Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[ssiguy2]

I agree............Calgary and Edmonton got LRT right and Toronto got it wrong.

They are spending a King's Ransom on Eglinton yet the line is not grade separated. They would be better to make the whole line grade separated to Kennedy using elevation east of DM.

As far as DRL............I'm sure one of the big three could make tram-trains to suit Toronto gauge just as Bombardier did for the odd gauge Toronto streetcar system. The O-Train got a waiver from the feds and I'm sure Toronto could do the same. A tram-train is being proposed for Montreal to connect downtown with Trudeau and Vancouver will probably use the same for Rail for the Valley proposal. I'm sure it is something that could be worked around as these are basically just a modern twist on the old fashioned Interurban trains.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I agree............Calgary and Edmonton got LRT right and Toronto got it wrong.

They are spending a King's Ransom on Eglinton yet the line is not grade separated. They would be better to make the whole line grade separated to Kennedy using elevation east of DM.

As far as DRL............I'm sure one of the big three could make tram-trains to suit Toronto gauge just as Bombardier did for the odd gauge Toronto streetcar system. The O-Train got a waiver from the feds and I'm sure Toronto could do the same. A tram-train is being proposed for Montreal to connect downtown with Trudeau and Vancouver will probably use the same for Rail for the Valley proposal. I'm sure it is something that could be worked around as these are basically just a modern twist on the old fashioned Interurban trains.

Between Keele Street and Laird Drive, 10 km, it is a subway (underground electric railway).

A tram-trains could be used in Toronto, but the governments (provincial and federal) have to rewrite the rules governing railways to do so.

 

[ehlow]

Between Keele Street and Laird Drive, 10 km, it is a subway (underground electric railway).

A tram-trains could be used in Toronto, but the governments (provincial and federal) have to rewrite the rules governing railways to do so.

Yes, the fact that the eastern part isn't fully grade separated (crosses traffic lights) doesn't take away any benefit from the 10km underground section.

You still get 10km of underground transit, with automated train operation. In the case of a (probably rare) problem in the eastern part, trains can easily switch back at Laird, the problem doesn't affect the tunnelled section. In addition, some trains will run underground-only providing more frequent service within the underground part.

Yes, I would've preferred the tunnel go to Don Mills, but at the end of the day we're still getting 10 km of underground transit (call it what you want).

 

[WislaHD]

I'm still bitter on the lack of south-side alignment on Leslie. Seriously, it could've been Grade Separated all the way to between Don Mills and Ferrand.

 

[ssiguy2]

Between Keele Street and Laird Drive, 10 km, it is a subway (underground electric railway).

A tram-trains could be used in Toronto, but the governments (provincial and federal) have to rewrite the rules governing railways to do so.

Them let them rewrite the laws.

This is not some form of wild fantasy but simply adapting to a new technology and if it's good enough for Europe than surely it's good enough for Canada as European rail lines are far busier and more complex than anywhere in Canada.

I don't believe that either would require a new law but rather just a change in the regulations..........a new law requires a vote to parliament with all the delays, red tape, reviews, approvals, timeframes that make new legislature nothing short of water torture. A regulation can, theoretically, be changed in an afternoon by the Minister and that's it.

Tram-train would be ideal for Toronto and regular TTC service by just using standard GO stations and adding more as needed but to implement a city-wide system would be incredibly easy and cheap. A lines from Brampton, Miss, or Oshawa {aka DRL} could be up and running in a couple of years as the infrastructure is already in place and all they need to do is buy the trains.

I could definitely see Tory's Smartrax becoming more like a tram-train service due to the huge cost savings of needing little new infrastructure and speed of implementation which would both greatly reduce the cost. Essentially the entire system is like buying EMU except they have far more flexibility.

 

[dowlingm]

Them let them rewrite the laws.

This is not some form of wild fantasy but simply adapting to a new technology and if it's good enough for Europe than surely it's good enough for Canada as European rail lines are far busier and more complex than anywhere in Canada.

Well, I'm glad this has been sorted out. For a while there I thought that we might have to dwell on issues of public safety, of retained freight operation rights, of the complexity of PTC installs as seen in the US, but ssiguy just wants to bring in a bunch of Europeans with magic wands.

Haven't we listened to enough of that crap about why electrification can't be done overnight like Europe and subways done for peanuts like Europe without introducing tramtrains as a panacea to downtown transit issues?

 

[44 North]

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.

Ah, I see. But like your point about ‘leaving the door open’, that’s how I feel about LRT. It’s versatile, and allows for branching on surface stretches. Just like Boston’s Green Line, which I feel is something Toronto missed the boat on emulating. If Sheppard was originally built as an underground LRT, I think a lot of people would be aboard with the SELRT. The dreaded “useless transfer” would be gone, and it can run more or less seamlessly.
However, one potential drawback about LRT that I haven’t heard too much about is if it were to be elevated in any section, would the wires and pantographs create too much visual pollution? Any elevated light lines I’ve seen seem to have some third rail propulsion.

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.

