[nfitz]

Who really cares about North American (read US) systems? They're borderline irrelevant in scale and other metrics. Comparing yourself to the bottom of the barrel is counterproductive. We beat Little Rock, AR - a 4 mi system with 15 stops - you want a prize for that? Even New Orleans, the biggest system on that list - is 1/4 the size (by system length or number stops) of the TTC network.

They aren't as irrelevant as the overseas ones everyone keeps cherry picking.

As I pointed out in a different thread. The key isn't that everyone else magically runs similiar vehicles with similar technology much faster than us. But they have much longer distances between stops. We average about 240 metres. Helsinki is about 650 metres, and London 750 metres!

And then a cherry-picked list shows, surprise surprise, that our system is much slower.

See https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-major-operational-issues-various.38800/post-2277316

 

[T3G]

They aren't as irrelevant as the overseas ones everyone keeps cherry picking.

As I pointed out in a different thread. The key isn't that everyone else magically runs similiar vehicles with similar technology much faster than us. But they have much longer distances between stops. We average about 240 metres. Helsinki is about 650 metres, and London 750 metres!

And then a cherry-picked list shows, surprise surprise, that our system is much slower.

See https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-major-operational-issues-various.38800/post-2277316

Stop spacing might figure into this, but why wouldn't it be relevant if other cities don't follow ridiculous procedures such as stop/check/proceed, or eastbound/northbound cars having to yield to westbound/southbound cars at an intersection? I've been on a 504 at King and Church going east that missed multiple lights because multiple westbound cars came along in short succession of one another and got priority. There's no way a system that doesn't do this would look as slow as ours, even if they had similar stop spacing to us.

I don't see what is irrelevant about bringing up large overseas systems. Surely comparing ourselves to "operations" (rather a lofty word to describe them) stateside is the far more irrelevant metric - it's like comparing a real life plane to a toy one!

 

[CapitalSeven]

Signalling, the poor condition of intersection special work and switches, and car volumes are all important factors. It's not just stop spacing.

 

[Rainforest]

That's 2013. See this PDF from August 2024 at https://t.co/PUpHoVyctk

View attachment 677426

The Utrecht and London systems are not comparable to the TTC streetcars. In London, those trams operate in the soutrhern suburbs, no line crosses the city centre.

Utrecht's line crosses the city centre, but most of the length is in the suburbs where it serves as a (relatively rapid) transit trunk. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrechtse_sneltram

Amsterdam's trams, on the other hand, are very much comparable to TTC's. They run through the old city centre, on streets that are much narrower than any streetcar avenue in Toronto. And yet, they achieve 16 kph average, versus 11 kph in here.

 

[PL1]

The Utrecht and London systems are not comparable to the TTC streetcars. In London, those trams operate in the soutrhern suburbs, no line crosses the city centre.

Utrecht's line crosses the city centre, but most of the length is in the suburbs where it serves as a (relatively rapid) transit trunk. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrechtse_sneltram

Amsterdam's trams, on the other hand, are very much comparable to TTC's. They run through the old city centre, on streets that are much narrower than any streetcar avenue in Toronto. And yet, they achieve 16 kph average, versus 11 kph in here.

I can think of one street in Amsterdam where there is a short, single bidirectional track for the trams. It works.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Utrecht and London systems are not comparable to the TTC streetcars. In London, those trams operate in the soutrhern suburbs, no line crosses the city centre.

Utrecht's line crosses the city centre, but most of the length is in the suburbs where it serves as a (relatively rapid) transit trunk. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrechtse_sneltram

Amsterdam's trams, on the other hand, are very much comparable to TTC's. They run through the old city centre, on streets that are much narrower than any streetcar avenue in Toronto. And yet, they achieve 16 kph average, versus 11 kph in here.

Or Melbourne, which has many similarities to Toronto, and is 50% faster on average even in their worst performing years. Anyways, it's getting really OT.

AoD

 

[EnviroTO]

Timing & capacity-wise though, I think a subway on Dufferin needs to be prioritized sooner rather than later, either as a separate line, or as an Ontario line branch/extension.

