Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[H4F33Z]

Snow is easy to deal with, there's just lots of other items that can cause a shutdown more often than a fully underground line. The question is how much thought they have put into shuttle service. The twisty-turny route means shuttle service will be extra dreadful due to the routing buses would have to make to hit the stations.

It wouldn't be too bad. From Exhibition. it would take Manitoba Dr. Then to Fort York and Bathurst ^North (hitting King-Bathurst) to Queen then to Sherbourne (Hitting Spadina, Osgoode, Queen and Moss Park) south to king and east on king to parliament (hitting Corktown) to front. Then on Eastern Ave. I would assume it would enter a service road near sunlight park rd. (East Harbour) Then it would take Broadview north to queen and east to Carlaw (hitting Leslieville) and north to riverdale and pape (hitting Gerrard) then it would parallel the 25/925 bus route via north on pape (hitting Cosburn) north on millwood bridge, east on overlea (Hitting Thorncliffe) and north on Don Mills to Science Centre Bus Terminal (Hitting Flemingdon and Science Centre).

The opposite way would be basically the same except west on eastern ave to richmond and west to parliament and south to king.

 

[syn]

Well it's hard for me to take this process seriously when it's are most important transit expansion in 50+ years and it sure looks like we are cheaping out while we over built (under pcs) on Sheppard and are planning to over build again (under pcs) on the rt conversion.

I don't think anyone in support of Ford/the Ontario Line has provided any kind of explanation as to why this makes any sense.

The DRL represents the one line that absolutely demands maximum, underground capacity. Why is saving money suddenly such a major priority, when it isn't for suburban projects that don't require subway capacity in the first place?

 

[asher__jo]

I don't think anyone in support of Ford/the Ontario Line has provided any kind of explanation as to why this makes any sense.

The DRL represents the one line that absolutely demands maximum, underground capacity. Why is saving money suddenly such a major priority, when it isn't for suburban projects that don't require subway capacity in the first place?

Biggest reason I'm hesitant about the Ontario Line. The huge intensification at two main sites (West Harbour and Flemingdon/Science Centre) will definitely generate good ridership....may be less of a relief line than many think.

 

[44 North]

I wouldn't call the OL a serious flaw. Two station have significantly shifted in location. Building on top of the railway corridor doesn't make it bad if it can be done. Alignment choices are often political, the RL was chosen to please the city while the OL is to please Ford. Different planners would prioritize on different criteria. Cost will always have the biggest constraint leading to opposition. Nothing is perfect. Queen Street is chosen cause they want a station entrance right in front of Nathan Phillips Square. Ripping up an existent design is probably a bad idea. Ford himself would have no knowledge of transit planning. The idea has to have come from ML themselves.

Maybe you can tell me why an alignment overtop the rail corridor was nixed all those years ago.

And the 'if it can be done' is sort of what I'm getting at. With the RL, and preceding DRL, work went into finalizing the route. All public info along the way. With this it's some weirdly giddy political announcement, then silence, then a map of a final route. Nothing in between. Can it be done? We don't know since there's little in the way of tangible info. Self-created op-eds and reports that show a longer line being better than a short one, sure. But nitty gritty and questions about whether it actually can be done or is as simple/cheap as they claim, I don't know. Just last week they dropped a new map that shows a large arc that wasn't there before. Are all these twists and turns and rises/falls easier, is the rail corridor doable. If not we'll probably never know since it's backroom QP stuff.

 

[Steve X]

Maybe you can tell me why an alignment overtop the rail corridor was nixed all those years ago.

And the 'if it can be done' is sort of what I'm getting at. With the RL, and preceding DRL, work went into finalizing the route. All public info along the way. With this it's some weirdly giddy political announcement, then silence, then a map of a final route. Nothing in between. Can it be done? We don't know since there's little in the way of tangible info. Self-created op-eds and reports that show a longer line being better than a short one, sure. But nitty gritty and questions about whether it actually can be done or is as simple/cheap as they claim, I don't know. Just last week they dropped a new map that shows a large arc that wasn't there before. Are all these twists and turns and rises/falls easier, is the rail corridor doable. If not we'll probably never know since it's backroom QP stuff.

It could pretty well be a political reason. Knowing ML, they don't want other people messing with their stuff. ML would create a million excuses to why TTC/City can't use the railway corridor. I don't think the even allow the city to explore such an option. It was just forbidden from the start. As a ML project, that restriction is lifted. We'll never know since no one is going to say that in any public material.

I don't think ML knows if the railway corridor is doable. They definitely sound like they are as clueless as us. All they are going to do is ask the private sector to try. Are all these twists and turns doesn't necessary mean it's a bad thing. People are just OCD about things like that. The RL would operate at a maximum speed of 80 km/h with the typical TTC subway acceleration rate (which is on the slow side), the OL would operate slower over the tight curves but be faster on straight alignments with a much faster acceleration rate. Even though there is a big dip south, travel times could be similar. If you look at the Yonge Line, it does have a lot of tight curves and doesn't stay on one side of Yonge. It's draw straight on a map but it's not physically straight. Is there something wrong with it?

