Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Allandale25 said:
Interview now up:


Some thoughts by Matt Elliott (thread):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154068110422491141
Click to expand...

While Id rather not have things change that were already planned, thats the last thing we need on this project, we must not fall victim to the sunk costs fallacy.

Im not saying it is, but IF (big if) this new Ontario Line plan indeed would save more money and be a better routing than the original plan, then thats fine.

All I mean to say is that scrutiny should be held against the new plan on its own merits, not simply because it is changing what already has been done.

The loss of work so far in financial sense is peanuts compared to the final price tag on either the DRL or Ontario Line.

If we lose $100 million in work already done in order to build a better plan that saves a billion (or does more for the same cost, aka value) thats fine. We shouldnt get stuck on a path simply because we've already come so far. Which really isnt that far at all.
 
robmausser said:
While Id rather not have things change that were already planned, thats the last thing we need on this project, we must not fall victim to the sunk costs fallacy.

Im not saying it is, but IF (big if) this new Ontario Line plan indeed would save more money and be a better routing than the original plan, then thats fine.

All I mean to say is that scrutiny should be held against the new plan on its own merits, not simply because it is changing what already has been done.

The loss of work so far in financial sense is peanuts compared to the final price tag on either the DRL or Ontario Line.

If we lose $100 million in work already done in order to build a better plan that saves a billion (or does more for the same cost, aka value) thats fine. We shouldnt get stuck on a path simply because we've already come so far. Which really isnt that far at all.
Click to expand...

If the OL plans come out and show that it can credibly move 30,000 ppphpd, and assuming there aren’t any fatal flaws, I will 100% throw my support behind the project, even if this change was politically motivated and totally unnecessary

Those are two huge if’s though
 
I don't want to be seen as defending or agreeing with Burloak but there is a point here.

The city or Metrolinx may have been planning the west and north parts of the line together in the most technically correct sense but they proceeded as if each piece was in a vacuum. It was like a group assignment in school where everybody worked on individual pieces separately with the hope that everything could be magically pooled and tied together at the end.

Pleb questions at public houses about how they would reach Liberty Village from Queen or the logic of having a launch/extraction shaft 1 km north of Danforth half of the way to the valley were met with hand-waving and or silence.

Hopkins123 said:
I still like Queen, because it's the best corridor to bisect the whole of downtown. People would do the walk down from Dundas, even Gerrard, to connect to a subway at Queen but likely not so if were King, Wellington or Front. Once a connecting bus is required, those commuters may just as well opt to head north to the Bloor-Danforth affecting the capability of the OL to attract new ridership.
Click to expand...

In the UT utopia everybody walks or bicycles to and from the subway station but they ignore human nature and reality. The planning docs indicated total usage and overall passenger diversion would be lower going down Queen which is an indirect sign that what you say about attracting new ridership won't happen.

Fewer people than you think will be walking 800m to or from a subway station I guarantee you that. Going from Queen to King I bet at least half of people boarding or leaving trains outside of the core will take a connecting bus because unlike the downtown core office workers, these people outside of the Yonge-University corridor don't get a relaxing stroll to their office in a cozy climate controlled pathway.

People here will prefer to hop on the bus for 1 or 2 stops and they'll wait in line to do it during good weather. The proof is waiting for you at Union during the summer. The proof is waiting for you at Dufferin station.

Do folks not see another great irony of Keesmat's crew demanding more stations at city hall and bending the planning to fit their agenda?

Her idea was to surround city hall with FOUR stations in the area because everyone has important events to get to at city hall and the less people had to walk to get to those uber important events, the better!

But we have ample proof that in major events like the recent Raptors parade, anything that generates a big enough crowd would force them to shut the doors to the stations anyway and force people to walk 1 km to the next open station 2 stops away. Forget your theoretical walking because we have real enforced walking.
 
cplchanb said:
curious, what needs to be done to make the tunnels capable for higher speed? more ventilation? measures to reduce air pressure?
Click to expand...

