Talk:Relief Line (Toronto)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Map

It would be cool if someone could make a map of the Downtown Relif Line. Transit Toronto made a nice one if someone neads referance. I'd do it myself but I don't know how.

I'd be glad to make one, I'll have it uploaded by tonight, tomorrow the lastest. --Yllianos 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Yllianos are you the guy who made that crazy fantasy subway map a few months ago? Regardless if you did or not how to you to it? I wanted to make one of my own for a while but I don't know how. Any tips would be awsome.

Yeah I've been making those fantasy maps; I based them on the way the London Underground does them. Other then that I can recommend (if this helps or not) check out the one used on my TTC fantasy site: [[1]] and the map featured: [[2]] and then the Vancouver SkyTrain map featured on wiki: [[3]] however the Skytrain map is one of my earlier works... I'm planning on updating it soon.

If you need help just message me --Yllianos 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought they were talking about this Downtown Relief Line (DRL) running along Queen Street and not in the Front Street area or Queens Quay/Lakeshore areas. It may be too late to put a line on any of these streets with all the development work in the area but it would make more sense to connect to Queen Street with major tourist areas such as the Eatons Centre, Osgoode Hall, etc there and more people work along Queen Street to King Street corridor of streets (Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King, Wellesely).

I like the idea of it running to things like the St. Lawrence Market, Skydome, Exhibition, etc but there are already street cars and proposed LRT extensions in discussion such as the the Waterfront LRT.

To me, it makes more sense for the city/province to concentrate on developing the Downtown Relief Line than to expand into Markham/Richmond Hill with an extension north of Finch. Who's going to pay for the maintenance north of Toronto, with the extension to Vaughan already in the works has this been thought of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.222.152 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If this map is supposed to be contemporaneous to 1985, why does it read 'Rogers Centre' or 'Skydome' at all? DarrenBaker (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the proposed station names on the map are wrong. "Atiritari" should be "Ataratiri" (and that neighbourhood was never built anyway; it's now called West Don Lands). "College West" makes no sense, as College Street doesn't even extend that far west; the station would actually be on Dundas Street or Howard Park Avenue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.158.27 (talk) 04:27, April 25, 2010‎

Naming stations, supplying maps?

I am concerned that it is premature to name stations, or supply maps, at least no without making clear how notional they are.

The current alignment in the article, is not the most recently suggested. The earliest suggested routes crossed the Yonge-Spadina line at Queen. The suggested route in the article crosses at Union Station. Another more recent suggestion has the route cross the Yonge-Spadina line twice, at King.

Some proposals have involved the TTC or metrolinks saving money by using the same right of way as GO trains -- even though that right of way isn't generally in convenient walking distance of anything.

The knowledgeable Steve Munro argues that the line should extend north of the Bloor-Danforth line, particularly in the east. I think he makes a good point.

The (proprietary) maps that accompany the notional proposed routes I have seen floated so far have been interesting. I'd like to see the article have some maps -- but only if it is very clear they are not even close to being official. Geo Swan (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

None of the proposals that has named stations is an official proposal, and the different proposals follow different routes and have different station placement. So I trimmed the entire stations subsection.

Three different incompatible proposals placed stations at the St Lawrence Market, Sherbourne and King and on the railway embankment where it crosses Cherry Street. They are all within walking distance of my home. But, at most, one will be built. I prefer that the article not offer readers vague promises as if they were part of an official plan. There may be an RS somewhere who compared the different station placements of the different proposals, but I am not aware of one. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Four public meetings are being convened to discuss the Downtown Relief Line. One is in my neighbourhood, on Monday. I hope to attend. I suspect it will confirm it is still too early to cover routes and station locations. Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I did attend the meeting. The four alternate routes were only vaguely specified, by where they crossed the Danforth line, and the Yonge-University line. Several dozen possible station locations were on a map. But the actual alignments hadn't been suggested. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, one of the planners confirmed for me something I suspected. Phase one of the DRL, that stops the Danforth line, will have hardly any impact on congestion on the Yonge line north of Bloor. I forget the exact figure he claimed. I said "that is less than 1 trainset worth of passengers, per hour".

So, the DRL will provide relief on Yonge only by providing an alternate path for passengers heading downtown, from the east, and by providing a second station for transfer for north-south passengers who want to head east, and westbound passengers who want to head north or south.

