Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[NoahB]

The question asked was where was it studied. Not sure what details you were looking for, but they are in that thread.

Read that thread ... page 3 or 4 shows all those locations in an image. I'd be shocked if they weren't also on Steve Munro's site.

I see it now. Thanks!

 

[Rainforest]

RH-GO might be a bit faster, but the trade-off for the Ontario Line here would be more destinations, more connections to other routes, and higher frequencies.

I have made my opinion on RH-GO known in the past on here. If we went with that scenario and sent the Ontario Line to Langstaff, I would simply discontinue RH-GO service. It's expensive to operate, very low ridership, impractical to upgrade, and doesn't allow for connections to East Harbour, Bloor, Eglinton, and only an impractical one at Sheppard. So in this fantasy scenario, we would only end up with two services (Yonge Line and OL) that serve different areas.

Space on the Bala Sub is the biggest issue. Looking at the corridor on google maps it seems wide enough, but without a study, can't say.

I can see the appeal of repurposing the Bala corridor from the north of Lawrence to Langstaff ro extend the Ontario Line serice. But, doesn't that cut out the RH GO stations further north? Maybe, Gormley and Bloomington are not that valuable, but the Richmond Hill station (the one north of Major Mackenzie) has its ridership. And the OL trains will not be able to continue north of Langstaff, as the corridor serves an active freight line.

I suppose one can run a train shuttle between Bloomington and Langstaff, maybe that's the solution.

I don't think we have to worry too much about high ridership between Hwy-7 and Sheppard on the Ontario Line, at least not in the first twenty years of operation.

Certainly not about the ridership north of Sheppard per se, but rather about the combined ridership of the southmost section.

A mirror of today's Yonge North situation: nobody expects the segment north of Finch to be overloaded should the line be extended to RH, but the planners are rightfully concerned about the combined ridership of the southern section.

 

[Rainforest]

Can the stations be extended in the future? Can longer trains be used in the future?

I'd think that it will be a huge undertaking. Digging next to an active line is always hard. Plus, the next section of the track may not be straight and/or may not be horizontal. Probably easier to start building a new line at that point.

 

[sacred]

I can see the appeal of repurposing the Bala corridor from the north of Lawrence to Langstaff ro extend the Ontario Line serice. But, doesn't that cut out the RH GO stations further north? Maybe, Gormley and Bloomington are not that valuable, but the Richmond Hill station (the one north of Major Mackenzie) has its ridership. And the OL trains will not be able to continue north of Langstaff, as the corridor serves an active freight line.

Would it be possible to quad-track from Bala/York to Langstaff or Richmond Hill GO?

The Yonge extension has talked about using the Bala corridor, and it makes some degree of sense for the OL (though wouldn't that push it beyond capacity?) , but I can't help but feel that it should be kept for the future, relatively inexpensive heavy rail relief line that could be RH RER after the Yonge extension.
If VIA invests in the Don Branch, that could make it easier to support RH RER in the coming decades.

 

[GenerationW]

It probably won't happen in our lifetimes with the GO expansion. But if that ever happens, Line 2 can be continued north on McCowan to Steeles and beyond. Anyone coming from the east of McCowan will hop on to this line instead of crowding the OL.

There isn't that much high density population east of McCowan. I am not expecting people from Pickering or beyond riding on buses to Line 2. They would rather take the GO train.

A good way of predicting the future is to look at the recent past. There were various proposals starting in the 80s for extending both ends of YUS to Steeles, but it took the intervention of York Region to make Spadina happen, and now the Yonge extension is on the verge of becoming a reality.

Many decades from now, when Toronto can't decide whether to extend B-D and the DRL/Relief Line/Ontario Line/Bill Davis-Bob Rae-Kathleen Wynne Memorial Line beyond Sheppard, York Region will intervene and get those lines to Highway 7. York Region builds our subways better than we do.

 

[Rainforest]

Would it be possible to quad-track from Bala/York to Langstaff or Richmond Hill GO?

The Yonge extension has talked about using the Bala corridor, and it makes some degree of sense for the OL (though wouldn't that push it beyond capacity?) , but I can't help but feel that it should be kept for the future, relatively inexpensive heavy rail relief line that could be RH RER after the Yonge extension.
If VIA invests in the Don Branch, that could make it easier to support RH RER in the coming decades.

I am not sure if it can be quad-tracked. Some sections look tight on the map.

Plus, there are legal limits to running relatively light OL trains right next to an active freight train line. Everything that runs there must have a prescribed minimum collision strength, and that's not the case for the OL trains (the conventional TTC Rocket subway trains wouldn't qualify, either). Maybe, some kind of retaining wall can let them run side by side, but this is a special matter best left to the engineers practicing in the field; no "common-sense" solution would be valid without taking into account the fine technical details.

