Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[syn]

Just for some context on why I posted it, I hadn't seen it posted yet and if I see some new public content and it's not in a thread, I'll post it. It's not meant as agreeing or disagreeing with the content, unless I add commentary or my two cents. Just a heads up that it exists.

For sure. That was directed at the "blog" not you.

Appreciate you posting it!

 

[turini2]

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

Metrolinx's PR team do themselves no favours - it's disingenuous to claim that the Ontario Line cannot run "underground" - if the underground route you choose is cut-and-cover next to/underneath the GO corridor.

In addition to the serious environmental concerns around sensitive wetlands, tunnelling under the Don is not practical.

... if it's in a tunnel, how will it affect the sensitive wetlands? Will the proposed bridge also affect the sensitive wetlands?

What people are asking for is deep tunnelling throughout - as the Relief Line was. If you don't want to do that because it's too expensive, say that! Don't make up some weasel reason why not.

Honestly.

 

[afransen]

Yikes, where' can I read the latest numbers from? If this is the case, I'd like to think the range of 24k-30k indicates that the system will initially be operating at a low end of 24k with the ability to have service expanded to service 30k pphpd. Which is still a higher design capacity than Line 1 today. But if they do choose a line with a capacity of 24k-26k that would be a limiting factor in extensions and be rather close to whatever projected ridership they anticipate

The reason I prefer the OL over DRL is the flexibility of the trains used allowed for elevated construction, along with a better alignment+interchanges with other modes. However, I do have 3 criticisms, and one of them is the lack of clarity on whether or not platforms will be expandable for future growth. I don't see a problem using these smaller trains at higher frequency, but allowing for the use of longer trains in the future is good - we don't need to use the TRs like DRL just to get high capacity, if all we need to do is attach more cars to an OL train to match it. ezpz.

In Sydney, the current metro is built for 6-car trains with a capacity of 33k pphpd (2 minute headways). There is provision to extend platforms to accomodate 8-car trains and 45k pphpd. That's pretty high but that's also their primary metro line. If OL uses 5-car 750 passenger trains, the capacity ideally is 30k pphpd. Now, if we roughed in a 40 metre platform extension at the 8 underground stations (this is less than what's roughed in for the Sheppard Line, btw), then we expand its capacity to 42k pphpd with 7 car trains carrying 1050 passengers each. This is all just wishful thinking, I haven't seen anything that suggests they're considering provisions for running longer trains

I think it would be very wise to enable the platforms to be extended. We'd have to see what the premium for that will be, but that might be $1B well spent for future proofing.

 

[syn]

Metrolinx's PR team do themselves no favours - it's disingenuous to claim that the Ontario Line cannot run "underground" - if the underground route you choose is cut-and-cover next to/underneath the GO corridor.


... if it's in a tunnel, how will it affect the sensitive wetlands? Will the proposed bridge also affect the sensitive wetlands?

What people are asking for is deep tunnelling throughout - as the Relief Line was. If you don't want to do that because it's too expensive, say that! Don't make up some weasel reason why not.

Honestly.

For all the talk about tunneling under the Don River, couldn't they have modified the original plan to go above ground at East Harbour/Broadview then over a bridge before returning underground?

 

[ARG1]

For all the talk about tunneling under the Don River, couldn't they have modified the original plan to go above ground at East Harbour/Broadview then over a bridge before returning underground?

That's probably the question that led them to modifying the rolling stock in the first place. The curves needed to reach the rail corridor in order to get above ground were tight enough that TRs wouldn't be able to make it.

 

[Northern Light]

Metrolinx's PR team do themselves no favours - it's disingenuous to claim that the Ontario Line cannot run "underground" - if the underground route you choose is cut-and-cover next to/underneath the GO corridor.


... if it's in a tunnel, how will it affect the sensitive wetlands? Will the proposed bridge also affect the sensitive wetlands?

What people are asking for is deep tunnelling throughout - as the Relief Line was. If you don't want to do that because it's too expensive, say that! Don't make up some weasel reason why not.

Honestly.

WTF Are they talking about...............????

Below is a screenshot that covers the area where the current rail bridge is, and also covers any potential alignment of the RL/OL were it a tunnel (assuming one were to serve East Harbour)

Note that the only wetland in the area is in Corktown Common Park.

It would not be affected by any deep tunneling.

Pretty and useful though it is, its also minuscule and not ranked as ecologically significant at this point.

Simply put there are no other wetlands anywhere near there.

Further, as someone passionate about the environment, were there any threat to it from tunneling here, I would be the first to be all over that.

This is less than a non-issue.

 

[afransen]

Metrolinx's PR team do themselves no favours - it's disingenuous to claim that the Ontario Line cannot run "underground" - if the underground route you choose is cut-and-cover next to/underneath the GO corridor.


... if it's in a tunnel, how will it affect the sensitive wetlands? Will the proposed bridge also affect the sensitive wetlands?

