News   Jul 10, 2020
 506     0 
News   Jul 10, 2020
 281     0 
News   Jul 10, 2020
 1.3K     3 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
1,797
I'm not sure how you could come to this conclusion considering that there are simply no designs to make assumptions about.

You're making a lot of assumptions here on things that either won't hold true if the plans continue to unfold, or on things that frankly none of us know about yet.
It's unfair to assume that there will be fewer amenities at a subway/GO interchange than the biggest rail hub in Canada? It's also unfair to assume that climate control measures will be worse at an above-grade station than a large station with 3 fully enclosed concourses? Things are always in flux, sure, but Verseter himself has said that he wants to ensure there are cross-platform transfers at East Harbor station, implying a station setup similar to Penn Medicine in Philly, where people disembark one train, wait on the platform for their next train, and board that one.

Also, doesn't Exhibition only serve the Lakeshore lines (No Milton/Barrie/Kitchener line connections) and won't East Harbor not serve the Richmond Hill line given that it's on the other side of the don river?

Metrolinx has also shown us their service plan goals for the future, and most of the cities I mentioned (Hamilton, Kitchener, Barrie) will not see frequent service.
 

asher__jo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
223
Reaction score
257
It's unfair to assume that there will be fewer amenities at a subway/GO interchange than the biggest rail hub in Canada? It's also unfair to assume that climate control measures will be worse at an above-grade station than a large station with 3 fully enclosed concourses? Things are always in flux, sure, but Verseter himself has said that he wants to ensure there are cross-platform transfers at East Harbor station, implying a station setup similar to Penn Medicine in Philly, where people disembark one train, wait on the platform for their next train, and board that one.

Also, doesn't Exhibition only serve the Lakeshore lines (No Milton/Barrie/Kitchener line connections) and won't East Harbor not serve the Richmond Hill line given that it's on the other side of the don river?

Metrolinx has also shown us their service plan goals for the future, and most of the cities I mentioned (Hamilton, Kitchener, Barrie) will not see frequent service.
It's always bothered me there is no tie-in between exhibition and a potential liberty village station (with an underground connection similar to Spadina with line 1 & 2).
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,178
Reaction score
1,555
At Exhibition, the problem isn't that bad as the trains will start empty so there is space for those 10-20 min frequency trains with 2000 riders to fit on 600-800 capacity OL trains that will operate at 105 sec. headway. At East Harbour on the other hand where TTC riders already filled the trains would be another Bloor-Yonge.
One possible mitigation would be to refrain form extending the OL any further west from the Exhibition terminus, plus make sure all LS East trains run through Union and become LS West trains. Then, GO riders from the east can skip both East Harbor and Union, transfer to OL at Exhibition, and back-track.

In a way that would be pretty dumb: we go out of way to establish same-platform transfer at East Harbor, and select a spaghetti-shaped OL route to make it possible. But in doing so, we have to accept smaller OL trains, those trains lack capacity to handle both TTC riders from the east and transfers from GO, and hence the transfer at East Harbor doesn't work.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,555
Politicians have an important role to play in the transit planning process, but power corrupts. All transit agencies have to have some political influence. We've just allowed it to get out of hand. The point is that the TTC has in-house expertise with regards to building and maintaining rapid transit.
And that expertise and/or its political masters seem to have forgotten how to design a line that isn't either unnecessarily expensive (underground for no good reason) or ineffective as rapid transit (stopping at red lights).

This thread is about the Ontario line — a project proposed by Metrolinx to run aboveground in Downtown. They are a very relevant agency here.
My initial point was about the TTC, because it was a response to a sentence that was specifically about the TTC. Whether or not Metrolinx suffers from the same problems is entirely beside the point.

"Significant" doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of the network is underground (59 km of 70 km)
The system is 77 km long. By my count about 57 km of that is underground, but whether it's 57 or 59 km that's around 3/4 of the system. That's the majority of the system to be sure, but not "almost everywhere". More to the point I'm trying to make, none of that ~20 km was built after 1990 despite the fact that all of the recent expansion has been in the suburbs.

