Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Metrolinx has officially abandoned the 2031 opening date. Now it’s “early 2030s”. A reminder that Ford pitched the opening of the Ontario line “as early as 2027” when it was announced in 2020. If there’s any solace, it’s that he might not get to cut the ribbon.

IMG_2112.jpeg
 
nightstreak said:
Metrolinx has officially abandoned the 2031 opening date. Now it’s “early 2030s”. A reminder that Ford pitched the opening of the Ontario line “as early as 2027” when it was announced in 2020. If there’s any solace, it’s that he might not get to cut the ribbon.

View attachment 716887
Click to expand...
So maybe 2036, open the same year as the Eglinton West...
 
What is causing this delay, though?

Some of the stations are completely excavated already, like King-Bathurst. Tunnel-boring usually moves fairly quickly unless it gets stuck, as did the Line 2 extension TBM.

The only known reason for a delay seems to be the Queen connection reconfiguration, but with so much of the project moving along at a decent pace, why would that relatively small aspect delay the whole project by years, when they still have over 5 years left to complete this thing by 2031?
 
felix123 said:
What is causing this delay, though?

Some of the stations are completely excavated already, like King-Bathurst. Tunnel-boring usually moves fairly quickly unless it gets stuck, as did the Line 2 extension TBM.

The only known reason for a delay seems to be the Queen connection reconfiguration, but with so much of the project moving along at a decent pace, why would that relatively small aspect delay the whole project by years, when they still have over 5 years left to complete this thing by 2031?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if they have encounter similar problems at Queen like they did at Eglinton when Line 5 was being built. Since that stretch of Line 1 opened at the same time in 54' it's not out of the question that design and construction decisions were repeated across all of the stations at the time. These decision could have been repeated on the University Extension and the original part of Line 2 as well since they all use the same construction method and were designed in house by the TTC. So it only makes sense to just reuse the preexisting way of doing things on the University extension and Line 2 to speed up and simplify construction (aka Institutionalized Knowledge). As well Queen is one of the oldest streets in the city so there may be a lot of undocumented things going on beneath it.

It's actually a reason I don't like how ML has outsourced every aspect of design and construction for Lines 5, 6, and the OL since it means none of the knowledge can be truly internalized by either the TTC or ML for reuse on future projects, nor does it draw upon the TTC's prexisiting knowledge about how to construct Subways and LRT's... it's not like the TTC hasn't been building and operating a subway network for 72 years....
 
Last edited:
This news piece was already shared 7 pages ago.

felix123 said:
Some of the stations are completely excavated already
Click to expand...
Keyword some. Try looking elsewhere for the weakest links, all the pieces matter.

felix123 said:
The only known reason for a delay seems to be the Queen connection reconfiguration
Click to expand...
If it seems that way is it a known reason or just speculation?

JSF-1 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they have encounter similar problems at Queen like they did at Eglinton when Line 5 was being built. Since that stretch of Line 1 opened at the same time in 54' it's not out of the question that design and construction decisions were repeated across all of the stations at the time.
Click to expand...
Quite different situation. OL Queen station is anchored in bedrock, Line 5 Eg station was underpinned to the existing station.
 
JSF-1 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they have encounter similar problems at Queen like they did at Eglinton when Line 5 was being built. Since that stretch of Line 1 opened at the same time in 54' it's not out of the question that design and construction decisions were repeated across all of the stations at the time. These decision could have been repeated on the University Extension and the original part of Line 2 as well since they all use the same construction method and were designed in house by the TTC. So it only makes sense to just reuse the preexisting way of doing things on the University extension and Line 2 to speed up and simplify construction (aka Institutionalized Knowledge). As well Queen is one of the oldest streets in the city so there may be a lot of undocumented things going on beneath it.

It's actually a reason I don't like how ML has outsourced every aspect of design and construction for Lines 5, 6, and the OL since it means none of the knowledge can be truly internalized by either the TTC or ML for reuse on future projects, nor does it draw upon the TTC's prexisiting knowledge about how to construct Subways and LRT's... it's not like the TTC hasn't been building and operating a subway network for 72 years....
Click to expand...
So look for that cracked slab!
 
JSF-1 said:
wouldn't be surprised if they have encounter similar problems at Queen like they did at Eglinton when Line 5 was being built. Since that stretch of Line 1 opened at the same time in 54' it's not out of the question that design and construction decisions were repeated across all of the stations at the time
Click to expand...
There's a gap of un-excavated ground between the two station structures at Queen, which I thought was planned because of the problems encountered at Eglinton.
JSF-1 said:
It's actually a reason I don't like how ML has outsourced every aspect of design and construction for Lines 5, 6, and the OL since it means none of the knowledge can be truly internalized by either the TTC or ML for reuse on future projects, nor does it draw upon the TTC's prexisiting knowledge about how to construct Subways and LRT's... it's not like the TTC hasn't been building and operating a subway network for 72 years....
Click to expand...
I agree, the damage this has done will be felt for a generation.
 
Voltz said:
There's a gap of un-excavated ground between the two station structures at Queen, which I thought was planned because of the problems encountered at Eglinton.
Click to expand...
The segment under Yonge Street is going to be mined after the TBM goes through. The open pits on either side are required to expand the existing Queen station and provide it vertical circulation to Line 3 and to street level. The small segment under Yonge doesn’t need to be cut and cover.
 
JSF-1 said:
It's actually a reason I don't like how ML has outsourced every aspect of design and construction for Lines 5, 6, and the OL since it means none of the knowledge can be truly internalized by either the TTC or ML for reuse on future projects, nor does it draw upon the TTC's prexisiting knowledge about how to construct Subways and LRT's... it's not like the TTC hasn't been building and operating a subway network for 72 years
Click to expand...
Let me start of by saying that I agree.

However, ONE thing metrolinx and the province have learned is that a consistent pipline of project is needed to keep expertise within canada. So while its true that they have stupidly outsourced everything, the contracted expertise is sticking around which is good.

There's also a much better understanding of which contractors can do the work, how to maintain better relationships with contractors, and how to write better contracts to avoid litigation.

The proof will be in the pudding I guess but lessons are slowly being learned.


I will also say that outside of china. It is rare to see any major transit project be finished under budget and on time...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top