News   Aug 11, 2020
 145     0 
News   Aug 10, 2020
 327     0 
News   Aug 10, 2020
 1K     1 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,495
Reaction score
2,049
The conclusion that deep tunnels would reduce ridership by 15% certainly isn’t consistent with my extensive experience of London’s Central and Piccadilly lines,...
Those lines aren't getting transfers from an elevated GO line less than a 7 minute trip from Union Station, which has an alternative connection (Yonge Line) available.

TTC, when designing the RL they asked GO if they could use a bit of corridor and got told absolutely not (they eliminated those options without any evaluation as a result). They designed around that limitation. Metrolinx is now stating that restriction they put on the RL would severely harm their own goal on getting passengers off GO trains before Union.

I understand why they made that decision at the time; RER hadn't been spec'd out but probably needed corridor space and the underground Lake Shore line station was the preferred Union relief mechanism; but we could have been flushing out these details in 2015 rather than today with a cooperative rather than combative Metrolinx.
 
Last edited:

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
799
The use of the Dunsmuir Tunnel had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection of the ICTS system for Vancouver's Skytrain. The tunnel could have easily been adapted to just about any type of rolling stock, provided it used third rail for power - even the TTC's own subway design.

The use of ICTS was due to nothing more than the good salesmanship of UTDC.

Dan
Yes, the Dunsmuir Tunnel did have a huge amount to do with ALRT as the chosen technology. As I stated the province wanted to show off a new technology for it's transportation themed Expo86. Of course the tunnels could have been upgraded to accomodate LRT or subway but the whole point was that they didn't have to be and the province saved a fortune and a lot of construction time by not doing it. This particularly true with subway as not only would the tunnels have to have been enlarged but also there would have had to be a huge rebuild between the tunnels themselves as they are stacked and they would have had to reinforce the sections between the stacks as subway trains are much heavier {especially back in the 80s} than the ALRT cars.

Like I said, I don't know if double stacked trains stations would be a good fit for the DRL but using Vancouver as an example is not a good one because they went with that design because the tunnels already existed.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,451
Reaction score
2,018
The conclusion that deep tunnels would reduce ridership by 15% certainly isn’t consistent with my extensive experience of London’s Central and Piccadilly lines, which are really deep in Zone 1, or of some of Sydney’s CBD train stations. For that matter, the one week I took the Moscow Metro it seemed really well used in spite of being so deep. It would be nice to see reporting of some measure of uncertainty regarding ML’s surprising assertion, in addition to the point estimate. I mean, I know Toronto does lots of things differently from other, more functional cities, so sure why not add subway depth to the list. I also know the MTA generally uses shallow tunnels but I did say functional. It’s possible that the international ridership experience of deep tunnelled systems is irrelevant. But all the same, ML’s ridership assertion needs further scrutiny.
Agreed.

It's also not consistent with the rationale for, say, the SSE, which up until recently was a long, deep tunnel underground. Great that they've added stations, but as far as I know they'll still have to dig fairly deep tunnels.

Are deep tunnels in Scarborough going to deter ridership?

At the very least they could post a source to these 'stats'.
 

H4F33Z

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 11, 2019
Messages
186
Reaction score
263
Location
Thorncliffe Park
Is there any evidence to show that having more types of rolling stock on a transit system increases annual costs to run the system? (ie, maintenance, depots, infrastructure differences.)
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,495
Reaction score
2,049
Is there any evidence to show that having more types of rolling stock on a transit system increases annual costs to run the system? (ie, maintenance, depots, infrastructure differences.)
The vendor is providing the vehicles and doing maintenance; they wouldn't want to share a facility anyway.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
5,929
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
By 2018, they were planning for the rebuild of the Exhibition GO Station and the extension of the streetcar tracks from the Exhibition Loop to the Dufferin Loop. All that planning has now been filed for reference purposes only. With the Ontario Line's Exhibition Station, they have to start all over again.

See link.



And from this link.

1592056973305.png

1592057010936.png

1592057033955.png

1592057057115.png

1592057084239.png

1592057108450.png


All those plans from 2018 now need time and money to add the Ontario Line's Exhibition Station to the plans. Need to be altered GREATLY.
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,935
Reaction score
448
Those lines aren't getting transfers from an elevated GO line less than a 7 minute trip from Union Station, which has an alternative connection (Yonge Line) available.
Good point. The writer could have mixed-up the "transfers" and "ridership".
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,062
By 2018, they were planning for the rebuild of the Exhibition GO Station and the extension of the streetcar tracks from the Exhibition Loop to the Dufferin Loop. All that planning has now been filed for reference purposes only. With the Ontario Line's Exhibition Station, they have to start all over again.

See link.



And from this link.

View attachment 251294
View attachment 251295
View attachment 251296
View attachment 251297
View attachment 251298
View attachment 251299

All those plans from 2018 now need time and money to add the Ontario Line's Exhibition Station to the plans. Need to be altered GREATLY.
Would the Ontario Line station be under the Gardiner though? I thought it was going to run elevated in the last portion to the Ex.

1592155162551.png


Looks like along the GO line, so I could see that it would maybe be elevated above the GO station, with a revamp of the GO station into a indoor multi-level structure with the Ontario Line.