 

[Reecemartin]

A cross post but a discussion I want people to think about is how much the success of the OL hinges on fare integration (look at those cross platform GO transfers):

 

[Kitsune]

... with the Go / OL having cross platforms, does that mean OL will be restricted to Low Level vehicles?

 

[afransen]

The tracks could be at offset elevations, no?

 

[NoahB]

... with the Go / OL having cross platforms, does that mean OL will be restricted to Low Level vehicles?

The platform heights don't need to be the same for all the tracks and platforms...

Look at the UP Express platforms which literally share the same tracks as the GO trains. They just had a ramp between the two. In the case of the OL, they will be on their own tracks so the trackbed could be lowered, or the platforms elevated.

Photos above by WestonWeb.ca

Here is how the REM is doing it at Côte-de-Liesse Station:
(note that it only has a single track for EXO rail, 3 for REM, and both are high floor platforms. So it may not be the most direct example.)

It is highly unlikely the Ontario Line will be low floor. The decreased floor space in the smaller trains will be even lower capacity than what the government is hoping to achieve.

 

[superelevation]

Trains being 2/3 the size, translates to approx 2/3 in capacity. Yonge pre ATC may have same capacity as OL with ATC. But Yonge can be retrofitted with ATC and go into the 40-45k range: that kind of boost cannot happen for OL.

It does not, performance and layout will likely be quite different. Yonge also has track layout issues to content with. TTC reports Line 1 will still be sub 40k ppdph post upgrade

... with the Go / OL having cross platforms, does that mean OL will be restricted to Low Level vehicles?

No

 

[Nuts2020]

I think a more realistic completion date for this Ontario line project would be 2032 or 2033 rather than the anticipated date of 2030 from the Ontario government (assuming if they break ground in 2023), reason is because construction for projects (especially transit projects) in North America tend to be very slow and are delayed and over budget compared to Asia and Europe.

real life examples are the Line 1 subway extension to Vaughan (TYSSE) 2009-2017 for a subway line that is 8.6 km long and the Eglinton Crosstown (Line 5) 2011-2022? (If it doesn’t get delayed any further) for a 19km partially underground LRT line.

 

[ARG1]

I think a more realistic completion date for this Ontario line project would be 2032 or 2033 rather than the anticipated date of 2030 from the Ontario government (assuming if they break ground in 2023), reason is because construction for projects (especially transit projects) in North America tend to be very slow and are delayed and over budget compared to Asia and Europe.

real life examples are the Line 1 subway extension to Vaughan (TYSSE) 2009-2017 for a subway line that is 8.6 km long and the Eglinton Crosstown (Line 5) 2011-2022? (If it doesn’t get delayed any further) for a 19km partially underground LRT line.

But you also have the REM which was first proposed in 2017, and whose first phase will finish in 2022. Its possible.

 

[nfitz]

But you also have the REM which was first proposed in 2017, and whose first phase will finish in 2022. Its possible.

Construction on the first phase of the REM light rail started in 2015. The first phase, from Central to south shore was proposed twenty years ago, has only 5 new stations (6 total), and has no underground sections. The second phase, to Bois-Franc, has already been running for a century!

First phase (in design, rather than length) is more comparable to Line 3 than anything else, which took less than 3.5 years to build from start of construction in October 1981 to opening day in March 1985.

 

[NoahB]

Construction on the first phase of the REM light rail started in 2015. The first phase, from Central to south shore was proposed twenty years ago, has only 5 new stations (6 total), and has no underground sections. The second phase, to Bois-Franc, has already been running for a century!

Corrections:
Jan 2015 - The partnership between the public government was announced
April 2016 - The REM was announced publicly
June 2016 - Request for qualification starts
Jan 2018 - tender process ends
April 2018 construction groundbreaking
Dec 2020 train and door testing starts on the 3.5km 'representative segment'

Keep in mind while this project takes over the locations of existing stations, all the stations are built from scratch to a much higher standard. This is not a situation where they just had the trains use existing platforms. All the old platforms are being torn down and new stations are built.

Also, I see your point on having many sections of this line being studied for a long time. But this is the first one that reached shovel ready.

You can argue that the Ontario Line route has been studied for a century. But the station design, rolling stock, and capacity have been in flux for that time period. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

First phase (in design, rather than length) is more comparable to Line 3 than anything else, which took less than 3.5 years to build from start of construction in October 1981 to opening day in March 1985.

REM is in many ways identical to the Line3/SRT. The media were calling the REM Skytrain-like when it was first announced. Regardless, I think we are way past being able to compare construction timeframes from the 1980s to today. The only thing that is still true is that elevated stations take less time (and money) to build than underground ones.