I am a bit optimistic about the OL. I really hope it does work out as it will greatly improve getting around the city compared to the shorter RL.

 

[MisterF]

Tell that to the poor souls along the Sheppard corridor whom have been waiting close to 20 years for their next phases of construction only to be told in this political climate that the extensions will likely never happen.

When YUS and BD were constructed in phases work was already in place for a next phase to open within a matter of a few years, not decades long gaps like what happened with TYSSE.

So I turn the question back to you: can we really afford not to build as much of the Ontario Line/DRL as possible before a new regime considers it a vanity project rather than a necessity and it is deferred indefinitely? You may want to roll the dice, but I don't.

I live along the Sheppard corridor. If they had built the line as a light metro or an LRT (the way Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton build them), we "poor souls" would have have had rapid transit much sooner. Sheppard is exactly the kind of corridor where these types of cheaper, lower capacity (but just as fast) technologies make sense. Lines 1 and 2 have been expanded several times because it made sense to and the demand was there. The same would have applied to the RL. Line 4 hasn't been extended because the demand doesn't exist to justify the cost and other projects are more important.

Even if what you say about YUS and BD were true (it's not, as others have mentioned, but let's assume it is), the RL was being planned exactly as you describe. Planning for phase 2 was well underway long before the design for phase 1 was even finished. It would have been ready for construction while phase 1 was still years away from opening. All that work has now been thrown out.

can we really afford not to build as much of the Ontario Line/DRL as possible before a new regime considers it a vanity project rather than a necessity and it is deferred indefinitely?

A new regime cancelling the previous regime's plan and deferring it indefinitely? Now why does that sound so familar.....oh yeah, because it just happened! The current government could easily have funded both phases of the RL, the first phase of which could have been underway by now. Now things are delayed yet again. Want to get as much of the OL/RL built as quickly as possible? Build the line that's already designed and ready to go.

 

[smallspy]

I don't think ML knows if the railway corridor is doable.

They don't have a choice. They need something to help relieve the impending capacity crunch at Union Station - and they appear to be putting all of their eggs in the Ontario Line basket.

Dan

 

[Translude15]

They don't have a choice. They need something to help relieve the impending capacity crunch at Union Station - and they appear to be putting all of their eggs in the Ontario Line basket.

Dan

Could the Ontario Line be the impetus to re-route the Richmond Hill line through the Leaside spur? If so, would it not make more sense to create a less-circuitous route through downtown and align it along King? It would be an easier transition from the rail corridor underneath the Distillery district and then underneath King compared to what's been proposed. If overcrowding and sidewalk capacity is an issue as the TTC indicated it was during their RL assessments, high capacity stations at Yonge and University should be interconnected in some way to disperse crowds in the CBD with direct connections to the PATH network. A King alignment would also make connections to the Georgetown corridor via the Liberty Village GO station and Lakeshore West line at Sunnyside much more feasible. That's probably a better option in terms of network connectivity than ending the line at the Ex.

 

[robmausser]

Could the Ontario Line be the impetus to re-route the Richmond Hill line through the Leaside spur? If so, would it not make more sense to create a less-circuitous route through downtown and align it along King? It would be an easier transition from the rail corridor underneath the Distillery district and then underneath King compared to what's been proposed. If overcrowding and sidewalk capacity is an issue as the TTC indicated it was during their RL assessments, high capacity stations at Yonge and University should be interconnected in some way to disperse crowds in the CBD with direct connections to the PATH network. A King alignment would also make connections to the Georgetown corridor via the Liberty Village GO station and Lakeshore West line at Sunnyside much more feasible. That's probably a better option in terms of network connectivity than ending the line at the Ex.

Until Richmond becomes electric I cant see them re-routing through Leaside.

Perhaps in the future once there is demand, there could be parallel service; keep the existing Richmond Hill service along the CNR routing, as express to Richmond Hill, Gormley, Bloomington. Have "RER" type service with electric EMU's along the CPR Don Branch and Leaside Spur making stops along the way (say, Queen, Eglinton, Leslie, etc etc)

The only way the Leaside Spur will get used is if they retain the bike trail, soundwalls, and electrification for cleaner/silent service.

Even then expect tons of opposition.

 

[gweed123]

I live along the Sheppard corridor. If they had built the line as a light metro or an LRT (the way Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton build them), we "poor souls" would have have had rapid transit much sooner. Sheppard is exactly the kind of corridor where these types of cheaper, lower capacity (but just as fast) technologies make sense. Lines 1 and 2 have been expanded several times because it made sense to and the demand was there. The same would have applied to the RL. Line 4 hasn't been extended because the demand doesn't exist to justify the cost and other projects are more important.

I think that if Sheppard were being built now, it would look a lot like what's being built on Eglinton, but probably with a shorter tunnel stretch.

 

[smallspy]

Could the Ontario Line be the impetus to re-route the Richmond Hill line through the Leaside spur? If so, would it not make more sense to create a less-circuitous route through downtown and align it along King? It would be an easier transition from the rail corridor underneath the Distillery district and then underneath King compared to what's been proposed. If overcrowding and sidewalk capacity is an issue as the TTC indicated it was during their RL assessments, high capacity stations at Yonge and University should be interconnected in some way to disperse crowds in the CBD with direct connections to the PATH network. A King alignment would also make connections to the Georgetown corridor via the Liberty Village GO station and Lakeshore West line at Sunnyside much more feasible. That's probably a better option in terms of network connectivity than ending the line at the Ex.

