Ontario Line | ?m | ?s

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,922
Reaction score
2,962
Again, you need to think about people in between your 2 points as not everyone wants to go downtown. It could be in between or else where. The world doesn't revolved around the downtown for lots of people, but we continue to funnel them there when we should having lines going elsewhere.

The 501 / 507 streetcar would remain in place, and handle the local trips.
 

T3G

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
443
Reaction score
1,043
Location
Toronto
Well the fact is that there are a lot of growing communities in the city and they all demand preferential treatment. How do we decide who gets the shiny shiny subway light metro and who doesn't? And what do you say to every other community that cries foul about it?

Is there room in the GO expansion plans to increase the frequencies further? Perhaps an expanded service running from Park Lawn (/Long Branch) to Union approaching subway frequencies would be a possible option to explore.
 

sunnyside

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
165
Reaction score
253
It's a huge stretch to go from "they planned this" to "they are building this.

But it's in the plan - and if you already knew about the plan, and simply were being disingenuous, please stop.

Of course much in the plan won't happen. At the same time, it makes it clear what the long-term thoughts are.

Not that there's much changed in the Don Mills/Leslie alignment since Transit City, or the east-west alignment either for decades.

I'd be surprised if the OL wasn't one day extended to at least Sheppard.
While Metrolinx is showing itself to be a pet of the province more and more with each passing day, it is the closest Ontario has come to a proper transit agency. I have talked with some colleagues at agencies like Translink and the first thing they have always said is most crucial to their success is the implementation of an independent regional agency that can create a plan for which they can ask for money. It’s ironically very American (paraphrasing own words). While by no means perfect, metrolinx has done an effective job of identifying corridors in need and at least facilitating the implementation And coordination of projects.

Anywho, while it’s reasonable to scoff at an OL loop and the other more out-there aspects of visionary documents, the principle of a light metro link from Kipling to Pearson, to Richmond Hill, and looping back to the OL north for instance is a sound idea. Likewise with the 407/403 “inter regional LRT” (another presumably light metro). While political in nature the plans will serve the region well. Besides what is already u/c, I do struggle to see any aspects of our plans that is overly unrealistic or a waste of money- the days of tunneling LRTs is hopefully over. If the OL is a success, Ford will have successfully ushered in a mode that can meet the GTHA’s hunger for not just more transit, but fast and possibly even cost effective transit.

Let’s not forget the OL justifies its price for tunneling through a downtown with countless barriers and serving a link that will reap benefits far beyond its cost. The decision to go elevated is a paradigm shift for Toronto: it may mark the end of needless tunneling suburban subway extensions (beyond what’s planned) imo. And it’s the right way to go.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
5,981
Definitely not just for the lack of fare integration. But maybe for the more efficient use of the rail corridor space.

Depends on where the bottleneck is. Imagine the bottleneck is between the Exhibition and Union, where we have fully utilized GO tracks without the ability to add more, plus the pair of OL tracks that see decent usage but aren't at capacity. And, there is room inside the rail corridor west of the Exhibition to extend the OL tracks. In that case, extending the OL adds to the total capacity of the corridor.

On the other hand, imagine the bottleneck is west of the Exhibition, so the OL extension would reduce the ability to expand GO service. In that case, GO should be given priority and OL should not be extended, or at least not in the same corridor.

Not sure which assumption is true, but that should determine the utility of the OL extension.
Regardless of whether there is space in the corridor, we're talking duplicated service from Park Lawn to Union. Two sets of platforms, one for GO, one for OL. It doesn't make sense, if you could just run more service on GO. Not to mention the cost of the OL tracks, stations, etc.
 

mdriver

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
24
Well perhaps the 501/street car will run in the next decade into Humber Bay...

As much as I would have love to see the OL go down the existing rail corridor, its seems like that won't happen.

Perhaps the only solution is increased frequency of the Go train.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
5,981
Let’s not forget the OL justifies its price for tunneling through a downtown with countless barriers and serving a link that will reap benefits far beyond its cost. The decision to go elevated is a paradigm shift for Toronto: it may mark the end of needless tunneling suburban subway extensions (beyond what’s planned) imo. And it’s the right way to go.
If it achieves this, it will be an enormous victory. Well worth any capacity loss over the dearly held original Relief Line option.

