Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[salsa]

I've never heard that Bloor-Yonge is the busiest interchange station in the world before, but I wouldn't be overly surprised. Ontario has a habit if building infrastructure in a way that gives us a few massive pieces of infrastructure but poor overall coverage. Compare with Quebec for example. They have more freeways than Ontario and Montreal has more downtown train stations, more freeways, and a bigger subway system than Toronto (not that all of these are bad things). And it's not just Quebec, Alberta has more four lane highways than Ontario thanks to their extensive at grade expressway network.

Ontario has a bit of an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to infrastructure. We have a barebones subway network but the lines have massive trains. Madrid, for example, is the complete opposite. We have a relatively small 4 lane highway network (by North American standards anyway) and hardly any at grade expressways, 2+1 highways, or super-2s...but at the same time we have the busiest highway in the world. We have very little redundancy in our systems, as the bridge failure in Nipigon showed and as we can see every day at Bloor-Yonge.

I don't know why Ontario is like this, but it's something I notice every time I travel.

I for one am so happy that Toronto didn't build so many urban highways. Look at all those Spadina Expressways. It looks like Minneapolis.

 

[Translude15]

I for one am so happy that Toronto didn't build so many urban highways. Look at all those Spadina Expressways. It looks like Minneapolis.

View attachment 67576

And for anyone who's ever driven in MTL, you'd know all those expressways have done nothing to mitigate their traffic woes.

 

[WislaHD]

And for anyone who's ever driven in MTL, you'd know all those expressways have done nothing to mitigate their traffic woes.

Induced demand probably adds to the problems, if anything.

I wonder how traffic in Vancouver is, given that they managed to survive the automobile era without the construction of any highways.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Yup, the geology of downtown Ottawa is about as perfect for tunnelling as you can get. Toronto is much more of a mixed bag. Even in Ottawa though, they had trouble with the east portal area, where the soil transitions from Canadian Shield to the area known as Sandy Hill. The name should give you a hint as to the problem they faced.

True, but they are digging one section right through a valley in the bedrock filled with sand and till, in the vicinity of the Rideau station, and there doesn't seem to be any concern with that.

 

[MisterF]

I for one am so happy that Toronto didn't build so many urban highways. Look at all those Spadina Expressways. It looks like Minneapolis.

View attachment 67576

I don't disagree, which is why I mentioned that Toronto having less stuff isn't always a bad thing. But Toronto having less subway coverage and Ontario being less creative with highway upgrades are both bad things.

Induced demand probably adds to the problems, if anything.

I wonder how traffic in Vancouver is, given that they managed to survive the automobile era without the construction of any highways.

Well yes and no. While the city of Vancouver has no freeways (except a small part of Hwy 1 I think), the metro area has a few. Freeways are more provincial initiatives than minicipal, so municipal boundaries aren't really relevant.

Speaking of Vancouver, it also has a rapid transit network that equals Toronto's. That's even more damning than Montreal having a bigger system. A big, transit oriented city like Toronto shouldn't have a mass transit system the same size as a much smaller city that only started building their network in the 80s.

 

[W. K. Lis]

See this link for
Demand Projections for Relief Lines

The City of Toronto Planning Department has published a set of demand projections for various combinations of the (Downtown) Relief subway line, SmartTrack, and the proposed northern extension of the Yonge line to Richmond Hill.

This document makes interesting reading because it shows both the status of the evolving master transit plan that went into the modelling, and the vital point that additional capacity into the core area is essential to prevent complete gridlock on the subway system. Both SmartTrack and the Relief Line are essential to a future transit network.

That said, the report raises several issues in part by what it does not talk about, specifically some of the network configurations that have already been presented in various studies.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

See this link for
Demand Projections for Relief Lines

tl;dr Relief Line alignments on King have higher ridership and Yonge congestion relief all times of the day. This superiority is eliminated if SmartTrack with 5 minute headways and TTC fare is implemented (if it were feasible).

 

[dunkalunk]

tl;dr Relief Line alignments on King have higher ridership and Yonge congestion relief all times of the day. This superiority is eliminated if SmartTrack with 5 minute headways and TTC fare is implemented (if it were feasible).

Caveats by Mr. Munro, emphasis mine.

All of these numbers must be taken with awareness of the limitations on what has been modelled, notably:

• With the RL ending at Danforth, the potential benefit (and hence RL demand) of the “big J” is unknown.
• The five-minute service on SmartTrack, identified in a previous study as essential to attract riders, may not be physically possible given constraints on sharing the network with GO.
• It is unclear whether SmartTrack will actually operate at no fare premium above local TTC services, another essential component of making this service attractive to riders.
• The effect of SmartTrack in the downtown segment, including the degree to which it would duplicate an RL at the Unilever site, depends on the ability to operate frequent ST service.
• The relative roles of the Scarborough Subway and SmartTrack in attracting riders is unknown because the now-proposed station layout has not been modelled.

Do we know from other sources if the modelling with SmarTrack was done at TTC fares?

 

[k10ery]

Do we know from other sources if the modelling with SmarTrack was done at TTC fares?

Yes it was. And oddly though they run 3 frequency scenarios there's no sensitivity analysis on fares at all. I guess TTC fare is a sure thing then.

 

[jaybe]

Yes it was. And oddly though they run 3 frequency scenarios there's no sensitivity analysis on fares at all. I guess TTC fare is a sure thing then.

Transit infrastructure is a city building imperative. To be a successful city we need to make investments in transit.