Basically, anything that can be done to reduce the pressure wave at the leading edge of the train will help it run faster. This can be done by a number of measures - making the tunnels bigger, more ventilation in the tunnels (active or passive), streamlining the trains...

You'll note that the TRs are somewhat streamlined - tapered ends, no gaps between cars, doors set closer to the sides of the cars. And all of that helps immensely. But it alone isn't enough.

chinesehorse said:
I've read about the TTC testing "high-rate" operations before in the 1980s but I've never found a clear explanation of how it worked out. Does anybody know more about it and if it's ever likely to see something like that return?
Click to expand...

crs1026 said:
See here.
Click to expand...

More specifically....

The G-class cars were not built with automatic load weighting - the idea was that the performance parameters of each train would be adjusted manually by the crew as they ran along the line. More people? Change to a higher load weighting mode.

In practice, the switches were sealed to "high" by the 1960s.

Part of the design of the M1 cars (and the H1 cars, which were basically built to the same specs) was that they needed to operate in both a degraded mode to allow for better operation with the G-class cars, and a higher-performance mode for when they operated independently of the older equipment. This is not a switch that is easily accessible - it wasn't meant to be flipped back and forth. When the equipment was moved from the YUS to the B-D, the switch would be changed from low-rate to high-rate.

The problem is that with the equipment operating in high-rate, the motors are pulling more current and running hotter, and as they were operating closer to their maximum ratings were thus more prone to burning out. The TTC operated the B-D in high-rate until the mid-1970s I believe, and then again from about 1982 to 1989 or so. And both times they stopped because of the maintenance cost of constantly replacing traction motors.

crs1026 said:
I'm not knowledgeable on the electrical theory, but I suspect that it's a very different proposition with today's propulsion systems than it was in the days of relays and such. I'm sure you can design whatever acceleration parameters you want, especially if there is no need for interchangeability with the existing TTC fleet.

- Paul
Click to expand...

That is correct - the T1s were delivered with a software switch to change from low-rate to high-rate - but the reality is that the TTC actually designed slightly different acceleration curves for each line based on the operating characteristics of each line and had the appropriate one loaded to each batch of cars on their respective line. (Now that all the T1s are based at one yard, they all have the same acceleration curve again.) I'm not even sure that the TRs have a "low-rate" or "high-rate" - it's far more likely that the TTC can program in whatever acceleration rate and curve they want based on how things are operating at that time. Motors and gearboxes seem reliable (and they are)? Maybe dial up the acceleration rate a bit. If they start failing en mass, dial it back a bit.

Dan
 
raptor said:
Missing EA's for Ontario Line? good! the less studies, unnecessary documentation, the better and faster we get transit built. Argue all you want, but all EA's come to a pre-determined conclusion that only benefits consultants and delays actual construction.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but one can't criticise the Relief Line process as slow or ineffective while also saying that its planners were bound by tedious and constraining rules. The project was proceeding as fast as it could under all those rules. It's a lot more challenging to bring a project in with the requirement to dot all the i's and cross the t's than it is to just ignore all those hurdles.

Personally, I don't object to EA's, in the sense that it forces proponents to show their work and put their sums out in the open. I feel much more comfortable with a situation where we are debating the quality of the data, than one where we are working from speculation and assumptions. There has to be a lot more transparency with process.... beginning with Verster explaining where ML was with its ideas back before the election. Not a lot of challenge flags were being thrown back then.

- Paul
 
Ford can do what MTO has been doing. Announce plans of an alignment and what properties is needed. Wait till those property drop to actual prices since no one who buy a property that will be expropriated. Then grab them for cheap.
 
Regarding capacity, this excerpt from the report:

“When it looks at capacity, for example, it uses two different figures for people per square metre for the number of passengers the Ontario Line could carry. It uses only one of these figures – the less crowded one – to calculate relief-line capacity”

So that’s basically what I expected them to do. They’re assuming that they can fit more people per square metre into the Ontario Line, for... reasons. I’m still going to wait for the final report to judge, but this bullshit smells like bullshit

Then there’s this gem:

“The calculations have other idiosyncrasies, some of which affect the analysis of both lines. The report uses a catchment area of 800 metres around stations to project the number of people who might walk to them. It assumes that this distance would take the average person 10 minutes, which is 60 per cent faster than the pace the city uses to calculate walking speed.”

