[north-of-anything]

Yep. I expect the Ontario Place leg to be lopped off immediately after the 2022 provincial election.

Chop it off at Bathurst, then we can consider having it go straight down Queen to Dufferin, and reignite the whole Dundas/Roncy/Raildeck discussion. Let GO cover what it covers.

 

[GrayLake]

Haha Ontario place... Doug Ford only think of transit as a disneyland ride not of an actual transportation method that people use to go from their homes to their work daily. Hence the monorail / ferris wheel / casino / tourist ride inspiration for every transit project he comes up with.

King west / Queen west is where transit users actually go to on a daily basis and where residential development will be located. Not counting all the commuters from the west that would transfer onto the DRL.

Luckily I doubt the western portion of the "ontario line" will be built before plans get completely revamped again...

 

[innsertnamehere]

Haha Ontario place... Doug Ford only think of transit as a disneyland ride not of an actual transportation method that people use to go from their homes to their work daily. Hence the monorail / ferris wheel / casino / tourist ride inspiration for every transit project he comes up with.

King west / Queen west is where transit users actually go to on a daily basis and where residential development will be located. Not counting all the commuters from the west that would transfer onto the DRL.

Luckily I doubt the western portion of the "ontario line" will be built before plans get completely revamped again...

Depending on alignment this could easily service those neighbourhoods as well. My preliminary guess of queen-bathurst-Lakeshore west corridor for the alignemnt would allow for several stations within easy walking distance of most major destinations in the west end.

If they drive the the south as soon as possible and run it along the lakeshore though, yea, it's not going to service those areas. We really need more details to make an informed decision.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes there is. Only a few hundred million total will flow into these projects over Ford's 1st term.

Yeahhh...there's no shortage of the word "commitment" being tossed around. The word means as much as "A signed memorandum of agreement with CN for the All-Day Two-Way on the Georgetown Corridor. Even signed agreements can mean nothing legally. Three card monte is legal too, depending on the agreement.

I'm sure I heard him say it during his speech, there is no reference to that in the documents though sooo... *shrug*

You know what? Listening to Ford is like looking at Rorschach patterns. You can read anything you like into it, it's easy to, because it's so nebulous and undefined to begin with. You might yet be proven right. Notice that all the stories have different takes on what he stated too.

Honestly if you have a better idea to deal with the overcrowding at Union station id love to hear it.

The only way it will work however is if people getting off on the Spadina GO station are allowed to ride the Ontario Line into downtown for free.

Yeahhh...So many ifs and buts on this. Metrolinx themselves aren't necessarily committed to a Spadina Station. It would create as many or more problems than it creates. A good 'Relief Line' should eliminate it being needed in the first place.

Metrolinx is full of bad ideas.

In all deference to Metrolinx, this is terrible even by some of their bloopers. Note that there's not a Metrolinx person in sight right now. I don't think this is what they proposed.

Note that the relief line now stops at Eglinton. That's not going to help the Yonge line.

Yeahhh....I almost posted that as a reply to the poster praising this (enough posters piled on to render my point moot) 'Where's the "Relief" in 'Ontario Line'? From Don Mills, a dotted line could have been included as a "future extension to York". He expects them to chip-in, best he actually run it up the present RH line from Don Mills to north of Steeles then diverge south of CN ownership into York Region. THEN they'll chip-in...maybe...lol.

So it’ll be like an RT with higher frequencies to make up for the lower capacity.

Even more than that. Modern metros do a lot more on the same track and platforms than the aging RT cars. Almost double the capacity, with a triple or more throughput due to greater speed and acceleration on the same track and carriage gauge.

So it will still be underground.

Indeterminate. The big talk is bridge over the Don. If it dives back underground both sides, into deep tunnel, it will be cheaper to bore through that gap rather than do what *appears* to be proposed.

Ford is an effective salesperson, at least to his base.

Oh God...The Springfield Monorail lives...

He's managed to make an LRT line seem like a great idea exactly where a heavy rail subway solution is needed.

Yeah, but not subway. RER.

it needs to be a higher capacity subway.

