Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

amnesiajune said:
This isn't really true. Line 2 has only been extended once, by one station in either direction (and this was arguably just a part of the ICTS projects in Scarborough and Etobicoke). Line 1 is more complicated -- the Union - St George extension was done as a part of the Bloor-Danforth project, the Spadina - Wilson extension was originally meant to operate as a separate line (that's why the long Spadina tunnel was built), and the Downsview extension was part of the Sheppard project. There has only been one true extension on Yonge, and one or two true extensions on Spadina.
Click to expand...

Initially, Line 2 was between Keele and Woodbine stations beginning in 1966. It was extended between Islington and Warden stations in 1968. Finally, in 1980, it was extended between Kipling and Kennedy stations. So there were two extensions.

The Scarborough RT opened in 1985 between Kennedy and McCowan stations.
 
MisterF said:
On the contrary, I'm basing my opinion on how transit planning works in Toronto. Extensions to existing lines are a lot easier to get built than new lines, especially new lines that go downtown. Lines 1 and 2 have been extended multiple times over the decades. The pace of extensions has slowed down in part because of how far they already go and the fact that any extensions will only make overcrowding worse at the core of the system. The Eglinton example doesn't really support your position - it's hard to criticize progress on an extension to a line that's not even open yet. As for the Ontario line, costs could easily increase and it could still be broken up into phases. That's the thing with lines drawn on napkins, we know next to nothing about them and next to anything about them could change.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement. I think the important thing though, rightly allaying the concerns of others is that the phases should be 'continuous build'. What you're doing then is amortizing the costs over a much longer period, and not creating impossibly (for Toronto) large projects; but you're also not narrowing the scope of ambition all that much, and there are considerable costs savings associated with continuous build.

For anyone unsure about what I'm meaning, its that you don't try to build a 10-station line at once, you get that initial six stations you need, but then rather than stopping with a ribbon cutting the boring machine just keeps going, and the cut-and-cover continues, and you just move on to station 7, then station 8 w/o ever stopping until you get to the end goal.
 
MisterF said:
... any extensions will only make overcrowding worse at the core of the system...
Click to expand...
Not everyone coming from a subway extension north of Finch would go downtown, and those who would already take a bus to Finch to go downtown.
So it would not significantly make overcrowding worse at the core of the system.
Of course, any extension doesn't change the need for a downtown relief line, however it is called.
 
amnesiajune said:
This isn't really true. Line 2 has only been extended once, by one station in either direction (and this was arguably just a part of the ICTS projects in Scarborough and Etobicoke).
Click to expand...

That is not true in the least. The B-D has had 4 extensions since it was conceived.

Originally, it was only supposed to be built from Greenwood to St. George. The first extension was still as the line was being designed, and took the line to Woodbine and Keele. The next extension started construction before the line opened, and thus they were able to open the extensions only 2 years later, to Warden and Islington. And finally, the extensions 12 years later to Kennedy and Kipling.

amnesiajune said:
Line 1 is more complicated -- the Union - St George extension was done as a part of the Bloor-Danforth project, the Spadina - Wilson extension was originally meant to operate as a separate line (that's why the long Spadina tunnel was built), and the Downsview extension was part of the Sheppard project. There has only been one true extension on Yonge, and one or two true extensions on Spadina.
Click to expand...

You're right - the history of the YUS is more complicated, but it most certainly didn't unfold as you tell it. The Union to St. George extension did occur because of the decision to build the cross-town line line under Bloor rather than Queen. But the Spadina extension was never envisioned to be operated independently of the rest of the line. The decision to build the two, almost discrete Spadina Stations was as a cost savings measure. The extension to Downsview had nothing to do with the Sheppard Line, and was the first of hopefully several extensions to close the "loop" across the top of the City.

As for he Yonge side, there was one extension north from Eglinton, originally envisioned to run to Steeles, that was always planned to be opened in 2 stages.

Dan
 
Often fighting climate change is touted as a major reason why rapid transit should be built. Environmentalist also support rapid transit as it creates TOD and hence slows the development of suburban sprawl and the destruction of agricultural land. Due to this it is surprising that the environmental movement has caused the death of many a transit expansion because of the endless and years long environmental reviews. Sometimes they are needed where as other times they are a make-work project.

They can takes so long {often ridiculously so} that they allow politicians who really aren't interested in expanding projects to say that they are actually doing something knowing full well that these reviews won't come out till after the next election. Relatively few Premiers/PM try to go for 3 consecutive terms so after the election, they couldn't care less if it gets built or not because they won't be running again regardless. It's quite the irony that environmentalists can often turn out to be a right-wing politician's best friend.
 
eltodesukane said:
Not everyone coming from a subway extension north of Finch would go downtown, and those who would already take a bus to Finch to go downtown.
So it would not significantly make overcrowding worse at the core of the system.
Of course, any extension doesn't change the need for a downtown relief line, however it is called.
Click to expand...
But when you extend subway service it often increases ridership demand, not just replaces ridership from previous transit service.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Often fighting climate change is touted as a major reason why rapid transit should be built. Environmentalist also support rapid transit as it creates TOD and hence slows the development of suburban sprawl and the destruction of agricultural land. Due to this it is surprising that the environmental movement has caused the death of many a transit expansion because of the endless and years long environmental reviews. Sometimes they are needed where as other times they are a make-work project.

