[Dr. Snoot]

Interesting that the folks featured in the article at 158 Hopedale Ave are upset (the street number is visible in the image on the article) when it doesn't look like the OL and the portal will actually touch their property.

View attachment 275237
That said, I'm certainly not a construction expert/civil engineer so maybe a lot of land near the portal will be needed. Are the lines/portal on the Metrolinx map showing the OL route even to scale? cc @crs1026 @smallspy

Maybe this is why Metrolinx said in the letter that the property "may" be needed. So I'm a little surprised the neighbours at 156 Hopedale and 15 and 17 Minton Place weren't profiled. Although maybe they didn't move in so recently. I had to visualize this so my annotated maps below.

View attachment 275235

View attachment 275236

The land might not be expropriated but there may be a temporary easement needed for construction staging or due to safety concerns. This is why Metrolinx has sent notices to many nearby property owners even where the OL might not be built directly on their land.

 

[Ritachi]

Edge to edge, I measured the distance closer to 575m, which is not far off of the 650m average distance between station stops on Line 2 between Keele and Sherbourne.

The southern station would do a better job of actually serving Flemingdon Park residents than the Crosstown station. I've put a rough box around the residents and businesses that would be a shorter walk:

View attachment 275224

Ideally there would be a pedestrian bridge over Don Mills south of St Dennis. Frankly, that intersection is borderline dangerous to cross as a pedestrian during rush hours.... too many motorists doing 80++km/h in a signed 60 zone, running reds, turning without looking, and so on.

I mean it's not a horrible station placement, definitely far more useful than the basket case that is Highway 407 station. However for those who live in the far back of your image, many would rather take the 100 Flemingdon Park bus rather than walk 400+ metres (especially in winter). The area is rather wind swept due to the high rises, I would presume most people would not want to walk any significant distance in the dead of winter, to or from the station. I am also sure that the 100 Flemingdon Park bus will terminate at the new bus terminal at "Science Centre" station with a routing something like this:

It's a bit odd but from what I've seen travelling across the city for years is that people are more likely to take a connecting bus than walk to a station in the more suburban parts of the city. This is very prominent in winter and on trips originating at any given station, there will be a larger cachement area with people walking to the station but far fewer people would walk from the station. Is there any possibility that the parking lot to the immediate west of the "Flemingdon Park" station has any chance of redevelopment? I know it's for the Science Centre but I generally don't see it used apart from school buses before the pandemic.

 

[afransen]

If people are truly concerned about capacity on OL, I could definitely get behind planning for longer platforms/trains. It should really only add significantly to cost for the underground stations. If we did it for Sheppard, it makes sense to do it for OL.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If people are truly concerned about capacity on OL, I could definitely get behind planning for longer platforms/trains. It should really only add significantly to cost for the underground stations. If we did it for Sheppard, it makes sense to do it for OL.

Or just use the rockets

 

[micheal_can]

Line 2 still uses block based signalling rather than the ATC that is currently under construction on Line 1 (it is already turned on between Queen and VMC). ATC means that trains can travel far closer to each other, thus operate at much higher frequency.

If people are truly concerned about capacity on OL, I could definitely get behind planning for longer platforms/trains. It should really only add significantly to cost for the underground stations. If we did it for Sheppard, it makes sense to do it for OL.

Or just use the rockets

If you are trying to relieve the busiest line in the city with another line, then it should theoretically be able to handle the same amount of ridership. This is the issue with going to smaller cars/platforms, etc.

 

[afransen]

Or just use the rockets

No, you can't just use rockets without changing the entire design to allow for wide turn radius, shallower grades and heavier elevated sections.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Interesting that the folks featured in the article at 158 Hopedale Ave are upset (the street number is visible in the image on the article) when it doesn't look like the OL and the portal will actually touch their property.

View attachment 275237
That said, I'm certainly not a construction expert/civil engineer so maybe a lot of land near the portal will be needed. Are the lines/portal on the Metrolinx map showing the OL route even to scale? cc @crs1026 @smallspy

Maybe this is why Metrolinx said in the letter that the property "may" be needed. So I'm a little surprised the neighbours at 156 Hopedale and 15 and 17 Minton Place weren't profiled. Although maybe they didn't move in so recently. I had to visualize this so my annotated maps below.

