[JSF-1]

I'd prefer it be an underground connection at Don Mills, and at Eglinton too. But I recognize that would increase cost.

True but that cost would be relatively low in comparison to the rest of the extension since it would only be at most 1 maybe 1.5km depending on where the portal is. By comparison the rest of the extension would be around 4 or 5km of elevated so the trade-off to me is quite good.

 

[Deadpool X]

Just a quick thought.

Assuming that the Ontario Line get extended, what does the alignment look like and where might the stations be? Also how would the line connect at Don Mills?

Stations: Lawrence, York Mills, ?Duncan Mills? , Sheppard, ?Peanut Plaza? (Probably too small for a station), Finch (or Seneca College), ?Steeles?

If the line remains elevated then the transfer at Sheppard will be quite inconvenient. And going north of Finch will be nearly impossible because of power lines. Also building a bridge over 19 lanes of 401 traffic seems expensive.

So the line will probably go back underground somewhere north of York Mills. That seems like the most convenient place to find the space needed for a tunnel portal.



Also will they ever swap the Science Center and Flemingdon Park station names?

I am not too concerned with the interchange situation at Don Mills. Majority of the people on Sheppard subway heading downtown will take the Yonge line instead of backtracking to OL. Only if Sheppard gets extended (a big if), then that would a problem for passengers coming from the east. Although, future proofing is always better.

A bridge over 401 should be doable, given we already have a bridge like that on University line near Yorkdale which not only crosses 401 but also does that right in the middle of a 3 level interchange.

 

[NoahB]

I know it is highly expensive and challenging. However, the OL should not be also called a relief line. I'll bet within 5 years of it opening, Bloor-Yonge Station will still be just as busy.

This goes back to what is the purpose of the OL.

You dont need to bet. The RL reports clearly stated that the Yonge Line will be at capacity again within 10-15 years (if I remember correctly) after the RL North is built. This is not related to the Relief Line/ Ontario Line being at capacity. It's more proportional to the people the Ontario Line/RL will not catch before they bus to Yonge. That is mainly people coming from north of Finch and west of Yonge.

(edit: I was not remembering accurately. The graph I posted below shows that it was expected to not reach capacity at 2041. The graph and document I saw were not clear about the size of the capacity-demand headroom. So I cant comment on it further.)

The Ontario Line is planned to take 15 percent of traffic from the Yonge Line. That only buys the mentioned 10-15 years. Right away, Toronto will have to start building another relief line west of Yonge as soon as the Ontario Line is finished. (and hopefully at the same time as an extension to Shepperd is being built)

Maybe the Ontario Line can go further west and then north and create a second U. Or maybe a Bay Street/Avenue subway might appear. But who knows how things will play out.

 

[Tuck]

A city that continues to grow will always continue to need more infrastructure. The relief line is not and must not be the last investment in transit this city makes, or we will soon find ourselves right back in the position we are in now.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

You dont need to bet. The RL reports clearly stated that the Yonge Line will be at capacity again within 10-15 years (if I remember correctly) after the RL North is built.

I think you've getting the Relief Line South confused with the Relief Line North.

With the Relief Line South alone, the Yonge Line was projected have have peak ridership of 26,400 pphpd. Further, given that the portions of Line 1 north of Bloor are already overcrowded today, those portions would've likely remained overcrowded, as the RLS does nothing to address crowding north of Bloor. Overall, the RLS alone would be ineffective at relieving the Yonge Line.

The Relief Line North was projected to have the Yonge Line running at peak ridership of 20,00 pphpd. This is the same peak hour ridership as was projected for the Relief Line North (20,000 pphpd). 20,000 pphpd is well within the 35,000 pphpd capacity limits of the Yonge Line.

The Ontario Line will perform similarly to the RLS, in the sense that it doesn't go far enough north to provide long term relief to the Yonge Line. Extending the Ontario Line north would solve that issue, although it remains to be seen if the OL has the capacity to accommodate said extension.

 

[ARG1]

I think you've getting the Relief Line South confused with the Relief Line North.

With the Relief Line South alone, the Yonge Line was projected have have peak ridership of 26,400 pphpd. Further, given that the portions of Line 1 north of Bloor are already overcrowded today, those portions would've likely remained overcrowded, as the RLS does nothing to address crowding north of Bloor. Overall, the RLS alone would be ineffective at relieving the Yonge Line.

