Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[steveintoronto]

Other posters may take this to issue...and I can hear the uproar from those clamouring for rail transit in the backyards: "I want it, but don't want to pay more taxes, and I don't want to have to look at it, hear it, know about or see people going to it, but I want a station right at the end of my street".

Toronto is her own worst enemy. I'd even be inclined to have sympathy for persons who 'just want to be left alone', except that's not how it works in other great world cities, two of those noted above in Canada.

Transit in Toronto has become an annual charade (apologies to parade).

 

[BurlOak]

Other posters may take this to issue...and I can hear the uproar from those clamouring for rail transit in the backyards: "I want it, but don't want to pay more taxes, and I don't want to have to look at it, hear it, know about or see people going to it, but I want a station right at the end of my street".

Toronto is her own worst enemy. I'd even be inclined to have sympathy for persons who 'just want to be left alone', except that's not how it works in other great world cities, two of those noted above in Canada.

Transit in Toronto has become an annual charade (apologies to parade).

~7years ago, I concluded that the most important transit lines were the Eglinton LRT elevated through Scarborough (on the south side of Eglinton through Leslie, elevated over DVP, Golden Miles, and all the way to Kennedy Station and interlined with the SRT (which in itself is at-grade and elevated). It should have been extended to Centennial and Malvern as elevated. The next priority would have been extending the B-D to Honeydale Mall and 427.
This would have shown that the city is serious about building transit and the all transit must consider cost to build and that underground is a last resort, not first choice.

All this being said, I don't think the DRL should have been elevated - at least not this south portion.
Maybe if DRL were SkyTrain vehicles, they would have been a bit smaller.
Then maybe they could have gone above the YUS.
Maybe it could have gone over the Don River.
Maybe it could have avoided Carlaw with the big sewer.
However, Ms. Keesmaat and the team did not consider cost or value for money in anything this did.
Maybe if it was planned differently, it could have been extended to Eglinton for the same money as we are now paying to go to Bloor.

 

[steveintoronto]

This would have shown that the city is serious about building transit and the all transit must consider cost to build and that underground is a last resort, not first choice.

All this being said, I don't think the DRL should have been elevated - at least not this south portion.

Maybe if DRL were SkyTrain vehicles, they would have been a bit smaller.

If it was being considered, as I tout, as "standard track gauge compatible with GO RER EMU standard METRO", all of this would be possible. Agreed with the need to tunnel the southern Relief Line portion, and any western extension until reaching the Georgetown Corridor or any rail/hydro corridor at the eastern end which could be elevated where possible/needed.

The irony is that this was the concept for the earliest SRT stock, now brought right up to date as "Metro" type vehicles. These can be run on 25kV catenary the same as is planned for RER and/or 750vDC, the same as the LRTs.

[...]
However, the Innovia Metro system has a number of competitors in the field of automated light metros, including the VAL technology developed by Matra for the Lille Metro in France (and now owned by Siemens) and the Meteor technology used by Paris Métro Line 14 (which is built to high-capacity, full metro standards). Furthermore, the CITYFLO and SelTrac signaling technologies are not specific to the Innovia Metro, but can also equip most conventional railway lines regardless of propulsion technology or carrying capacity.

Innovia Metro lines are designed to run on elevated structures, and indeed the systems that use these trains include such sections, with most being predominantly elevated. Using a grade-separated guideway, though, allows them to perform equally well on ground level and in tunnels, as they in fact do for a portion of both Vancouver's Expo and Millennium Lines (using a converted freight tunnel for the Expo line, and a bored tunnel under Clarke Road for the Evergreen Extension), Kuala Lumpur's Kelana Jaya Line, and Beijing's Airport Express. (The Scarborough RT in Toronto also includes a short tunneled section, though there are no stations within it.) The latter two systems, along with New York's Airtrain JFK, also incorporate platform screen doors commonly found in automated people movers around the world.

Prior to a change in approach to marketing and the introduction of the "Metro" branding, Innovia ART 100 and 200 technologies were sometimes referred to as "light rail", especially in Asia. Because of their use of automated operation and third-rail power, however, they are unsuitable for the unprotected, street-level trams that the term usually indicates in Europe and North America. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_Metro

I still favour a heavier rail system, a la Crossrail or Paris RER and single deck emu, which need less of a tunnel diameter than is being used for LRT in tunnel in Toronto, but I digress. The most important point is to be able to run distance (to the regions) with these vehicles, as REM is doing in Montreal, and SkyTrain is in Van.

[...]
The maximum speed of the Montreal Metro, which uses rubber tires instead of steel wheels, is lower at 72 km/hr, but its average speed is relatively high at 40 km/hr.

In the meeting, Geoff Cross, the Vice-President of Planning and Policy of TransLink, explained there may be fewer long-distance trips as Surrey sees more development.

He also added that TransLink could look at other higher-speed options besides SkyTrain, such as more commuter rail opportunities — like the West Coast Express and Toronto Go Train — instead of extensions of SkyTrain or a mix of both. Some conventional commuter rail systems in the world reach speeds as high as 160 km/hr, but commuter rail expansion options are currently limited by the lack of railway corridors in the region.

