Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

W. K. Lis said:
According to this link...

View attachment 264528
From link.

If the majority want to get to UNION STATION, they'll be using the GO Train. It's those who do not want to go to Union Station, and who would want to transfer, that needs a better connection or transfer (like a fare discount, which Doug cancelled earlier this year).
Click to expand...
I am sort of of wishing the Richmond Hill GO Line had a few more stores intersecting the TTC transit lines- though I understand its routing in the Don Valley makes that tricky...

Interesting though that they haven't updated this map to show the Ontario Line or the Sheppard subway though.
 
allengeorge said:
I’m convinced the Ontario line isn’t going to be built. No RFPs etc are planned (IIRC) until into the PCs next term, and...lots can change in the interim.
Click to expand...
We already have RFQs sent out, so there is definitely some progress being done. Furthermore, I honestly doubt if the Liberals somehow come back to power in 2022, that they're going to cancel the OL and bring back the DRL.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Sorry, if the government is unwilling to spend the dollars necessary to do it right where need exists while spending pork on this, it has no business determining relief. I don't sing praises of those who killed something, came back with second best and say thank me while refusing to even consider similar solutions in their own political backyard.

AoD
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to say this but the DRL was hot garbage, OL isn't 2nd best to anything. Sure the capacity is slightly smaller, but it more than makes up for it by allowing relief as far as Eglinton far sooner. Being generous, RLN was only ever going to be built by 2040 which wouldn't have helped anyone. Furthermore, it goes all the way to Exhibition, allowing commuters to avoid Union Station when travelling on LSW, Union being dangerously congested during peak hours. There's a lot that can be said about OL, but to say its 2nd best to the DRL is absolute BS.
 
ARG1 said:
I'm sorry to say this but the DRL was hot garbage, OL isn't 2nd best to anything. Sure the capacity is slightly smaller, but it more than makes up for it by allowing relief as far as Eglinton far sooner. Being generous, RLN was only ever going to be built by 2040 which wouldn't have helped anyone. Furthermore, it goes all the way to Exhibition, allowing commuters to avoid Union Station when travelling on LSW, Union being dangerously congested during peak hours. There's a lot that can be said about OL, but to say its 2nd best to the DRL is absolute BS.
Click to expand...

DRL as you have imagined, and put all sorts of conditions on it - you think that with political will you couldn't have extended to Eglinton far sooner? Fundamentally, what's so different about RL north that will require a decade more to build should the province chose to do so? A portion of the project that is under Mlinx purview at that. That's the BS we are dealing with.

Anyways, that's not even the point, as someone who isn't hung over the details of RL to see it as ironclad- the point is that even if you don't go with RL as it was proposed, there is nothing suggesting that having longer platforms (and sizing the build in general) to support a higher ultimate level of capacity without resorting to frequency-based tricks is a bad thing even with OL. And if you quote cost as the rationale - well, it seem cost is not such a huge issue in the this OP, which is the point.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
DRL as you have imagined, and put all sorts of conditions on it - you think that with political will you couldn't have extended to Eglinton far sooner? Fundamentally, what's so different about RL north that will require a decade more to build should the province chose to do so? A portion of the project that is under Mlinx purview at that. That's the BS we are dealing with.

Anyways, that's not even the point, as someone who isn't hung over the details of RL to see it as ironclad- the point is that even if you don't go with RL as it was proposed, there is nothing suggesting that having longer platforms (and sizing the build in general) to support a higher ultimate level of capacity without resorting to frequency-based tricks is a bad thing even with OL.

AoD
Click to expand...
Yes, and as it turns out, we do not know what the OL train specifications are, for all we know they might have the trains be as long as TRs.
 
ARG1 said:
Yes, and as it turns out, we do not know what the OL train specifications are, for all we know they might have the trains be as long as TRs.
Click to expand...

