Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)

[Sauga89]

Since the MTO released a map showing the OL going to the suburbs, it is not that off topic.

Is this the MTO document you're referring to? I believe it calls for an Ontario Line extension to Pearson, and separately, also calls for a new rail line between Burlington and Oshawa along the 403/407. It does not call for an Ontario line extension into the suburbs.

To get back to the Ontario line, I kind of like a Sheppard extension west to Pearson better, with only a GO line along the 407.

I also wonder if a heavy rail line along the 407 could include bypass tracks for CN. There's a 15 km long section of CN track between CN's Macmillan Yard and Unionville, that to my eyes, looks more densely populated than the land along the 407. I was thinking (and someone can tell me why I'm an idiot), that if you built a heavy rail corridor along the 407 for GO, you could add a couple tracks for CN, pay CN a relocation fee and then build a rapid transit line along CN's current 15 km corridor. That makes more sense to me than building an Ontario line extension along the 407 parallel to a GO line.

You could also then extend that new line south along the Barrie GO line to the Finch hydro corridor, and reach Pearson that way if you don’t like a Sheppard west extension.

(I will note that this assumes a heavy rail line along the 407 is even possible. I am not an engineer. Given that the Ontario Liberals proposed the missing link, I am assuming heavy rail along the 407 is not impossible.)

 

[micheal_can]

...

(I will note that this assumes a heavy rail line along the 407 is even possible. I am not an engineer. Given that the Ontario Liberals proposed the missing link, I am assuming heavy rail along the 407 is not impossible.)

Anything is possible with enough money and political support.

If you mean putting GO service along the existing rail corridor north of the 407, then unless you want to tunnel or deck the corridor, it won't fit. This assumes the need for 2 more tracks for the passenger service, while maintaining the existing number of tracks. Possible, but not practical is how I would label it.

What may actually be slightly more possible and practical would be a raised guide way for OL type service above the highway in the median. The problem with this is the population is not ever going to be built up to the stations enough for the density needed. Maybe a subway like thing could be built along the existing VIVA along the highway 7 corridor. That at least has a decent enough density,and it keeps on growing.

 

[nfitz]

Is this the MTO document you're referring to? I believe it calls for an Ontario Line extension to Pearson, and separately, also calls for a new rail line between Burlington and Oshawa along the 403/407. It does not call for an Ontario line extension into the suburbs.

If Markham and Mississauga aren't still the suburbs, I don't know what they are.

As I said earlier, I'd assume that line would be the same technology. It's not GO. And presumably it isn't LRT. So what would stop an operational pattern of running from Pape to Woodbine and 407 (for example)?

 

[afransen]

If Markham and Mississauga aren't still the suburbs, I don't know what they are.

As I said earlier, I'd assume that line would be the same technology. It's not GO. And presumably it isn't LRT. So what would stop an operational pattern of running from Pape to Woodbine and 407 (for example)?

Same technology perhaps, but shorter trains? I could see 30,40m trains being used. Perhaps with platforms designed for expansion up to 60-80m relatively easily. Then run automated trains every 2-5 minutes. Possibly couple 2 trains together for peak service?

 

[Sauga89]

Anything is possible with enough money and political support.

If you mean putting GO service along the existing rail corridor north of the 407, then unless you want to tunnel or deck the corridor, it won't fit. This assumes the need for 2 more tracks for the passenger service, while maintaining the existing number of tracks. Possible, but not practical is how I would label it.

What may actually be slightly more possible and practical would be a raised guide way for OL type service above the highway in the median. The problem with this is the population is not ever going to be built up to the stations enough for the density needed. Maybe a subway like thing could be built along the existing VIVA along the highway 7 corridor. That at least has a decent enough density,and it keeps on growing.

I don't understand what you're saying here at all. There is no existing east-west rail line north of the 407.

I was suggesting that the cross-regional connector mentioned in the MTO document could perhaps be built as a GO line, assuming that heavy conventional rail along the 407 or adjacent hydro corridor is feasible from an engineering perspective. I've taken criticism in other threads about the feasibility of rail along highways, so I didn't want to assume that every highway corridor or hydro corridor is suitable for freight. I'm not an engineer. The fact that the Ontario government planned out the missing link proposal makes me think though that the 407 (or at least the adjacent 200 metre-wide hydro corridor) has the potential for conventional rail. I know @Bojaxs has discussed a CP bypass along this corridor as well.

My point was that if a GO line is possible along the 407, rather than building the Ontario line alongside those GO tracks, as the MTO document seems to suggest, it might be worth considering building a couple CN tracks there in place of the Ontario line. The 15 km of the CN York subdivision between the entrance to the CN Macmillan Yard and the Stouffville line, south of the 407, looks like it has potential for a rapid transit line, if you could pry that section of the York subdivision away from CN by building them a bypass and paying a relocation fee.

The idea I was trying to get at is that it doesn't make sense to build a GO line and an Ontario line extension side by side along the 407. That's redundant. Assuming there's room for both, you'd be better off I think using the space for GO and CN, with another new line on the current York subdivision.