There are a number of factors that determine train speed, other than the design limited by the manufacturer.

The level of grade separation determines whether trains can have flexible travel on their own speeds. Street-level LRT, for instance, usually needs to follow motor vehicle speed limits because it runs through traffic.

The design of the laid-out infrastructure is another major factor, such as station spacing (SkyTrain stations are about one km apart on average) and the route of the rail system. Trains typically have to slow down at sharp turns, as is the case for the Expo Line just west of Main Street-Science World Station.[...]

Port Moody mayor wants faster new trains for SkyTrain

 

[44 North]

And didn't Madrid go from virtually zero subways in the nineties to over 200km of it today?

Not zero, they had a large preexisting system (though their recent expansion is likely one for the record books outside Asia). But something to note is their trains/stations measure from 60m to 115m max. Not 60-115m *but expandable* to 150m. Simply 60m, 90m, 115m (roughly equivalent to a 3, 4, or 5-car train here). Compare that with something like Sheppard that's overbuilt for 150m/6-car when it'd never need such size. Madrid's trains are also a lot slimmer than ours, which further leads to smaller infrastructure.

I think there's definitely some savings to downsize infrastructure from what we're used to if we want to expand into the far reaches of the 416 and outer suburbs. This how I think Skytrain and REM are gaining a leading edge. Ottawa soon now too. Line 4 could be built for 100m max, as could any subway project that York Region is demanding. And this would still provide enough capacity...forever, basically. But we can't do that apparently. Train widths and lenths must be no different than what's downtown in some sordid metric for fairness, even though few could tell the difference between a station designed for 4-car vs a 6-car one.

 

[asher__jo]

The focus on Skytrain I would say is a distraction. Modern 'skytrain' rolling stock is not disimilar to any other Metro rolling stock, of course the main difference being LIM as propulsion.

 

[BurlOak]

Train widths and lenths must be no different than what's downtown in some sordid metric for fairness

Agree up until this.

even though few could tell the difference between a station designed for 4-car vs a 6-car one

Exactly. public could care less about the vehicle type.
What they can tell is whether there is a forced transfer and whether the transit line goes to where they want to go.
That is why there were no complaints at all with the Ford Eglinton-Scroaborough LRT plan. The trains were narrower, shorter, used overhead power, and where LRT. The people didn't care because it went to where they wanted without a transfer (well no additional transfer because they just viewed it as switching the transfer from Y-B to Y-E, although those with transit knowledge knew that the longer term solution was for this transfer to be at Science Centre). .

The focus on Skytrain I would say is a distraction. Modern 'skytrain' rolling stock is not disimilar to any other Metro rolling stock, of course the main difference being LIM as propulsion

When people say "SkyTrain" they mean a smaller metro. Fully grade-separated, but smaller. As stated above, the public does not really care about the train type and surely do not know what LIM is. Even Canada Line, on the SkyTrain system, does not use LIM.

 

[steveintoronto]

^Some excellent consensus developing above.

This how I think Skytrain and REM are gaining a leading edge. Ottawa soon now too.

The focus on Skytrain I would say is a distraction. Modern 'skytrain' rolling stock is not disimilar to any other Metro rolling stock, of course the main difference being LIM as propulsion.

When people say "SkyTrain" they mean a smaller metro.

Exactly. public could care less about the vehicle type.
What they can tell is whether there is a forced transfer and whether the transit line goes to where they want to go.

The commonality is 'Metro type vehicles' and they are now the most popular of all vehicle types for situations like Relief Line in other parts of the world, by a huge margin, and lend themselves to underground, elevated or surface equally. LIM, although it has advantages in terms of acceleration, is an expensive way to do things, and would complicate 'running through' onto RER lines, something that I'm sure Metrolinx is going to be weighing. A question worth asking is "Is RER done by single deck EMU a form of metro?". I say yes, or the inverse might make it more so: Is a larger metro vehicle (all standard track gauge and catenary voltage/height) suitable for 'through-running' on heavy rail as per GO RER? Again, I say 'yes' with provisos, mostly signalling and safety systems pertaining.

There is then the platform height debate to consider, which really isn't such a great problem, as it was going to have to happen anyway with RER. I had considered that dual catenary voltage might have been needed as per a number of European/Asian/Australasian examples are doing, ,sections are switched in the train in a minute fraction of a second (one sixtieth to be exact with 60 cycle current) by solid state switching, but even that is being proven unneeded by the Crossrail example, which hosts mainline trains running 25kV AC in tunnels approx equal diameter to Toronto's latest subway standard (TYSSE) and less than the LRT tunnels.