We shall see about that. We shall also see whether we'd find out after it's a fait accompli. It's interesting how quickly these two extensions moved relative to OL, priorities, need for relief nothwithstanding eh.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ARG1 said:
Yes, and as it turns out, we do not know what the OL train specifications are, for all we know they might have the trains be as long as TRs.
Click to expand...

The OL initial business case states a target of 100m x 3m trains running at 90s headways. But the details will actually be decided by the chosen P3 contractor. It probably will look a lot like the REM in Montreal, which is the current internationally popular 'off the shelf' system type.
 
ARG1 said:
Yes, and as it turns out, we do not know what the OL train specifications are, for all we know they might have the trains be as long as TRs.
Click to expand...

We don't need the train/tunnel specifications; but we should be aware of the minimum targeted passenger capacity. Is it 25000pphpd or 40000pphpd or something in-between? This target, combined with ridership projections from the business case (if you assume that is accurate) tells us when we should expect a relief line for the relief line to be necessary.

Eglinton West, for example, is targeting year 2150 capacity requirements; not that you'll find seats on the rush trains because TTC sets size/frequency to fit ridership rather than potential line capacity; see Sheppard for an example of this, rush is 4-car trains every 6 minutes where the built form is for 6-car trains every 90 seconds or 17% of constructed capacity (with added tail-tracks at Don Mills station).
 
Last edited:
NoahB said:
The Relief Line South was very flawed in itself. And the RL North was going to arrive way too late. Anyway, take this discussion about the Relief Line in the Ontario Line thread.
Click to expand...

How was it flawed?

Why was the RL North going to arrive way too late?

We would be much further ahead if Ford just continued with the DRL South and presented a sensible DRL North extension.
 
syn said:
How was it flawed?
Click to expand...

Well, integration with GO was poor but that was entirely the fault of Metrolinx who said TTC couldn't do exactly what they're now planning with the Ontario Line (use GO corridor space).
 
rbt said:
Well, integration with GO was poor but that was entirely the fault of Metrolinx who said TTC couldn't do exactly what they're now planning with the Ontario Line (use GO corridor space).
Click to expand...

Sure, but what else?

I think it was a great plan overall that took community concerns into account - and it's a full capacity line. I'm not convinced the GO transfer will be used nearly as much as expected. It's also something that could've been improved.

The most important aspect of this line (and it's north extension) is relieving the Yonge Line. In that regard, the DRL South was part of a far superior plan.
 
syn said:
Sure, but what else?

I think it was a great plan overall that took community concerns into account - and it's a full capacity line. I'm not convinced the GO transfer will be used nearly as much as expected. It's also something that could've been improved.

The most important aspect of this line (and it's north extension) is relieving the Yonge Line. In that regard, the DRL South was part of a far superior plan.
Click to expand...
OL has much better routing. It gives access to a lot more important destinations within the city of Toronto itself. Kensington Market, Corktown (Distillery District), and access to Exhibition allows commuters on the LSW line an alternate way into Toronto without going through Union. OL simply gives the network a far better reach through the downtown of Toronto, compared to just a J.

As for the GO transfer, I have to disagree. With GO RER in the works, the 5 main GO Lines are going to basically operate like Subway Lines themselves, which should let us see significantly more traffic on these routes, making better TTC Connections a much higher priority.
 
allengeorge said:
I’m convinced the Ontario line isn’t going to be built. No RFPs etc are planned (IIRC) until into the PCs next term, and...lots can change in the interim.
Click to expand...
ARG1 said:
We already have RFQs sent out, so there is definitely some progress being done. Furthermore, I honestly doubt if the Liberals somehow come back to power in 2022, that they're going to cancel the OL and bring back the DRL.
Click to expand...

I believe @allengeorge meant to say that financial close for the OL won't be until after the election. The RFP/RFQ wouldn't be a guarantee of the project getting built anyways; the Sheppard and Finch LRTs were in the RFP/RFQ phase for years, before Sheppard was killed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top