Same technology perhaps, but shorter trains? I could see 20,30,40m trains being used. Perhaps 20m with platforms designed for expansion up to 40m relatively easily. Then run automated trains every 2-5 minutes. Possibly couple 2x20m trains together for peak service?

If you want to build the Burlington-Oshawa line with the same technology as the Ontario line and have them share tracks, I'm not in the mood to argue with you. My point was only that you shouldn't build separate parallel lines of different technologies along the 407 the way the MTO document implied.

 

[micheal_can]

I don't understand what you're saying here at all. There is no existing east-west rail line north of the 407.

I was suggesting that the cross-regional connector mentioned in the MTO document could perhaps be built as a GO line, assuming that heavy conventional rail along the 407 or adjacent hydro corridor is feasible from an engineering perspective. I've taken criticism in other threads about the feasibility of rail along highways, so I didn't want to assume that every highway corridor or hydro corridor is suitable for freight. I'm not an engineer. The fact that the Ontario government planned out the missing link proposal makes me think though that the 407 (or at least the adjacent 200 metre-wide hydro corridor) has the potential for conventional rail. I know @Bojaxs has discussed a CP bypass along this corridor as well.

My point was that if a GO line is possible along the 407, rather than building the Ontario line alongside those GO tracks, as the MTO document seems to suggest, it might be worth considering building a couple CN tracks there in place of the Ontario line. The 15 km of the CN York subdivision between the entrance to the CN Macmillan Yard and the Stouffville line, south of the 407, looks like it has potential for a rapid transit line, if you could pry that section of the York subdivision away from CN by building them a bypass and paying a relocation fee.

The idea I was trying to get at is that it doesn't make sense to build a GO line and an Ontario line extension side by side along the 407. That's redundant. Assuming there's room for both, you'd be better off I think using the space for GO and CN, with another new line on the current York subdivision.

My mistake. I meant the York and Halton Subs south of it.

I think the issue with hydro lines is the air gap for arcing that they want to avoid.

 

[Sauga89]

As I said earlier, I'd assume that line would be the same technology. It's not GO. And presumably it isn't LRT. So what would stop an operational pattern of running from Pape to Woodbine and 407 (for example)?

Nothing I can think of, as long as you use the same technology for both the cross-regional connector and the Ontario line, and have them share tracks. It's only if you build two parallel transit lines of different technologies that I think there is a redundancy. In that case, I think you're better off building another transit line farther south.

 

[nfitz]

My point was only that you shouldn't build separate parallel lines of different technologies along the 407 the way the MTO document implied.

I didn't think that the MTO document had implied that. The document had implied that Burlington to Oshawa via 407 wasn't LRT nor heavy rail. That doesn't leave much except TTC subway or Ontario Line technology. So presumably same technology as Ontario Line.

 

[Sauga89]

I didn't think that the MTO document had implied that. The document had implied that Burlington to Oshawa via 407 wasn't LRT nor heavy rail. That doesn't leave much except TTC subway or Ontario Line technology. So presumably same technology as Ontario Line.

This is the section of the MTO document I was looking at. It's more than a little vague, so you could very well be right.

• Two new conceptual cross-regional rapid transit connections:
  • A new east-west line between Burlington and Oshawa, north of Toronto, that connects existing and proposed GO Rail, subway, and LRT lines outside of Union Station, and serves major employment centres and growth areas.
  • A new transit loop that connects the Ontario Line to new major transit hubs where regional services connect, including Pearson International Airport and Richmond Hill Centre, and to other subway and GO Rail lines.

As a transit project advances through planning studies and business cases, the ultimate transit type, technology, and alignment may change

The way I was looking at it was that the regional connector was in a different sub-bullet, as though it were a completely different line. To me, if it was intended to be built to the same standard as the Ontario line, as some kind of long-distance extension of the Ontario line, why wouldn't they state that explicitly? They stated it would go to Richmond Hill and Pearson. If they didn't state it would go to Burlington and Oshawa, that implies to me that either it isn't going to be the same technology, or they haven't made up their minds yet. I can see how you could come to a different conclusion though. I'd like to see the sections that made you think it couldn't be LRT or heavy rail. It did specify rapid, but I think the electrified GO network when built could also be called rapid.

There are other reasons why I think that a conventional GO line would be preferable (again assuming that it's possible from an engineering perspective).
For one, with a conventional GO line, you could take trains coming from Hamilton GO Centre, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, and Brantford without making people switch trains at Aldershot. You could also run trains from northern Burlington and Oakville off the line onto the Milton line at Erindale GO for service to Union, assuming the capacity on the Milton line is ever fixed.

The 407 highway and transit corridor is also I think a candidate for a freight CP bypass route to open up the Midtown line. @Bojaxs has a a good map on this on the fantasy maps thread. I'm not sure if transit or freight would win in a fight for limited space, but if you have space for both, I'd think it simpler to build them both to the same standards. Ideally, you'd even have space for those CN tracks I mentioned between MacMillan and and the Stouffville line, assuming you could wrestle CN and CP into accepting parallel bypasses. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how much space, if any, there is to work with along the 407.