View attachment 275235

View attachment 275236

It will depend on whether they'll use the hillside to extract the TBM and create the portal (the green lines). Will the trees on the hillside lose out or will the homes?

 

[warrens]

Maybe I'm missing something but this plan (the Ontario Line in general) seems pretty ill-considered compared to the Relief Line. I also wonder if the smaller, shorter trains are going to result in a Canada Line-type scenario where the Ontario Line will be running over capacity soon after opening. And all the added turns in the new alignment don't seem desirable from a speed/operational perspective.

Too many people are still far too rosy-eyed about the real Relief Line South plans. RLS only really attempted to solve one major problem: congestion at Bloor/Yonge. That's it. Precisely zero of the other subway stations being built along the route were solving any significant capacity problem in a significant way. I'm sure some GO commuters would've transferred at Gerrard, too, providing some relief at Union. But the Gerrad station design was absolutely horrible, with five long escalators required to get from the Lakeshore East GO track level to the Relief Line track level. Five escalators. FIVE. ESCALATORS. Plus, if GO and TTC fares are still separate like it is today, then people who'd normally walk from Union to Adelaide/Queen businesses through the PATH would probably not be interested in paying the additional TTC fare.

Aside from that, the RLS stops at Queen/Carlaw, Broadview and King/Sumach were all pretty pointless. Heck, the original plan was to put a stop at Queen & Pape! No transit planner would ever look at a map of Toronto, point to that intersection, and say, "Yes! That's the spot!"

If we're going to spend hundreds of millions of $$$ on subway stations instead of, oh, I don't know, affordable housing or something, could we at least put them where they'll do the most good for the most people? Surely that's reasonable, yeah? Corktown is almost unquestionably a better spot than King/Sumach. There is a ton of residential + office density there already, with a lot more to come. Plus it serves the Distillery district, all the co-op housing south of the Esplanade that most people forget is there, and it's also within reasonable walking distance of the vast swaths of new development going up south of the Gardiner & west of Cherry.

East Harbour is going to prove to be a lot better than Queen/Broadview in the long run, too. The plan is to build a large new district south of Eastern & east of the DVP, with a lot more traffic than Queen/Broadview will ever see on its own.

The RLS Yonge & University stations were both also designed to maximize connectivity with the Sheraton Hotel and City Hall, at the expense of good-quality connections to Line 1. The new design puts the OL platforms directly underneath the Line 1 platforms, which will be more efficient for more people.

.....

And that's before we get to all the other "relief" benefits of having station stops at Exhibition GO (which provides more relief at Union), King/Bathurst (which gets people off the sardine-can 504 streetcars), and an Eglinton Crosstown connection (which provides relief on both Line 1 and Line 2).

 

[NoahB]

Too many people are still far too rosy-eyed about the real Relief Line South plans. RLS only really attempted to solve one major problem: congestion at Bloor/Yonge. That's it. Precisely zero of the other subway stations being built along the route were solving any significant capacity problem in a significant way. I'm sure some a few GO commuters would've transferred at Gerrard, too, providing some relief at Union. But the Gerrad station design was absolutely horrible, with five long escalators required to get from the Lakeshore East GO track level to the Relief Line track level. Five escalators. FIVE. ESCALATORS. Plus, if GO and TTC fares are still separate like it is today, then people who'd normally walk from Union to Adelaide/Queen businesses through the PATH would probably not be interested in paying the additional TTC fare.

Aside from that, the RLS stops at Queen/Carlaw, Broadview and King/Sumach were all pretty pointless. Heck, the original plan was to put a stop at Queen & Pape! No transit planner would ever look at a map of Toronto, point to that intersection, and say, "Yes! That's the spot!"