What people are asking for is deep tunnelling throughout - as the Relief Line was. If you don't want to do that because it's too expensive, say that! Don't make up some weasel reason why not.

Honestly.

Isn't an important factor that burying the line deep underground will add significantly to travel times to East Harbour and make the transfer needlessly difficult? We're spending billions to replace SRT because of a transfer that is not as bad as we would see with buried OL at East Harbour.

 

[salsa]

"Sensitive wetlands", meanwhile a different minister approved the destruction of a wetland via MZO.

 

[KhalilHeron]

View attachment 299728


WTF Are they talking about...............????

Below is a screenshot that covers the area where the current rail bridge is, and also covers any potential alignment of the RL/OL were it a tunnel (assuming one were to serve East Harbour)

View attachment 299727

Note that the only wetland in the area is in Corktown Common Park.

It would not be affected by any deep tunneling.

Pretty and useful though it is, its also minuscule and not ranked as ecologically significant at this point.

Simply put there are no other wetlands anywhere near there.

Further, as someone passionate about the environment, were there any threat to it from tunneling here, I would be the first to be all over that.

This is less than a non-issue.

I assumed they were talking about tunnelling under the Don in the northern section woops.

 

[Northern Light]

I assumed they were talking about tunnelling under the Don in the northern section woops.

The section on the website is about Riverside/Leslieville, so I would assume they mean the southern crossing.

In respect of the northern crossing, I believe all concepts looked at a bridge.

That was a function of practicality in getting down below river level, and having to climb back up after.

That said, the area of the northern crossing doesn't have any significant wetlands either.

It does have some nice forest on the north side of the river (Crother's Woods)

The grass-like area below and to the east of the bridge has been considered for a wetland in the past; but none has yet been created.

 

[KhalilHeron]

The section on the website is about Riverside/Leslieville, so I would assume they mean the southern crossing.

In respect of the northern crossing, I believe all concepts looked at a bridge.

That was a function of practicality in getting down below river level, and having to climb back up after.

That said, the area of the northern crossing doesn't have any significant wetlands either.

It does have some nice forest on the north side of the river (Crother's Woods)

View attachment 299733

The grass-like area below and to the east of the bridge has been considered for a wetland in the past; but none has yet been created.

Hmm yea, there aren't any by where the bridge by Overlea would be either. My guess is that they were using some cheaty language to refer to the future wetlands planned for around the mouth of the don by the portlands, but I mean... those don't exist yet either

 

[Northern Light]

Hmm yea, there aren't any by where the bridge by Overlea would be either. My guess is that they were using some cheaty language to refer to the future wetlands planned for around the mouth of the don by the portlands, but I mean... those don't exist yet either

They're also not in the path of a tunnel alignment at all.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I tend to agree. I would have rather seen the line dip south down closer to Ontario Place, or at least more into the Exhibition grounds, and then (either now or a phase 2) the line curve back up and head north along Dufferin or something.

With GO-RER Exhibition GO will already be subway-like in speed and frequency.

Then they could have put a station on Dufferin and Liberty Street, and had 3 rapid transit stations surrounding Liberty Village, to the North, South and West.

with all this talk about the GO corridor section. What about the exhibition section. does anyone else think the line should have just continued all the way to roncesvalles then up to dundas west? or at least something similar
the exhibition part doesnt really do anything except being a lsw go transit transfer point to the downtown core

The line should go to Dundas West and then Mt Dennis.

IIRC metrolinx plans on mandating a capacity of 30,000 PPHPD as a part of the bidding process, with opening day being less from tains not running as frequently.

And why is that unacceptable? As others have said, its more than any subway line in Toronto today. The Yonge Line is the second busiest line on the continent, handles three quarters of a million passengers a day, and that ridership is handled with about 26,000 pphpd.

Are we really saying its unacceptable to save sevaral billion dollars, just because, maybe, just maybe, several generations from now the line might start experiencing capacity issues?

I'm honestly confused by the obsession about capacity on this board. It's never brought up in the LRT threads (Especially the Scarborough Subway Thread, which had ridership projections in the upper ranges of LRT capacity on opening day), yet here everyone treats the OL like it's a useless piece of trash because it doesn't have a marginal amount of additional capacity that won't be required until, at best, the 2060's. And even if it had that capacity, it would stave off the "relief line for the relief line" by maybe only a decade at best.

It's the new rolling stock. Another garage, and another adjustment to the system. It's unnecessary. The route is fine, just find a way to use the rolling stock.

 

[north-of-anything]

The concern for affecting wetlands may be disingenuous, but I think that if Metrolinx came out and said that they ruled out underground because it would be too expensive, they would be (rightly) slammed for not being as rigorous with costs on Eglinton West or the Line 2 extension. I think the amount of land that would need to be expropriated for portals and the like is enough of a justification for not tunnelling in Riverdale. My biggest concern with the current plan is still whether this will restrain future expansion of GO service.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Having it extended along the western GO corridor could prove redundant. Maybe another western alignment thats no already covered.