Ontario Line

[John Oke]

Does anyone know what may happen to the 501, 509 and 511 once/if the OL opens?

[smallspy]

10 hours ago, John Oke said:

Does anyone know what may happen to the 501, 509 and 511 once/if the OL opens?

Considering that no one outside of Metrolinx even knows what form the Ontario Line may take, it seems just a bit premature to try and consider what knock-on effects its operation may have.

 

Dan

[ttc_fan]

On 5/20/2020 at 10:42 PM, John Oke said:

Does anyone know what may happen to the 501, 509 and 511 once/if the OL opens?

We don't know officially yet, but this is my opinion of what might happen 

I doubt anything will happen to the 509/511 besides maybe a minor shift on the location where the exhibition loop is (doubtful, but possible). As for the 501, I think the TTC will keep running it as a local service (think the 34 Eglinton post crosstown, 97 Yonge, or 85 Sheppard), perhaps with lowered frequencies in the centre with cars turning back at any of Sunnyside/McCaul/Church/Parlement.

We'll probably know a lot more on this in 2024 when the TTC releases it's 2024-2029 five year service plan, and the Ontario Line is further developed.

[nfitz]

18 hours ago, ttc_fan said:

We don't know officially yet, but this is my opinion of what might happen 

I doubt anything will happen to the 509/511 besides maybe a minor shift on the location where the exhibition loop is (doubtful, but possible). As for the 501, I think the TTC will keep running it as a local service (think the 34 Eglinton post crosstown, 97 Yonge, or 85 Sheppard), perhaps with lowered frequencies in the centre with cars turning back at any of Sunnyside/McCaul/Church/Parlement.

We'll probably know a lot more on this in 2024 when the TTC releases it's 2024-2029 five year service plan, and the Ontario Line is further developed.

I can't imagine any impact on the 509 or 511 service, other than moving the loop. Though it would certainly provide more demand for extending tracks west from Exhibition station - which could be a 509 service.

Not sure it would do much to 501, given that it wouldn't change westbound at all, other than some who get off earlier at Queen/Spadina station. Even in the east, will many get off at Moss Park, and go deep into the subway, rather than just staying on the streetcar? I suppose some will get off at Leslieville.

I'd think the bigger impact might be on 504, with some Broadview and Corktown travel moving to the subway. But I suspect it would only be some ridership, and not service changes.

The biggest question is what happens at East Harbour station? The East Harbour development also includes the extension of Broadview, and presumably streetcar tracks, towards the Portlands.

Recall that back in late 2019, TTC published the proposed streetcar network once they get enough new streetcars. This extended the 504B from Dufferin to Humber (and later Park Lawn ), the 503 to Dufferin Gate and split the 501 into a 501A  from Neville Park to Sunnyside and a 501B from Long Branch to Broadview/Queen (I figure they've got 501A and 501B backwards there).

[Cityflyer]

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/10/metrolinx-ontario-line-plans-toronto/

Final portion of the line revealed.

The garage shows Flexity style trains to be use on the line. lol

[Someguy3071]

Not a fan of blogTO. Better info here.

 https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2020/10/metrolinx-releases-ontario-line-plans-danforth-eglinton-section

[bus_7246]

On 10/8/2020 at 9:34 AM, Cityflyer said:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/10/metrolinx-ontario-line-plans-toronto/

Final portion of the line revealed.

The garage shows Flexity style trains to be use on the line. lol

The pic they used actually says Eglinton MSF on the bottom left further down the page

[nfitz]

39 minutes ago, bus_7246 said:

The pic they used actually says Eglinton MSF on the bottom left further down the page

Still seems odd they'd need 250 trains eventually. That's more than Line 1 and Line 2 combined. That does create concern that the capacity of each train is too low. The new plans are showing the station boxes are only 100 metres long. But the box is normally longer than the platform.  Are they going for only 50-metre or 60-metre platforms or something?  Or 40-metres like in Vancouver on the overloaded Canada line?

[smallspy]

21 hours ago, nfitz said:

Still seems odd they'd need 250 trains eventually. That's more than Line 1 and Line 2 combined. That does create concern that the capacity of each train is too low. The new plans are showing the station boxes are only 100 metres long. But the box is normally longer than the platform.  Are they going for only 50-metre or 60-metre platforms or something?  Or 40-metres like in Vancouver on the overloaded Canada line?

Or perhaps they're confounding the term "trains" with "cars" ?

 

Dan

[nfitz]

6 hours ago, smallspy said:

Or perhaps they're confounding the term "trains" with "cars" ?

Seems unlikely - Metrolinx is surely not that ignorant.

But more to the point, they surely aren't specifying the number of cars. They are specifying frequencies, capacities, volumes, radii, etc. Surely how many cars per train is up to the vendor.

[Xtrazsteve]

1 hour ago, nfitz said:

Seems unlikely - Metrolinx is surely not that ignorant.

But more to the point, they surely aren't specifying the number of cars. They are specifying frequencies, capacities, volumes, radii, etc. Surely how many cars per train is up to the vendor.

What is certain is they can't have more than 250 standard size 23m cars for the line of this length. 

