Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Hopkins123]

I'm glad The Star is keeping on top of this.

Well, it's a mighty fresh change of pace from all the doom and gloom y'all were proclaiming had befallen this project from just a few days ago at least. Kudos to investigative journalism. This shows that Ford's been working behind the scenes this entire time coming up with a plan that supersedes the City's Relief Line plan by spades.

 

[syn]

Well, it's a mighty fresh change of pace from all the doom and gloom y'all were proclaiming had befallen this project from just a few days ago at least. Kudos to investigative journalism. This shows that Ford's been working behind the scenes this entire time coming up with a plan that supersedes the City's Relief Line plan by spades.

How does this supersede the city's Relief Line plan by 'spades'?

Considering how far this deviates from the original plan and that they were supposed to present at the end of June, this isn't exactly good news.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What’s with the secrecy on this project?

 

[BurlOak]

What’s with the secrecy on this project?

This was released maybe 3 or 4 months after project announced.
Compare to Metrolinx under Liberals who waited 17 month after completion of Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown report before release (32 months after project announced) - and that was only released due to FOI.
so the PCs are about 10x more open than secret Liberals.

 

[rbt]

Well, it's a mighty fresh change of pace from all the doom and gloom y'all were proclaiming had befallen this project from just a few days ago at least. Kudos to investigative journalism. This shows that Ford's been working behind the scenes this entire time coming up with a plan that supersedes the City's Relief Line plan by spades.

The real question is why didn't Metrolinx bring up all this detail a few years ago during the city driven process? They had reps in the room the entire time and took part extensively in the GO interchange design discussions. The 2016 report included an option that followed the railway corridor between Pape and Queen; IIRC it was deemed infeasible due to construction disruption to GO services.

 

[BurlOak]

The real question is why didn't Metrolinx bring up all this detail a few years ago during the city driven process? They had reps in the room the entire time and took part extensively in the GO interchange design discussions.

I suspect that Kiesmaat forced her own vision on the DRL, and wouldn't listen to any plan that did not mesh with her own.
it was a city led process, so Keesmat was in charge.

 

[syn]

This was released maybe 3 or 4 months after project announced.
Compare to Metrolinx under Liberals who waited 17 month after completion of Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown report before release (32 months after project announced) - and that was only released due to FOI.
so the PCs are about 10x more open than secret Liberals.

It wasn't released. It was found.

The province has taken full control of the process and is now already well behind their own deadline for releasing a plan update.

 

[Rainforest]

Part of the rationale for not putting Relief Line 1 on King was that RER + the Relief Line would put way too much pressure on pedestrian infrastructure on the area. Remember that traffic at Union is expected to double in the coming decades. So with that in mind, Dundas might be a better location for Relief Line 2 to spread out demand. Dundas also happens to be the most used station on Line 1 south of Bloor, last I checked

If it comes to that, I would consider Dundas for Relief Line 2, and would use RER / mainline rolling stock for that line. In the east, it would turn north in the Bala Sub corridor, taking over the existing Richmond Hill rail line. Potentially it can serve two branches; one up Don Mills and then north-west towards RH Centre, the other up the CP corridor towards Agincourt.

Of course the above is highly hypothetical at this point, and not an excuse to undersize Relief Line 1.

 

[Steve X]

The real question is why didn't Metrolinx bring up all this detail a few years ago during the city driven process? They had reps in the room the entire time and took part extensively in the GO interchange design discussions. The 2016 report included an option that followed the railway corridor between Pape and Queen; IIRC it was deemed infeasible due to construction disruption to GO services.

Simple, ML doesn't want others messing with their stuff but when it's their own project, it's totally okay.

If they have comparable travel times, I don't see a problem of using the railway corridor. Leslieville is only 475m west of Carlaw/Queen. What I'm worried about is Leslieville is only 600m from East Harbour. Complexity, cost and short distance from another station will result in Leslieville being deleted from the line. They can always cook up some BS saying low ridership.

