Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
You CAN put modern metro trains on ttc gauge, the TR1 trains are an example of that.
If that's what the provincial gov't means by different technologies than they are fooling their followers
steveintoronto
Superstar
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
steveintoronto
Superstar
OK, there now reading.
Edit: Now realizing I've read this some years back, still navigating the site, but had to double check if this is the Schabas thing. Even if not, it's connected: (did a backward search on Google using the address) Paul Bedford of course the prior Toronto chief planner.
Post Script: "Regional Relief Line"...now I know where that comes from. I'll continue reading and watching later, but my first impression is that the 'RRL' is already dated in ways from five years ago. Expecting streetcars (as per mention of the College Car) to be the connecting links of rapid transit lines is wildly optimistic, but that may just be the opinion of one article/vid.
In all fairness, if this latest Relief Line scheme is what it is hyped to be, a lot of presumptions will be rendered moot.
Acknowledgements — SRRA
www.srraresearch.org/acknowledgements/
Paul Bedford, Former Chief Planner City of Toronto & Metrolinx Board Member. Jim Berry, Senior Vice ... Michael Schabas, Partner FCPWorld. Michael Sutherland ... 30 St. Patrick Street, 5th floor, Toronto, ON416-460-1969. Copyright © 2018.
Last edited:
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Can we just try convincing Doug that Scarborough deserves better transit than the "outdated Line 2 technology" its about to get? A maglev sounds like something Scarborough should get... none of these second-rate subways. Ewww.
Downtowner's should get stuck with outdated subways instead. That'll show them!
steveintoronto
Superstar
Define "metro". Of course you can. You can also drive a twenty year old Chevy. Does that mean you should? How about buses? Would you buy a fleet of buses a generation old in design?
crs1026
Superstar
@steve asked for references to past studies etc. Here are a few examples.
I may be beating this to death.... but.... should ML declare what a great plan the "Ford alternative" always was, and how they only wished someone had listened before.....those comments need to be compared to this history of ML thinking and strategic pronouncements. Someone needs to ask why we hadn't heard about this before. The comments, especially those of the Feb 7 2019 ML Board meeting, certainly suggest ML was fully in support of the project as the City was advancing it. Not a hint of "but we think there is a better way"
The Big Move
Discussion of transit modes
25-year Plan - which does not mention the Relief Line, or the Line 1 extension either - and designates the Richmond Hill GO line as "Express Rail"
2014 Revision to the Big Move Plan - see page 55 for its discussion of the Relief Line
Regional Express Rail
GO Expansion - Full Business Case Document - see chapter 1 for a description of the process that ML follows for all projects - (presumably they followed their own process before submitting their plan to Ford? )
- see page 60 for a description of the Richmond Hill corridor and how GO and the Relief Line are related
Metrolinx Board Minutes
June 28 2017 Board Meeting - Presentation by Lesley Woo covering TTC-ML and City cooperation and Executive Working Group regarding Relief Line planning - (surely if ML had concerns or other ideas about the Relief Line, they would have been raised in the work of this committee....the minutes and correspondence within this group, and the Memo of Understanding that is mentioned between ML and the City would be a good FOI source for anyone factchecking should ML declare a longstanding pursuit of the "Ford alternative")
September 14 2017 - Presentation by Lesley Woo re Draft 2041 Strategic Plan - Page 60 - description of the Relief Line; Page 61 - Relief Line shown in map
Feb 7 2019 - Presentation to ML Board re Relief Line Update - Executive summary states that subway level infrastructure is justified; ML indicates its support for the business case as developed by the City, ie subway on one of the six alternatives proposed
- Paul
I may be beating this to death.... but.... should ML declare what a great plan the "Ford alternative" always was, and how they only wished someone had listened before.....those comments need to be compared to this history of ML thinking and strategic pronouncements. Someone needs to ask why we hadn't heard about this before. The comments, especially those of the Feb 7 2019 ML Board meeting, certainly suggest ML was fully in support of the project as the City was advancing it. Not a hint of "but we think there is a better way"
The Big Move
Discussion of transit modes
