BurlOak
Senior Member
Does $200M count as cheap.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Does $200M count as cheap.
44 North
Senior Member
I used the term viaduct on purpose. The section through Riverdale and ET Seton would predominantly be an elevated line less than 5m above the ground – most wouldn’t use the term “in the sky” for that. Earthen embankments can work for much of those stretches, but I’d wager that would be costlier and deemed more obtrusive than concrete piers. Dozens of cities are using elevated technology when faced with high tunnelling costs, even here in TO.
And let’s look at UPX for a second. It has a 3km elevated spur (half the distance as my proposal), twin tracks, totally elevated, with a 28m altitude at its highest point...and they did it for $128M!
The largest span in my Don Line proposal is the “Half-Mile Bridge” (actually just 350m). An almost identical structure over the Humber was reinforced and twinned for the Georgetown South/UPX project, and barely anyone took notice. It’s not that complex a project when much of the infrastructure is in place; unlike the span needed for the majority of DRL plans where it crosses from Pape/Millwood to Thorncliffe Park.
The more I talk about my proposal, the more plausible and fiscally responsible it seems. It shares a lot of similarities with UPX - neighbourhood opposition, elevated sections, use of current infrastructure and corridors... And when looking at the costs of UPX, I'd wager my Don Line could be done for 1/5 of an all-underground DRL route.
Edit: And can anyone answer as to whether a DRL (any alignment) can run 3-car Transit City type LRT trains? Or is it accepted that's not possible and 6-car heavy rail is the only way?
Attachments
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
Wow, I actually really like this idea.
I am almost near certain that the central portion of Eglinton will have greater demand than anticipated. This can be dealt with by increasing the frequency through the central portion by interlining the Crosstown with a Sheppard-Don Mills route. Half of trains through the central portion can originate from Eglinton East, and the other half on Sheppard. This is actually quite similar to the current bus route situation on Eglinton where buses from Lawrence, Leslie, Laird and Flemingdon Park all accumulate through the central portion of Eglinton East, increasing frequency where it is needed most.
Build the DRL to Eglinton-Don Mills and all those Sheppard riders would take the Sheppard line down to Eglinton and transfer on to the DRL. This would actually provide REAL relief to the Yonge line!
I'm sold. Someone make a map in the Fantasy Map thread.
Edit: Got excited, made one myself.
There are a few potential problems with this plan:
1) Eglinton is not going to be grade-separated between Laird and Don Mills. As such, I am not sure if it can sustain the combined frequency of those two branches.
2) The "Eglinton-Sheppard" branch will be extremely long. Counting from the current western terminus at Mt Dennis to the eastern terminus at Conlins & Sheppard, it will be 34 km long. If the western end is at Pearson, or at Jane and Steeles, another 10 km have to be added. I am not sure that such a long LRT route can be operated reliably.
3) Service to Don Mills road north of Sheppard. Either that section will be detached from DRL (need to transfer at Sheppard to LRT, and then at Eglinton to subway), or there will be duplication of service on Don Mills (LRT + bus, or LRT + LRT).
ehlow
Senior Member
I don't see the need for a continuous line on Sheppard -> Don Mills -> Eglinton.
ksun
Senior Member
Whoever thinks the main purpose of the drl is to relieve Yonge line is very very short-sighted. It is very suburban minded ( they won't admit tho) to think our subway system's sole purpose is to carry people from the suburbs to the CBD during weekday rush hours.
WislaHD
Superstar
Noone said it was the exclusive benefit/role, just the most immediate effect to transit patterns.
Personally, I am looking forward to what a DRL could do to East York. East York is close enough to downtown that it could experience its own wave of densification following building of the subway.
ehlow
Senior Member
If your alignment is really that much cheaper & faster to build, then it's definitely worth considering. They must be looking at a similar alignment during the study happening now.
Having said that, there are many examples of rapid transit lines built where they are because it was cheap & easy rather than where density of residents & jobs are, which we now look back at and say is not ideal.
Examples in Toronto:
- the Spadina subway along Allen Rd & Cedarvale ravine. It's starting to get development now, but has been underused for many years, and many would've preferred it to be under a road like Bathurst or Dufferin.
- the SRT: goes through existing ROW through industrial lands, which was cheap to build on, but as a result many of the intermediary stations are under-used.
I'm undecided, I'd have to know how many years of construction faster it could be built and how much cheaper. The argument you'll run into is "if we're going to do the DRL we should do it right for future generations".
Re: vehicle types, should we use light rail or heavy rail vehicles when the line is elevated? I think you can potentially even get 4-car LRT trains, which would be 120m long. They're still narrower, which could be a benefit for the bridges & elevated structures. It could be very high capacity with automated control and full grade separation, and since your route doesn't have many stations, probably pretty high speed.