According to the planner I spoke with, it will only allow a few hundred passengers who would have started on the Yonge line to first head for the Danforth line. I suspect this will be a huge disappointment, when the line is complete, and billions of dollars have been spent. I think it should be built all the way to Don Mills station, right from the beginning. Geo Swan (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I made this RDT in the interim, which is a kind of broad thing showing connections. I agree with your opinions on the DRL but for the article, I believe we should focus on what is being proposed and studied by the City at this time (Pape/Broadview to University Line). Anything else is purely speculation. Once they confirm alignment and stations, we can expand the RDT and the article accordingly. --Natural R_X 14:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Name

The City of Toronto currently refers to this line as simply the Relief Line. Do we think this is enough to start a move proposal discussion? Or do we want to not open this can of worms? --Natural R_X 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that historically it was called by the Downtown name, and we don't know what its name will finally be when it gets built. Because "relief line" is such a generic expression, I would say leave it for now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DRL Now

Should the link to DRL Now be removed, given that it is defunct? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see why not. Additionally, I removed the Transit Toronto link since it is cited in the references already, and the fantasy maps link because I did not see relevance. --Natural R_X 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added the Toronto Relief Line Alliance, which is the unofficial successor of DRL Now. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a separate section for this. If we are to note certain support or opposition groups, we should have both in one section with their positions elaborated upon, to meet the requirements of WP:PLUG and WP:NOTE. I have removed the section in the meantime. --Natural R_X 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is slanted towards history

@Secondarywaltz: @Geo Swan: @Natural RX: It would be good if this article has some stuff about recent developments, but not too much to end up with too much recentism. For example, we can add in some more recent statistics from various reliable sources. What do you think? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We can add Metrolinx's latest projected ridership statistics and the amount of relief provided on other lines, but other than that, it really is a big question mark. Studies are still determining alignment, stations, length etc. --Natural R_X 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For me, this is still at the basic concept stage, with multiple vague options. I'm not going to touch it until there is hard referenced information. Good luck! Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is shaping up well. Keep up the good work, everyone involved in editing this article! Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There should be developments in the EA in the new year, hopefully that will provide some more substance as to length, alignment etc. --Natural R_X 07:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. I am looking forward to the EA in the new year then. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The article looks more updated now. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Relief Line (Toronto). Someone should create a dab or set index and Relief Line. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Downtown Relief Line → Relief Line – Official studies by the City of Toronto and Metrolinx now refer to this name. This does not prohibit content and historical reference to the DOWNTOWN Relief Line to remain here. --Natural R_X 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per both the official sources and the Toronto Relief Line Alliance. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Upon realizing that Sydney has its own Relief Line, it should be moved to Relief Line (Toronto) instead, with Relief Line being a disambig page. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support The Relief Line as a transit proposal is evolving outside of it's historical jurisdiction as a downtown (or Queen Street) subway line and into a line with its proposed alignment mostly in the former boroughs of East York and North York. (polskaGOLA) (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose there are multiple Relief Lines. Relief Line (Toronto) would be the target, since we have CBD Relief Line in Australia; one in Berlin detailed at Berlin–Magdeburg railway and many other places [4] ; a set index should be built -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is also the CBD Relief Line. In addition, the term "relief line" refers more generally to a secondary line running alongside a main line. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think incorporating this disambiguation would be fine, if others could indicate is they support renaming at all and whether it should be disambiguated or not, I think it would be helpful in achieving consensus. --Natural R_X 14:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Happy to accept Johnny Au's suggestion of Relief Line (Toronto) and having a disambig page for Relief line. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I also think that Relief Line (Toronto) is a good compromise. (polskaGOLA) (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Relief Line (Toronto) Ground Zero | t 16:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The relief line that I am most familiar with begins at Ladbroke Grove and ends 51 miles 63 chains away at Foxhall Junction (that being 660 yards from my house); it is the northern pair of tracks of a four-track route. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The Great Western Main Line can still be in the Relief Line disambig page. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Relief Line (Toronto) plus a new disambiguation page seems sensible. Citobun (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Relief Line (Toronto) plus a new disambiguation page seems sensible - "Downtown Relief Line" is clearly no longer the correct name. DiligentDavidG (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Downtown Relief Line symbol