That said, I can hear a future Rob-Fordian like politician spouting off on how demand modelling has been put into question by the UPx. Metrolynx must have been operating under a set of assumptions regarding anticipated demand that did not come to pass. If Metrolynx can get their projections so wrong what's to say plans for Smart Track and the DRL can be relied upon?
Buckle in. There will be a lot of political opposition to spending big bucks on a DRL.

 

[WislaHD]

Transit infrastructure is a city building imperative. To be a successful city we need to make investments in transit.

That said, I can hear a future Rob-Fordian like politician spouting off on how demand modelling has been put into question by the UPx. Metrolynx must have been operating under a set of assumptions regarding anticipated demand that did not come to pass. If Metrolynx can get their projections so wrong what's to say plans for Smart Track and the DRL can be relied upon?
Buckle in. There will be a lot of political opposition to spending big bucks on a DRL.

"The SmartTrack cases used a modified land use plan that assumed SmartTrack itself would cause growth that would not otherwise occur. This causes increases for the Relief Line’s projected demand when it is matched with a the lower level of SmartTrack service (4 trains/hour) because the latter does not attract as much riding as the Relief Line."
http://stevemunro.ca/2016/02/22/demand-projections-for-relief-lines/

Looks like it is more of the reverse. SmartTrack ridership case models use a set of variables that assume more growth than with the Relief Line. In cases of low SmartTrack service, the Relief Line has higher ridership not to make up for poor SmartTrack service but because SmartTrack-included models assume greater growth along the corridor.

It's SmartTrack's ridership projections that should be called into question, not the Relief Line's. I think this means that the Relief Line numbers are probably low-balled by this ridership projection study.

 

[kEiThZ]

Planning here has been very much focuses on squeezing every last ounce of capacity out of our current infrastructure, rather than building new infrastructure.

For example, if a line is over capacity, rather than build new lines we'll
- upgrade signalling system
- longer trains or vehicles
- platform screen doors
- etc, etc

Places like Vancouver will build rapid transit along corridors with ridership so low that it wouldn't even be considered here in Toronto.

Honestly, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Maximizing utility, especially of public assets, is a good thing. The problem becomes that we undertake these efforts when they are long overdue. YUS should have all of the above (even platform screen doors) already.

 

[salsa]

Two more images I snapped at the Public Presentation tonight, that do not seem to be in the presentation PDF.

These show detailed Relief Line alignment options. Sorry about crappy photo-taking, people were walking around me and my hands shaked... edit: I stitched the image together

View attachment 67153

The images have been posted online at reliefline.ca

Also check out the detailed evaluation of each possible alignment (i.e Queen vs King, etc), which goes into far greater detail than what we saw in the slides.

http://reliefline.ca/uploads/PDF/RL_Detail Corridor Evaluation_Final_Feb 19 2016.pdf

 

[gweed123]

After reading Steve's article, it only further confirms to me that the best way to relieve the Yonge line is to plug the DRL into the RER network and have its northeastern branch connect with RER along the Richmond Hill GO line.

The numbers basically say "building the Little J and 5-min SmartTrack will alleviate the pressure, but adding the YSE will pretty much bring the crowding situation back to where it is now". The solution, in my mind, is to get those riders who would be using the YSE off of the Yonge line completely, and service their trip with a parallel line.

The Big J (RL to Sheppard) is a monumental price tag, and still doesn't solve anything north of it. With the RL + RH RER, you'd only have to tunnel to Lawrence (4km less), and from there electrifying and double tracking the RH corridor is about the same cost as the YSE. Whether it's 6 car RER vehicles or 6 car TRs, the capacity is going to be very similar. Going with RER allows for the branches to operate on GO tracks, whereas TRs need TTC tracks for the entire thing.

The fact that this option isn't even being evaluated quite frankly boggles my mind.

 

[Cobra]

After reading Steve's article, it only further confirms to me that the best way to relieve the Yonge line is to plug the DRL into the RER network and have its northeastern branch connect with RER along the Richmond Hill GO line.

The numbers basically say "building the Little J and 5-min SmartTrack will alleviate the pressure, but adding the YSE will pretty much bring the crowding situation back to where it is now". The solution, in my mind, is to get those riders who would be using the YSE off of the Yonge line completely, and service their trip with a parallel line.

The Big J (RL to Sheppard) is a monumental price tag, and still doesn't solve anything north of it. With the RL + RH RER, you'd only have to tunnel to Lawrence (4km less), and from there electrifying and double tracking the RH corridor is about the same cost as the YSE. Whether it's 6 car RER vehicles or 6 car TRs, the capacity is going to be very similar. Going with RER allows for the branches to operate on GO tracks, whereas TRs need TTC tracks for the entire thing.

The fact that this option isn't even being evaluated quite frankly boggles my mind.

The "Big J" serves areas that are nowhere near a rapid transit line and that RER wouldn't be able to service either.

I get the price tag but this line with its current analysis is needed. Also what's stopping YRT from redirecting some of their bus routes to Don Mills and Sheppard?

Furthermore, you have the best political climate to make it happen for at least a generation:

-City Hall will get behind it instead of burying it or ignoring it like past administrations
-The province campaigned on it, promised it and added directives in their budget for it
-Metrolinx identified it as a necessity and even pushed it father north than we all anticipated while the common ground was Eglinton-Don Mills
-The federal government is now ready to not only spend massively in public transit but willing to pay more than the traditional 1/3 of the bill.

If anything, we should expedite the EA so it's shovel ready ASAP. Now's not the time to cheap out on it. We know it's needed, let's do it right