Middle of the road is much better because of 3 things:
1. Turning radii of the vehicles. The minimum turning radius of the streetcar is already super low (I believe 11 m). Moving the tracks to the side of the road would interfere with traffic significantly more than they already do, and may not be possible at numerous intersections
2. Intersection complexity. Having the streetcars at the sides of the intersection would greatly increase the amount of special trackwork required
3. No interference with on-street parking. This sounds like a NIMBY argument, but it's not. If you're too close to the on-street parking, there will eventually be a car/delivery truck that gets in your way. Having the tracks in the middle of the road greatly reduces the risk of getting stuck behind a parked vehicle.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. I'm not talking about streetcars, I'm talking about rapid transit.

So you're going to base your entire argument off of one extension that was successful? Seems legit.

Both Calgary and REM use pantographs and lighter rolling stock. They are significantly less affected by the weather.

Just because we have some elevated sections doesn't mean there aren't challenges associated with operating them. Even the at grade sections have issues with leaf slip and sun kinks, both a major source of delay for lines that run trains every 2 minutes. Adding 5-10 minute to a journey because of thermal expansion affecting the tracks equates to 2 million dollars in lost productivity per day. With 20 or so hot days per year, that can easily equate to significant economic impacts because of temperature variations. I haven't even mentioned ice storms, and other wear and tear.
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. What's your source on these numbers? Yes, Calgary and REM use pantographs, so what? An above ground line in Toronto could just as easily use pantographs. Our streetcars and under construction LRTs already do, and we already have ~20 km of rapid transit with two different technologies that operates in the open. The fact that one of those technologies has issues with extreme winter weather is not an argument against elevated rapid transit in general.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
1,797
The system is 77 km long. By my count about 57 km of that is underground, but whether it's 57 or 59 km that's around 3/4 of the system. That's the majority of the system to be sure, but not "almost everywhere". More to the point I'm trying to make, none of that ~20 km was built after 1990 despite the fact that all of the recent expansion has been in the suburbs.
The 77 km quote includes the SRT (Line 3), which is not a subway. Rapid transit? Sure. Subway? Absolutely not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. I'm not talking about streetcars, I'm talking about rapid transit.
Except you did include streetcars in your initial argument. That section was a refutation of this statement, which in the context of rapid transit makes no sense; streetcars have never been considered rapid transit by the TTC, so including it in the "TTC's rapid transit playbook" is disingenuous.
Well consider that the TTC's rapid transit playbook seems to consist of:
  • underground subways in the suburbs
  • streetcars in the middle of the road that stop at red lights
  • nothing else
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. What's your source on these numbers? Yes, Calgary and REM use pantographs, so what? An above ground line in Toronto could just as easily use pantographs. Our streetcars and under construction LRTs already do, and we already have ~20 km of rapid transit with two different technologies that operates in the open. The fact that one of those technologies has issues with extreme winter weather is not an argument against elevated rapid transit in general.
If you actually read my response in the way I formatted it, it would be apparent that each of the statements you quoted were refutations to separate arguments: one about the TTC's apparent rapid transit construction incompetence, and one about the risks of running rapid transit on Viaducts in Toronto.

What you're proposing is an entirely different rapid transit technology for a future line. What does that beneficially do for the TTC? The agency already has 4 different train designs in its system (LRVs, streetcars, ICTS, and the subways), with a 5th one potentially coming (standard gauge rapid transit vehicles). How does adding a 6th one (Pantograph collection rapid transit vehicles) honestly help the TTC's already absurdly complicated rolling stock layout? Pick 2 standard train designs, one for LRVs, and one for rapid transit, and stick with those. If you want to build elevated rapid transit in Toronto, go right ahead. I'm in full support of it. Just understand that there are risks, challenges, and constraints associated with building aboveground.
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,555
The 77 km quote includes the SRT (Line 3), which is not a subway. Rapid transit? Sure. Subway? Absolutely not.
The SRT is a subway in everything but name. A subway is just another name for a metro, which is generally defined as an electric railway in an exclusive right of way, inaccessible to cars and pedestrians, and usually grade separated. The SRT is a metro just as much as the subway and is absolutely part of the rapid transit system.

