Looking at East Harbour, the transfer is going to be seamless based on the description provided so far.

When taking a GO Train downtown in the morning from the Stouffville or Lakeshore East lines, you will get off and literally cross the platform to the westbound Ontario Line platform. It will take literally a matter of seconds, especially if the Ontario Line is running at 90 second frequencies.

In the evening reverse it.

There are a few concerns here. In the morning: people can stand during their short 3-5 min ride on the OL train after transferring at East Harbor, as long as the OL train has standing room. But what if it is packed to the brim already? If so, then many GO riders are better off staying on their train till Union, and then just walking to their downtown destination.

Things get even more interesting in the evening. Boarding an eastbound LS train at East Harbor, you will have much less chance of getting a seat than boarding the same train at Union. Is it worth using OL to make the first 5 min of your commute slightly more comfortable, but lose the chance to sit for the next 40 min or 60 min? Maybe some riders will do a bit of reverse for that reason: boarding eastbound LS trains at Exhibition, or westbound LS trains at East Harbor, and riding through Union in both cases. But then, they can't use same-platform transfer from OL to GO, because their OL train and their GO train will be going in the opposite directions.
 
Last edited:
Too bad the "experts" at Metrolinx aren't asking the "experts" at the TTC. But then the TTC doesn't know much about building rapid transit lines. Oh, wait a minute...

The current Ontario government still thinks that development by the private sector is the best way to go. Using long-term care as their example, we can.... oh, dear. We're in trouble.
Well consider that the TTC's rapid transit playbook seems to consist of:
  • underground subways in the suburbs
  • streetcars in the middle of the road that stop at red lights
  • nothing else
Seems to me that "the TTC doesn't know much about building rapid transit lines" is a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to. They're completely blind to the countless other solutions they could be using to build cheap and effective rapid transit.

Citing Vancouver and Chicago as successful examples of elevated rail annoys me. I'd say the reason it generally works in Vancouver is that it goes through industrial areas or commercial area's (with density at stations). So that may or may not apply to Toronto in certain areas.
I see your point about Chicago since most of its elevated lines don't look anything like a modern elevated rapid transit line. Vancouver, on the other hand, is perfectly relevant. While the Skytrain tends to be underground in older urban areas, they do have elevated lines in areas with dense mixed use development and street-oriented retail. That's basically Vancouver's equivalent to downtown Vaughan or Scarborough, but with transit built above ground. And that pragmatic way of developing is exactly why the Skytrain is a longer system than Toronto's subway.
 
Well consider that the TTC's rapid transit playbook seems to consist of:
  • underground subways in the suburbs
  • streetcars in the middle of the road that stop at red lights
  • nothing else
Seems to me that "the TTC doesn't know much about building rapid transit lines" is a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to. They're completely blind to the countless other solutions they could be using to build cheap and effective rapid transit.


I see your point about Chicago since most of its elevated lines don't look anything like a modern elevated rapid transit line. Vancouver, on the other hand, is perfectly relevant. While the Skytrain tends to be underground in older urban areas, they do have elevated lines in areas with dense mixed use development and street-oriented retail. That's basically Vancouver's equivalent to downtown Vaughan or Scarborough, but with transit built above ground. And that pragmatic way of developing is exactly why the Skytrain is a longer system than Toronto's subway.

The problem remains with bureaucrats and politicians who refuse to improve public transit, and demand that the single-occupant automobile be king of the road.
 
There are a few concerns here. In the morning: people can stand during their short 3-5 min ride on the OL train after transferring at East Harbor, as long as the OL train has standing room. But what if it is packed to the brim already? If so, then many GO riders are better off staying on their train till Union, and then just walking to their downtown destination.
A potential additional problem that I see in the morning is having huge GO trains dumping a bunch of people at Exhibition/East Harbor, who will then be squeezing onto the much smaller OL trains. I hope this will not create another Bloor-Yonge type of situation for the OL where it takes more than one train to clear the crowds.
 
Latest post.


Sometimes these political garbage articles can be annoying. I drove the full length of Eglinton West today. I'd like to see Metrolinx's article about why they're not going at/above grade there.
 
A potential additional problem that I see in the morning is having huge GO trains dumping a bunch of people at Exhibition/East Harbor, who will then be squeezing onto the much smaller OL trains. I hope this will not create another Bloor-Yonge type of situation for the OL where it takes more than one train to clear the crowds.

Definitely.

The only way East Harbor won't get overrun in the AM rush, is if GO riders try transferring there once, and refuse to do so afterwards. Defeating the whole purpose of building the integrated station ..
 
A potential additional problem that I see in the morning is having huge GO trains dumping a bunch of people at Exhibition/East Harbor, who will then be squeezing onto the much smaller OL trains. I hope this will not create another Bloor-Yonge type of situation for the OL where it takes more than one train to clear the crowds.

Damn near all of the OL’s problems could be fixed with bigger trains. Their insistence on smaller trains is completely perplexing. Really makes me wonder if this is being pushed by actors in the agency with an interest in specific technologies or rolling stock being used. Given how small and tightly knit this industry is, that wouldn’t be a huge surprise.
 
