Toronto Ontario Line | ?m | ?s

T3G said:
I thought the current project was just referred to as the "Ontario Line", and that "west" referred to potential future extensions west of Exhibition. Apart from splitting up the contracts into sections, is there any other literature that presents these as separate sections?

If someone presented one project as three separate projects that they are delivering all at the same time, I would think they were fudging the count to make it seem like more transit was delivered than actually has been.
Click to expand...
People are saying Relief Line West, not Ontario Line West. Those are two different things.

It's being referred as 3 projects to distinguish with the smaller RL. Ontario Line adds some mileage towards the north and west of the original RL and it's easier to say RL west instead of saying Osgoode-Exhibition, and RL north instead of Pape-Science Centre. If a longer OL is being delivered instead of a shorter RL, then showing it as 3 projects for purely ease of discussion is by no means fudging.
 
Deadpool X said:
People are saying Relief Line West, not Ontario Line West. Those are two different things.

It's being referred as 3 projects to distinguish with the smaller RL. Ontario Line adds some mileage towards the north and west of the original RL and it's easier to say RL west instead of saying Osgoode-Exhibition, and RL north instead of Pape-Science Centre. If a longer OL is being delivered instead of a shorter RL, then showing it as 3 projects for purely ease of discussion is by no means fudging.
Click to expand...
The fact is Relief Line is dead. The city/TTC is banned from planning anymore subways so their won't be a RL west or RL north. All the studies that the city did went to the trash can.

We never knew where exactly would RL west end up as there was no completed studies nor is there a preliminary decision. One thing is clear is it would not likely end up at Exhibition. I believe we should stop using the term Relief Line all together as that is now a fantasy line. It's easier to say RL west but it is not technically correct to refer it as the western segment of OL. RL north was not finalized either so who knows if it would end up at Science Centre or not.

Personally I think Ontario Line is a better name than Relief Line. It would be named after this great province than so lousy name cause the system is negatively overflowing with riders. They might as well call it Toronto Line as it passes through downtown/city hall. Although I'm not a fan of ML coiling their own names like Eglinton Crosstown West Extension instead of Eglinton West LRT but it made sense as it's not a "LRT" anymore. Scarborough Subway Extension is way better than the TTC calling it Line 2 East Extension.
 
Steve X said:
The fact is Relief Line is dead. The city/TTC is banned from planning anymore subways so their won't be a RL west or RL north. All the studies that the city did went to the trash can.

We never knew where exactly would RL west end up as there was no completed studies nor is there a preliminary decision. One thing is clear is it would not likely end up at Exhibition. I believe we should stop using the term Relief Line all together as that is now a fantasy line. It's easier to say RL west but it is not technically correct to refer it as the western segment of OL. RL north was not finalized either so who knows if it would end up at Science Centre or not.

Personally I think Ontario Line is a better name than Relief Line. It would be named after this great province than so lousy name cause the system is negatively overflowing with riders. They might as well call it Toronto Line as it passes through downtown/city hall. Although I'm not a fan of ML coiling their own names like Eglinton Crosstown West Extension instead of Eglinton West LRT but it made sense as it's not a "LRT" anymore. Scarborough Subway Extension is way better than the TTC calling it Line 2 East Extension.
Click to expand...

In regards to the other projects that are extensions, those are just project names. The Eglinton Crosstown West Extension will be part of Line 5 Eglinton after opening and SSE will just be Line 2.
 
The Ontario/Relief line was never going to be called either of those names by the general public after opening. It's just going to be a number like the rest. Maybe the street names will stick for lines that follow a single street but that obviously doesn't apply for the OL. Doug Ford will be long gone by the time it's open so his name for it will likely be a historical footnote for transit nerds by the time people are actually riding it.
 
Steve X said:
The fact is Relief Line is dead. The city/TTC is banned from planning anymore subways so their won't be a RL west or RL north. All the studies that the city did went to the trash can.

We never knew where exactly would RL west end up as there was no completed studies nor is there a preliminary decision. One thing is clear is it would not likely end up at Exhibition. I believe we should stop using the term Relief Line all together as that is now a fantasy line. It's easier to say RL west but it is not technically correct to refer it as the western segment of OL. RL north was not finalized either so who knows if it would end up at Science Centre or not.

Personally I think Ontario Line is a better name than Relief Line. It would be named after this great province than so lousy name cause the system is negatively overflowing with riders. They might as well call it Toronto Line as it passes through downtown/city hall. Although I'm not a fan of ML coiling their own names like Eglinton Crosstown West Extension instead of Eglinton West LRT but it made sense as it's not a "LRT" anymore. Scarborough Subway Extension is way better than the TTC calling it Line 2 East Extension.
Click to expand...
The city/TTC is banned from planning subways? really? is that true? seems like thats a very bad thing
 
ciceror said:
The city/TTC is banned from planning subways? really? is that true? seems like thats a very bad thing
Click to expand...
They're not. They're banned from planning subways next to what Metrolinx is planning, so they can't compete with what Metrolinx is doing. However, if the TTC decided to raise money for say a Dufferin Street Subway, technically nothing is stopping them.
 
ARG1 said:
They're not. They're banned from planning subways next to what Metrolinx is planning, so they can't compete with what Metrolixn is doing. However, if the TTC decided to raise money for say a Dufferin Street Subway, technically nothing is stopping them.
Click to expand...
However, if they want it to be an "extension" to the Ontario Line, they would have to genuflect and kiss the ring finger of Metrolinx first.

If the city wanted to "extend" the Sheppard Subway west and then all the way south on Dufferin, they could. ;)
Unlikely of course.
 
W. K. Lis said:
However, if they want it to be an "extension" to the Ontario Line, they would have to genuflect and kiss the ring finger of Metrolinx first.