Except you did include streetcars in your initial argument. That section was a refutation of this statement, which in the context of rapid transit makes no sense; streetcars have never been considered rapid transit by the TTC, so including it in the "TTC's rapid transit playbook" is disingenuous.
No, my initial argument was specifically about rapid transit. An LRV type vehicle can be rapid transit if it's designed to meet the definition above. The Transit City lines are marketed as rapid transit but not designed that way, whether they were TTC projects or, later, Metrolinx projects. That's kind of my whole point.

If you actually read my response in the way I formatted it, it would be apparent that each of the statements you quoted were refutations to separate arguments: one about the TTC's apparent rapid transit construction incompetence, and one about the risks of running rapid transit on Viaducts in Toronto.

What you're proposing is an entirely different rapid transit technology for a future line. What does that beneficially do for the TTC? The agency already has 4 different train designs in its system (LRVs, streetcars, ICTS, and the subways), with a 5th one potentially coming (standard gauge rapid transit vehicles). How does adding a 6th one (Pantograph collection rapid transit vehicles) honestly help the TTC's already absurdly complicated rolling stock layout? Pick 2 standard train designs, one for LRVs, and one for rapid transit, and stick with those. If you want to build elevated rapid transit in Toronto, go right ahead. I'm in full support of it. Just understand that there are risks, challenges, and constraints associated with building aboveground.
Again, standard TTC subway trains have ran out in the open for 66 years now. If that were as much of a problem as you're implying then something would have been done about it by now. It's clearly not as much of a problem as you think. Or standard LRVs could be used on a new elevated line. Or ICTS with whatever modifications required to make them more reliable in the snow. There are plenty of options.

The TTC currently operates three rail vehicle types, streetcars plus two rapid transit types. A fourth is coming for Eglinton and Finch and the SRT will be removed at some point in the future, bringing the total back down to three. That's not absurdly complicated for a city the size and complexity of Toronto.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,946
Reaction score
5,646
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
And that expertise and/or its political masters seem to have forgotten how to design a line that isn't either unnecessarily expensive (underground for no good reason) or ineffective as rapid transit (stopping at red lights).


My initial point was about the TTC, because it was a response to a sentence that was specifically about the TTC. Whether or not Metrolinx suffers from the same problems is entirely beside the point.


The system is 77 km long. By my count about 57 km of that is underground, but whether it's 57 or 59 km that's around 3/4 of the system. That's the majority of the system to be sure, but not "almost everywhere". More to the point I'm trying to make, none of that ~20 km was built after 1990 despite the fact that all of the recent expansion has been in the suburbs.


I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. I'm not talking about streetcars, I'm talking about rapid transit.


Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. What's your source on these numbers? Yes, Calgary and REM use pantographs, so what? An above ground line in Toronto could just as easily use pantographs. Our streetcars and under construction LRTs already do, and we already have ~20 km of rapid transit with two different technologies that operates in the open. The fact that one of those technologies has issues with extreme winter weather is not an argument against elevated rapid transit in general.
Some rapid transit systems use BOTH pantographs and 3rd rail.

 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
430
Why leave a crowded Lakeshore East train to attempt to pack onto a crowded Ontario Line train that might be too full to even fit you?
True... but from the west, the equivalent transfer will be to an empty Ontario Line train at the Exhibition terminus, so there could be a good number of transfers from the west.

Also, with automated trains, you can run a short turn train to add rush hour capacity between major nodes as long as switches are located appropriately. Vancouver runs a short turn train during the inbound morning rush hour between Waterfront and Commercial-Broadway - so that train pulls into Commercial Broadway completely empty and clears the platform.
 
