News   Sep 18, 2020
 922     1 
News   Sep 18, 2020
 656     0 
News   Sep 18, 2020
 8.3K     3 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,114
The TTC and the City are already exploring the installation of platform screen doors on the Yonge Line. However, they've already said that, at a bare minimum, it'll cost well in excess of a billion dollars.
It's actually considerably more expensive than that; the Fire Safety upgrades (more airflow; I believe Finch is the only finished station) are a pre-requisite and had a separate $1B+ lineitem.

The "doors" were relatively cheap. Strengthening platform edges and removal of asbestos were a big chunk of that price.
 
Last edited:

JSF-1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
418
Reaction score
622
Location
Woburn
It's actually considerably more expensive than that; the Fire Safety upgrades (more airflow; I believe Finch is the only finished station) are a pre-requisite and had a separate $1B+ lineitem.

The "doors" were relatively cheap. Strengthening platform edges and removal of asbestos were a big chunk of that price.
I believe a lot of the air flow work be completely avoided by using half-height doors. The subway wasn't designed for full height doors and the stations would look terrible and claustrophobic with full height doors. Most cities who do retrofit old "low ceiling" stations like what we have use half heights, while full height doors are left for lines that are designed with them in mind like the OL should be. Outside of the stations on the spadina and vaughan part of the line 1, installing full height doors is more effort then it is worth when a cheaper and more practical solution exists. It sounds like the powers that be have decided to jump at the most expensive option while conveniently ignoring the cheaper solutions; possibly as a way to discredit the idea? This isn't exactly something that doesn't happen here when it comes to transit planning.
 
Last edited:

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,114
I believe a lot of the air flow work be completely avoided by using half-height doors.
TTC (and Toronto fire) disagrees. Should be noted, the existing ventilation is considered insufficient even without the platform doors.

Walking through the tunnel away from a disabled train (because of a fire on that train) puts the platform floor very close to nose height. The open station doorways in older parts of the system are the primary air-source that gets moved into the tunnel to refresh the air. Platform doors, even half-height, would act as an obstruction to fresh air reaching the heads of evacuating passengers.

The change at Finch (the upgraded station), in addition to stronger ventilation fans, adds inbound airflow vents directly to the tunnel instead of relying on station entrances.
 
Last edited:

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,504
Reaction score
6,196
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
I got a question, was Toronto's RL better than the Ontario Line?
Depends upon the definition of "better"?

The Toronto Relief Line would have used similar trains as Line 2 & 1. It would have run from Osgoode Station on Line 1 to Pape Station on Line 2. The Relief Line could have been extended later to the north (to Eglinton or Sheppard) and/or to the west (to Exhibition Place and beyond). While the existing Greenwood Yard be used for train storage, a new train yard would be needed for Line 2 in the west end past Kipling Station.

The Ontario Line would use ??? And would be already extended to Eglinton and Exhibition Place. It would need a new train storage yard. Oh yeah, it would have been designed on a Doug Ford paper napkin, so it would be "better" according to Ford Nation.
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
327
I got a question, was Toronto's RL better than the Ontario Line?
No not really. There were some aspects of the RL that were "better" with a question mark, but overall, at least conceptually, the Ontario Line is smarter. The Routing gives access to a lot more places of interest such as Exhibition and Chinatown, gracing western Old Toronto with Rapid Transit that its sorely needing, plus having a direct connection to the Distillery District is a nice addition. Having a cross-platform connection to the Stouffville and LSE GO lines at East Harbour is also significantly greater and smarter than the 4 story Escalator Ride we would've had with the DRL. There is no reason to have our metros run underground unless its absolutely needed. Finally by running fully automated trains, we are able to run far more flexible service at a far cheaper cost. The only real downside is that the trains will be narrower than the TRs, but considering the benefits of the current allignment, allowing relief of Union Station itself through the connections at East Harbour and Exhibition, I think its worth it.
 

daniel_kryz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
10
Depends upon the definition of "better"?

The Toronto Relief Line would have used similar trains as Line 2 & 1. It would have run from Osgoode Station on Line 1 to Pape Station on Line 2. The Relief Line could have been extended later to the north (to Eglinton or Sheppard) and/or to the west (to Exhibition Place and beyond). While the existing Greenwood Yard be used for train storage, a new train yard would be needed for Line 2 in the west end past Kipling Station.

