Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[WislaHD]

I used to be into something kinda like this, but I don't think it really works. Even decades ago it was deduced that any RL line should be a subway/metro class system, i.e one separated from both road and mainline rail. We can't exactly mix the two, and I doubt there's enough space to put a 2-track subway guideway while leaving space for the mainline.

RH line should definitely be improved upon/extended, but the same goes for all GO corridors. Not to mention the building of new corridors (something we haven't seen since the early 70s probably). I think there's definitely room for outside-the-box thinking, using surface corridors, different types of rolling stock, open-air infrastructure etc with the RL... But it seems pretty cut and dry at this point that the line must be subway/metro.

This proposal would eliminate the RH-GO line altogether, and replace it with just a single subway/metro rapid transit line.

My understanding is that RH-GO corridor is not shared with freight? It is fully owned by Metrolinx south of the Doncaster Diamond.

(*also I have to correct my earlier posts, I forgot that RH-GO passes Don Mils north of Lawrence, rather than north of Eglinton)

 

[Cobra]

That is what I dislike about the plan too. As well as missing out on Shops at Don Mills on Lawrence which is just perfect site for a subway station.

Don Mills should not be difficult or expensive to tunnel under either, at least for a shorter stretch.

In the past I proposed a 'best-of-both-worlds' solution, where rather than enter the RH-GO corridor north of Lawrence, the Relief Line veers under the Finch Hydro Corridor for a bit and resurfaced at grade near Old Cummer and went on to Richmond Hill. This way, we stick to our urban planning principles along key intersections on Don Mills and have a much better interchange with Sheppard that wouldn't force a 1-stop transfer for Sheppard East riders.

The main benefit of this, besides replacing RH-GO with high frequency rapid service, is that it intercepts Yonge-subway bound York commuters with a route that is faster to downtown. Thus maximizing potential relief to the Yonge subway.

For me, the Yonge line stops at Steeles. Richmond hill should get the DRL instead, certainly not both lines

 

[44 North]

On the whole I think the relief line should be built on the assumption that it can eventually carry more riders than Line 1. Increasing capacity post opening is next to impossible and the relief line has significant ridership potential. If built properly the relief line downstairs have to just be a relief line, it can be a connection for numerous other lines.

I wouldn't really agree on making it 8-car with 200m long stations or anything. I think that kind of overbuilding would be a mistake coming at the expense of other projects or more track length. I'd actually prefer if it was built with less capacity than Line 1, maybe with narrower trains and 4-6 car operation. If the RL ever were to approach anything above 25kpphpd the best thing IMO would be to build a parallel line elsewhere. One of the reasons we have such a threadbare system (relative to the amount of transit users in the city) is that instead of building new lines we chose to overbuild what we have now. All the work to improve Line 1 capacity, ATO, new trains, redoing Y/B...it's stupid. And wastefully throwing good money after bad. As soon as the line is approaching capacity, which it did three decades ago, we should get building on a parallel line.

Though I do agree with overbuilding in a way that allows more coverage and track length. So maybe the RL could be one "line", but with three services/branches. Not unlike how other cities such as NYC do it. The 'line' could be the Queen Line, but with A, B, C services to... I dunno Don Mills, Agincourt, Weston. And maybe a cross-Queen shuttle.

 

[ssiguy2]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

When I say make the DRL part of the RER project I meant for it to be the same route as the DRL............under Queen to near Eastern and north under Pape to Danforth and further up to Eglinton. By making it part of RER {catenary Metro cars instead of 3rd rail} it could be extended eastward on Queen and connect with the Lakeshore West line near Liberty Village area and continue to Burlington. Conversely it could be extended north to Richmond Hill.

It would be exactly the same from Yonge to Eglinton that is planned with the DRL now but by using catenary Metro like RER it means the line could be extended both North and West at a mere fraction of the cost of subway and vastly faster to build. If the northern section to RH doesn't need as high capacity they could certainly have some of the trains short turn at for example Don Mills/Sheppard station. Use you have subway capacity and frequency but have easy and cheap expansion, greatly relieve some of the impending over crowding of RER at Union, and could even be used by other RER lines. As an example of the latter, perhaps every other Lakeshore East train uses Union and the other Queen during busy times to lessen transfers at Union station and same goes for Lakeshore West trains heading into the city.