Again, bullshit. But maybe there’s a typo in the report or something ?

If the reporting on this paints an accurate picture, the engineering on this isn’t just shoddy, it’s intentionally and grossly negligent. Nevertheless, I will still give the government their chance to tell their side of the story.
 
Last edited:
raptor said:

‘A greater potential for disruption’: Confidential business case details plans for proposed Ontario Line subway project - The Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail has obtained the latest version of the detailed business case for the Ontario Line subway project, which Premier Doug Ford has dubbed the ‘crown jewel’ of his Toronto-area transit plan
www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...

Verster makes a good case for why elevated viaducts are optimal. But then why is QP/Metrolinx now proposing Eglinton West be underground. If Overlea and Don Mills are good, which they are, then Eglinton West would be better. It's one of the most optimal locations in the city for a guideway. Selective thriftiness doesn't add up. Also dollars to donuts that they'll keep the Don crossing of Yonge North underground despite a bridge being the original and more logical choice.
 
raptor said:
I honestly cannot believe people are over analyzing and jumping to conclusions over a plan, which at this point is a line on a map only. People don't want to admit it, but the negativity stems from the fact that it was Ford's government who came up with plan. Now, I did not vote for the tories, nor do I agree with some of their policy choices, but the attacks on this forum (as well as most media) is shameful.
People are crying that the RL south is not going forward? well, judging by transit development history in this city, the relief line wouldn't have been built anytime soon. Relief line north? give me a break, 2040 at the earliest. Relief Line west? not even on anyone's radar.
Missing EA's for Ontario Line? good! the less studies, unnecessary documentation, the better and faster we get transit built. Argue all you want, but all EA's come to a pre-determined conclusion that only benefits consultants and delays actual construction.
If you remember, there was an RFP for Ontario Line in Merx, that I believe closed in June. It must have been awarded by now, or close to being awarded. If they can complete it by winter, followed by release of the RFQ (like Verster suggested today), then this pace would be unprecedented in Ontario.
Click to expand...

I think that's a factor that's worth considering. Is a plan a bad one simply because it's presented by Ford? Of course not. In all fairness, I do think there have been quite a few legitimate questions/concerns raised that have nothing to do with Ford nor the Conservatives.

I'd also say context, in this case the Ford track record, may have something to do with it. The Fords have a horrible record of getting anything done. They're great at using transit as a wedge issue and canceling projects, but their proposals are almost always unrealistic and poorly thought out.

You also have to consider his track record as Premier. In his short time in office he's already:

1) Cut city council in half, completely against the will of the city. He was even willing to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to get it done.
2) Overrode the city's planning department for higher densities in certain areas, again, against the city's wishes.
3) Uploaded the TTC without any consultation, again, against the will of the city.

Given all of this, I think skepticism towards the poorly thought out plans of our populist premier is very understandable.


Forgotten said:
I don't want to be seen as defending or agreeing with Burloak but there is a point here.

The city or Metrolinx may have been planning the west and north parts of the line together in the most technically correct sense but they proceeded as if each piece was in a vacuum. It was like a group assignment in school where everybody worked on individual pieces separately with the hope that everything could be magically pooled and tied together at the end.

Pleb questions at public houses about how they would reach Liberty Village from Queen or the logic of having a launch/extraction shaft 1 km north of Danforth half of the way to the valley were met with hand-waving and or silence.
Click to expand...

A modular approach to planning and design isn't at all unusual in transit. The DRL wasn't thought up overnight, as it seems to be with the Ontario Line. The city and planning experts spent years coming up with the alignment for that phase of the project.

Answers about DRL North and DRL West would've come in due time. Not revealing preliminary info doesn't mean they're all working in a vacuum.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top