Not if you want cost effectiveness and track interoperability.

Is the proposed technology higher capacity than the Crosstown?

This is the huge question. I don't think he knows, he doesn't have the "capacity" to know. It all depends on what carriage and frequency model used, and how that can be expanded (even if it can) in the future.

The DRL model is outdated. It's now thirty years dated. London takes a radically different approach now. I've posted links on that in the string above.

 

[GrayLake]

Depending on alignment this could easily service those neighbourhoods as well. My preliminary guess of queen-bathurst-Lakeshore west corridor for the alignemnt would allow for several stations within easy walking distance of most major destinations in the west end.

If they drive the the south as soon as possible and run it along the lakeshore though, yea, it's not going to service those areas. We really need more details to make an informed decision.

Looking at the map, liberty village, CAMH are more than a kilometer away from Bathurst. Then you have anything on Dufferin, Parkdale, Roncesvale, St Joseph, all innaccessible.

 

[hw621]

Wow, and I thought that Ford couldn't get any more incompetent!

Note that the relief line now stops at Eglinton. That's not going to help the Yonge line.

Are we really going to rename this thread anytime a corrupt conman promotes a clearly unworkable hustle?

Why stopping at Eglinton won't help the Yonge Line?

 

[steveintoronto]

I have to disagree: stopping the trains just short of their destination and forcing a transfer is an awful idea. European cities are spending billions of dollars to connect disjointed rail terminals across their downtowns (e.g. RER, Crossrail, Boston) and we would be spending hundreds of millions to reduce the utility of the GO network? And even assuming that it were a good idea, we only need to look at what's happening in Scarborough to see how much money we are willing to spend to avoid a transfer, so it's clearly a political non-starter.

The Mascouche Line (which has paltry ridership) is being stopped short as a sacrifice to free up the Mount Royale tunnel, not as a ploy to prevent overcrowding of Central station. In exchange, at least they are getting easier access to the green and blue lines.

If Union station capacity is really such an issue, there are a few options that actually benefit riders:

1. Reconfigure Union station's platforms. Instead of spending 15 years transforming Union into a "retail destination," Metrolinx could have been consolidating tracks and widening platforms. In other countries there are stations with far fewer tracks than Union handling many times as many passengers as Union station (e.g. Châtelet-Les Halles ).
2. Electrify to allow shorter stop spacing, pair and through-run the trains and stop at satellite stations closer to some destinations (Spadina, Cherry) to spread out the passenger load.
3. Building a conventional DRL with convenient transfers reduces demand at Union by about 20%. Unfortunately, the current favoured design of the DRL is optimized against diverting GO ridership.
4. Having done those 3 things, the RER tunnel scheme that keeps being repeated on this forum would also divert ridership while opening up new origin/destination trips.

I tried to just quote lines in this post, but every line was getting quoted! Excellent post, but so are the last few posts above. The discourse is getting far more rational.

How much cheaper is a slightly smaller tunnel bore - why not leave them TR sized?

Virtually inconsequential. Since "London" is being used as a comparator in a number of news reports (with or without Docklands being a qualifier) what London is now doing, save for a couple of small tube extensions, is boring larger, and running mainline trains. As an example, the bore of the Great Northern tube is

the Great Northern and City Railway, which opened in 1904, was built to take main line trains from Finsbury Park to a Moorgate terminus in the City and had 16-foot (4.9 m) tunnels...

London Underground - Wikipedia

The City has designed the DRL with 5.4 m tunnels...the Great Northern @ 4.9 m tunnel is now using Class 717 trains, a third rail hybrid that runs 750VDC third rail and 25kVAC catenary, max speed, 85 mph. It's derivative parent does 100 mph but runs in a tunnel slightly larger than the DRL proposed ones, and can and does work ATO (completely automatically other than opening/closing doors, best left to a human) through the core of London.