I’m still kicking myself for not appreciating all the transit I witnessed when I was in Germany a decade ago. Everything they do seems to be the right way.
But it sounds like a great idea to have our streetcars double as the vehicle; if that’s at all possible. I’ve seen a few photos of our CLRVs when they were being tested in Switzerland or shopped around in Boston. They look good on train tracks, and any grade separation allows them to prove their speed. Although there are a few posts refuting your idea, this tram-train thing got me thinking about using our old CLRVs for this Don Line. Considering it’s already has been described as a cheapened DRL, why not make it thriftier? We’ll have dozens of these cars sitting around, and the maintenance know-how. If they were to be converted to standard gauge, and coupled together, perhaps they could be the vehicle of choice. And plus, any noise created by the section through Riverdale would probably be less than what’s running down Broadview or across Gerrard today.

 

[gweed123]

Ah, I see. But like your point about ‘leaving the door open’, that’s how I feel about LRT. It’s versatile, and allows for branching on surface stretches.

That's true. I guess it depends on what the immediate and future plans are for the line. If it's unlikely to run on the surface, anywhere, ever, then LRT doesn't make much sense. But if there's a future extension possibility that could use a surface ROW, and there's no projected capacity crunch associated with LRT, then by all means go for it.

Just like Boston’s Green Line, which I feel is something Toronto missed the boat on emulating.

Toronto almost had that. The Queen Streetcar Subway would have been very similar to Boston's Green Line. Tunnel through downtown, surface in the surrounding neighbourhoods, with multiple streetcar routes converging to use the tunnel. I don't think the surface sections would still be linked to the tunnel today, but we'd likely have a streetcar subway extending all the way under Queen West and linking up to the Queensway LRT corridor by now.

If Sheppard was originally built as an underground LRT, I think a lot of people would be aboard with the SELRT. The dreaded “useless transfer” would be gone, and it can run more or less seamlessly.

If Sheppard was built as an LRT it likely wouldn't have been underground east of about Bayview, maybe even further west than that. I honestly think they would have probably done an in-median ROW all the way out to STC, which probably would have worked within the original Sheppard Subway budget.

However, one potential drawback about LRT that I haven’t heard too much about is if it were to be elevated in any section, would the wires and pantographs create too much visual pollution? Any elevated light lines I’ve seen seem to have some third rail propulsion.

Short answer is that I believe it depends on the vehicle you choose. Some LRT vehicles can use pantographs, some third rail, some both depending on operating environment.

 

[treplow]

Seattle's LINK light rail is elevated for large sections and uses pantographs, if I remember correctly.

 

[Platform 27]

However, one potential drawback about LRT that I haven’t heard too much about is if it were to be elevated in any section, would the wires and pantographs create too much visual pollution? Any elevated light lines I’ve seen seem to have some third rail propulsion.

Off the top of my head, there are some pretty lengthy stretches of elevated guideway on recently-constructed LRT lines in Seattle and Calgary

 

[nfitz]

Seattle's LINK light rail is elevated for large sections and uses pantographs, if I remember correctly.

The south end towards the airport is indeed elevated, an uses pantograph. The north end is in the bus tunnel and shared the ROW with buses. The middle (which I think is the longest stretch) is at grade, with frequent road crossings - and is quite similar to the Finch and Sheppard East LRT lines (and the western piece of the Eglinton LRT).

The vehicles are similar in length to Metrolinx and TTC Flexity cars, about 29 metres long with a capacity of 200 people. They run in 2-car trains (400 passengers a train). They only run every 10 to 15 minutes off-peak, and every 7.5 minutes in rush hour (8 trains an hour). Which means if they are packed full, they are only moving 3,200 passengers an hour - though when I've used it at rush-hour, it has been well used downtown, but not packed like a TTC streetcar or subway train in rush hour. So I'd guess somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 an hour at the peak point.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Speaking of replacing the King Streetcar route with a DRL. It would probably be easier to have it go up Broadview since half of Broadview would be digging into grass. An enhanced RH route could also have a station at Broadview/Danforth for those who want to travel along Bloor instead of bothering to go to Union and travel north to come back.

 

[gweed123]

Speaking of replacing the King Streetcar route with a DRL. It would probably be easier to have it go up Broadview since half of Broadview would be digging into grass. An enhanced RH route could also have a station at Broadview/Danforth for those who want to travel along Bloor instead of bothering to go to Union and travel north to come back.

Good point. And if you build the DRL as part of the GO REX network, then you don't even need the 4 tracking there (2 for the RH GO, 2 for the DRL).

But yes, your connection at Broadview, and the tunnelling around it is a very valid point.

 

[44 North]

Speaking of replacing the King Streetcar route with a DRL. It would probably be easier to have it go up Broadview since half of Broadview would be digging into grass. An enhanced RH route could also have a station at Broadview/Danforth for those who want to travel along Bloor instead of bothering to go to Union and travel north to come back.

By "into grass" do you mean the section along Riverdale Park? If so, one point to keep in mind is that site is an old landfill. You may notice along that section of Broadview there are pipes sticking out of the ground...those are to exhaust methane. Although that or the steep slope shouldn't be any reason to prevent cut/cover.

As for connecting the Richmond Hill corridor to Broadview/Danforth...that'd be quite a task. There's a 120ft elevation difference, and the RH line is almost half a km away. This is one of the reasons why any Don Mills LRT -> Castle Frank connection was deemed tricky.

 

[M II A II R II K]

RH can make use of existing tracks to get a straighter route, and a divergent track to connect with BD would be worthwhile, even if they have to create a new station on the BD for it.