I have to say that the image of LRT trains running elevated through through the rail corridors & ravine, across bridges, is very appealing.
Very good point. I hadn't really considered that when I did my analysis of 44 North's plan a few pages back, but you're right. It does pretty much duplicate the routing of the King streetcar. Historically, those have been Toronto's most successful subway routes.
Agreed. And as for the Transit City LRV thing, I had worked on something similar a while back. Basically what I had then was the Jane and Don Mills LRTs funnelling into a DRL tunnel, as well as the Queen Streetcar (which would have been an LRT in the west end). Ultimately though, I determined that the headways would be too small with 3 car trains to make it efficient. You'd need to be running subway-length LRT trains in order to handle the ridership, which would be unfit for surface operations anyway, so the entire impetus for using LRT (cheaper suburban surface sections) would be impractical.
In reality, the DRL needs to either be TTC subway, or GO REX EMUs. LRT may work as a secondary line in downtown (I come back to the Parliament LRT again), but I think that any substantial tunnelled LRT length in downtown, other than perhaps to facilitate easier connections to the subway stations, is pretty cost inefficient in terms of passenger capacity per dollars spent.
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
How much train traffic does the Don Valley { or whatever it's called} actually carry everyday. Is it a busy freight or or just basically used for GO? Reason I ask is if it has lite traffic than maybe a tram-train would be a good start.
44 North
Senior Member
Okay, yeah. It seems you read my mind in knowing why I asked. But I guess the idea of a Don Mills and/or Jane LRT through-routed with a DRL has been discussed over the years. My idea of a Don Mills LRT (from Eglinton to Sheppard) would've been completely grade-separated, probably some kind of elevated concrete viaduct. I haven't looked at it too closely though, but a thorough Yonge relief is an interesting idea worth pursuing.
I'm amazed the idea hasn't been looked at to begin with. Someone linked to Levy's chapter on past projects, and none seem to use that corridor. Nor have I ever actually seen the Don Branch mentioned in any report. Any valley routing appears to use the Richmond Hill routing - which is much longer, in the floodplain, and to this day requires grade separation at Pottery Rd.
And I get the notion behind how cheap transit routing may negatively affect growth potential. But I still feel a lot of that has to do more with poor attempts at rezoning, and local opposition to zoning changes. IMO the SRT would have significantly higher density along its route if Scarb's City Council/Planning (or our current Council) pursued those changes. My guess is they haven't because they know people would gather with pitchforks. And the redevelopment at Lawrence Heights seemed to be most stymied by local opposition to density increases, and not a lack of private interest. Some of my favourite developments/neighbourhoods are in the tucked away corners of former industrial with no through-streets.
And the savings offered by less direct routes can be phenomenal. I wasn't aware until that bozo posted bashing any elevated option that the 3km UPX spur was done so inexpensively. $128M?!? And it's quite curvy and built overtop of several highways. The whole UPX offers cost savings that are astounding when compared to the astronomical numbers of any subway/LRT project.
And yes, the last point. Very appealing to me also. Even the stretch through Leaside along the valley's west face offers some amazing views. A train zipping through a misty, snowy, or lush valley is much more pleasant than a dank/dark tunnel.
The former CP Don Branch is completely abandoned. Its traffic basically consists of deer, coyotes, hobos, and the occasional hiker.
Last edited:
dowlingm
Senior Member
I've been kicking around the notion of a mirror platform on the east side of Union to the UPX one to the west, which could have DMUs shuttling between Union and (at least) Redway Road with options to extend back to the DVP with various levels of capital works and CP co-operation. A lot of challenges and like the Richmond Hill track subject to flooding south of Bloor but it just bugs me that the alignment is there, in Metrolinx ownership as far as the CP yard, and no use being made of it.
Of course, if such a proposal did move forward Metrolinx might have to admit to significant work being needed on the viaduct for trains to cross it at any speed...
Of course, if such a proposal did move forward Metrolinx might have to admit to significant work being needed on the viaduct for trains to cross it at any speed...
44 North
Senior Member
Using the the corridor alignment from Winchester (where the Don Branch joins Richmond Hill corridor) to Union seems the most logical place to run any route. However it would be an extremely tight fit. The narrowed and marginalized river, a recreational path, an occupied freight/commuter track, Bayview Ave, and all in the floodplain.... I'm not sure if it's at all possible to run two-way service in there. Maybe I'm wrong. The bike path could be rejigged to the east and cantilevered over the river, and taller retaining walls can be built so as to move Bayview further to the west.
Looking south from Riverdale pedestrian bridge
Attachments
ssiguy2
Senior Member
So the Don CP line just has deer eh? Well that's certainly an option for transit, it works for Santa.
The reason I asked is that along these seldom/abandoned routes and GO lines during the day I think a tram-train would be ideal.