25-year Plan - which does not mention the Relief Line, or the Line 1 extension either - and designates the Richmond Hill GO line as "Express Rail"
2014 Revision to the Big Move Plan - see page 55 for its discussion of the Relief Line
Regional Express Rail
GO Expansion - Full Business Case Document - see chapter 1 for a description of the process that ML follows for all projects - (presumably they followed their own process before submitting their plan to Ford? )
- see page 60 for a description of the Richmond Hill corridor and how GO and the Relief Line are related
Metrolinx Board Minutes
June 28 2017 Board Meeting - Presentation by Lesley Woo covering TTC-ML and City cooperation and Executive Working Group regarding Relief Line planning - (surely if ML had concerns or other ideas about the Relief Line, they would have been raised in the work of this committee....the minutes and correspondence within this group, and the Memo of Understanding that is mentioned between ML and the City would be a good FOI source for anyone factchecking should ML declare a longstanding pursuit of the "Ford alternative")
September 14 2017 - Presentation by Lesley Woo re Draft 2041 Strategic Plan - Page 60 - description of the Relief Line; Page 61 - Relief Line shown in map
Feb 7 2019 - Presentation to ML Board re Relief Line Update - Executive summary states that subway level infrastructure is justified; ML indicates its support for the business case as developed by the City, ie subway on one of the six alternatives proposed
- Paul
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
@crs1026 : There may have been a misunderstanding as to my reference, so here it is again:
That being said, what you post is an astounding insight as to what's on record by Metrolinx' hand. I'm delving through it now.
Example:
Beyond whatever point on "orthodox subway mentioned in Relief Line reports" that we raised, that's a cornucopia of valid aspects of discussion right there that relates to the latest 'turn' in the Relief Line scheme discussion.
Two quick points from memory, as I've glanced through a number of the links you've provided and can't find where I read (gist) "Union Station will handle four times that number by 20XX"...the implication roughly being that within a decade, Union's passenger load will quadruple.
That has direct bearing on by a number of factors, not least Relief Line configuration...and whether or not RER (or the like) loops through the core in tunnel.
Also, and this may appear abstract to this discussion, but it isn't. It's like building a highway across the top of Toronto: Build this line to handle the VIA HFR, RER, 'Express' (a term that appears to have morphed) and metro all in one go. Build it big from the beginning, by whatever means (gov't, private, mixture/consortium) with state of the art signalling and control, with passing loops on the stations that will be on it, and pretty much accept the Missing Link as moot and undoable due to CN/CP intransigence.
I'll comment more later, got to follow these links. Some of this is actually exciting to read, if for no other reason than it can be quoted verbatim as to "What Metrolinx has stated".
Again, still nothing directly from Metrolinx in the press on the latest revelation. One has to wonder 'why not' when Verster and others were public cheerleaders to political announcements in the past.
Excellent digging btw!
Addendum next pane:
That being said, what you post is an astounding insight as to what's on record by Metrolinx' hand. I'm delving through it now.
Example:
http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/en/strategies/strategy1.aspxBIG MOVE #3
An expanded Union Station – the heart of the GTHA’s transportation system.
1.3 The City of Toronto is proceeding with the revitalization of Union Station to provide new passenger concourse areas, accommodate GO Transit rail expansion, improve pedestrian access to and through the building, and expand customer amenities and retail areas. Metrolinx will work with the City of Toronto, GO Transit, and stakeholders on a long-range strategy that builds on the work already underway, to ensure that all existing and future initiatives to improve Union Station and its surrounding precinct are coordinated to implement the RTP. Union Station will become a customer-focused facility that provides seamless connections between all modes of transportation and the surrounding downtown Toronto area. Union Station should be developed in a way that maximizes not only the value of the station itself, including its cultural heritage value, but also the immediate precinct and broader region that it directly serves. It should also meet the needs of the passenger throughput that will result from the implementation of the RTP. The following will be clearly addressed:
[...]
