News   Jul 10, 2020
 58     0 
News   Jul 10, 2020
 226     0 
News   Jul 10, 2020
 461     1 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,642
Preliminary plans had a line from Don Mills to Pape. The DRL south would've been a subway line running from Pape south.
Preliminary - like the preliminary plan to place Eglinton LRT on-street through Leslie.
supporters assured us that would change in detail design.
Also, the DRL was only planned for after the Transit City was completed. DRL was shelved and all efforts were put into Transit City.
I wasn't a fan of that particular line, but I understood the need for higher capacity service . . . .
I would have thought that David Miller and the Planners he was directing would have known that as well. (see also above).
. . . . .and it certainly wasn't set in stone at that point.
See first point about not set in stone (i.e. preliminary).
Personally I preferred the Mayor who was actually implementing sensible policies and getting things done. Miller is the Toronto mayor of the 2000s that best fits that description.
The entire Transit City was a social plan, and not a transportation plan. It focused on priority neighbourhoods, and not on moving people. The biggest need for Toronto was more transit lines to the city core, and reducing congestion at the transfer stations.
Transit City added ZERO capacity to the city centre. From Dufferin to DVP, from Bloor to Lakeshore - nothing.
Also, it simply added (or maintained) the transfers and didn't reduce them at all. Look at Scarborough - same number of people - actually they were expecting more - and they would be expected to transfer at Kennedy and at Y-B. It didn't solve anything.
At a time when the recession hit, One (or 2) projects that the city could get behind and concentrate on would have been ideal. You had a federal government forking out money, and a provincial one promising it as well. Instead, they pushed these half dozen plans, losing the focus of the design team and of the decision makers. Many were also controversial, leading to endless debate - instead of just focusing on 1 or 2 major projects that could have had consensus. The priorities were all wrong as well. Sheppard East LRT was prioritized just to kill the idea of a subway, not for any transit reason. By the time they arrived at a decision on what they wanted, the public was no longer on board and the senior governments had lost the motivation to fund anything.
It was just a terrible idea that killed transit for a decade.
 

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
6,673
Reaction score
707
Location
Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
Preliminary - like the preliminary plan to place Eglinton LRT on-street through Leslie.
supporters assured us that would change in detail design.
Also, the DRL was only planned for after the Transit City was completed. DRL was shelved and all efforts were put into Transit City.

I would have thought that David Miller and the Planners he was directing would have known that as well. (see also above).

See first point about not set in stone (i.e. preliminary).
The entire Transit City was a social plan, and not a transportation plan. It focused on priority neighbourhoods, and not on moving people. The biggest need for Toronto was more transit lines to the city core, and reducing congestion at the transfer stations.
Transit City added ZERO capacity to the city centre. From Dufferin to DVP, from Bloor to Lakeshore - nothing.
Also, it simply added (or maintained) the transfers and didn't reduce them at all. Look at Scarborough - same number of people - actually they were expecting more - and they would be expected to transfer at Kennedy and at Y-B. It didn't solve anything.
At a time when the recession hit, One (or 2) projects that the city could get behind and concentrate on would have been ideal. You had a federal government forking out money, and a provincial one promising it as well. Instead, they pushed these half dozen plans, losing the focus of the design team and of the decision makers. Many were also controversial, leading to endless debate - instead of just focusing on 1 or 2 major projects that could have had consensus. The priorities were all wrong as well. Sheppard East LRT was prioritized just to kill the idea of a subway, not for any transit reason. By the time they arrived at a decision on what they wanted, the public was no longer on board and the senior governments had lost the motivation to fund anything.
It was just a terrible idea that killed transit for a decade.
Transit city wasn't a bad idea. The problem was building a subway to Vaughan and not Scarborough. That's Sobara's and McGuinty's fault. If Ottawa and Finch tread water, we're not getting anymore LRT lines, which is sad.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
1,142
Transit city wasn't a bad idea. The problem was building a subway to Vaughan and not Scarborough. That's Sobara's and McGuinty's fault. If Ottawa and Finch tread water, we're not getting anymore LRT lines, which is sad.
The problem is, Toronto needs subway lines in way to many places. LRT will not solve those issues.
 

Adjei

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
2,056
Reaction score
767
Not too surprised some people are out of touch with the plans when not too long ago the Left's preferred Mayor wanted the DRL built as the Don Mills LRT on the surface.

Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed.
Now these same people are screaming about capacity issues with the Ontario Line.
 

AlbertHWagstaff

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
323
Location
Gone West
Not too surprised some people are out of touch with the plans when not too long ago the Left's preferred Mayor wanted the DRL built as the Don Mills LRT on the surface.
2007 is farther back than you think. The LRT idea might have been suitable for when it was proposed in the mid-2000s, but it's 13 years ago now that Transit City was announced. A higher-order grid of transit is still needed to keep up with the increasing ridership. Convoys of express buses is still not the answer.

On another topic in the past few posts...
In terms of yard usage, Greenwood would have some capacity as it can't hold as many trains if they are fixed length six-car TR type. Many tracks can hold two six-car trains, but a portion of the yard is built for 10 cars, i.e. a six-car and a four-car train. At one time way back in the plans I thought the DRL was to use four-car subway trains, which would fit into the Greenwood Yard with the BD trains, in conjunction with a second full-size yard to supplement.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,555
How did the Scarborough subway ever become a Conservative talking point? Replacing the SRT is the very definition of spending like a drunken sailor. The conservative solution is to fix the rapid transit line that already exists.