The Relief Line North was projected to have the Yonge Line running at peak ridership of 20,00 pphpd. This is the same peak hour ridership as was projected for the Relief Line North (20,000 pphpd). 20,000 pphpd is well within the 35,000 pphpd capacity limits of the Yonge Line.

The Ontario Line will perform similarly to the RLS, in the sense that it doesn't go far enough north to provide long term relief to the Yonge Line. Extending the Ontario Line north would solve that issue, although it remains to be seen if the OL has the capacity to accommodate said extension.

Its also important to note the timelines. RLS was to be built by 2029 (2030 if we're being realistic), which is similar to what the current projects for OL are. A 6km extension of the OL north to sheppard that is fully or mostly elevated would be comparably easy to plan and build, giving that an opening date of ~2035. RLN on the other hand probably wouldn't open by 2040.

 

[micheal_can]

I don't think the OL would extend beyond Sheppard if there is a phase 2 for the OL. I can see the line remaining elevated until it dives underground before Don Mills Station. I sure hope Metrolinx swaps the Science Centre and Flemingdon Park names considering that Flemingdon Park on the OL would be much closer to the Science Centre than the Line 5 station.

Why wouldn't it extend to Markham? Maybe Unionvlle GO or another GO station can become an intermodal hub. This would draw the people away from going to RH and crowding Line 1.

You dont need to bet. The RL reports clearly stated that the Yonge Line will be at capacity again within 10-15 years (if I remember correctly) after the RL North is built. This is not related to the Relief Line/ Ontario Line being at capacity. It's more proportional to the people the Ontario Line/RL will not catch before they bus to Yonge. That is mainly people coming from north of Finch and west of Yonge.

The Ontario Line is planned to take 15 percent of traffic from the Yonge Line. That only buys the mentioned 10-15 years. Right away, Toronto will have to start building another relief line west of Yonge as soon as the Ontario Line is finished. (and hopefully at the same time as an extension to Shepperd is being built)

Maybe the Ontario Line can go further west and then north and create a second U. Or maybe a Bay Street/Avenue subway might appear. But who knows how things will play out.

Then quit calling this a relief line..... This line and many others are needed. The fact the government has stopped calling it a relief line is good.

I think you've getting the Relief Line South confused with the Relief Line North.

With the Relief Line South alone, the Yonge Line was projected have have peak ridership of 26,400 pphpd. Further, given that the portions of Line 1 north of Bloor are already overcrowded today, those portions would've likely remained overcrowded, as the RLS does nothing to address crowding north of Bloor. Overall, the RLS alone would be ineffective at relieving the Yonge Line.

The Relief Line North was projected to have the Yonge Line running at peak ridership of 20,00 pphpd. This is the same peak hour ridership as was projected for the Relief Line North (20,000 pphpd). 20,000 pphpd is well within the 35,000 pphpd capacity limits of the Yonge Line.

The Ontario Line will perform similarly to the RLS, in the sense that it doesn't go far enough north to provide long term relief to the Yonge Line. Extending the Ontario Line north would solve that issue, although it remains to be seen if the OL has the capacity to accommodate said extension.

When the OL is extended to Markham, it still won't put a big enough dent into the congestion of Line 1. Yes, it will draw that many riders, but the city will still grow, so the number of transit users will only go up.

A city that continues to grow will always continue to need more infrastructure. The relief line is not and must not be the last investment in transit this city makes, or we will soon find ourselves right back in the position we are in now.

I agree. If they build this and think they are done, then things will have not gotten better. Ideally, once one project is done, a new one should start. The city needs it.

 

[NoahB]

I think you've getting the Relief Line South confused with the Relief Line North.

With the Relief Line South alone, the Yonge Line was projected have have peak ridership of 26,400 pphpd. Further, given that the portions of Line 1 north of Bloor are already overcrowded today, those portions would've likely remained overcrowded, as the RLS does nothing to address crowding north of Bloor. Overall, the RLS alone would be ineffective at relieving the Yonge Line.

I was very specific in including the Relief Line North. Here is the graph I was thinking of from this PDF:

It has no numbers so it's hard to gauge. The red line is capacity in 2041. I was remembering it thinking that it showed that the demand will be close capacity at 2041. But without a scale, it is hard to read the graph. So nevermind then.

The Relief Line North was projected to have the Yonge Line running at peak ridership of 20,00 pphpd. This is the same peak hour ridership as was projected for the Relief Line North (20,000 pphpd). 20,000 pphpd is well within the 35,000 pphpd capacity limits of the Yonge Line.