So I dont think that would really interfere with the EX station for the streetcars, the tunnel to GO would just link to the structure that would include the Ontario Line.

Again this is all speculation, who knows, that map above isn't even an official EA. Its just napkin art. But it seems their intention is to have the line above ground in some fashion, albeit north of the Gardiner.
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,682
Reaction score
4,223
Steve Munro has reviewed the latest IO report.

Ontario Line
The Ontario Line was previously reported as a single project with a price tag of over $10 billion. In the Fall 2019 update, the intent was to have the financial close in Winter/Spring 2022 ahead of the election. In the Winter 2020 update, this changed to Spring 2022.

In the Spring 2020 update, the project has been split into separate parts to reflect industry feedback about the original scope.
  1. GO Corridor from Don River to Gerrard
  2. South Tunnels, Civil Works and Stations CNE to Don River
  3. Rolling Stock, System Operations & Maintenance
  4. North Tunnels, Civil Works and Stations
The GO corridor work will be done as a conventional procurement by Metrolinx and will be bundled with upgrades to GO Transit trackage.

The financial close for items 2 and 3 above is now Fall 2022, and for item 4 it is Fall 2023.

This means that an actual sign-on-the-dotted-line commitment to the project will not be within the current government’s mandate. Even the so-called “early works” comprising the southern portion of the route from Exhibition to the Don River is not scheduled to close until Fall 2022. The northern portion, from Gerrard to Eglinton will close in Fall 2023. This contract is being held back pending results for the south contract to determine the industry’s appetite for the work.

The southern portion, with a long tunnel through downtown and stations in congested street locations would start first. However, the line cannot actually open without the northern portion because this provides the link to the maintenance facility which is included as part of item 3 above although the actual access connection would be built as part of item 4.

An issue linking all of these projects is the choice of technology which, in turn drives decisions such as tunnel and station sizes, power supply, signalling and maintenance facility design. When the Ontario Line was a single project, Metrolinx could say that this choice was up to the bidders, but now there must be some co-ordination to ensure that what is built can actually be used to operate the selected technology. It is hardly a secret that Metrolinx is promoting a SkyTrain like technology, although which propulsion scheme (LIM vs rotary motors) is not clear. There are well-known problems with LIMs and the power pickup technology used on the SRT, and this would also be a consideration for the outdoor portions of the Ontario Line.
 

Reecemartin

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
1,640
Reaction score
1,275
I hadn't noticed this blog:

The upside of Ontario Line’s upside – How Metrolinx experts are looking to design a Toronto subway that isn’t just confined to dark tunnels

"The earlier Relief Line South proposal featured very deep tunnels — 38 metres below ground — in order to get under the Don River to the vicinity of East Harbour, adding four and a half minutes of escalator time to each transfer. That’s more than enough time to miss your connection. Studies have projected this would have reduced ridership by 15 per cent."

I'm curious to see the studies that the need for escalators would reduce ridership by 15%. Seems highly questionable.

Thank goodness the Ontario Line will save people from dark tunnels!

Will the people of Scarborough be spared the terror of darkness and never-ending escalator rides?!?!
Sure. That's certainly one great aspect of the plan.

Unfortunately it doesn't make up for the much lower capacity this line will have in comparison to standard subway line, and the potential impact it could have on GO expansion.

It's quite troubling how manipulative these propaganda blog posts are, especially when they use unsubstantiated statistics.

You state that it doesn't make up for how much lower the capacity is, but we actually don't know right now so . . .

That being said once again the "standard" subway line is only standard in Toronto, plenty of cities do fine with shorter trains and the suggestion has never been made that something tiny like the Canada Line trains would be used.Suggested trains sound roughly in line with 4 car TRs on Sheppard.
 

BhadPetrov

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
108
Location
Sauga
the reason why everyone on here is going crazy about the smaller trains is that this line needs to be the highest capacity we can get, and even be very expensive at that because we need this to not be at capacity on day one. TR trains can, are and will be automated to achieve whatever headway is physically possible, we shouldn't be using lower capacity trains just because it's cheaper. Metrolinx even said to the TTC years ago that they cannot use their ROW because it would have impacts on RER and increased VIA service, but now all the sudden they've changed their tone when the ruling party changed.. Regardless of who's in power, the Ontario line is not fit for purpose, especially for going west to exhibition and not doing its primary job of relieving the Yonge line.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,441
Reaction score
9,143
The GO corridor work will be within this Government's mandate. And I really don't see the liberals kiboshing this if they win, which I'm increasingly doubtful of anyway.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,451
Reaction score
2,018
You state that it doesn't make up for how much lower the capacity is, but we actually don't know right now so . . .

That being said once again the "standard" subway line is only standard in Toronto, plenty of cities do fine with shorter trains and the suggestion has never been made that something tiny like the Canada Line trains would be used.Suggested trains sound roughly in line with 4 car TRs on Sheppard.
Don't we?

The province has stated that they intend to use smaller trains at much higher frequencies that don't seem reasonable.

It's already projected to have lower capacity than a full-fledged subway, with little room for growth after it's completed.
 

Top