So where is the 'official' dialogue on melding this into one *GTHA Wide* standard? Build a 'new subway'...since you're using provincial as well as federal funds, you build it to a standard that can connect it up to all other newer systems elsewhere. And that includes (in some cases) LRVs being able to 'tun express' using those same tunnels. (A low level platform area would be needed, a small item in the big scheme of things). Again, this is done in Paris and Holland, and a number of other developed nations, many more without tunnels but the sharing of track for both LRVs and mainline passenger vehicles (Karlsruhe et al). Sharing metro track with LRVs headed to 'branches' would require the present tunnel bore for LRT, but that would also allow longer metro vehicles more suitable to mainline running too. But this also allows something other mostly European cities are doing: Trams underground until the demand is such that the tunnel is re-purposed for metro use (Brussels et al) and then trams can continue sharing them. (Brussels has stations with both low and high platforms to accommodate future flexibility)

Toronto + GTHA has the opportunity to leapfrog both Montreal and Van in doing this, learn from Montreal's REM in some aspects, but better it, and take a close look at how Sydney (and to a lesser extent, Melbourne) are moving fast on this. It helps of course that the Oz examples are *State institutions* (as in provincial) but private investment in many cases, much of it Cdn pension plans, plays a large part in providing this.

And now the real question...oh God...it's the model forward, is the present Ford regime 'up to it'? Can it be achieved *in spite of the present regime*? If we're to be "world class"...it has to succeed.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Unfortunately, we have suburban politicians who DEMAND that only the heavy rail metro/subway will do. Preferably, with a station a block from their home within their ward.

 

[BurlOak]

Unfortunately, we have suburban politicians who DEMAND that only the heavy rail metro/subway will do. Preferably, with a station a block from their home within their ward.

I assume you are talking about Glen DeBaermaker and Kathleen Wynne.

 

[ADRM]

I assume you are talking about Glen DeBaermaker and Kathleen Wynne.

Kathleen Wynne's last budget included funding for literally every LRT the City of Toronto has in its capital budget.

 

[Towered]

Unfortunately, we have suburban politicians who DEMAND that only the heavy rail metro/subway will do. Preferably, with a station a block from their home within their ward.

I've always just assumed that the RL would use the same Rocket trains and platform lengths as are currently used on line 1. Why would the capacity be smaller when we know that the ridership will be high from day one?

 

[MisterF]

Well theoretically, if we had narrower trains and tunnels and smaller stations like in Madrid, each line would be cheaper and we could build more of them. So we could build another subway along, say, College Street for example, and we'd actually have good rapid transit coverage throughout the core. With more subway lines, each one wouldn't need to have as much capacity. But if our dysfunctional political and transit systems mean we're only going to get one more downtown subway in all our lifetimes, then yes, it does need the capacity.

 

[lead82]

I don’t think the length of our trains or platforms is a huge problem. The main cost driver is that fact we are building tunnels where they are not needed. The way I see it we have two cost drivers : tunnels and massive stations. TYSSE could have been on the surface or elevated with only small portions under ground such as in York U area.

The new stations we build are massive. All of the Sheppard stations (including Sheppard West) and the new TYSSE are massive overbuilds. Downsview Park has two giant buildings! Finch West has a useless bus terminal building where a simple loop would have sufficed. Pioneer Village has two massive bus terminals where 1 would have been more than sufficient. 407 station is a mistake and should have never been built. It’s too close to the other two and has no use outside of the small passenger lot. Pioneer Village could have absorbed all of its use and removed the silly transfer now introduced by Go Transit.

Toronto needs to get serious and build subways properly. The DRL should be simple stations but wide platforms to handle the crowds, especially at interchange stations. No need for any bus loops or terminals at the other stations. Maybe a simple bus/tram loop.

As for LRTs, we need more of them but we need them mode separated. In street LRTs are slow as they have to wait for lights. Build them elevated or separate them from the road.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I don’t think the length of our trains or platforms is a huge problem. The main cost driver is that fact we are building tunnels where they are not needed. The way I see it we have two cost drivers : tunnels and massive stations. TYSSE could have been on the surface or elevated with only small portions under ground such as in York U area.

The new stations we build are massive. All of the Sheppard stations (including Sheppard West) and the new TYSSE are massive overbuilds. Downsview Park has two giant buildings! Finch West has a useless bus terminal building where a simple loop would have sufficed. Pioneer Village has two massive bus terminals where 1 would have been more than sufficient. 407 station is a mistake and should have never been built. It’s too close to the other two and has no use outside of the small passenger lot. Pioneer Village could have absorbed all of its use and removed the silly transfer now introduced by Go Transit.

Toronto needs to get serious and build subways properly. The DRL should be simple stations but wide platforms to handle the crowds, especially at interchange stations. No need for any bus loops or terminals at the other stations. Maybe a simple bus/tram loop.

As for LRTs, we need more of them but we need them mode separated. In street LRTs are slow as they have to wait for lights. Build them elevated or separate them from the road.

I don't think the stations on the Sheppard Line are large by any means. It is just the new standard for stations due to new laws and requirements. We should expect the Relief Line stations to be around the same size as the Sheppard Line.

 

[lead82]

I doubt that there are new standards to have huge mezzanine. The Yonge station has an unnecessary centre platform for example. Leslie station has a bus terminal for a bus the comes every 30mins and delays passengers as it goes to the station. Bessarion should never have been built as it’s not needed, just like Willowdale, which thankfully was not built. Sheppard West, while beautiful is overbuilt. They should have used the land for development. So much land around and nothing build. A bit of parking but huge vast open area near a subway and zero development.