In the plan Line D is expected to make that unnecessary. It isn't on Dufferin (except at Queen St) but Lansdowne and Caledonia are close enough to make a subway on Dufferin redundant.

 

[jcam]

View attachment 677066
I would vote for this westerly extension of the Ontario Line. Service Jameson and the south end of Roncesvalles, connect with services at Park Lawn, serve the core of the Queensway, and go direct to the airport hitting Etobicoke Centre and the highrise areas of the East and West Mall along 427.

I think its been mentioned before, but the "Future Track" (top below) on the Park Lawn station supports the OL extension through there.

Additionally, the underpass under the Gardiner for the rail corridor already has an un-used box for 2 tracks on the north side:

My thinking is the line would continue along Queensway and then surface up the Metrolinx-owned rail corrdor just past Kipling...they could probably work out a project with TTC that the Obico and Purolator lands (all already owned by the City) could fit two western yards (although not shared, because of rail gauge), one each for Line 2 and Line 3, and a western LRT barn. As for the route up to the airport from there, likely along East/West Mall then connect into Rentforth. If they got their act together, they could build a shared tunnel from Renforth into the airport for Line 3 and Line 5...likely 4 tracks because of catenary vs. 3rd rail.

 

[ShonTron]

That’s interesting but I wonder if that was planned for the Ontario Line or for advance track access towards Willowbrook Yard, to minimize train conflicts closer to Mimico/Royal York.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That underpass would have been built in the early 90’s when the Gardiner was rebuilt and upgraded around the Humber River. So definitely not planned for the OL or rapid transit and instead likely planned for some amount of mainline rail trackage. At that time CN was still operating in the area and may have wanted protection for seperated trackage for all we know.

 

[Bojaxs]

If we were to extend the Ontario line to Mimico or Long branch, with a stop at Park Lawn, would we still need to build a GO station at Park Lawn?

Asking for a friend.....

 

[reinventingthewheel]

The Park Lawn GO station will surely be built before an Ontario Line extension is considered.
The current station design reserves room for two future tracks on the North side of the existing 4 tracks.

A good reference here:

An alternate drawing and view:

Here I have again highlighted the final north platform edge; but this time I have highlighted the new tracks - centreline in red.

View attachment 625955

Since there is no room for two additional GO tracks through Exhibition, I think a future extension of OL to Park Lawn generally makes sense. ~5.8km at/above grade, few opportune locations for stations (eg. Windermere, Roncesvalles/St. Josephs, Jameson/Dunn).

The most expensive challenge would be the corridor widening; a bit of GO track shifting to the south, retaining wall construction along the north, and road bridge reconstruction at Dufferin (likely to be completed sooner by City/TTC), Dunn, and Jameson.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That does seem to be the intent - the Dufferin Bridge replacement is currently on hold pending conversatins with Metrolinx about the "Ontario Line", despite the phase 1 OL tail tracks not reaching Dufferin. I suspect Metrolinx wants to preserve for a future western extension.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

That does seem to be the intent - the Dufferin Bridge replacement is currently on hold pending conversatins with Metrolinx about the "Ontario Line", despite the phase 1 OL tail tracks not reaching Dufferin. I suspect Metrolinx wants to preserve for a future western extension.

The South Parkdale railway station was a passenger rail station on the Grand Trunk Railway in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It was located at Jameson Avenue and Springhurst Avenue in the former village of Parkdale. It was demolished in 1911 as part of a grade separation engineering project.

South Parkdale Station at Jameson Avenue BEFORE grade separation, in 1910.

Grade separation south of the station in 1911.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Parkdale_station for more information. They did something similar with excavation for the Gardiner Expressway.

 

[allabootmatt]

That does seem to be the intent - the Dufferin Bridge replacement is currently on hold pending conversatins with Metrolinx about the "Ontario Line", despite the phase 1 OL tail tracks not reaching Dufferin. I suspect Metrolinx wants to preserve for a future western extension.

That's very interesting. Staying along the rail corridor, then veering north along the Queensway and finally up Islington or Kipling could be a really compelling plan. Would unlock a lot of development potential in south Etobicoke.