Do you mind sharing where I can find the 20k number? I'm curious to read it. The RLN bringing down the demand to 20k in 2041 would have been quite the achievement. The Ontario Line is projected to bring down demand by 12-15%. That would be 4,800-6,000 less ('Refined Operating Concept' - IBC Operating Concept)for the studied 2041 date. Note that the OL is scheduled to open a full decade before this date. This is more than enough time to plan and build an elevated extension to Shepherd. From the PDBC:

The Ontario Line will perform similarly to the RLS, in the sense that it doesn't go far enough north to provide long term relief to the Yonge Line. Extending the Ontario Line north would solve that issue, although it remains to be seen if the OL has the capacity to accommodate said extension.

There is enough time to extend to Shepherd. As a reminder, the RLN did not have an opening date and was not part of the almost shovel ready RLS, which would then take 10 years to construct. So the RLN would possibly have come closer to the 2041 date.

In terms of capacity, the line will have more capacity than the Bloor Line on a much shorter distance. I would not worried about it too much. If the 4 'priority lines' get built around the end of the decade, there will be enough time to build a second line to further relief and expand the network. (unless a new government hits the well-worn reset button)

Then quit calling this a relief line..... This line and many others are needed. The fact the government has stopped calling it a relief line is good.

You are funny. I was specifically talking about the line formally branded as the Relief Line. It has informally had that name for almost a century. So don't give me that attitude, please.

Look at my attached image above. Expanding the network coverage between the existing lines with many connections to them has a relieving effect on all the lines it runs between.

 

[WislaHD]

It's quite intuitive that the more major bus routes that the Ontario Line intercepts, the better relief it provides to the Yonge Line. Up to Sheppard is a no-brainer, but eventually extensions to Finch and Steeles should be desired.

After Steeles, it is less clear what route to take. In terms of intercepting more Yonge riders, the only real opportunity remaining to intercept a large pool of riders is from the Yonge North corridor by veering the line west to Langstaff GO. Richmond Hill transit users would have a quicker ride downtown via an Ontario Line than via the Yonge Line at Langstaff GO, due to higher operating speeds and wider stop-spacing on the Ontario Line.

But if the goal wasn't exclusively to reduce the burden on the Yonge Line, then it might be preferable to send the line up to Markham, and build up a high-density cluster around Leslie & Hwy-7 or Woodbine & Hwy-7, much the same way as what's going on at VMC.

 

[MisterF]

There is enough time to extend to Shepherd. As a reminder, the RLN did not have an opening date and was not part of the almost shovel ready RLS, which would then take 10 years to construct. So the RLN would possibly have come closer to the 2041 date.

It could have been sooner if made a priority. Planning for RLN was a few years behind RLS, and simpler due to not tunneling through the downtown core. They could have started building it soon after construction on RLS started and it could have opened at close to the same time. I guess we'll never know thanks to the aforementioned reset button.

It's quite intuitive that the more major bus routes that the Ontario Line intercepts, the better relief it provides to the Yonge Line. Up to Sheppard is a no-brainer, but eventually extensions to Finch and Steeles should be desired.

After Steeles, it is less clear what route to take. In terms of intercepting more Yonge riders, the only real opportunity remaining to intercept a large pool of riders is from the Yonge North corridor by veering the line west to Langstaff GO. Richmond Hill transit users would have a quicker ride downtown via an Ontario Line than via the Yonge Line at Langstaff GO, due to higher operating speeds and wider stop-spacing on the Ontario Line.

But if the goal wasn't exclusively to reduce the burden on the Yonge Line, then it might be preferable to send the line up to Markham, and build up a high-density cluster around Leslie & Hwy-7 or Woodbine & Hwy-7, much the same way as what's going on at VMC.

I wouldn't hold my breath for Markham. Markham Centre will already have subway-like service on the Stouffville line. Duplicating that with a subway extension doesn't seem like the wisest use of resources.

 

[NoahB]

It could have been sooner if made a priority. Planning for RLN was a few years behind RLS, and simpler due to not tunneling through the downtown core. They could have started building it soon after construction on RLS started and it could have opened at close to the same time. I guess we'll never know thanks to the aforementioned reset button.