If we're going to spend hundreds of millions of $$$ on subway stations instead of, oh, I don't know, affordable housing or something, could we at least put them where they'll do the most good for the most people? Surely that's reasonable, yeah? Corktown is almost unquestionably a better spot than King/Sumach. There is a ton of residential + office density there already, with a lot more to come. Plus it serves the Distillery district, all the co-op housing south of the Esplanade that most people forget is there, and it's also within reasonable walking distance of the vast swaths of new development going up south of the Gardiner & west of Cherry.

East Harbour is going to prove to be a lot better than Queen/Broadview in the long run, too. The plan is to build a large new district south of Eastern & east of the DVP, with a lot more traffic than Queen/Broadview will ever see on its own.

The RLS Yonge & University stations were both also designed to maximize connectivity with the Sheritan Hotel and City Hall, at the expense of good-quality connections to Line 1. The new design puts the OL platforms directly underneath the Line 1 platforms, which will be more efficient for more people.

.....

And that's before we get to all the other "relief" benefits of having station stops at Exhibition GO (which provides more relief at Union), King/Bathurst (which gets people off the sardine-can 504 streetcars), and an Eglinton Crosstown connection (which provides relief on both Line 1 and Line 2).

⬆⬆⬆⬆This. A hundred times this.⬆⬆⬆⬆

 

[slapped_chicken]

If you are trying to relieve the busiest line in the city with another line, then it should theoretically be able to handle the same amount of ridership. This is the issue with going to smaller cars/platforms, etc.

Ideally that's what they should aim for. Thère is benefit to using the narrower trains, so I think building roughed out space for platform extensions on the underground stations is a good idea if ML cares any about future-proofing. Someone also mentioned that it could begin to fail at capacity a lot sooner during peak. I think we need to look more at how much people will be using this line at rush hour during the early years; if it's as high as Line 1 during rush hour, that's concerning.

Also its notable that Line 1 is the busiest metro line in North America outside of NYC. So it really is a high standard if OL is built to its capacity.

 

[warrens]

No, you can't just use rockets without changing the entire design to allow for wide turn radius, shallower grades and heavier elevated sections.

Larger station boxes, too (my calculation is 20%), whether the needs of each neighbourhood merit it or not. Cosburn and Moss Park are great places for stops, IMO, but it's almost impossible to perceive either of them being busier than Main Street or High Park in the next 50 years. A 100m-ish platform ought to be more than enough.

 

[99Messier]

Larger station boxes, too (my calculation is 20%), whether the needs of each neighbourhood merit it or not. Cosburn and Moss Park are great places for stops, IMO, but it's almost impossible to perceive either of them being busier than Main Street or High Park in the next 50 years. A 100m-ish platform ought to be more than enough.

140m stations at interchanges. When needed, the first two cars don't line up with the platform north of Danforth. South of Danforth, it's the last two cars that don't line up. At the interchange stations (Pape, East Harbour, Queen, Osgoode), the platform is big enough for all cars to line up at platform. Passengers will figure this out soon enough and they either board the middle train car, or walk through the inside of their train to reach the appropriate car.

If Yonge-Bloor had a 170m platform, I am sure that Line 1 would have 7 car trains today.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Too many people are still far too rosy-eyed about the real Relief Line South plans. RLS only really attempted to solve one major problem: congestion at Bloor/Yonge. That's it. Precisely zero of the other subway stations being built along the route were solving any significant capacity problem in a significant way. I'm sure some GO commuters would've transferred at Gerrard, too, providing some relief at Union. But the Gerrad station design was absolutely horrible, with five long escalators required to get from the Lakeshore East GO track level to the Relief Line track level. Five escalators. FIVE. ESCALATORS. Plus, if GO and TTC fares are still separate like it is today, then people who'd normally walk from Union to Adelaide/Queen businesses through the PATH would probably not be interested in paying the additional TTC fare.

Aside from that, the RLS stops at Queen/Carlaw, Broadview and King/Sumach were all pretty pointless. Heck, the original plan was to put a stop at Queen & Pape! No transit planner would ever look at a map of Toronto, point to that intersection, and say, "Yes! That's the spot!"