I don't think using light metro akin to OL along the 407 is necessarily unsound. It probably doesn't need to be continuous service from Kipling, up to Pearson, across the 407 and down to Ex. Probably one line across the city along 403/407, with an interchange in Markham. The 407 is going to be probably lower frequency or smaller trains, and more regional rail-like. Not sure it makes sense to be a continuous service.
 

turbanplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
318
Reaction score
195
Well the fact is that there are a lot of growing communities in the city and they all demand preferential treatment. How do we decide who gets the shiny shiny subway light metro and who doesn't? And what do you say to every other community that cries foul about it?

Is there room in the GO expansion plans to increase the frequencies further? Perhaps an expanded service running from Park Lawn (/Long Branch) to Union approaching subway frequencies would be a possible option to explore.
Humber bay has been INCREDIBLY over crowded for several years now and even has a train line running through it
 

sunnyside

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
165
Reaction score
253
If it achieves this, it will be an enormous victory. Well worth any capacity loss over the dearly held original Relief Line option.

I don't think using light metro akin to OL along the 407 is necessarily unsound. It probably doesn't need to be continuous service from Kipling, up to Pearson, across the 407 and down to Ex. Probably one line across the city along 403/407, with an interchange in Markham. The 407 is going to be probably lower frequency or smaller trains, and more regional rail-like. Not sure it makes sense to be a continuous service.
Agreed that these shouldn't all be the "Ontario Line" and could certainly be segmented into different services. The Kipling/427/Pearson link for instance could be built prior to an OL West and be a distinct line entirely. Rather the notion of using light metros is the benefit there. And for the 407, I believe itll be lower frequency and more akin to a GO line, if not directly called a GO line (in the vein of GO ALRT, GO-urban, etc). I wouldnt mind seeing longer trains for that given so much of it will hopefully be at-grade and in greenfields, but I only say that if incremental cost permits.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,922
Reaction score
2,962
Regardless of whether there is space in the corridor, we're talking duplicated service from Park Lawn to Union. Two sets of platforms, one for GO, one for OL. It doesn't make sense, if you could just run more service on GO. Not to mention the cost of the OL tracks, stations, etc.

The cost of adding the pair of OL tracks will be the same as the cost of adding a pair of GO tracks. Platforms for OL will actually be cheaper (shorter) than GO platforms, and there is no need to duplicate those. If OL goes to Park Lawn, then no need to add a GO Park Lawn station.

This isn't duplication, just like running Express GO + Local GO in the same corridor isn't duplication.
 
Last edited:

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,922
Reaction score
2,962
Well the fact is that there are a lot of growing communities in the city and they all demand preferential treatment. How do we decide who gets the shiny shiny subway light metro and who doesn't? And what do you say to every other community that cries foul about it?

That's always a concern, and will never be resolved perfectly. No matter what route is chosen, some residents will feel they got short-changed.

In case of the OL west extension, possibly it would be best not to swing the route south from Queen to the Exhibition, but rather send it north-west to meet the Bloor subway and then serve the area between Bloor and the Spadina subway route.

However, once it is settled that OL runs to the Exhibiton (far south), getting it back to the north of Bloor is a nontrivial task. Need to make a tricky transition from westbound at-surface to northbound tunneled, and then cover some distance in the tunnel.

Therefore, I feel that a new subway line from the north-west is better off going straight into downtown (under Dundas), rather than veering south all the way to Exhibition to link with the OL.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,660
That's always a concern, and will never be resolved perfectly. No matter what route is chosen, some residents will feel they got short-changed.

In case of the OL west extension, possibly it would be best not to swing the route south from Queen to the Exhibition, but rather send it north-west to meet the Bloor subway and then serve the area between Bloor and the Spadina subway route.

However, once it is settled that OL runs to the Exhibiton (far south), getting it back to the north of Bloor is a nontrivial task. Need to make a tricky transition from westbound at-surface to northbound tunneled, and then cover some distance in the tunnel.

Therefore, I feel that a new subway line from the north-west is better off going straight into downtown (under Dundas), rather than veering south all the way to Exhibition to link with the OL.
That's a thought. I have always seen the logical place for OL to go as up Jane or Dufferin, but perhaps you're not wrong. That being said, where does OL go from Exhibition?