Has that Downtown Relief Line symbol been published anywhere? If not, how does it not violate WP:NOR? Thought I'd ask before removing it. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How about as well? They were created under the same circumstances, as a place holder for future symbols, icons or line numbers. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they should exist in articles either - isn't that a classic case of WP:OSE (though I can see a borderline case for Finch West, given that it's being currently tendered, and hasn't been numbered yet)? How does it not violate WP:NOR? Has there been a discussion about this anywhere? Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You brought it up. I just pointed out the others to you. Do WP:WTF you want. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I created these. The circle and text inside are based off of the existing design for denoting subway lines in Toronto, which is verifyable. While the colours are subject to change and I will be happy to change as those details emerge, I would like for you to elaborate on how exactly these images violate WP:NOR before going and deleting them. As far as I'm concerned, the policy is mostly concerning facts within articles, not placeholder symbols based on an exiting uniform design. --Natural R_X 01:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see why there'd be a symbol at all. What's the need? Where else has this been published? And how can it be based on existing lines when no lines use a 2-letter code? User:Secondarywaltz Do what the fuck I want? How dare you use such language. What I want to do is have a discussion about it, so I don't go off an do something I shouldn't do. And I'd like to do so without someone making insults, and using foul language! Shame on you! Nfitz (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Did you read the link? Your response to me was a little bit indirect by using OSE and NOR, so I linked via WTF to what is meant to be a humorous essay on the use of cryptic abbreviations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You think what the fuck is a cryptic and humourous abbereviation? I linked the abbreviations - they are hardly unusual, and if not familiar with them, you could click on the links. If you felt it was necessary to link this poorly written essay, there were many other less offensive links to it you could have used. Frankly, I think linking it the way you did is a violation of one of the five pillars of this project. I can't see why you'd think that people wouldn't take offence at your language! Now lets get back on subject, perhaps you could tell me, if there's any basis for the symbol and abbreviations used above. Because as far as I can see, someone is simply pulling it out of their imagination. Nfitz (talk)

Yes. I agree with your analysis of the icons as having no basis in fact. What are you going to do about it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I was looking for elaboration on how WP:NOR specifically applies to these icons, because I have not heard such detail yet. I have made a case for their basic form pointing to WP:V. I would also add that their primary value is to be used in route diagram templates, allowing for linking to the relevant articles. Let me extend the olive branch and declare I'm open to tweaking them so that they are devoid of colour (which may have been my creative leap), with the exception of Sheppard East and Finch West, which were already illustrated by the TTC. In fact, Sheppard East and Finch West have been changed to refer to an acronym (SE, FW) instead of Lines 6 and 7 because someone had an issue with the probability they would remain numbered like that, given their implementation schedules. --Natural R_X 15:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it was you that took issue with Finch West using the "7" symbol. I changed it for you! --Natural R_X 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether these icons exist in the real world or are they your own imaginings, with no basis in fact. Just as Wikipedia articles need references and should not contain unsubstantiated information, you must use genuine company logos and iconography. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The TTC uses circles with sans serif font for each of their line icons. I'm arguing that is the basis of fact here. The only unsubstantiated alteration I have made was putting acronymed letters instead of numbers (and the colour, which I have offered to remove). --Natural R_X 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Which TTC line currently uses 2 (or any) letters? The issue with Finch West being Line 7, is that given it's scheduled to open in 2021 (with Line 5), and the Sheppard East Line isn't scheduled to start construction until Finch finishes ... it seems very unlikely it would actually be Line 7 ... presumably it would be called Line 6 - though I haven't seen anything official. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That rant right there is WP:CRYSTAL. Which is why I used letters for a lack of an alternative. Based on the existing design. --Natural R_X 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither the TTC or Metrolinx uses icons of any kind for these projects. They look pretty, but are totally invalid. Keep up the good work. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling it (Finch) either Line 6 or Line 7 would be crystal - which is why I'd already said it should be neither. And we can't start making up our own Fantasy codes. As such I will delete references to RL. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing the speculative symbols turned out to be a good idea, especially given that the TTC themselves don't use those symbols in their documents yet. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 updated plans

It would be good to add in new information from the February 2016 updated plans. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Line 3 Downtown?

@Geo Swan: @Natural RX: @Nfitz: @Secondarywaltz:

According to the TTC's official Twitter feed, it has designated the Relief Line as Line 3 Downtown, complete with the same colour.

I am asking for consensus, especially given WP:Twitter-EL. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Although it is from a TTC account, I believe it directly contradicts an earlier statement that I remember, but cannot find and cite, that said Line 3 would be retired and not reused. --Natural R_X 13:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention, Line 3 Scarborough still VERY MUCH EXISTS, and will for the foreseeable future. I would hesitate very much in assigning this future project a number that is currently in use, at least here on Wikipedia. Radagast (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@EelamStyleZ: removed the statement about Line 3's number and colour being retired upon replacement of Line 3 Scarborough as well, since it was considered "trivial" and lacked sources. We might have to wait until a proper reliable source covers this. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Blaixx: see . -- EzekielT ^Talk 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It has been added in the Name section. It cannot be added to the top section or to the infobox until it is confirmed in a public announcement backed by reliable sources, as the corporate plans themselves state that it's tentative for now. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Map

Why does this article about a modern transportation project not include a map of at least the study areas for said project? Magic5ball (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)