a Toronto-specific sub-service of GO RER.

The only difference between GO-RER and Smarttrack (aside from packaging) was the focus....GO has always emphasised links between Toronto and outlying communities, while Smarttrack really was a proxy for a within-Toronto heavy transit line (aka subway).

It will be interesting to see whether a compromise is possible. The more within-the-city stops are added, the less well ST/RER serves the Regions. The fewer stops, the less it serves as within-city transit.

Why is it that Torontonians are habituated to using the Yonge/University subway between either the Bloor Line and Union Station and their downtown destination? I spent a good part of my working career at University and College. St George Subway station was an easy walk, and many folks bound for the GO at Union Station did walk in good weather. However, they relied on the subway particularly in bad weather.

Part of the solution to the DRL/RER/ST conundrum ought to be removing the need for more riders to board the Yonge/University subway at all, particularly for a two or three stop ride. Possibiliities: an LRT line connecting the Rosedale Subway Station to Bay and Queen - a short underground section north of Bloor, emerging in the middle of Bay north of Bloor (has to be aboveground over Bloor due to the depth of the current Bay subway station, could connect with Bloor line with a middle of road station like the old Yonge line-Bloor Streetcar stop) and running on a separated right of way with intensive traffic priority down to Queen. Gives people an alternative way around Yonge/Bloor. Or perhaps an LRT line from Eglinton/Avenue Road to the lake along Avenue Road/University. Or down Sherbourne or Church.

A second suggestion - a more intensified network of moving sidewalks radiating from Union Station, as an alternative to PATH - could even be elevated. There are some LONG moving sidewalks and corridors on the Paris Metro - woe to anyone who slows or stops walking on those! Same thing south from Sherbourne, Yonge, Bay Stations as far as College or Dundas. The solution to congested transit may be something other than adding more transit!

If we had a better system for that problem, things could get easier. Smarttrack/RER could continue to use the rail corridors, pumping a much larger number of people out into the downtown from Union Station without channeling them into a subway station. DRL could find a logical route across the downtown without having as tight a connection with the Yonge/University line.

- Paul