Tram-trains are really gaining in popularity due to the success in Germany and there are over 30 proposals for European cities alone.
A tram-train is the ultimate in flexibility. You have heard of dual-mode transit, well basically a tram-train is a quadruple-mode transport system. Tram-trains are regular trams/streetcars that can run on both regular streetcar track and regular railway track. So in other words they could go down King to DV and then take the DV rail corridor. There other 2 dual-mode is that can run on electric using standard streetcar catenary or diesel or a combination of both. So, for example, that King/DV line could be electric down King and then diesel down DV rail corridor.
They are NOT proprietary but made by by the big three......Bombardier, Siemens, and Alstom. In fact the Bombardier model is also a Flexity known as the Flexity Link. They are great for getting rid of the dreaded last mile, getting rid of endless transfers, make use of existing corridor both streetcar and railways, and are great precursors to surface subway routes or GO lines during the day when full monster bi-levels are not required. I think the Bombardier models top out at 50 meters and the Siemens are the largest at 70 meters.
They are also accessible and the Bombardier model has a 100% low floor model as well as models.
These vehicles are the ultimate in versatility and can take advantage of both existing streetcar and regular GO train maintenance and control centres. Further good news is that not only are they legal across Europe but there is also one current line running in New Jersey and Transport Canada tend to follow the US in terms of transport technology and standards.
They don't at all look like UPX DMU/EMU units but rather just your standard streetcar/tram and if you saw one going down King or wherever you would never know the difference. That would also help in making the service clearly distinguishable between GO and TTC service.
The reason I asked is that along these seldom/abandoned routes and GO lines during the day I think a tram-train would be ideal.
Tram-trains are really gaining in popularity due to the success in Germany and there are over 30 proposals for European cities alone.
A tram-train is the ultimate in flexibility. You have heard of dual-mode transit, well basically a tram-train is a quadruple-mode transport system. Tram-trains are regular trams/streetcars that can run on both regular streetcar track and regular railway track. So in other words they could go down King to DV and then take the DV rail corridor. There other 2 dual-mode is that can run on electric using standard streetcar catenary or diesel or a combination of both. So, for example, that King/DV line could be electric down King and then diesel down DV rail corridor.
They are NOT proprietary but made by by the big three......Bombardier, Siemens, and Alstom. In fact the Bombardier model is also a Flexity known as the Flexity Link. They are great for getting rid of the dreaded last mile, getting rid of endless transfers, make use of existing corridor both streetcar and railways, and are great precursors to surface subway routes or GO lines during the day when full monster bi-levels are not required. I think the Bombardier models top out at 50 meters and the Siemens are the largest at 70 meters.
They are also accessible and the Bombardier model has a 100% low floor model as well as models.
These vehicles are the ultimate in versatility and can take advantage of both existing streetcar and regular GO train maintenance and control centres. Further good news is that not only are they legal across Europe but there is also one current line running in New Jersey and Transport Canada tend to follow the US in terms of transport technology and standards.
They don't at all look like UPX DMU/EMU units but rather just your standard streetcar/tram and if you saw one going down King or wherever you would never know the difference. That would also help in making the service clearly distinguishable between GO and TTC service.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Tram-trains meet Euro compliance standards, not FRA. Accordingly, any runs over diesel lines would have to be on track not used by any mainline trains (like O-Train)
One other small point - in your King example, the trains would be running on 1495mm TTC track but then supposedly transferring onto heavy rail 1435mm. In European tram train deployments, the track gauges match.
One other small point - in your King example, the trains would be running on 1495mm TTC track but then supposedly transferring onto heavy rail 1435mm. In European tram train deployments, the track gauges match.
IMO, the only real reason to use LRT along a corridor is if you're going to have some kind of surface operations. Otherwise, it's better to go with heavy rail subway or some kind of ICTS system. A completely grade-separated LRT makes very little sense to me, but that's just my opinion. It's the grade separation that adds to the cost, so if you're going to the lengths of including complete grade separation, you might as well go with a higher capacity technology.
The perfect application of LRT, in my opinion, is either entirely surface operations acting as a secondary line, supplementary to the primary transit network (aka a suped-up streetcar line with a dedicated ROW), or a tunnelled central portion with one or more surface branches further out (ex: Boston's Green Line). Anything else, which would probably involve grade separation of the entire line, should be either ICTS or HRT.
As an aside, the only reason why I support the use of LRT for Ottawa's Confederation Line is because it leaves the door open to using at-grade configurations in suburbs like Barrhaven and Kanata, where it will likely only be one branch of the system, and therefore a lower frequency than the central stretch. Using LRT and building those extensions at-grade will lower the cost, and make it more feasible to build those extensions. Otherwise, I'd be pushing for ICTS or a full HRT subway.