Last edited:

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
430
Based on my conversation with staff at Metrolinx during an Ontario line open house, the line will probably be as follow:

Westbound OL arrives next to westbound GO,
Westbound OL dip underground
Reverse direction
Eastbound OL raise above ground, arrive next to eastbound GO

Again, everything is subjected to changes.
That seems overly complicated, especially when it comes time to extend the line westwards.
Easier to have the station on one side and build a connecting pedestrian overpass to the other side.
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
430
It's always bothered me there is no tie-in between exhibition and a potential liberty village station (with an underground connection similar to Spadina with line 1 & 2).
There should be lobbying for a "future" station - a level section of elevated guideway where a station could be built later. It's a shame that Liberty Village is already so built-out so the potential for a Development Cost Levy to pay for the new station has missed most of the development. Elevated stations are cheap enough to be built with that funding scheme. The City of Richmond has raised enough through its DCL for the construction of the "future" Capstan Station on Vancouver's Canada Line (Toronto builds much denser than Richmond, so there's easily enough potential to pay for a larger elevated station based on a per condo unit levy).
 
Last edited:

H4F33Z

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 11, 2019
Messages
175
Reaction score
242
Location
Thorncliffe Park
^^31.5 million? That's a steal! Are there any prime candidates on the current subway system that could get a new station. Glencairn/Blythwood, Teddington Park/Yonge Blvd, Willowdale, Welbeck/Senlac, Wynford Green? I know it wouldn't be that cheap, but the yonge line really needs some more infill stations.
 

north-of-anything

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
242
Reaction score
291
Location
Bradford
^^31.5 million? That's a steal! Are there any prime candidates on the current subway system that could get a new station. Glencairn/Blythwood, Teddington Park/Yonge Blvd, Willowdale, Welbeck/Senlac, Wynford Green? I know it wouldn't be that cheap, but the yonge line really needs some more infill stations.
On the Yonge Line, Glencairn/Blythwood would be good for the sake of nearby development, while Teddington Park has the edge for connectivity (the 103 and 74A buses end 200 meters away). On the Sheppard West extension, the levy could be used for infill stations at Senlac, Faywood, and the Downsview Airport site.

It could even be used on Don Mills to help pay for the North extension.
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
430
^^31.5 million? That's a steal! Are there any prime candidates on the current subway system that could get a new station. Glencairn/Blythwood, Teddington Park/Yonge Blvd, Willowdale, Welbeck/Senlac, Wynford Green? I know it wouldn't be that cheap, but the yonge line really needs some more infill stations.
That's for a 50m platform on an elevated line.
Ontario Line at 100m would be more, but not twice, since there would already be elevators and escalators in the base cost.
The Ontario Line would have platform screen doors though, adding to the cost.

The article suggests $90 Million to add 50m underground stations at designated future station sites on the Canada Line.
These aren't cathedrals like on the Spadina extension.
 
Last edited:

JSF-1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
407
Reaction score
599
Location
Woburn
On the Yonge Line, Glencairn/Blythwood would be good for the sake of nearby development, while Teddington Park has the edge for connectivity (the 103 and 74A buses end 200 meters away).
There was supposed to be a stop at Glencairn however it and a stop at Glen Echo were canned due to budget reasons. Glen Echo actually got the double whammy of being cut for budget reasons and being impossible to build after it was decided York Mills would be underground.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,946
Reaction score
5,646
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
There was supposed to be a stop at Glencairn however it and a stop at Glen Echo were canned due to budget reasons. Glen Echo actually got the double whammy of being cut for budget reasons and being impossible to build after it was decided York Mills would be underground.
To make matters worse... The "express" Line 1 (between Eglinton Station and Sheppard Station) has frequent headways of around every 5 minutes during regular service. However, the "local" 97 YONGE bus has headways of around every 15 minutes. At least have the 97 YONGE bus run at the same headways as the Line 1 headways.
 

Top