Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

rbt said:
As a start, 4 minute frequencies on a straightened Richmond Hill line (stops at a few major streets only) would be cool. $10B can make non-trivial upgrades to that line, including a downtown routing which avoids Union.

Yonge and Ontario Line are both largely local-service lines. A high capacity all-day express through the Yonge/Don Mills corridor would be genuinely useful if both Yonge and OL are at capacity during rush.
Click to expand...

Where would the downtown stops go?
 
rbt said:
Since we're spit-balling:

High budget: Bayview/Queen, Front/Jarvis, Front/Yonge or Wellington/Yonge
Click to expand...
If you've got the budget, one at Castle Frank is a must, to allow transfers at Line 2.

Though the only realistic way of straightening it is to switch to the CP track, and rebuild the connection though the CN Don Mills Spur that's now a walking trail - which would put the transfer to Line 2 at Broadview station instead.
 
rbt said:
As a start, 4 minute frequencies on a straightened (and partially tunnelled?) Richmond Hill line (stops at a few major streets only) would be cool. $10B can make non-trivial upgrades to that line, including a downtown routing which avoids Union.

Yonge and Ontario Line are both largely local-service lines. A high capacity all-day express serving that quadrant of the city (Yonge to Don Mills) would be genuinely useful with a normalized TTC/GO fare.
Click to expand...

One of the design goals of the OL is to reduce Union Station crowding. 4-minute service on the Richmond Hill Line, which would only funnelling more passengers into Union Station, is antithetical to the original design goals of the Ontario Line. One step forward, one step back.

We could use another Downtown tunnel to avoid the Union crowding issues, but that would dramatically increase the price.

Further, MX has previously studied, and rejected this idea. The circuitous (slow) routing of the Richmond Hill line wouldn't make it all that effective at relieving the Yonge Line.

I'm generally not a huge fan of this idea because it addresses travel patterns already served by Yonge and the OL. Any lines beyond the OL should go east into Scarborough.
 
rbt said:
Since we're spit-balling:

High budget: Bayview/Queen, Front/Jarvis, Front/Yonge or Wellington/Yonge

Lower budget: Lake Shore/Cherry (south of Gardiner), Lake Shore/Jarvis, Harbour/Bay
Click to expand...
1620759277989.png
 
rbt said:
Since we're spit-balling:

High budget: Bayview/Queen, Front/Jarvis, Front/Yonge or Wellington/Yonge

Lower budget: Lake Shore/Cherry (south of Gardiner), Lake Shore/Jarvis, Harbour/Bay
Click to expand...

There are endless options if we are looking to build new lines. We need to get to a point where anywhere you are in the city you are a 5 minute walk from a rapid transit stop. Then we can rest on our laurels.
 
syn said:
If we have a terrible history of building transit projects and building them quickly, then why on earth would you justify the capacity issues of this line by suggesting we can build another one?

Seems obvious to me building this one properly in the first place is far more affordable in the long run, and far more sensible given it may be the last new downtown line we see for many decades.



Where?
Click to expand...
Because one line with insufficient capacity (not as bad as many seem to suggest in my eyes), is better than half a line with extra capacity that doesn't provide adequate relief for at least an extra decade?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
One of the design goals of the OL is to reduce Union Station crowding. 4-minute service on the Richmond Hill Line, which would only funnelling more passengers into Union Station, is antithetical to the original design goals of the Ontario Line. One step forward, one step back.

We could use another Downtown tunnel to avoid the Union crowding issues, but that would dramatically increase the price.

Further, MX has previously studied, and rejected this idea. The circuitous (slow) routing of the Richmond Hill line wouldn't make it all that effective at relieving the Yonge Line.

I'm generally not a huge fan of this idea because it addresses travel patterns already served by Yonge and the OL. Any lines beyond the OL should go east into Scarborough.
Click to expand...

These were some of my thoughts as well. The corridor also seems smaller than the OL corridor being used - will it fit another line? I'm also weary of limiting capacity on yet another GO corridor.

I can't see it providing significant relief to the Yonge line.
 
superelevation said:
Because one line with insufficient capacity (not as bad as many seem to suggest in my eyes), is better than half a line with extra capacity that doesn't provide adequate relief for at least an extra decade?
Click to expand...

That's a false choice. No reason they couldn't have proceeded with the DRL North, as it's been mentioned numerous times before.

And I'd argue by your standards the OL is not a "full" line - it doesn't go to Don Mills and has drastically lower capacity.
 
Last edited:
superelevation said:
Because one line with insufficient capacity (not as bad as many seem to suggest in my eyes), is better than half a line with extra capacity that doesn't provide adequate relief for at least an extra decade?
Click to expand...
Why would building the OL with sufficient capacity necessitate building "half a line"?

Nevermind that the OL itself arguably isn't even a "complete" line. The thing must be extended before it can provide any relief to the Yonge Line (which should be the #1 goal here).

But that's tangential. Adding capacity to the OL wouldn't chop the line in half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
Adjei said:
There are endless options if we are looking to build new lines. We need to get to a point where anywhere you are in the city you are a 5 minute walk from a rapid transit stop. Then we can rest on our laurels.
Click to expand...

It's kind of strange that there are endless options for future lines, but we are unwilling or incapable of exploring more sensible options for this line.

What other options are there?
 
syn said:
This is why the OL is such a poor plan in it's current incarnation.

It's not because it doesn't exactly follow the previous RL alignment.

It's not because it runs above ground through Leslieville.

It simply doesn't have the capacity necessary to achieve the primary goal of providing significant, long term relief to the Yonge Line.
Click to expand...
All you're really asking for is longer platforms/trains. The width of the rolling stock is not the big issue here.
 
syn said:
That's a false choice. No reason they couldn't have proceeded with the DRL North, as it's been mentioned numerous times before.

And I'd argue by your standards the OL is not a "full" line - it doesn't go to Don Mills and has drastically lower capacity.
Click to expand...

Was the Relief Line going to Don Mills?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top