From Liberty Village to Eglinton East, the cost would be exactly the same as the DRL as will capacity and service levels but by making it part of RER it makes expansion so much easier and quicker, offers more entry ways into the core, eases Union pressure and gives RER badly need relief station if for some reason the station had to have trains halted due to an accident or power failure etc. As it stands right now if there is an accident, derailment or any major problem near Union station the ENTIRE RER system would have to come to a screeching halt but having an alternative downtown route eases that situation and that is not optional with standard 3rd rail DRL.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

On the whole I think the relief line should be built on the assumption that it can eventually carry more riders than Line 1. Increasing capacity post opening is next to impossible and the relief line has significant ridership potential. If built properly the relief line downstairs have to just be a relief line, it can be a connection for numerous other lines.

As of right now, the plan is to support 8 car trainsets, which is two cars longer than Line 1 and 2. Final design for the Relief Line won't be finalized for another 1 to 1.5 years, so details could change.

 

[dowlingm]

I wouldn't really agree on making it 8-car with 200m long stations or anything. I think that kind of overbuilding would be a mistake coming at the expense of other projects or more track length. I'd actually prefer if it was built with less capacity than Line 1, maybe with narrower trains and 4-6 car operation.

You could make Relief Line a Crosstown-type line, but it would basically be like the RT, isolated from the rest of the network with its standard gauge and 750V power needs, until it reached Eglinton.

The advantage of using subway cars would be use of Greenwood yard after a western yard is first built for Line 2. With Pape as the alignment, a non-rev track all the way to Greenwood is tricky too.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

anything. I think that kind of overbuilding would be a mistake coming at the expense of other projects or more track length. I'd actually prefer if it was built with less capacity than Line 1, maybe with narrower trains and 4-6 car operation. If the RL ever were to approach anything above 25kpphpd the best thing IMO would be to build a parallel line elsewhere. One of the reasons we have such a threadbare system (relative to the amount of transit users in the city) is that instead of building new lines we chose to overbuild what we have now. All the work to improve Line 1 capacity, ATO, new trains, redoing Y/B...it's stupid. And wastefully throwing good money after bad. As soon as the line is approaching capacity, which it did three decades ago, we should get building on a parallel line.

Though I do agree with overbuilding in a way that allows more coverage and track length. So maybe the RL could be one "line", but with three services/branches. Not unlike how other cities such as NYC do it. The 'line' could be the Queen Line, but with A, B, C services to... I dunno Don Mills, Agincourt, Weston. And maybe a cross-Queen shuttle.

Except that your chance of building another line in the core is close to nil for the forseeable future. I mean, the issue isn't that we built overly opulent stations and extensions per se - but we built where politics dictated. There was no political will to build in downtown even when funding is available.

If you think having longer stations is expensive, wait till you have to build double deck stations and tracks to enable shuttles.

AoD

 

[Hopkins123]

For me, the Yonge line stops at Steeles. Richmond hill should get the DRL instead, certainly not both lines

It'd be foolish to have both YUS and DRL end at Richmond Hill Centre, indeed. Why would the majority of commuters not opt for the straight and direct Yonge route to downtown over the circuitous DRL route anyway?

The DRL if ever entering York Region should end around Warden and Highway 7 (Markham's downtown core).

 

[MisterF]

It'd be foolish to have both YUS and DRL end at Richmond Hill Centre, indeed. Why would the majority of commuters not opt for the straight and direct Yonge route to downtown over the circuitous DRL route anyway?

The DRL if ever entering York Region should end around Warden and Highway 7 (Markham's downtown core).

A DRL extension to Markham's downtown would be redundant. That area is already getting RER. And if Smarttrack ends up getting built the way that the most recent reports are trending, it will basically end up as a beefed up version of RER as far as Unionville Station. So fast, frequent, electrified rail transit to Markham Centre is already in the works. In most cases it will be a superior service to what a DRL extension would be - a faster ride into the city and at similar frequencies. It's much cheaper and faster to implement than an extension of a subway line that doesn't exist yet, and the first phase (double tracking) is already under construction.

