Jump to content

Ontario Line (formerly Downtown Relief Line)


Orion9131
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/14/2016 at 6:10 PM, nfitz said:

Gil - perhaps we should call it Jilly's.

The revised routing after additional evaluation has the line running further south along Eastern, meaning no Jilly's stop!

EQ.jpg

 

Since hyphenated names runs contrary to Metrolinx' naming standards I assume these names are for informational purposes.  I don't get the need for why they renamed both Sheppard and the Yonge station on the Sheppard Line Sheppard-Yonge, the Bloor and Yonge stations on the 1 and 2 lines kept their names.  You run into the ridiculous setup for the transfer stations on the 5 line where they want to give the same name to both stations on the separate lines.

That being said, my choice for names: Pape-Danforth = Danforth (unofficially hyphenated like Bloor-Yonge), Gerrard-Pape = Gerrard (that should be relatively safe as there really isn't an option for another station along Gerrard necessitating a cardinal appendix of some kind!), Queen-Pape = Leslieville, Eastern-Broadview = whatever they decide on calling the Unilever redevelopment, King-Sumach = Corktown, Queen-Sherbourne = Moss Park, Queen = this one has me stumped, they could just follow the Eglinton precedent and name both stations Queen, I'd prefer Yonge with the station complex being referred to as Queen-Yonge, Osgoode = Osgoode (it's already named after a landmark!)

There's a more thorough analysis over on Transit Toronto, where they have a more detailed map with all of the potential options that were considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, skyfirenet said:

My biggest problem is that by keeping it on Pape, they are avoiding all the redevelopment that's happening on Carlaw.

It's a five minute walk to the subway from Carlaw. Hardly a deal breaker.

 

35 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

It would been nice to see a city hall station but that doesn't make it easy for riders to connect to either side of the U.

Looks like the planned Queen station structure will go over to Bay, so it'll effectively be a City Hall station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

It would been nice to see a city hall station but that doesn't make it easy for riders to connect to either side of the U.

 

Why? City Hall in and of itself is not enough of a draw to warrant a $100+mil subway station.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, skyfirenet said:

My biggest problem is that by keeping it on Pape, they are avoiding all the redevelopment that's happening on Carlaw.

It's about 200 metres from Carlaw to Pape - and only about 160 metres to the proposed entrance at the SW corner of Pape and Queen. Though if the redevelopment is already done, putting the stations at Pape/Gerrard and Pape/Queen would drive development in those locations.

 

2 hours ago, Archer said:

It's a five minute walk to the subway from Carlaw. Hardly a deal breaker.

It's less than 2 minutes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Archer said:

It's a five minute walk to the subway from Carlaw. Hardly a deal breaker.

It is when you reach your car before exiting the building. But then, in addition to resolving capacity issues at Broadview, extending the 505 to either Pape-Gerrard or Pape-Queen would fix that.

 

26 minutes ago, nfitz said:

Though if the redevelopment is already done, putting the stations at Pape/Gerrard and Pape/Queen would drive development in those locations.

Never dealt with property assembly in a residential area I take it. Also, Carlaw isn't finished with the west side still available for intensification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skyfirenet said:

Never dealt with property assembly in a residential area I take it. Also, Carlaw isn't finished with the west side still available for intensification.

I'm seeing a lot more residential at Gerrard/Carlaw than Gerrard/Pape.

 

And I don't see much difference between Queen/Carlaw and Queen/Pape. In the immediate area, that church at Queen/Carlaw may well sterilize that corner, but I'm seeing a lot more that can be developed right at Queen/Pape.

 

Only real advantage I can see for Carlaw, is if they can dispose of Morse Street school for redevelopment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

 

Why? City Hall in and of itself is not enough of a draw to warrant a $100+mil subway station.

 

Dan

It'll be nice for major events and could be a signature station. I agree it's less useful for functional purposes and wouldn't be as useful for commuters. If one station can replace two stations, it's worth the savings. 

With the station overlapping Bay, they could have an entrance there to serve riders. I'm question that approach of having both University and Yonge stations shifted with the end of the platform under the existing subway line. That's going to create the Bloor-Yonge situation with everyone trying to head up the stairs on one side and TTC is shifting the existing Eglinton platform to avoid this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

If one station can replace two stations, it's worth the savings.

On the other hand, considering the distances involved between the two stations, it might be worthwhile to consider taking a page from CTA's State Street subway and create a single subway station between Yonge and University with the "city hall" portion of the platform only used during events and rush hour.

1 hour ago, nfitz said:

I'm seeing a lot more residential at Gerrard/Carlaw than Gerrard/Pape.

Bare in mind that the S curve needed to get from Pape to Carlaw would push the station further south, due in part to Pape Ave. Jr PS, resulting in the north end being at Gerrard and the south end south of the railway corridor. Ultimately though, the headache is that Dundas and Carlaw is the best spot in the area for future redevelopment which is why rerouting the 505 is probably the best solution to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 6, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

It'll be nice for major events and could be a signature station. I agree it's less useful for functional purposes and wouldn't be as useful for commuters. If one station can replace two stations, it's worth the savings. 

With the station overlapping Bay, they could have an entrance there to serve riders. I'm question that approach of having both University and Yonge stations shifted with the end of the platform under the existing subway line. That's going to create the Bloor-Yonge situation with everyone trying to head up the stairs on one side and TTC is shifting the existing Eglinton platform to avoid this situation.

