Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Where would this second relief line go? It's easy to say "we can build another one", but is there a corridor that will siphon enough riders off while also supporting development along its length and not just on the ends?
 
junctionist said:
Many big metropolitan cities have had the same problem of dealing with huge demand for rapid transit into the city centre. Most have responded by building a lot of lines as affordably as they could and as quickly as possible. This approach achieves better coverage of the city and redundancy in the subway network if there are problems on a certain line.

Frankly, our approach of building an expensive high-capacity line into the downtown core and then not building anything for 70 years seems rather misguided. When the Ontario Line's capacity is maxed out, the solution will be to build another line further out to intercept riders headed for the Ontario Line rather than to question the capacity of the Ontario Line.



If the city keeps growing, a second relief line will be a necessity to support the economy. Moreover, we'll have the profits of a few decades of economic activity to fund the second relief line.
Click to expand...

Over the past 65 years, Toronto has constructed a grand total of two rapid transit lines of substantial length. I totally understand what you’re saying here, but I wouldn’t bet on it happening
 
north-of-anything said:
Where would this second relief line go? It's easy to say "we can build another one", but is there a corridor that will siphon enough riders off while also supporting development along its length and not just on the ends?
Click to expand...

At the rate development is expanding out from Yonge, in 2050 a Sherbourne/Harbour combination will have very high density walk-in traffic available and intersect a large number of busy lines.

That said, ROWs similar to King on Sherbourne, Parliament, Queens Quay, College, Dundas, Queen would provide about the same level of capacity with much better coverage at a near zero capital cost.
 
Last edited:
I'm more talking about a north-south route than an east-west route. Within the downtown, we have quite a few options, but north of Bloor? Not so much... unless you want it to pull East Enders off Line 2. Other than putting in two-way all-day service on the Stouffville line, the Millwoods/Don Mills routes are all we really have, besides maybe O'Connor.

My concern is more about whether the section that crosses the Don River has enough capacity for the people that decide to transfer onto Line 2, a streetcar, or even a Dundas/Gerrard relief line.
 
north-of-anything said:
I'm more talking about a north-south route than an east-west route. Within the downtown, we have quite a few options, but north of Bloor? Not so much... unless you want it to pull East Enders off Line 2. Other than putting in two-way all-day service on the Stouffville line, the Millwoods/Don Mills routes are all we really have, besides maybe O'Connor.

My concern is more about whether the section that crosses the Don River has enough capacity for the people that decide to transfer onto Line 2, a streetcar, or even a Dundas/Gerrard relief line.
Click to expand...
rbt said:
That's the Sherbourne part.
Click to expand...

Sherboune would make the most sense, I agree

For the west end, Dufferin has deserved a subway line since forever. A damn shame the Spadina line didn’t go there.
 
north-of-anything said:
I'm more talking about a north-south route than an east-west route. Within the downtown, we have quite a few options, but north of Bloor? Not so much... unless you want it to pull East Enders off Line 2. Other than putting in two-way all-day service on the Stouffville line, the Millwoods/Don Mills routes are all we really have, besides maybe O'Connor.

My concern is more about whether the section that crosses the Don River has enough capacity for the people that decide to transfer onto Line 2, a streetcar, or even a Dundas/Gerrard relief line.
Click to expand...

Any possible option won't be easy; funding is always a problem.

From the routing perspective, some options that seem to be constructable:

1) Dundas through downtown. In the east, the Dundas line could continue in the Richmond Hill GO corridor, thus avoiding its southmost section vulnerable to flooding. Then, using the CP corridor to reach the Science Centre area and connect to the northern terminus of OL, and then either up Don Mills or up Vic Park. West of downtown, that line could either go up Dufferin or joing the Georgetown rail corridor.

2) Bay Street line. North of Bloor, it would veer east and join the Yonge line at Davisville (open area, easy to rebuild). Then, the Bay line can operate as Yonge Express, or a shortcut from Davisville to downtown with fewer stops than on the old Yonge line.

3) Sherbourne sounds interesting, too, although the route north of Bloor isn't immediately obvious.
 
Yes a second relief line that starts at Greenwood and heads south to Gerrard with stops at Logan, Gerrard Square, Riverdale, Cabbagetown, Sherbourne, Dundas, St. Patrick, Chinatown, Entertainment District, and terminates at Rail Deck Park.

It would also intercept a lot of other lines.
 
M II A II R II K said:
Yes a second relief line that starts at Greenwood and heads south to Gerrard with stops at Logan, Gerrard Square, Riverdale, Cabbagetown, Sherbourne, Dundas, St. Patrick, Chinatown, Entertainment District, and terminates at Rail Deck Park.

It would also intercept a lot of other lines.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that close to or the original routing for the DRL back in the 80s?
 
Couldn't provision be made to add a possible branch operation to the Ontario Line? Maybe off at Gerrard Station have double storage tracks. Then in the future, continue those tracks as a branch line along Dundas Street (St. Patrick Boulevard), maybe joining back together in the west end and continuing going up Jane Street.
 
junctionist said:
Frankly, our approach of building an expensive high-capacity line into the downtown core and then not building anything for 70 years seems rather misguided. When the Ontario Line's capacity is maxed out, the solution will be to build another line further out to intercept riders headed for the Ontario Line rather than to question the capacity of the Ontario Line.
Click to expand...

That's because our entire approach to building mass transit in Toronto is misguided. The DRL should've been built decades ago. No one is suggesting to build a high capacity line to the core and not build another for 70 years. We should build a high capacity line now because we need it now. As @TheTigerMaster pointed out, this line is already going to be inadequate by the time it's built.

junctionist said:
If the city keeps growing, a second relief line will be a necessity to support the economy. Moreover, we'll have the profits of a few decades of economic activity to fund the second relief line.
Click to expand...

That assumes a rational approach to building transit, an approach we haven't taken in many years.

We're not 'value engineering' the SSE nor the Eglinton West LRT, but we're cutting as many corners as we can for the OL. I don't want to see corners cut anywhere, but with the current slate of projects the situation should be reversed - we should be spending what's necessary to ensure this line has the highest capacity possible. It will be many decades before the Eglinton West LRT and SSE will need the capacity they're building, while this line will already be ineffective when it's complete.

Does that make any sense?

We simply have no choice but to do this properly - now and for the future.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top