Last edited:
A potential additional problem that I see in the morning is having huge GO trains dumping a bunch of people at Exhibition/East Harbor, who will then be squeezing onto the much smaller OL trains. I hope this will not create another Bloor-Yonge type of situation for the OL where it takes more than one train to clear the crowds.
I think ML realized that this idea wouldn't work and is planning to redesign Union as a major transfer station instead of a terminal station today.

At Exhibition, the problem isn't that bad as the trains will start empty so there is space for those 10-20 min frequency trains with 2000 riders to fit on 600-800 capacity OL trains that will operate at 105 sec. headway. At East Harbour on the other hand where TTC riders already filled the trains would be another Bloor-Yonge.

Damn near all of the OL’s problems could be fixed with bigger trains. Their insistence on smaller trains is completely perplexing. Really makes me wonder if this is being pushed by actors in the agency with an interest in specific technologies or rolling stock being used. Given how small and tightly knit this industry is, that wouldn’t be a huge surprise.
Maybe COVID would influence the design of the OL. Start will larger platforms instead of cheapening out with tiny station boxes.
 
Well consider that the TTC's rapid transit playbook seems to consist of:
  • underground subways in the suburbs
  • streetcars in the middle of the road that stop at red lights
  • nothing else
Seems to me that "the TTC doesn't know much about building rapid transit lines" is a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to. They're completely blind to the countless other solutions they could be using to build cheap and effective rapid transit.


I see your point about Chicago since most of its elevated lines don't look anything like a modern elevated rapid transit line. Vancouver, on the other hand, is perfectly relevant. While the Skytrain tends to be underground in older urban areas, they do have elevated lines in areas with dense mixed use development and street-oriented retail. That's basically Vancouver's equivalent to downtown Vaughan or Scarborough, but with transit built above ground. And that pragmatic way of developing is exactly why the Skytrain is a longer system than Toronto's subway.
AKA the suburbs. I am not opposed to elevated rail, but let's not minimize that it is more unsightly than surface or tunneled.
 
I am not opposed to elevated rail, but let's not minimize that it is more unsightly than surface or tunneled.
You know what, unless you are local and responding to a particular proposal with reasonable issues lets. This kind of thinking is a big part of why we can't do ******* anything in this city that's not digging a giant hole.
 
TTC really can take a page as well from the rest of the world. They continually advocate the message that tunneling is the best way to do things here and their stations must be gigantic mausolems (a la hwy 407 stn). Not to mention the management of their spadina extension is borderline criminal in terms of negligence and incompetence
It's highly disingenuous to blame the TTC for stations like HWY 407, especially since HWY 407 (along with Downsview Park) was required by Metrolinx for GO transit connections. 407 is as big as it is because Metrolinx (not the TTC) wanted it to serve like 15 GO bus routes and a future transitway. Stations like Finch West, Sheppard West, Don Mills, North York Centre, Pioneer Village, and York University, and I'd even argue Bayview are all right-sized for the tasks they are required for.
Well consider that the TTC's rapid transit playbook seems to consist of:
underground subways in the suburbs
That's a political issue, and also a Metrolinx issue too.

TTC is underground almost everywhere, which is much better than the backward ideology of underground in the suburbs and aboveground downtown
streetcars in the middle of the road that stop at red lights
Blame Toronto traffic, not the TTC for not allowing signal priority. Also, having streetcars in the middle of the road has been shown to be the better option
nothing else
The entire subway network? The York U Busway? I'd say those are/were excellent rapid transit services
Seems to me that "the TTC doesn't know much about building rapid transit lines" is a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to. They're completely blind to the countless other solutions they could be using to build cheap and effective rapid transit.
Even though that, for a fact, is not true, I'm sure that the TTC knows a thing or two about running their own subway network, and how their lines interact with each other. I don't think Metrolinx gives a damn about fleet commonality, network integration, yard placement, optimal dispatching locations, union relations, subway operations in inclement weather, fleet constraints, station constraints, modernization efforts on the TTC network, maintenance schedules, city of Toronto imposed regulations etc etc etc.

Metrolinx doesn't even operate GO transit, how do you expect them to design the most difficult rapid transit line in Canada without a clear understanding of the TTC's operational constraints? Look at the crosstown, that project has been more botched (surface section at Leslie, lack of proper surface transit integration (see route 90), lack of coordinated openings (see Caledonia GO station), lack of signal priority on Eglinton East, and surface stops that have zero climate control) than the TYSSE and Sheppard subways combined, and that's just a light rail line.
I see your point about Chicago since most of its elevated lines don't look anything like a modern elevated rapid transit line. Vancouver, on the other hand, is perfectly relevant. While the Skytrain tends to be underground in older urban areas, they do have elevated lines in areas with dense mixed use development and street-oriented retail. That's basically Vancouver's equivalent to downtown Vaughan or Scarborough, but with transit built above ground. And that pragmatic way of developing is exactly why the Skytrain is a longer system than Toronto's subway.
While I'd love to see more development like this (Scarborough, Eglinton West, Sheppard East, Bloor West would all be perfect candidates for this), there are immense challenges associated with elevating tracks in Toronto, including operational constraints (Toronto has a huge variety of weather patterns for instance), road salt damage (see the 401 viaducts on the Spadina line), overnight maintenance (there are insane noise and vibration restrictions that could inhibit night work on elevated structures in suburban areas), and noise restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Citing Vancouver and Chicago as successful examples of elevated rail annoys me. I'd say the reason it generally works in Vancouver is that it goes through industrial areas or commercial area's (with density at stations). So that may or may not apply to Toronto in certain areas.
I suppose that is because we are still catching up with building essential lines.

