News   Sep 24, 2021
 869     1 
News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.3K     3 
News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.2K     0 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
3,241
Location
North Toronto
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?!?!

Regardless of whether or not it would reduce ridership by 15%, wouldn't you at least agree that only having to cross the platform at East Harbour to change to the relief line is a lot more convenient than going down a long escalator?
 

Johnny Au

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,735
Reaction score
4,839
Location
Near the North York, York, & Old Toronto tripoint
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?!?!
At least those tunnels are shallower than Arsenalna station in the Kyiv Metro:


It is the deepest subway station in the world at 105.5 metres below the surface vertically.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
3,345
Regardless of whether or not it would reduce ridership by 15%, wouldn't you at least agree that only having to cross the platform at East Harbour to change to the relief line is a lot more convenient than going down a long escalator?

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.
 

pman

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,150
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.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
4,651
The stacking tunnels for the Expo already existed as they were an old underground rail line. This is also part of the reason why Vancouver went with SkyTrain technology. Yes, they wanted something novel for Expo86 as it was a 'transportation themed" event but it was also pragmatic. The existing stacked tunnels were not wide enough to use traditional subway trains so they got ALRT by default. The tunnels were also part of the reason why they didn't go with automated LRT trains as the tunnels are also fairly shallow and would have required extensive upgrades to accomodate the overhead catenary connections.

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
 

WislaHD

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
9,644
Reaction score
8,531
Location
Midtown Toronto
Will the people of Scarborough be spared the terror of darkness and never-ending escalator rides?!?!
Well they passed on an above ground LRT for a one-stop tunnel the length of Davisville to King Station once before.

Now at least there will be a Lawrence stop at the midway point.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,881
Reaction score
2,686
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.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,881
Reaction score
2,686
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
3,377
Reaction score
1,207
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
5,147
Reaction score
3,345
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
380
Reaction score
963
Location
Dorset Park, Scarborough
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
6,881
Reaction score
2,686
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
20,290
Reaction score
9,847
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.

site-plan-large.jpg


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
2,687
Reaction score
925
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".
 

Top