If we're going to spend hundreds of millions of $$$ on subway stations instead of, oh, I don't know, affordable housing or something, could we at least put them where they'll do the most good for the most people? Surely that's reasonable, yeah? Corktown is almost unquestionably a better spot than King/Sumach. There is a ton of residential + office density there already, with a lot more to come. Plus it serves the Distillery district, all the co-op housing south of the Esplanade that most people forget is there, and it's also within reasonable walking distance of the vast swaths of new development going up south of the Gardiner & west of Cherry.

East Harbour is going to prove to be a lot better than Queen/Broadview in the long run, too. The plan is to build a large new district south of Eastern & east of the DVP, with a lot more traffic than Queen/Broadview will ever see on its own.

The RLS Yonge & University stations were both also designed to maximize connectivity with the Sheraton Hotel and City Hall, at the expense of good-quality connections to Line 1. The new design puts the OL platforms directly underneath the Line 1 platforms, which will be more efficient for more people.

.....

And that's before we get to all the other "relief" benefits of having station stops at Exhibition GO (which provides more relief at Union), King/Bathurst (which gets people off the sardine-can 504 streetcars), and an Eglinton Crosstown connection (which provides relief on both Line 1 and Line 2).

I'd say the OL is better than the RLS, but the OL is decidedly inferior to the RLN + RLS. The RLS + RLN remains the only proposal we've seen that can effectively relieve Line 1. Both the RLS and the OL fall well short of providing adequate Yonge Line relief (only the RLN would have the Yonge Line operating within capacity), and it's questionable whether or not the OL can ever be extended to provided Yonge Line relief without going overcapacity itself.

Of course these deficiencies with the OL could be solved with bigger trains, but alas Metrolinx works in mysterious ways.

I'd say RLS + RLN is better for long term futureproofing (I have no doubt that RLS+RLN would effectively serve Toronto well for decades to come), but if you just want something built now, without worrying about phasing and the associated political ramifications, the OL is probably better, despite it not solving the Yonge Line crowding issue.

 

[micheal_can]

Ideally that's what they should aim for. Thère is benefit to using the narrower trains, so I think building roughed out space for platform extensions on the underground stations is a good idea if ML cares any about future-proofing. Someone also mentioned that it could begin to fail at capacity a lot sooner during peak. I think we need to look more at how much people will be using this line at rush hour during the early years; if it's as high as Line 1 during rush hour, that's concerning.

Also its notable that Line 1 is the busiest metro line in North America outside of NYC. So it really is a high standard if OL is built to its capacity.

Wouldn't it suck if day one of operations peak times is as congested as Line 1?
Being able to use longer trains is a good idea, but the stations, especially the interchanges need to be built for the realities of the area, and for the future of the line.

As far as who will be using it, we need to figure out where existing riders are going and what role this line can play to move them off of line 1 along Yonge. If they are going along Yonge St or to Union, this line will do nothing for them.

 

[warrens]

I mean it's not a horrible station placement, definitely far more useful than the basket case that is Highway 407 station. However for those who live in the far back of your image, many would rather take the 100 Flemingdon Park bus rather than walk 400+ metres (especially in winter). The area is rather wind swept due to the high rises, I would presume most people would not want to walk any significant distance in the dead of winter, to or from the station. I am also sure that the 100 Flemingdon Park bus will terminate at the new bus terminal at "Science Centre" station with a routing something like this:
View attachment 275250

It's a bit odd but from what I've seen travelling across the city for years is that people are more likely to take a connecting bus than walk to a station in the more suburban parts of the city. This is very prominent in winter and on trips originating at any given station, there will be a larger cachement area with people walking to the station but far fewer people would walk from the station. Is there any possibility that the parking lot to the immediate west of the "Flemingdon Park" station has any chance of redevelopment? I know it's for the Science Centre but I generally don't see it used apart from school buses before the pandemic.

Good post and good points. I didn't give any thought to the existing 100 bus. I think you're right, this will completely change when the OL opens. Aruably there will be no need to go all the way down to Broadview anymore, so maybe the south end of the route could loop around Laird and Wicksteed instead. The current 56 Laird bus would then be completely obsolete.