Could've should've would've ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They could have made it a priority but didnt, they could have designed and tendered the two segments at the same time but didn't. When the Ontario Line was announced, the RLS was preparing the tunneling tenders. The RLN didn't even have a perefered route yet. It was way behind.

Today I noticed something interesting about the Relief Line Update PDF from Metrolinx. The last slide/Appendix is a collection of photos of "International Examples Of Subway-Level Service". Almost all the examples shown are of metros with shorter and thinner trains than the Toronto TRs. 3 of them are automated lines with rolling stock under 2.7m wide and 100m long. It's as if they knew/planned to derail the Relief Line after studying the RLN project and wanted to replace it with something cheaper/off-the-shelf. This slide would have been comepelty unnecessary if TRs were a done deal at the time.

This is conspiracy theory territory though.

 

[north-of-anything]

Could've should've would've ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They could have made it a priority but didnt, they could have designed and tendered the two segments at the same time but didn't. When the Ontario Line was announced, the RLS was preparing the tunneling tenders. The RLN didn't even have a perefered route yet. It was way behind.

Today I noticed something interesting about the Relief Line Update PDF from Metrolinx. The last slide/Appendix is a collection of photos of "International Examples Of Subway-Level Service". Almost all the examples shown are of metros with shorter and thinner trains than the Toronto TRs. 3 of them are automated lines with rolling stock under 2.7m wide and 100m long. It's as if they knew/planned to derail the Relief Line after studying the RLN project and wanted to replace it with something cheaper/off-the-shelf. This slide would have been comepelty unnecessary if TRs were a done deal at the time.

This is conspiracy theory territory though.

This is what makes me suspect that the birth of the Ontario Line was just ProgCon branding slapped on to the plan Metrolinx was working towards all along. It still covers most of the same area, the line north of Bloor follows pretty much the ideal alignment for the south end of RLN, and people kept saying that they needed to extend it north to get any real benefit. Could it have been done more gracefully? Of course, but this also blocks Toronto from attempting to force TR technology on the route or from resurrecting the inadequate-capacity Don Mills LRT. If this really was a political hit job, it wouldn't have happened so soon after the election.

 

[officedweller]

Would using Toronto Rockets (for Relief / Ontario Line) have made it more difficult politically (with the TTC unions) to implement a fully automated solution?

 

[ARG1]

It could have been sooner if made a priority. Planning for RLN was a few years behind RLS, and simpler due to not tunneling through the downtown core. They could have started building it soon after construction on RLS started and it could have opened at close to the same time. I guess we'll never know thanks to the aforementioned reset button.


I wouldn't hold my breath for Markham. Markham Centre will already have subway-like service on the Stouffville line. Duplicating that with a subway extension doesn't seem like the wisest use of resources.

The Stouffville Line will run near Kennedy, 6km east of where the Ontario Line will end up. They're not exactly competing corridors.

 

[Rainforest]

It's quite intuitive that the more major bus routes that the Ontario Line intercepts, the better relief it provides to the Yonge Line. Up to Sheppard is a no-brainer, but eventually extensions to Finch and Steeles should be desired.

After Steeles, it is less clear what route to take. In terms of intercepting more Yonge riders, the only real opportunity remaining to intercept a large pool of riders is from the Yonge North corridor by veering the line west to Langstaff GO. Richmond Hill transit users would have a quicker ride downtown via an Ontario Line than via the Yonge Line at Langstaff GO, due to higher operating speeds and wider stop-spacing on the Ontario Line.

But if the goal wasn't exclusively to reduce the burden on the Yonge Line, then it might be preferable to send the line up to Markham, and build up a high-density cluster around Leslie & Hwy-7 or Woodbine & Hwy-7, much the same way as what's going on at VMC.

Not sure about Langstaff GO. For all the problems of the RH GO line, Ontario Line will not get from Langstaff GO to downtown faster than the RH GO trains. Enabling 3 competing ways of traveling between the Richmond Hill Centre and downtown seem counterintuitive.

If the RL / OL was implemented with mainline rail, then the suggestion to continue it up the Bala Sub towards the Langstaff GO would have some merit, allowing for an inexpensive extension north of Lawrence. But with a different technology being chosen for OL, repurposing the Bala Sub corridor is probably not an option.

Markham, on the other hand - why not. The Woodbine & Hwy-7 area has much potential, and is not served by any GO line; the Stouffville line enters Markham much further east. The only issue is whether the OL will have any spare capacity left once it hits Sheppard.