And to top that off, VIA HFR has commissioned a study to interline with the Montreal REM reduced tunnel size through Mount Royal.
Interoperability Study to Operate HFR VIA Trains ... - SYSTRA Canada

The point is, even a tunnel as proposed by the City, let alone what the Ontario Line will be, can host a much larger number of rail modes than just what's being proposed. I think the tunnel bore should be set by Metrolinx to accommodate RER single deck EMU, and interconnection could be made where it crosses any number of existing GO lines. But to dig a straw that precludes *any* other form of heavy capacity is stupid beyond comprehension.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Looking at the map, liberty village, CAMH are more than a kilometer away from Bathurst. Then you have anything on Dufferin, Parkdale, Roncesvale, St Joseph, all innaccessible.

Liberty village is entirely an easy walk from Exhibition Go. CAMH would be a little far, yes, but it also isn't *that* huge of a ridership generator.

The major drivers of ridership in the west end is the density east of Bathurst and south of Queen, Liberty Village, and the residential around Queen and Argyle. If you ride the King or Queen streetcar regularly you will see this - the King car is very empty past Atlantic, Queen is busy but not extremely so past Dufferin.

Most growth in the area is in Liberty Village and along King West right now as well, which is all walking distance down to the Lakeshore West corridor.

It's not necessarily my preferred alignment for the DRL, but it's not a complete disaster.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the link:

The government said that although the trains would be smaller, the line would “have similar peak capacity” as the TTC’s existing Line 1 subway.

If both Line 1 and the Ontario Line will be Automated Train Control (ATC) and will "have similar peak capacity", does that mean the cars will be narrower but will have longer (more cars per train) trains?

 

[Kitsune]

Vancouvers Broadway subway timeline ... which is half the length and is extension vs new line

Broadway Subway Project

Together with the Province, we're advancing the design and construction of the Broadway Subway, a tunneled extension of the Millenium Line.

vancouver.ca

 

[GrayLake]

Liberty village is entirely an easy walk from Exhibition Go.

Right, didn't realize the terminal is actually the existing exhibition station as opposed to a new ontario place station further south. That makes a lot more sense.

 

[rbt]

If both Line 1 and the Ontario Line will be Automated Train Control (ATC) and will "have similar peak capacity", does that mean the cars will be narrower but will have longer (more cars per train) trains?

Likely closer to todays Yonge line capacity rather than future Yonge line capacity, which is sufficient for DRL peak ridership projections.

 

[steveintoronto]

Right, didn't realize the terminal is actually the existing exhibition station as opposed to a new ontario place station further south. That makes a lot more sense.

I was just consulting the stories and map again. The reason for "Ontario Line" is that it goes to Ontario Place. Confusion abounds, I'll keep checking...

Update: Some maps show both...headlines and stories state "Ontario Place", but oddly, the official release doesn't state either!
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2019/04/premier-ford-unveils-transportation-vision.html

Bait and Switch?

 

[ssiguy2]

What you people are complaining about is completely beyond me. I'm thinking that some of you are complaining just because it's Ford doing it while if it was Wynne you would be doing cartwheels.

As a person who rides a thinner automated system on Vancouver's Skytrain, I can attest that there are definite advantages to thinner and lighter trains:
1} Due to lighter weight, they require far fewer and smaller support structures where elevated, as some of this line will be, which makes then faster to build, cheaper, and less intrusive in the urban environment
2} They can make MUCH sharper turns which will be essential when the line diverts from Queen. This was one of the reasons why Vancouver went with SkyTrain......……..the original Expo line has some VERY, VERY sharp turns which a standard subway could not handle.
3} Assuming the same station length, they have capacity the same as standard subway trains due to automation which allows them to run at higher frequencies than even subways with ATC. The capacity they lose by having thinner trains can be made up by the train's ability to run more frequently. It is better to have 6 smaller trains than 5 larger ones serving the same amount of people because it allows faster passenger flows which helps reduce dwell times.
4} Due to have smaller trains/articulated section, they can handle sharper grades than even articulated standard Toronto subways.

 

[interchange42]

Right, didn't realize the terminal is actually the existing exhibition station as opposed to a new ontario place station further south. That makes a lot more sense.

Nobody realized that because the terminal location is not known yet on the Ontario/Ex Place grounds. Could be anywhere there.

42