There were very few people on UT who thought the Don Mills LRT was ever a good idea, left or right. Miller was rightly criticized for it for exactly the same reason that the Ontario Line is being criticized. The revisionist history coming from some of you is laughable.
 

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
6,673
Reaction score
707
Location
Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
The problem is, Toronto needs subway lines in way to many places. LRT will not solve those issues.
The rolling stock is an issue there. Using LRV everywhere constrains capacity. Eglinton probably should have been full subway. And the Onatrio Line should use TR rockets and and not sky train for the same reasons.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
27,722
Reaction score
15,703
Location
Toronto
2007 is farther back than you think. The LRT idea might have been suitable for when it was proposed in the mid-2000s, but it's 13 years ago now that Transit City was announced. A higher-order grid of transit is still needed to keep up with the increasing ridership. Convoys of express buses is still not the answer.

On another topic in the past few posts...
In terms of yard usage, Greenwood would have some capacity as it can't hold as many trains if they are fixed length six-car TR type. Many tracks can hold two six-car trains, but a portion of the yard is built for 10 cars, i.e. a six-car and a four-car train. At one time way back in the plans I thought the DRL was to use four-car subway trains, which would fit into the Greenwood Yard with the BD trains, in conjunction with a second full-size yard to supplement.
Don't diss express buses - convoys of them would have provided actual service in the intervening years that was spent debating transit plans. We chose to do only the latter.

The problem is, Toronto needs subway lines in way to many places. LRT will not solve those issues.
That's a surefire way to ensure nothing gets built - to upsize infrastructure to the highest cost option even when ridership does not justify it. Toronto need fast, easily accessible transit - not a specific mode everywhere.

Now these same people are screaming about capacity issues with the Ontario Line.
You want to compare OL (projected ridership, future extensions possibilities) to any other line proposed in the GTA?

AoD
 
Last edited:

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,399
Reaction score
1,944
Preliminary - like the preliminary plan to place Eglinton LRT on-street through Leslie.
supporters assured us that would change in detail design.
Who?

The Eglinton LRT was never meant to be underground the entire way.

I would have thought that David Miller and the Planners he was directing would have known that as well. (see also above).
I'm sure they did.

No one ever said Transit City was perfect - but it was certainly well thought out in a lot of areas.

The entire Transit City was a social plan, and not a transportation plan. It focused on priority neighbourhoods, and not on moving people. The biggest need for Toronto was more transit lines to the city core, and reducing congestion at the transfer stations.
Transit City addressed glaring issues in the communities that needed it the most. It certainly wasn't meant to be the end all and be all of transit construction in the city. To say it didn't add capacity is kind of silly. The Jane LRT alone would've been a big boon to the west end.

Kind of funny you're complaining about Transit City not adding capacity and using an LRT for the Relief Line North when that's exactly what Ford is doing. The Ontario Line is already going to be inadequate from a capacity perspective by the time it's complete. Unlike Miller, Ford doesn't have the excuse that he's a Mayor with limited power in 2007. He's the Premier of the province in 2020, when it's more clear than ever how necessary it is to have this line completed properly.

I guess it's okay when Ford does it though, right?

It was just a terrible idea that killed transit for a decade.
Electing Rob Ford was the terrible idea that's killed transit expansion for the past decade.

If not, Scarborough would have their RT replacement up and running, the Eglinton LRT would probably be done, Finch West would be further along and we'd probably have the DRL already under construction, with Sheppard and Yonge North extensions further along too.
 
Last edited:

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,937
Reaction score
5,642
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Transit City was designed to bring rapid transit using light rail to the suburban areas of Toronto.

The Downtown Relief Line was to provide additional rapid transit to the downtown using heavy rail.

The mistake made was not to display the inclusion of the heavy rail plans, when Transit City was originally presented.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
1,142
The rolling stock is an issue there. Using LRV everywhere constrains capacity. Eglinton probably should have been full subway. And the Ontario Line should use TR rockets and and not sky train for the same reasons.
That's a surefire way to ensure nothing gets built - to upsize infrastructure to the highest cost option even when ridership does not justify it. Toronto need fast, easily accessible transit - not a specific mode everywhere.

AoD
Right now Yonge is at crush. Bloor is getting there. This line is supposed to relieve both of them. Which means if it has less capacity of each of them it is doomed to failure.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,555
Yonge North, but that project has its own set of problems.
I don't know about the Ontario Line, but the first phase of the Relief line was projected to have slightly higher ridership than Yonge North. And significantly higher once extended to Sheppard. Yonge North will still be very busy though.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
1,797
I don't know about the Ontario Line, but the first phase of the Relief line was projected to have slightly higher ridership than Yonge North. And significantly higher once extended to Sheppard. Yonge North will still be very busy though.
Yonge North was 6 km and 5 stations, however, the original relief line was 6.5 km and 8 stations. I don't remember the exact ridership projections for each, but assuming Yonge North is about 200K and the Relief line is 350K, the per station ridership is as follows:

YN — 40K Passengers/Station
RL — 43K Passengers/Station

From a cost perspective, 5B for YN and 8.5B for RL:

YN — 25K $/Passenger
RL — 24.3 $/Passenger

They're very similar. The RL was obviously prioritized however due to the need for relief at Yonge and Bloor.
 

Top