1.5 Establish regional rapid transit connections outside the GTHA, such as the conceptual network shown in Appendix C, that connects the GTHA’s transit network to municipalities surrounding the GTHA and to other destinations outside of the region with both public and private transit services, in a manner that supports the urban structure objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greenbelt Plan.
1.6 In collaboration with the federal government, Québec and other provinces, private sector passenger transportation operators and other key stakeholders, identify concrete opportunities to align regional and national transportation objectives, including linking regional networks to national and international networks such as VIA Rail.
[...]
1.13 To the maximum extent possible, new transit infrastructure, including transit vehicles and technologies, should be compatible across the region and utilize common international standards. This would allow for better integration of transit services, inter-operability across the region, and cost-effective procurement.
[...]
CHOOSING THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY
The regional rapid transit network in Schedules 1 and 2 identifies several types of transit service: Express Rail, Regional Rail, Subway, and Other Rapid Transit (comprises Light Rail Transit, Bus Rapid Transit, Automated Guided Transit, and other technologies). These categories are based on the level of service provided. Within each category, several types of technologies are possible. Many of these categories overlap. Subsequent to the RTP, projects identified in the regional rapid transit network will undergo a more detailed Benefits Case Analysis to determine the most appropriate technology.
More information on these categories and technologies is available in the backgrounder entitled “Transit Technologies, December 2008”.
EXPRESS RAIL
Yamanote Line (Tokyo)
Réseau Express Régional (Paris)
Bay Area Rapid Transit (San Francisco)
High-speed trains, typically electric, serving primarily longer-distance regional trips with two-way, all-day service. Station locations would generally be the same as those of regional rail, but with faster and more frequent service.
Average Speed: 50 – 80 kilometres per hour
Frequency: as low as five minutes between trains
Capacity: 25,000 – 40,000 passengers per hour
Stations: two to five kilometres apart
REGIONAL RAIL
River Line (New Jersey)
Deux-Montagnes Line (Montréal)
GO Train (GTHA)
Diesel-electric or electric trains serving primarily longer-distance regional trips.
Average Speed: 30 – 50 kilometres per hour
Frequency: as low as 10 minutes between trains
Capacity: 5,000 – 20,000 passengers per hour
Stations: two to five kilometres apart
SUBWAY
Toronto Subway (Toronto)
Tunnelbanan (Stockholm)
Metro (Washington D.C.)
High capacity, heavy rail transit that is fully-grade separated from other traffic, predominantly underground.
Average Speed: 25 – 50 kilometres per hour
Frequency: as low as 90 seconds between trains
Capacity: 25,000 – 40,000 passengers per hour
Stations: spacing varies depending on desired speeds
OTHER RAPID TRANSIT
T3 Tram (Paris)
Rede Integrada de Transporte (Curitiba, Brazil)
RandstadRail (Netherlands)
A broad category that includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), Automated Guided Transit (AGT) and other technologies that operate completely or mostly in their own rights-of-way, separate from mixed traffic. Also includes buses operating in mixed traffic on controlled-access expressways that employ congestion management such as tolls, thereby allowing the buses to maintain high average speeds. Speed and reliability can be increased significantly with gradeseparation from other traffic (i.e. above-ground or below-ground) that allows the transit to bypass or have priority at signalized intersections.
Average Speed: 15 – 40 kilometres per hour (higher for dedicated bus transitways on controlled-access expressways or in mixed traffic on tolled controlled-access expressways)
Frequency: as low as 90 seconds between trains/buses
Capacity: 2,000 – 25,000 passengers per hour
Stations: spacing varies depending on desired speeds
[...]
Beyond whatever point on "orthodox subway mentioned in Relief Line reports" that we raised, that's a cornucopia of valid aspects of discussion right there that relates to the latest 'turn' in the Relief Line scheme discussion.
Two quick points from memory, as I've glanced through a number of the links you've provided and can't find where I read (gist) "Union Station will handle four times that number by 20XX"...the implication roughly being that within a decade, Union's passenger load will quadruple.
That has direct bearing on by a number of factors, not least Relief Line configuration...and whether or not RER (or the like) loops through the core in tunnel.