If we already had a Relief Line, we could explore elevated concepts through industrial and commercial areas too, like this recent concept in the Transit Fantasy thread. But I am also thinking of areas like Etobicoke along the Queensway too.
 
AKA the suburbs. I am not opposed to elevated rail, but let's not minimize that it is more unsightly than surface or tunneled.
The point being that Vancouver is a perfectly relevant example of how elevated transit is viable. Sure it's uglier than other options but as the Vancouver link I posted earlier shows, it can be designed in a way that that's reasonably attractive, especially in suburban areas with lots of room. And it's a lot cheaper than tunnels, which makes it possible to build a lot more of it.

That's a political issue, and also a Metrolinx issue too.
The Commission is largely made up of politicians. The fact that it's a political issue doesn't make it any less of a TTC issue. And it's been a TTC issue since before Metrolinx was created. The fact that the same problems affect the culture of both organizations doesn't make it any less of a TTC issue. In any case, I'm not sure why you're bringing up Metrolinx. What they do or don't do is irrelevant to the point I made. It's just whataboutism.

TTC is underground almost everywhere, which is much better than the backward ideology of underground in the suburbs and aboveground downtown
No it isn't. The subway has significant surface or above ground sections, and it has since the first line was built in the 1950s. I'm not arguing that the subway should be underground in the suburbs and above ground downtown. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Blame Toronto traffic, not the TTC for not allowing signal priority. Also, having streetcars in the middle of the road has been shown to be the better option
I've yet to see any evidence that the TTC wants to build LRT lines with complete priority over cars but is only prevented from doing so by one department at City Hall. That's a false narrative. Whether the middle of the road is the better option (than what?) is a matter of opinion. And it's an opinion I completely disagree with in many cases. Middle of the road and stopping at red lights is certainly not better than elevated or on the surface, railway style in suburban areas.

The entire subway network? The York U Busway? I'd say those are/were excellent rapid transit services

Even though that, for a fact, is not true, I'm sure that the TTC knows a thing or two about running their own subway network, and how their lines interact with each other. I don't think Metrolinx gives a damn about fleet commonality, network integration, yard placement, optimal dispatching locations, union relations, subway operations in inclement weather, fleet constraints, station constraints, modernization efforts on the TTC network, maintenance schedules, city of Toronto imposed regulations etc etc etc.
You might want to read my post again. The initial comment was "the TTC doesn't know much about building rapid transit lines", as in the present day. How the TTC built rapid transit in the past is irrelevant to what they're doing today, since they seem to have forgotten how much of the system was built. None of the other stuff in your post prevents the TTC from building elevated lines or at grade with complete priority.

While I'd love to see more development like this (Scarborough, Eglinton West, Sheppard East, Bloor West would all be perfect candidates for this), there are immense challenges associated with elevating tracks in Toronto, including operational constraints (Toronto has a huge variety of weather patterns for instance), road salt damage (see the 401 viaducts on the Spadina line), overnight maintenance (there are insane noise and vibration restrictions that could inhibit night work on elevated structures in suburban areas), and noise restrictions.
Have you seen the elevated rapid transit in Calgary? Or the elevated REM lines that are being built in Montreal? Both cities have equally or more extreme climates and there's nothing about them that make elevated lines any less challenging than here. And yet they have no hesitation to build elevated. Toronto itself has had elevated subways since the 1960s. I don't know where this myth that elevated transit doesn't work in extreme climates came from, but it's completely untrue.

Just so that my post isn't misinterpreted, I'm not arguing that the Ontario Line in Riverdale should be elevated, I'm talking about elevated rapid transit in general.
 
Sometimes these political garbage articles can be annoying. I drove the full length of Eglinton West today. I'd like to see Metrolinx's article about why they're not going at/above grade there.

The only reason for Eglinton West to be underground in Etobicoke is because Doug Ford lives near Eglinton Avenue West and Kipling Avenue, and he MUST not see any plebeians crowded onto any rapid transit vehicles as he drives himself in his SUV. Period.
 
AKA the suburbs. I am not opposed to elevated rail, but let's not minimize that it is more unsightly than surface or tunneled.
I will always disagree with that. Let consider what is built as LRT in Canada (Ion, Calgary and Edmonton).


Versus ALRT (Vancouver)

LRT is sold as being pedestrian friendly and sometimes it is but in the Canadian context it is mostly not. With all the physical protection measures, it's just horrible looking.
 

Back
Top