 

[nfitz]

This is the section of the MTO document I was looking at. It's more than a little vague, so you could very well be right.

The way I was looking at it was that the regional connector was in a different sub-bullet, as though it were a completely different line. To me, if it was intended to be built to the same standard as the Ontario line, as some kind of long-distance extension of the Ontario line, why wouldn't they state that explicitly? They stated it would go to Richmond Hill and Pearson. If they didn't state it would go to Burlington and Oshawa, that implies to me that either it isn't going to be the same technology, or they haven't made up their minds yet. I can see how you could come to a different conclusion though. I'd like to see the sections that made you think it couldn't be LRT or heavy rail. It did specify rapid, but I think the electrified GO network when built could also be called rapid.

That they haven't made up their mind could also be the situation, and I could be projecting what I see as the only reasonable outcome.

There are other reasons why I think that a conventional GO line would be preferable (again assuming that it's possible from an engineering perspective). For one, with a conventional GO line, you could take trains coming from Hamilton GO Centre, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, and Brantford without making people switch trains at Aldershot. You could also run trains from northern Burlington and Oakville off the line onto the Milton line at Erindale GO for service to Union, assuming the capacity on the Milton line is ever fixed.

There's horizontal space, but the vertical would be challenging. I don't know what heavy rail gives them, that something like Ontario line wouldn't. And heavy rail comes with a lot of baggage - like siginificant penalties for stop spacing, and grade limitations. Not to mention meeting onerous and often irrelevant federal standards.

Heavy rail works well when you can leverage existing infrastructure - and in urban areas, the right-of-ways.

 

[kaptrice]

I didn't think that the MTO document had implied that. The document had implied that Burlington to Oshawa via 407 wasn't LRT nor heavy rail. That doesn't leave much except TTC subway or Ontario Line technology. So presumably same technology as Ontario Line.

It also includes bus rapid transit. The 407 Transitway was envisioned as a busway, and the 40/50 series bus routes are playing this role today. Rail could exceed the speeds the busses achieve, but it'd also preclude the kind of branches you could keep with an open busway. I'd be happy either way.

 

[nfitz]

View attachment 622791
It also includes bus rapid transit. The 407 Transitway was envisioned as a busway, and the 40/50 series bus routes are playing this role today. Rail could exceed the speeds the busses achieve, but it'd also preclude the kind of branches you could keep with an open busway. I'd be happy either way.

Yes, it's possibly BRT (though as far as I recall, it was, like in Ottawa and Mississauga, envisioned as Transitway that could be later upgraded to LRT).

I've assumed it wasn't BRT and it was Ontario Line technology because of where it was positioned in the list of 33 proposed projects. Projects 1 through 20 all appear to be likely BRT, while 21 to 28 are all likely streetcar/LRT. 31 is subway and 32/33 are GO Train/Heavy Rail.

WIth the Ontario Line at 30, then this east-west line along the 407 at 29 would either be assumed by MTO to be LRT or Ontario Line technology. At least for the purposes of this document. Sometimes I think we'll be lucky if all the committed projects get built!

Before anyone takes this too seriously for, note that on the highways side, it includes New 7 from Kitchener to Guelph - which was expected to be built in the 1960s or 1970s; it will be 100 years late at this rate!

 

[kaptrice]

Yes, it's possibly BRT (though as far as I recall, it was, like in Ottawa and Mississauga, envisioned as Transitway that could be later upgraded to LRT).

I've assumed it wasn't BRT and it was Ontario Line technology because of where it was positioned in the list of 33 proposed projects. Projects 1 through 20 all appear to be likely BRT, while 21 to 28 are all likely streetcar/LRT. 31 is subway and 32/33 are GO Train/Heavy Rail.

WIth the Ontario Line at 30, then this east-west line along the 407 at 29 would either be assumed by MTO to be LRT or Ontario Line technology. At least for the purposes of this document. Sometimes I think we'll be lucky if all the committed projects get built!

View attachment 622798

Before anyone takes this too seriously for, note that on the highways side, it includes New 7 from Kitchener to Guelph - which was expected to be built in the 1960s or 1970s; it will be 100 years late at this rate!

Interesting. I'm sure we'll see more when the 2051 RTP comes out. Last November a draft version was supposed to be submitted to the MTO in mid-2024, but some months have passed and the Planning & Development department has been restructured away. Here's hoping it makes its way to the public before too long...

 

[micheal_can]

What if instead of an extension, of this line, we had parallel lines?
For example, the existing under construction OL line is extended to somewhere near the border between Markham and Toronto that makes sense. Any further extensions would not use the same tracks as the Toronto section. Instead, separate tracks are built and the section in Toronto would be an express train that only stops at interchanges with other lines. Kind of like how NYC has some of their lines.
The same could be done with all the other subway/RT lines.