I see a couple of options. The first is a line down Queensway. This is fairly straight, but there's perhaps less room to put another rail corridor south of High Park. A logical extension would be to build Waterfront West LRT, then connect a median LRT down Queensway to that (or the 507. Your choice).

DRL West was always going to go up towards B-D. However, there's no logical route north of Exhibition for it to follow.

We could permanently terminate it at Exhibition but that leaves extra capacity through downtown. One thought could be to turn it up Roncesvalles, and have the KING car terminate at the carhouse. It would go towards the Junction and perhaps terminate at Eglinton (after connecting to the 512). This would mean that to get from B-D to the 504, you'd need an extra transfer. Don't know if that's worth it, and I don't even want to see the pitchforks aimed at me for that proposal.

That being said, fare integration between GO and TTC would make life easier for Humber Bay Shores residents sooner rather than later. We should be aiming to service denser areas with higher capacity transit, and any OL extension westwards would take decades - I don't see it coming before 2040.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
5,981
Agreed that these shouldn't all be the "Ontario Line" and could certainly be segmented into different services. The Kipling/427/Pearson link for instance could be built prior to an OL West and be a distinct line entirely. Rather the notion of using light metros is the benefit there. And for the 407, I believe itll be lower frequency and more akin to a GO line, if not directly called a GO line (in the vein of GO ALRT, GO-urban, etc). I wouldnt mind seeing longer trains for that given so much of it will hopefully be at-grade and in greenfields, but I only say that if incremental cost permits.
Smaller trains run more frequently is more useful, especially if they are ATC anyway.
 

sunnyside

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
165
Reaction score
253
That's a thought. I have always seen the logical place for OL to go as up Jane or Dufferin, but perhaps you're not wrong. That being said, where does OL go from Exhibition?

I see a couple of options. The first is a line down Queensway. This is fairly straight, but there's perhaps less room to put another rail corridor south of High Park. A logical extension would be to build Waterfront West LRT, then connect a median LRT down Queensway to that (or the 507. Your choice).

DRL West was always going to go up towards B-D. However, there's no logical route north of Exhibition for it to follow.

We could permanently terminate it at Exhibition but that leaves extra capacity through downtown. One thought could be to turn it up Roncesvalles, and have the KING car terminate at the carhouse. It would go towards the Junction and perhaps terminate at Eglinton (after connecting to the 512). This would mean that to get from B-D to the 504, you'd need an extra transfer. Don't know if that's worth it, and I don't even want to see the pitchforks aimed at me for that proposal.

That being said, fare integration between GO and TTC would make life easier for Humber Bay Shores residents sooner rather than later. We should be aiming to service denser areas with higher capacity transit, and any OL extension westwards would take decades - I don't see it coming before 2040.
It’s clear the government doesn’t know how to go west either. I think going up Roncesvalles addresses the downtown needs of the OL, as it isn’t all too circuitous for commuters to dip down to exhibition first. If an immediate OL extension west were announced, that would be my bet solely because it would be short, close a gap and pay the most immediate dividends- it’s the type of incremental thing you could pair with the OL north. Torontonians would prefer it and it opens the door for a future Jane extension. Could easily be done before 2040 if the government wants it to be more local.

However, this doesn’t fit into the goal of the OL becoming a regional connector. Anything in accordance though would definetely be pushed beyond 2040. Both Etobicoke-Kipling and Dufferin are precarious due to questionable demand after current plans wrap up. Does this mean we go for a spiral from Kipling to… Roncy? Hopefully not. I don’t see branching being much of an option either- Roncy would warrant full the OL service.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
5,981
The cost of adding the pair of OL tracks will be the same as the cost of adding a pair of GO tracks. Platforms for OL will actually be cheaper (shorter) than GO platforms, and there is no need to duplicate those. If OL goes to Park Lawn, then no need to add a GO Park Lawn station.

This isn't duplication, just like running Express GO + Local GO in the same corridor isn't duplication.
There is already express and local service in the Lakeshore West GO corridor. You're asking for 6 tracks with three different services, and more platforms. Just run more GO service.
 

Top