Also, and this may appear abstract to this discussion, but it isn't. It's like building a highway across the top of Toronto: Build this line to handle the VIA HFR, RER, 'Express' (a term that appears to have morphed) and metro all in one go. Build it big from the beginning, by whatever means (gov't, private, mixture/consortium) with state of the art signalling and control, with passing loops on the stations that will be on it, and pretty much accept the Missing Link as moot and undoable due to CN/CP intransigence.
I'll comment more later, got to follow these links. Some of this is actually exciting to read, if for no other reason than it can be quoted verbatim as to "What Metrolinx has stated".
Again, still nothing directly from Metrolinx in the press on the latest revelation. One has to wonder 'why not' when Verster and others were public cheerleaders to political announcements in the past.
Excellent digging btw!
Addendum next pane:
Last edited:
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Did you just take a screenshot instead of quote?
rbt
Senior Member
That last one, which is most recent, does say generically call it "subway" throughout rather than mentioning Toronto Rockets, and shows 6 examples of a "subway" which include London DLR and Vancouver Skytrain.
It certainly feels like bait and switch though.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Cont'd from last post:
Addendum: I've skipped ahead to access the referenced above: Transit Technologies December 2008
[...]
Interesting in many ways, not only prophetic in terms of what we're now discussing, but also how there's a 'definition creep' occurring over just a decade. This term has pretty much if not completely dropped from ML terminology. I find that reminiscent of one of the reports I did study intently: The Electrification one, in fact IIRC it was in separate releases along with appendices.
One more quick thought before getting buried in these links: I'm starting to be a little concerned that QP might be 'blowing it' making this a political announcement. I think you alluded to that earlier with (gist) "confidentiality agreements et al". If ML does 'have something really good' cooking in the oven, let's hope that Yurek, Ford et al don't make it drop by opening the oven before it's baked. Let me flip this over: IF the likes of Desjardins-Siciliano, InfraBank, Feds and others are hatching a scheme, one to satisfy many needs in one project. a grand one but one which will offer a much better business plan as it will do many tasks, thus reduce costs for all concerned on a per unit basis, then ML certainly won't want to talk about it prematurely. I believe it was you who had raised that spectre a few posts back, someone did. To be continued...
Addendum: I've skipped ahead to access the referenced above: Transit Technologies December 2008
[...]
http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/RTP_Backgrounder_Transit_Technologies.pdf
Interesting in many ways, not only prophetic in terms of what we're now discussing, but also how there's a 'definition creep' occurring over just a decade. This term has pretty much if not completely dropped from ML terminology. I find that reminiscent of one of the reports I did study intently: The Electrification one, in fact IIRC it was in separate releases along with appendices.
One more quick thought before getting buried in these links: I'm starting to be a little concerned that QP might be 'blowing it' making this a political announcement. I think you alluded to that earlier with (gist) "confidentiality agreements et al". If ML does 'have something really good' cooking in the oven, let's hope that Yurek, Ford et al don't make it drop by opening the oven before it's baked. Let me flip this over: IF the likes of Desjardins-Siciliano, InfraBank, Feds and others are hatching a scheme, one to satisfy many needs in one project. a grand one but one which will offer a much better business plan as it will do many tasks, thus reduce costs for all concerned on a per unit basis, then ML certainly won't want to talk about it prematurely. I believe it was you who had raised that spectre a few posts back, someone did. To be continued...
Last edited:
Neutrino
Senior Member
All our speculating now guarantees the actual announcement (when and if it comes) will be nothing like we're expecting
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yeah...I defer from "bait and switch"...but I thought exactly same, but for the sake of neutrality in debate, will state "ambiguous". That's in all fairness to @crs1026 and myself. It really does make solid definitions 'slippery'.
"Subway" is a generic term that even applies to pedestrians (in fact, in the UK, that's exactly what it pertains to, and in French translated, I believe it's much the same). That's why I use the modifier "Orthodox"....subway, so as to more clearly indicate reference. Technically, anything that goes through a tunnel is a subway, even a monorail if it's in a subway.