If the city wanted to "extend" the Sheppard Subway west and then all the way south on Dufferin, they could. ;)
Unlikely of course.
Click to expand...
They would of made sense
 
ARG1 said:
They're not. They're banned from planning subways next to what Metrolinx is planning, so they can't compete with what Metrolinx is doing. However, if the TTC decided to raise money for say a Dufferin Street Subway, technically nothing is stopping them.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly. The City/TTC planned an Eglinton East extension (which has now seemingly become a separate line due to design issues), because it wasn't in Metrolinx's immediate plan and as such they were okay with the TTC taking the lead on it. The current rules are that the City can plan rapid transit, as long as they run it by Metrolinx to avoid any conflicts. It's hardly a ban. There's a reason the Transportation Expansion office at the city still exists. Although I guess that doesn't fit nicely into any specific partisan narrative of CITY/TTC BAD or METROLINX BAD. It's just like, Metrolinx has it's priorities, and the TTC/City is free to work on anything outside of that, not that the City will, as that would require raising property taxes.
 
nfitz said:
I suppose if ATC had existed in 1966, then they might have been able to pull off the original configuration.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a way to eliminate the need to transfer.
I think whether it works or not would depend on the ridership on each branch and whether inter-lining would provide enough service on the branches.
The most affected by a reduction in frequency would be the Vaughan-St George segment of Line 1.
 
Steve X said:
The city/TTC is banned from planning anymore subways so their won't be a RL west or RL north.
Click to expand...
The city is not banned from planning any more subways. The exclusion only applies to a short list of rapid transit projects, under Section 46 of the Metrolinx Act. Also, it does not include any prohibitions on planning. The prohibition is on "design, develop, construct or work on".

The three projects are listed in Ontario Regulation 248/19 as:
  1. The project for a subway line located in the City of Toronto known as the Relief Line, including, for greater certainty, both the portion of the project known as the Relief Line South and the portion of the project known as the Relief Line North.

  2. The project for a subway extension located in the City of Toronto known as the Scarborough Subway Extension and also known as the Line 2 East Extension.

  3. The project for a subway extension extending from within the City of Toronto to within the Regional Municipality of York known as the Yonge Subway Extension and also known as the Yonge North Subway Extension.
It doesn't even cover the Eglinton West extension of Crosstown to Renforth station. Or even the already announced extension of Line 4 east of Don Mills.

There is nothing currently to preclude the city from designing a subway for the RL west. Though I can't see why they'd bother.

If the City were to start designing and building an extension of Line 2 to Sherway Gardens or Line 4 to Sheppard West station, then there's nothing stopping them!
 
Last edited:
@nfitz Yes you're right the the regulation right now doesn't prohibits the city from making a Line 2 to Sherway.

I guess I should rephase it to the city/TTC isn't "legally" banned but "de facto" banned from planning unless the financial situation changes. Queens Park/ML would not fund anything they aren't in charge. Even in the Liberal era, they took the planning off TTC's hands for Line 5 and 6 and secretly made changes. Queens Park also controls how much financial sources the city could generate income so it's pretty much impossible for the city to build anything Queens Park isn't interested in. I.e. Eglinton East LRT and waterfront LRT. Good plans, don't know when they'll even get a shovel in the ground.
 
officedweller said:
I think whether it works or not would depend on the ridership on each branch and whether inter-lining would provide enough service on the branches.
The most affected by a reduction in frequency would be the Vaughan-St George segment of Line 1.
Click to expand...
It's more of a challenge now there's three possible branches for a (say) northbound train at Museum. I see little chance it would ever happen.

Even if you ran a train every 90 seconds on Yonge-University, line, that's only one every 4.5 minutes heading up to Spadina.

Though I've long said that the only long-term solution for Spadina is a subway - with a spacing similar to Yonge. So if you build a spur/extension off Line 1 (southbound) at Spadina station (aka Lowther), and build a new platform under Spadina station at Bloor, then run the subway all the way down Spadina. Then you could end service on Line 1 between St. George and Spadina (Lowther), except for service vehicles, and resume the 3-line wye operations, same as in 1966.

The new line down Spadina past the new King/Spadina Ontario Line station, and could even eventually then turn east - say at Wellington or somewhere south or somewhere, and provide links to St. Andrew, King, and/or Union Station.

I doubt it would ever happen though. Anyhow, we are majorly off-topic.

Steve X said:
Yes you're right the the regulation right now doesn't prohibits the city from making a Line 2 to Sherway.

I guess I should rephase it to the city/TTC isn't "legally" banned but "de facto" banned from planning unless the financial situation changes. Queens Park/ML would not fund anything they aren't in charge. Even in the Liberal era, they took the planning off TTC's hands for Line 5 and 6 and secretly made changes. Queens Park also controls how much financial sources the city could generate income so it's pretty much impossible for the city to build anything Queens Park isn't interested in. I.e. Eglinton East LRT and waterfront LRT. Good plans, don't know when they'll even get a shovel in the ground.
Click to expand...
Though with funding still being lined up for the Line 4 east extension, the resurrected Scarborough-Malvern Transit City line (TTC's Line 7), the Waterfront East LRT/streetcar. The Line 5 extension from Renforth to Pearson ... then I'd expect there won't be opportunity to even fund any proper design before the next election.

There's no reason the city shouldn't work on some of these projects, many years in advance, to at least nail down the projects, so that they could proceed sometime after 2030 or so. Projects line the two remaining Transit City lines - Jane and some kind of Waterfront West connection from Exhibition to Queensway (and perhaps on Bremner). And yes, subway extensions to Sherway. (though probably the best way to do the latter, is to convince Mississauga that Mississauga wants it, and spends their political capital ... :) )
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Top