I don't think that one has anything to do with the other. GO has been talking about routing the Richmond Hill line to go through Leaside for well over 30 years. Considering that regardless of the alignment further north that the trains will still meet the USRC in the same place, there's simply no reason why they couldn't have done it sooner if they so felt.

As for routing the Ontario Line along King, it would negate the purpose of this particular alignment altogether. The further north that it gets route gets placed - within reason, of course - the more useful it will be at pulling people away from having to transfer at Union to points north. Of course, by that same token the further south it goes, the better it does at pulling people away from Bloor-Yonge.

While there's no doubt that extending the line to Roncesvalles makes a lot of sense for the future, the whole point of ending the line at the Ex is again to intercept people off of the GO trains before they get to Union.

Dan

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouver doesn't have an issue with undersized stations; they have an issue there not being a second parallel line 4km to the east of that one.

Small trains are great because you can build much more coverage for the same price as a big train + feeder bus.

There is a difference between having smaller stations like Expo/Millenium and Mikey Mouse ones like the Canada Line. Remember that ALL ART SkyTrain stations have been designed to be easily extended to about 105 meters and have a 29,500 PPHPD capacity which is quite high. To put that into perspective, the SkyTrain is the equivalent of having 11 MK1 trains on the SRT rolling by every 90 seconds. The CL line however can only have 50 meter stations with realistically 14,000 PPHPD and is already soaring towards capacity.

 

[asher__jo]

Could the Ontario Line be the impetus to re-route the Richmond Hill line through the Leaside spur? If so, would it not make more sense to create a less-circuitous route through downtown and align it along King? It would be an easier transition from the rail corridor underneath the Distillery district and then underneath King compared to what's been proposed. If overcrowding and sidewalk capacity is an issue as the TTC indicated it was during their RL assessments, high capacity stations at Yonge and University should be interconnected in some way to disperse crowds in the CBD with direct connections to the PATH network. A King alignment would also make connections to the Georgetown corridor via the Liberty Village GO station and Lakeshore West line at Sunnyside much more feasible. That's probably a better option in terms of network connectivity than ending the line at the Ex.

I had a brief moment of hope with relief line North study that they were considering EMU rolling stock, and the line would eventually connect with RH line at Sheppard.

 

[syn]

I live along the Sheppard corridor. If they had built the line as a light metro or an LRT (the way Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton build them), we "poor souls" would have have had rapid transit much sooner. Sheppard is exactly the kind of corridor where these types of cheaper, lower capacity (but just as fast) technologies make sense. Lines 1 and 2 have been expanded several times because it made sense to and the demand was there. The same would have applied to the RL. Line 4 hasn't been extended because the demand doesn't exist to justify the cost and other projects are more important.

Even if what you say about YUS and BD were true (it's not, as others have mentioned, but let's assume it is), the RL was being planned exactly as you describe. Planning for phase 2 was well underway long before the design for phase 1 was even finished. It would have been ready for construction while phase 1 was still years away from opening. All that work has now been thrown out.


A new regime cancelling the previous regime's plan and deferring it indefinitely? Now why does that sound so familar.....oh yeah, because it just happened! The current government could easily have funded both phases of the RL, the first phase of which could have been underway by now. Now things are delayed yet again. Want to get as much of the OL/RL built as quickly as possible? Build the line that's already designed and ready to go.

It just happened, and it's been happening since Miller left office. The SSE is the definition of a vanity project given ridership projections and other needs in the city.

As for this version of the Ontario Line, it could age very, very quickly given growth and intensification along the route (as @asher__jo pointed out).

 

[Steve X]

There is a difference between having smaller stations like Expo/Millenium and Mikey Mouse ones like the Canada Line. Remember that ALL ART SkyTrain stations have been designed to be easily extended to about 105 meters and have a 29,500 PPHPD capacity which is quite high. To put that into perspective, the SkyTrain is the equivalent of having 11 MK1 trains on the SRT rolling by every 90 seconds. The CL line however can only have 50 meter stations with realistically 14,000 PPHPD and is already soaring towards capacity.

The entire Translink system is really lowballed. Having it reach capacity within 30 years is really bad, especially CL.

The OL isn't supposed to be lowballed unlike Vancouver. I highly doubt the OL will reach capacity within 30 years even with the proposed smaller and more frequent trains. Certainly Line 2 haven't reach capacity after 53 years. Unlike Vancouver building new lines to places without rapid transit, the OL is an alternative (relief) line. Half the line goes (or will go to) places with rapid transit. The big bang growth potential isn't there. Plus TTC ridership isn't growing much unlike Translink.

I had a brief moment of hope with relief line North study that they were considering EMU rolling stock, and the line would eventually connect with RH line at Sheppard.

Subway trains are EMUs... They aren't up to railway standards but still EMUs.