They can takes so long {often ridiculously so} that they allow politicians who really aren't interested in expanding projects to say that they are actually doing something knowing full well that these reviews won't come out till after the next election. Relatively few Premiers/PM try to go for 3 consecutive terms so after the election, they couldn't care less if it gets built or not because they won't be running again regardless. It's quite the irony that environmentalists can often turn out to be a right-wing politician's best friend.
Click to expand...

As previously mentioned in other forums, environmentalists are not the reason behind environmental assessments (EA). I'm not sure about other companies, but I do know McDonald's also carries out an EA before constructing a restaurant (an old acquaintance of mine does this for a living). An EA is essentially a document that outlines the consequences of constructing infrastructure. This is crucial as the report finalizes the location/alignment of the project and evaluates: noise, pollution, soil conditions, public support, etc. It also evaluates whether existing infrastructure must be changed or eliminated to accommodate whatever new project is being evaluated. EA reports are incredibly detailed and rather long, but this is the general idea behind them. Just imagine the consequences if the tunnel collapsed because the soil conditions were never properly evaluated. Can they be created faster, probably, but they cannot be removed from the process. It'll be the equivalence of a pilot skipping their checklist before taking off. Here's the EA of the TYSSE as an exemplar: http://www.vivanext.com/PDFs/EA/SpadinaSubway/2005_EA_TYSSE.pdf
 
Last edited:
smallspy said:
That is not true in the least. The B-D has had 4 extensions since it was conceived.

Originally, it was only supposed to be built from Greenwood to St. George. The first extension was still as the line was being designed, and took the line to Woodbine and Keele. The next extension started construction before the line opened, and thus they were able to open the extensions only 2 years later, to Warden and Islington. And finally, the extensions 12 years later to Kennedy and Kipling.
Click to expand...

The original line was always going to be Islington - Warden. This is probably the only case in the city's history where a multi-phase transit project actually had all three phases built as planned -- the first two ended up being combined into one, and the third started construction before the first two had been finished.

smallspy said:
As for he Yonge side, there was one extension north from Eglinton, originally envisioned to run to Steeles, that was always planned to be opened in 2 stages.
Click to expand...

It wasn't planned to open in two stages. The York Mills - Finch section was delayed because of labour strikes. The York Mills and Lawrence stations were only partly finished when they were opened for the same reason.
 
amnesiajune said:
The original line was always going to be Islington - Warden. This is probably the only case in the city's history where a multi-phase transit project actually had all three phases built as planned -- the first two ended up being combined into one, and the third started construction before the first two had been finished.
Click to expand...
It's kind of disingenous to say that and leave out the fact that the City didn't have the money to build the Subway to Warden. It was the Province who decided to throw the City some extra cash at the last minute that got the Subway to Warden. Had it not been for the Province the Subway wouldn't have made it to Warden as fast as it did. Warden/Islington may have been the plan but the City was ready to build the line without any money to extend the BD beyond Keele/Woodbine thus relegating the extensions to future dates.
 
amnesiajune said:
The original line was always going to be Islington - Warden.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, yes. But until just before shovels dug in at St. George, the plan was the line that was going to be built was from St. George Station to Greenwood. Between the City and the TTC, there simply wasn't money to take it further. It wasn't until Metro pitched in that the line could be built further.

So again - 4 extensions.

amnesiajune said:
It wasn't planned to open in two stages. The York Mills - Finch section was delayed because of labour strikes. The York Mills and Lawrence stations were only partly finished when they were opened for the same reason.
Click to expand...

The line was always going to open in two stages. The labour strikes almost prevented Lawrence from being opened in 1973, but ultimately they were able to. Go look at the reports, they're available for all to see at the Reference Library.

Dan
 
eltodesukane said:
Not everyone coming from a subway extension north of Finch would go downtown, and those who would already take a bus to Finch to go downtown.
So it would not significantly make overcrowding worse at the core of the system.
Of course, any extension doesn't change the need for a downtown relief line, however it is called.
Click to expand...
You don't need everyone to go downtown to make crowding worse, just some or most of them. And as asher_jo already pointed out, when you replace a bus with a subway you end up with more passengers. Induced demand is a well understood phenomenon - make travelling easier or cheaper and more people will travel. A Line 1 extension will draw new riders, and some or most of those new riders will be going downtown. End result: worse crowds at the core of the system.
 
MisterF said:
You don't need everyone to go downtown to make crowding worse, just some or most of them. And as asher_jo already pointed out, when you replace a bus with a subway you end up with more passengers. Induced demand is a well understood phenomenon - make travelling easier or cheaper and more people will travel. A Line 1 extension will draw new riders, and some or most of those new riders will be going downtown. End result: worse crowds at the core of the system.
Click to expand...

Also, the whole point of extending it northward is to enable densification of Yonge along the route. These are not existing passengers - they will be new ones as residents.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Also, the whole point of extending it northward is to enable densification of Yonge along the route. These are not existing passengers - these are new ones.

AoD
Click to expand...
Good point. There are plans for tens of thousands of jobs and homes at Richmond Hill Centre/Langstaff, most of which can't happen without the subway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top