Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

W. K. Lis said:
Nothing about uploading the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway up to the province, since mostly those from the 905 use them.
Click to expand...
Didn't Toronto Council vote last term that they didn't want the province to upload the Gardiner and DVP and they were happy to spend their own money on it.?
 
micheal_can said:
A PC reversing what a PC did? Sacrilege!
Click to expand...
(elevated) Gardinder and DVP where never Provincial.
Gardiner West of Humber river was QEW - which made no sense. Only logical thing was to either give that short piece to the city, or upload the entire thing.
 
BurlOak said:
(elevated) Gardinder and DVP where never Provincial.
Gardiner West of Humber river was QEW - which made no sense. Only logical thing was to either give that short piece to the city, or upload the entire thing.
Click to expand...

Then toll the 905 users to help pay for the Gardiner & Don Valley upkeep. Currently paid by Toronto residents' and business' property taxes, not by the 905.
 
With the information we know right now about the plans for the Relief Line South, could it feasibly be made into a train-tram system? I do think that providing rapid, local service between East Harbour and Downtown is necessary, so I'm wondering if it's possible to kill two birds with one stone: give the eastern downtown its relief line, and rough in a future corridor for GO service that bypasses the maligned Don Valley tracks.
 
Taken literally, no, it's not feasible. Light rail (even fully grade separated) has either barely or not quite enough capacity for RL projections. Why would train-trams even be a consideration (unless you mean to run RL/GO through services onto the waterfront LRT, which just doesn't make much sense).

If I assume you're referencing the Relief Line RER discussion, there's three main points. First, RER and local service aren't conflicting goals here; EMU performance is such that the RL as planned TODAY has a perfectly reasonable number of stations for an RER access route. Second, you're looking at mainline capable EMUs, not trams or LRVs for any such combination; the sort of train contemplated is, if it has to be put in these terms, much more a mainline capable subway unit than any of an electric commuter train, LRV or tram train.

Finally, feasibility is a non-issue, literally the only changes required are tunnel dimensions for overhead electrification and (probably - it does depend on the trains) a larger vehicle envelope. Some provision for using a yard other than Greenwood would be needed on the sensible version using the same electrification GO winds up with elsewhere, but with a single stage project that's not much of a problem given mainline link - to the point I wonder if it might actually REDUCE costs once the track connections to BD are eliminated.

174088
 
Last edited:
Bureaucromancer said:
Taken literally, no, it's not feasible. Light rail (even fully grade separated) has either barely or not quite enough capacity for RL projections.
Click to expand...

True, if you restrict yourself to a single line. Get a heck of a lot more coverage with a (mostly) elevated mid capacity line on Richmond/Pape and a second mid capacity line on Parliament/Front/Wellington. As a bonus, 2 smaller scaled lines are not significantly pricier than a single combined line with similar total capacity.

That wasn't an option considered but I'm putting it forward for those who feel Toronto's metro map looks anemic.
 
Last edited:
You've underestimated the cost of duplicate lines and missed the point about capacity. It's not the outer branches that are constrained. To build a multi branch light rail version would... work, for a given value of works, but drive costs up, reduce service quality on the core RL south component (between the influence of mixed traffic operation and operating closer maximum capacity) and puts serious limits on growth potential.

This isn't Eglinton, and it certainly isn't Sheppard or Finch. The capcacity needed for the central RL is similar to BD, this isn't even some new conclusion, very much this project has been on the books in some form since the 60s.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
If I assume you're referencing the Relief Line RER discussion, there's three main points. First, RER and local service aren't conflicting goals here; EMU performance is such that the RL as planned TODAY has a perfectly reasonable number of stations for an RER access route. Second, you're looking at mainline capable EMUs, not trams or LRVs for any such combination; the sort of train contemplated is, if it has to be put in these terms, much more a mainline capable subway unit than any of an electric commuter train, LRV or tram train.
Click to expand...

Okay, so my take-away from this is that it's possible to have the same trains run on both the Relief Line and the existing mainline, but using electric multiple unit trains and preferably not the GO bilevels we have running right now. Sounds good, and I hope that's what we get.

The relief line might need to be its own distinct unit until it can be made all the way up to York Mills, but maybe it can be built with an eventual mainline connection in mind?
 
Last edited:
north-of-anything said:
The relief line might need to be its own distinct unit until it can be made all the way up to York Mills, but maybe it can be built with an eventual mainline connection in mind?
Click to expand...

This is what I'd call for at the moment, with the faily significant caveat that the plans to use Greenwood yard imply costly underground connections, TTC gauge and require trains compatible with 600v third rail while building just the DRL south to RER standards gives a line with no place for any kind of yard. It might be possible to get track connections to the Lakeshore line around Gerrard, and it might not be COMPLETELY unreasonable to store dual voltage trains at Greenwood (the gauges are just about close enough to allow this assuming movements happen outside of service hours), but these are both costly and less than ideal in service terms. it seems we're headed in the direction of doing both segments simultaneously anyway, so I'd suggest holding out hope the change in direction to come from the RL North study and agreements to do the projects simultaneously.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top