News   Dec 04, 2020
 157     0 
News   Dec 03, 2020
 782     0 
News   Dec 03, 2020
 1.2K     0 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
2,350
Worst part is that the Prov gave themselves $150M to study RLN. Since they didn't exactly have anything to show for it, what'd they do with that money for two years.



Probably will have an enclosure as it passes over the archery range. There are bad shots, and there bad shots.
Very unfortunate this government decided to throw RL work and money down the drain.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
2,350
Yeah, I think we get the point about now. The Ford government is evil for getting the throwing away the RL. No need to mention it everytime.
Nah I think I'll go ahead and mention it.

Evil? No. Foolish and hypocritical? Yes.

Can't pretend that work on that project couldn't have simply continued while the DRL South moved forward.
 

Coolstar

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
834
Reaction score
1,210
Location
Toronto
Nah I think I'll go ahead and mention it.

Evil? No. Foolish and hypocritical? Yes.

Can't pretend that work on that project couldn't have simply continued while the DRL South moved forward.
Perhaps so, but we can't just sit here and complain that the RLS was cancelled in favor for the OL for the next decade or so. I don't think that'll bring the RLS back. The OL is moving forward whether we like it or not. Metrolinx definitely needs to be more transparent/specific with theirs plans I will definitely agree with that.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
2,350
Perhaps so, but we can't just sit here and complain that the RLS was cancelled in favor for the OL for the next decade or so. I don't think that'll bring the RLS back. The OL is moving forward whether we like it or not. Metrolinx definitely needs to be more transparent/specific with theirs plans I will definitely agree with that.
I'm pretty sure nothing we post here has any impact on what decisions the province makes regarding transit. :p
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
1,249
Worst part is that the Prov gave themselves $150M to study RLN. Since they didn't exactly have anything to show for it, what'd they do with that money for two years.



Probably will have an enclosure as it passes over the archery range. There are bad shots, and there bad shots.
Allocated doesn't mean spent. We will never know how much of the $150m did they spend.
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
612
Hey! Can I call it or what?
(Okay they're going behind the Costco instead of across the parking lot - but close!)

Good to see side-of-road stations which allow shorter guideways (no mezzanine) and a more human scale.
That was why the hydro RoW was the obvious choice - to provide access to the MSF.

The "Science Centre" Station is to be elevated and f-a-r from the Science Centre. More closer to the "Real Canadian Superstore", so maybe that should be the name of the station. (If the corporation pays for it, of course.)
They'll probably rename Science Centre Station and hyphenate "Flemingdon Park - Science Centre".

The Don Valley bridge/viaduct/crossing/ford...
There had better be room on it for a bicycle and pedestrian crossing as well.
That's the one that's parallel to the Leaside Bridge, so no real need to.
Likewise the other crossing has the Overlea Bridge.
 
Last edited:

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
612
Remember that the Environmental Conditions Report showed them examining parcels on both sides of Beth Nealson Drive for the MSF.

This map from the Conditions Report shows the MSF site in black dashed outline.
There could be a shallow valley below the hydro lines to the west of Beth Nealson Dr.
so maybe the guideway could come down and follow the contours.


 
Last edited:

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
612
But centre platform saves $10M on elevators. Why don't they spend the extra quarter Billion to save $10M.
(not meant to be critical of you, just some others who deemed centre platform the only way).
For elevated lines, side platforms are cheaper because the guideway is kept straight.
The curves and single track guideways required for a centre platform add cost.

Because the structure for the 2 tracks before and after the station does not need to be separated?
Correct.

For underground stations, centre platforms are placed between twin bores, so it's sort of a self-contained pit.
 
Last edited:

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
250
Reaction score
638
Heck, even looking at some of the early station layouts, we can already see some red flags in the design that might cause capacity issues on the Ontario Line in the future.

Notice that Eglinton-Don Mills Station (I refuse to call it Science Centre 😂) on the Ontario Line is positioned entirely north of the Eglinton Line. Given this positioning, it's most probable that passengers who are transferring from the Eglinton Line to the Ontario Line will be entering the Ontario Line platform from the south side of the OL platform (this is the side closest to Eglinton Avenue). This is a big deal because it will result in poor load balancing on the OL trains. The south end of the train will be over capacity, while the north end of the train is empty. This means that passengers waiting on the south end of platforms at downstream stations (say, at Throncliffe Park or Pape Station), will be presented with totally full cars, and will be unable to board, despite the north end of the train largely being empty. At best, this will reduce the capacity of the line, as some passengers will not be able to board. At worst, this will reduce the capacity and the headways of the line, as badly behaved passengers hold doors in an attempt to squeeze into stations.



I know this sounds all very academic and nitpicky, but when you're trying to achieve 90s headways, you don't have the luxury of having any stations with poor pedestrian layouts, as this will impact your achievable capacity and headways.

We have a similar situation limiting the capacity of the Yonge Line right here in Toronto. Notice in the below diagram of the Bloor-Yonge station that the Line 2 platforms are at the north side of the Line 1 platforms. This results in passengers transferring from the Bloor Line, to the Yonge Line crowding at the north end of the Yonge Line platform, while the south end remains relatively empty. This causes a load imbalance on the trains, where the north of the train is overcapacity, while the south end is empty (you can see this effect if you watch Yonge Line trains pull into B-Y Station during rush hour). For the same reasons I described above, this culminates in a significant negative impact on the capacity and headways on the Yonge Line.

What this means is that even if the Yonge Line was could run at the 90s headways permissible by the TTC's ATO system, the poor layout of Bloor-Yonge Station alone would make running the trains at this frequency near impossible. And even if they could be run at that frequency, the poor load balancing on the trains would limit the effective capacity of the line, as the northern cars on the train will be over capacity, while the southern end is empty.

View attachment 274918

This highlights one of the reasons why I say 90 second headways, and their theoretically achievable capacities, are very fickle, and should not be depended upon. If those are the frequencies and crowding standards you're designing around, you have zero room to screw around with poorly designed stations and various other factors. It also means that value engineering (which the Ontario Line is susceptible to) could end up throwing away whatever theoretical capacity you thought you had.

For Eglinton-Don Mills Station specifically, Metrolinx needs to be very careful about how they're handling pedestrian distribution within the station. This is going to be one of the three most used stations of the line, so it is important that they encourage passengers to distribute themselves within the trains in the most efficient manner. Unfortunately the early design suggests that they're going to repeat the design mistakes of Bloor-Yonge Station.
I am taking a wait and see approach for the details of the OL. About your comment about crowing on one side: if this line does anything from a modern 'off the shelf' metro line like what the REM is doing, it would have a screen above every PSD that tells you the crowded level at that door within the upcoming train. It also tells you where there are fewer crowds on the train.

So people dont have to be 'smart' about choosing a door. All the need to do is look in front of them.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,339
But centre platform saves $10M on elevators. Why don't they spend the extra quarter Billion to save $10M.
(not meant to be critical of you, just some others who deemed centre platform the only way).
To handle the expected future traffic of this line, side platforms allow more people through better. Take a look at some existing centre platforms and you'll see how congested they are.
 

Top