Signature station smacks of desperation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I'm surprised this thread hasn't seen activity for almost a whole year. But yesterday, Toronto City Council voted nearly unanimously to proceed with the study of this line, as well as extending the Yonge branch of Line 1 to Richmond Hill. It has requested to prioritize the relief over the Yonge line extension; otherwise, the Line 1 would become seriously overcrowded with travelers from York Region interfering with those from Line 2. City Council still has to seek provincial funding from Kathleen Wynne's Liberals for both projects.

If it's not here already, the alignment is shown in this map posted by the CBC: downtown-relief-line.jpg

And for your info, the project has its own website at http://reliefline.ca/.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smallspy said:

Why?

It's not the worst idea in the world. If the DRL is to terminate at Sheppard/Don Mills and Line 4 terminates at Sheppard/Don Mills, why not connect them, and run half the trains all the way to Yonge.

Even if they didn't run service that way, I'd think a non-revenue connecting track would be rather useful, as it would create a second way to get from Line 1 to Line 2 (assuming that the DRL is connected to Line 2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nfitz said:

It's not the worst idea in the world. If the DRL is to terminate at Sheppard/Don Mills and Line 4 terminates at Sheppard/Don Mills, why not connect them, and run half the trains all the way to Yonge.

Even if they didn't run service that way, I'd think a non-revenue connecting track would be rather useful, as it would create a second way to get from Line 1 to Line 2 (assuming that the DRL is connected to Line 2).

A non-revenue connecting track? Absolutely. In fact, the more, the merrier.

 

Connecting them for revenue service? Not remotely worth it. The traffic patterns are totally different, ridership will almost certainly be as well, and the curve from east-west to north-south would have to be absolutely massive, passing under the DVP (twice) as well as a bunch of high-rise buildings. Why bother?

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, would have to pass under 404/DVP twice ... and the 401 (though on bright side, does leave open an option for a Consumers/Yorkland station).

I'd think it would be an evaluation option at least. Curve not necessarily that expensive. Don Mills major node. I'd think it would divert some Oriole/Leslie station to downtown traffic from Yonge line to DRL. Also provides good connections from DRL to Richmond Hill line at Oriole (assuming they ever move those platforms, as they promised 20 years ago). Not difficult to quantify with model.

But perhaps not worth the cost, in particular, the lost of the ability to send Sheppard Line further east, and DRL further north in distant future. Personally, if DRL makes it to Sheppard, I'm not convinced that a York Mills station at the middle of mostly floodplain nowhere on Don Mills is best option, and would prefer to see the line perhaps head up Upjohn instead, and put the York Mills station near Upjohn and Lesmill, that has much better redevelopment potential. Perhaps with an extra station near Duncan Mill/Valleybrook as it curves back towards Don Mills/Sheppard. I guess these will be factors for the Phase 2 alignment studies that are just beginning. 

Mind you, branching service is always an option.

I didn't say that joining was the best option. Just not the worst option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 minutes ago, shivers said:

I can't even. Clearly his ideas were not researched.

Even with HOV lanes on Bay, the buses just inch along, so express buses would make minimal difference. And the subway ideas...

I like the of more downtown express service, possibly restructuring the 14x routes to serve subway stations.

142 to Eglinton Station??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, shivers said:

I can't even. Clearly his ideas were not researched.

Even with HOV lanes on Bay, the buses just inch along, so express buses would make minimal difference. And the subway ideas...

Clearly there isn't much enforcement along Bay. Plus express buses will have to fight with local buses and south of Queen is very congested.

11 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

I like the of more downtown express service, possibly restructuring the 14x routes to serve subway stations.

142 to Eglinton Station??

The TTC wants to get rid of them for good. According to the newly released express bus network report, they are subsidizing $8-11 per rider after the double fare. The more runs the do, the more it cost the TTC. Eliminating the double fare isn't the best for the budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-06-12 at 9:45 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

Clearly there isn't much enforcement along Bay. Plus express buses will have to fight with local buses and south of Queen is very congested.

The TTC wants to get rid of them for good. According to the newly released express bus network report, they are subsidizing $8-11 per rider after the double fare. The more runs the do, the more it cost the TTC. Eliminating the double fare isn't the best for the budget.

I'm saying temporarily, the fare could be reduced to regular, I would be more enticed to take a bus that wasn't busy to avoid a crowded subway, but that's my opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, J. Bullock said:

I'm saying temporarily, the fare could be reduced to regular, I would be more enticed to take a bus that wasn't busy to avoid a crowded subway, but that's my opinion. 

If the fare was reduced to regular, it would likely be as crowded as the subway. You not likely getting a seat useless you board at the beginning of the route. It would be financially worst to reduce the fare when TTC is in a bad situration. I actually don't see why someone would get on a bus once they are on a subway headed downtown. It's not going to be faster and it's not going to be empty if it served a subway station. They are intended to be a one seat ride downtown.

Maybe TTC could consider charging regular fare for the counter peak direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

I'm saying temporarily, the fare could be reduced to regular, I would be more enticed to take a bus that wasn't busy to avoid a crowded subway, but that's my opinion. 

The first couple of premium express routes were introduced as standard fare routes in the late 1980s. They only upped the fare on them once they realized how much more expensive they were to run, both in the sense of direct costs and the ridership. In fact, ridership on them barely dropped when they instituted the increased fare.

 

While ridership may be higher now than it was then, the economics haven't changed.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2044 changed the title to Ontario Line (formerly Downtown Relief Line)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...