The DRL is an incredibly useful line that will solve a lot of problems, but service to Markham Centre isn't one of them.

 

[WislaHD]

It'd be foolish to have both YUS and DRL end at Richmond Hill Centre, indeed. Why would the majority of commuters not opt for the straight and direct Yonge route to downtown over the circuitous DRL route anyway?

The DRL if ever entering York Region should end around Warden and Highway 7 (Markham's downtown core).

Because that circuitous DRL route is quicker than the Yonge line for reaching downtown. It has less stations, can travel at higher speeds, and is less crowded (less human-related delays).

YUS would still be useful for York commuters who don't have downtown as their final destination. If they are commuting to North York, Eglinton or St. Clair for instance.

Plus redundancy is a beautiful thing for a transit network.

 

[44 North]

Except that your chance of building another line in the core is close to nil for the forseeable future. I mean, the issue isn't that we built overly opulent stations and extensions per se - but we built where politics dictated. There was no political will to build in downtown even when funding is available.

Not talking about new opulent stations, rather attempts to cram obscene amounts onto existing Line 1 in lieu of system expansion or addressing the root cause. The costs and effort put into Line 1 ATO, TR order, studying the +$1bn B/Y expansion, high-vis employees to push people down platform, increasing crowding standards... Much of this is for naught anyway since the expected volumes will never be successfully achievable in day-to-day operation. The answer in place of these attempts has been staring us in the face for half a century: we need a new line paralleling Yonge and cutting through the core.

If you think having longer stations is expensive, wait till you have to build double deck stations and tracks to enable shuttles.

True. But my point was more about spending this theoretical extra money on something that increases track length and network coverage vs overbuilding a shorter, single line. Yes 3-track tunnels and two-level stations would be more expensive overall than building a single line with 200m stations, but the end benefit could be more services with the line (expanded coverage), more people served, and expanded development potential around the city. This is mostly my fantasy rhetoric though. Because I'm thinking that we could potentially lower the costs of things like 3-track by spec'ing tunnels/stations to narrower-bodied rolling stock than the hulking T1/TR.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not talking about new opulent stations, rather attempts to cram obscene amounts onto existing Line 1 in lieu of system expansion or addressing the root cause. The costs and effort put into Line 1 ATO, TR order, studying the +$1bn B/Y expansion, high-vis employees to push people down platform, increasing crowding standards... Much of this is for naught anyway since the expected volumes will never be successfully achievable in day-to-day operation. The answer in place of these attempts has been staring us in the face for half a century: we need a new line paralleling Yonge and cutting through the core.

Well ATO has utility beyond capacity increase (the assumptions around which are problematical in any case); don't disagree with you on B/Y. Having said that, the assumption that transit expansion occurs logically, on a demand basis is a fallacy in the Toronto context. Like you have said, we all know what the solution is - we just wasn't able to do it. The same dynamic could very well arise again re: post-DRL expansion.

True. But my point was more about spending this theoretical extra money on something that increases track length and network coverage vs overbuilding a shorter, single line. Yes 3-track tunnels and two-level stations would be more expensive overall than building a single line with 200m stations, but the end benefit could be more services with the line (expanded coverage), more people served, and expanded development potential around the city. This is mostly my fantasy rhetoric though. Because I'm thinking that we could potentially lower the costs of things like 3-track by spec'ing tunnels/stations to narrower-bodied rolling stock than the hulking T1/TR.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that any attempt to build in downtown core will lead to heart-attack price tag at this point, that the greatest problem isn't how you size one project, but starting a brand new line.

AoD

 

[Leo_Chan]

Has the TTC/Metrolinx confirmed that the Relief Line will be a Red Line 3? Or is this number/colour just an agreement amongst transit enthusiasts.

 

[11th]

Has the TTC/Metrolinx confirmed that the Relief Line will be a Red Line 3? Or is this number/colour just an agreement amongst transit enthusiasts.

Red seems to be reserved for surface network. By the time it gets built, they can probably reuse current line 3's blue, and there is always brown if blue's not available.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Red seems to be reserved for surface network. By the time it gets built, they can probably reuse current line 3's blue, and there is always brown if blue's not available.

But is the "Line 3" name confirmed anywhere?