 

[smallspy]

17 hours ago, nfitz said:

Seems unlikely - Metrolinx is surely not that ignorant.

But more to the point, they surely aren't specifying the number of cars. They are specifying frequencies, capacities, volumes, radii, etc. Surely how many cars per train is up to the vendor.

You say that, but....

 

Remember, the people writing a lot of these things are from their public relations department, and not likely to be technically proficient in the correct terminology. They're writing for the general public, who know even less.

 

I have zero doubt that the person writing that entry doesn't know (or more likely care) about the difference in the two terms.

 

Dan

[Cityflyer]

Since the current trend of this line seems to be to use a light metro type vehicle, I was under the impression Canada only has the Bombardier Mark III as the sole choice of a proven product. However, from the Montreal section, I learn they are about to deliver their Alstom Metropolis light metro model. This model is wider than the Mark III and each car length is approximately the same. How feasible is it for the Ontario Line to use this model? Opinions???

[smallspy]

23 hours ago, Cityflyer said:

Since the current trend of this line seems to be to use a light metro type vehicle, I was under the impression Canada only has the Bombardier Mark III as the sole choice of a proven product. However, from the Montreal section, I learn they are about to deliver their Alstom Metropolis light metro model. This model is wider than the Mark III and each car length is approximately the same. How feasible is it for the Ontario Line to use this model? Opinions???

At this point, anything is possible.

 

But until more info is known on the line, it seems to be to be a waste of breath to speculate on it. If you want to do so, go right ahead.

 

Dan

[Cityflyer]

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2021/02/12/the-most-common-question-from-leslieville-and-riverside-why-cant-metrolinx-run-the-ontario-line-underground/

They finally addressed this question officially.

[nfitz]

It doesn't even begin to address the question. The question is why can't they just follow the original alignment and stay underground.

The answer is all about the need to build a second portal (just stay underground!) and then about trying to build underground stations along the rail corridor.

It's a straw man argument. Most of the stuff they cite as reasons why not, are related to this new alignment. They don't even start to address why they can't have a new portals and head down Eastern to Carlaw.

(and suddenly all these portals they are building everywhere are too big? What, the other 5 they are proposing are okay?

The incompetence and corruption shown here is stunning.

[Xtrazsteve]

2 hours ago, nfitz said:

It doesn't even begin to address the question. The question is why can't they just follow the original alignment and stay underground.

The answer is all about the need to build a second portal (just stay underground!) and then about trying to build underground stations along the rail corridor.

It's a straw man argument. Most of the stuff they cite as reasons why not, are related to this new alignment. They don't even start to address why they can't have a new portals and head down Eastern to Carlaw.

(and suddenly all these portals they are building everywhere are too big? What, the other 5 they are proposing are okay?

The incompetence and corruption shown here is stunning.

Let's rethink what they said:

Quote

 

If the Ontario Line were tunneled through East Harbour, Riverside and Leslieville, all three stations south of the Danforth would need to be nearly 40 metres deep to go under the Don River and maintain a similar depth under Gerrard Street to avoid large sewer mains. That would be as deep as a nine-storey building is tall, requiring three separate escalators to get to the trains and adding four to five minutes to customers’ journeys – discouraging people from using the Ontario Line.

A station along the existing tracks above Queen Street East will make for faster commutes than one in such a deep tunnel and reduce transfer times for people connecting to and from streetcars on Queen.

This network approach and the environmental concerns are among the reasons why a subway in a deep tunnel under the Don River is not a good solution.

 

Wait... ML realized that deep, descend to hell stations are really problematic and difficult to access? Yet the propose the same thing for Eg West and SSE? Maybe not as deep but at 32m, Avenue Road Station is pretty deep for Toronto.

I agree however that the transfer at Queen would be much simpler and easier if it's just one flight of stairs up. Will they actually build a proper streetcar platform to improve the transferring experience between the 501/503 and OL? The same goes for Gerrard Station and the 506.

East Harbour would be another Kennedy subway to SRT transfer if build according to the Relief Line. I do think the OL design is much better for transferring. 

[nfitz]

1 hour ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Let's rethink what they said:

Wait... ML realized that deep, descend to hell stations are really problematic and difficult to access? Yet the propose the same thing for Eg West and SSE? Maybe not as deep but at 32m, Avenue Road Station is pretty deep for Toronto.

I agree however that the transfer at Queen would be much simpler and easier if it's just one flight of stairs up. Will they actually build a proper streetcar platform to improve the transferring experience between the 501/503 and OL? The same goes for Gerrard Station and the 506.

East Harbour would be another Kennedy subway to SRT transfer if build according to the Relief Line. I do think the OL design is much better for transferring. 

Ah - but that's where the bait and switch really starts. I actually agree with bridging the Don. But then how is moving the two portals at Pape to east of East Harbour a net loss? There's still the same number of portals.

Why not just put in the portals, transition to Eastern (an easy curve), and then follow the original alignment up Carlaw to Gerrard, and then over to Pape?

Yeah ... the hypocrisy on the deep stations, Have they shown the new stations for Lawrence East anywhere? The last iteration I've seen was the TTC one - but it only had the one station - but was very deep at Lawrence - almost like they were trying to preclude a future station!