The Ontario Line would use ??? And would be already extended to Eglinton and Exhibition Place. It would need a new train storage yard. Oh yeah, it would have been designed on a Doug Ford paper napkin, so it would be "better" according to Ford Nation.
Actually, city planners examined the route (in a report) and determined it is much better than the relief line in almost every aspect. The RL's north extension would've probably open in the 2040s, it wasn't planned to connect to the East Harbour station, and wouldn't serve as many riders & developments, so I'm not sure why people are complaining.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
28,073
Reaction score
16,355
Location
Toronto
Actually, city planners examined the route (in a report) and determined it is much better than the relief line in almost every aspect. The RL's north extension would've probably open in the 2040s, it wasn't planned to connect to the East Harbour station, and wouldn't serve as many riders & developments, so I'm not sure why people are complaining.
That's not an apples to apples comparison - conveniently removing the RL north component in the comparison to OL is Metrolinx playing games. Not to say that RL couldn't have been more efficient.

There is no reason to have our metros run underground unless its absolutely needed.
Like Eglinton West, where the need, the ridership and the case is so strong that the tunneling contract needed to be expedited to procurement before the rest of the project ;)

AoD
 
Last edited:

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
327
That's not an apples to apples comparison - conveniently removing the RL north component in the comparison to OL is Metrolinx playing games.

AoD
Except the fact that we're getting the Science Center part of the line far sooner is incredibly important. Yes its totally fair to compare the DRL with OL because they are similar in both budget and timeframes. Anything that happens after the initial plan is often up for debate and can be easily changed, as a result, extensions like RLN should be used as consideration, but it shouldn't be included in the discussion. I can just as easily say "Metrolinx said that provisions for extensions North and West from Science Center and Exhibition will be included for easier extensions later" but both future extensions to both OL and RLN were just that, hypotheticals, hypotheticals that easily wouldn't have happened.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
1,632
At this point the Ontario Line is no less hypothetical than what came before. Toronto's subway lines have been extended multiple times where there's been demand. No reason to think that the RL would be any different.

Doesn’t matter if the trains are smaller if they run more of them. After all Vancouver’s 2 carriage RT carries more people a day than Lakeshore East GO train
Even better than a small train running more often is a big train running more often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
28,073
Reaction score
16,355
Location
Toronto
Except the fact that we're getting the Science Center part of the line far sooner is incredibly important. Yes its totally fair to compare the DRL with OL because they are similar in both budget and timeframes. Anything that happens after the initial plan is often up for debate and can be easily changed, as a result, extensions like RLN should be used as consideration, but it shouldn't be included in the discussion. I can just as easily say "Metrolinx said that provisions for extensions North and West from Science Center and Exhibition will be included for easier extensions later" but both future extensions to both OL and RLN were just that, hypotheticals, hypotheticals that easily wouldn't have happened.
You must have forgotten that RL north went to Metrolinx itself for development - which leads me to suspect the takeover was the plan all along.

AoD
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
327
Like Eglinton West, where the need, the ridership and the case is so strong that the tunneling contract needed to be expedited to procurement before the rest of the project ;)

AoD
So What? Yes Eglinton West should've been elevated, what's your point? At the very least I'm thankful that's its not the original plan of running it in the median of Eglinton Road.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
28,073
Reaction score
16,355
Location
Toronto
So What? Yes Eglinton West should've been elevated, what's your point? At the very least I'm thankful that's its not the original plan of running it in the median of Eglinton Road.
The point being - there is insufficient rigour in your belief that underground should be used only where necessary - especially if you want to bring up cost as an argument. Eglinton West is about as far away from need as there could be.

AoD
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,504
Reaction score
6,196
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
The point being - there is insufficient rigour in your belief that underground should be used only where necessary - especially if you want to bring up cost as an argument. Eglinton West is about as far away from need as there could be.

AoD
Except that Doug Ford lives in the Kipling & Eglinton West neighbourhood, so Eglinton West LRT extension MUST be underground, out of HIS sight when he drives around in his SUV.
 

Top