This was released maybe 3 or 4 months after project announced.
Compare to Metrolinx under Liberals who waited 17 month after completion of Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown report before release (32 months after project announced) - and that was only released due to FOI.
so the PCs are about 10x more open than secret Liberals.

I feel like this has been ongoing since Ford was elected. It obviously wasn't announced till they are confident it's possible. Ford knows he doesn't need city's approval to build the line thus he can get ML to announce whenever he feels like it. There isn't a need for transparency as ML only needs to report to Queen's Park (Wynne or Ford).

The TTC obviously got the memo last month that the relief line will be on a totally different alignment. The were likely told not to say anything except work paused. This is why The Star went to investigate as something was old about that news.
It's been very clear now ML will be the only party involved in transit expansion in the GTA with very limited options from the city. (Ford deems city hall garbage anyways) Even if the city has funds, they aren't allow to build any large scale project.

 

[Rainforest]

Overall, I'm not too excited about the new OL plan; there are numerous concern.

1. First and foremost, the capacity. Not sure it is worth spending money on a very costly line into downtown if its capacity limit is less than 30k per hour per direction. And yet, the proposed tight turns would make it difficult to reach 30k, and tempting to cheapen out.

2. There was a notion of reducing the cost by running elevated wherever possible. But now, it appears that the line needs to swing quite a bit south from Queen in order to join the rail corridor and emerge. That extra length will offset the cost saving from going elevated. It is conceivable that they could just shorten the western leg (Spadina instead of Exhibition), and build the all-underground line with no tight curves, all the way to Eglinton, for the same amount of money.

3. Some already pointed out: if the line has to swing south at both ends, is Queen still the best choice for the central section? Or, should the whole line be shifted south?

4. If OL runs in the eastern rail corridor, that space won't be available for the future RER expansion. That corridor isn't known for being particularly wide.

5. Elevated through the Thorncliffe and Flemmington neighborhoods: some of the locals will complain. That issue can be resolved if the elevated rail is decorated well, but the temptation to cheapen out might win instead.

6. And finally, the MSF location that will be difficult to connect to the actual line.

 

[Hopkins123]

^ Hopefully the need for a faster, easier commute to/from Thorncliffe/Flemingdon will far outweigh the paltry cries of NIMBYs.

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.

 

[syn]

^ Hopefully the need for a faster, easier commute to/from Thorncliffe/Flemingdon will far outweigh the paltry cries of NIMBYs.

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.

Right.

Elevated rail in Scarborough = no respect for Scarborough
Elevated rail in Thorncliffe = anyone who complains is a NIMBY

Got it.

 

[syn]

Critics slam reports of Doug Ford's changes to Toronto relief line plan

"The proposed changes are just going to set us back even further," said Bradford, who criticized the government for bringing ideas forward without consultation

The city's previous plan had been approved by all levels of government, he said, with the transit project assessment and environmental assessments already done.

 

[Hopkins123]

Right.

Elevated rail in Scarborough = no respect for Scarborough
Elevated rail in Thorncliffe = anyone who complains is a NIMBY

Got it.

Oh dear Lord!

The subway is elevated in sections too, like through the affluent High Park neighbourhood. We can also visibly see trains running through even more affluent Rosedale. But you don't hear me complaining about that now do you?

The perennial problem with the SLRT proposal is always that it forces all the many thousands of daily transit users whom desire a through trip through Kennedy and not have to get off there, to have to get off there to exchange trains. I was all for the Glenn Murray plan. Got it? Capisce!

 

[Steve X]

Overall, I'm not too excited about the new OL plan; there are numerous concern.

1. First and foremost, the capacity. Not sure it is worth spending money on a very costly line into downtown if its capacity limit is less than 30k per hour per direction. And yet, the proposed tight turns would make it difficult to reach 30k, and tempting to cheapen out.

2. There was a notion of reducing the cost by running elevated wherever possible. But now, it appears that the line needs to swing quite a bit south from Queen in order to join the rail corridor and emerge. That extra length will offset the cost saving from going elevated. It is conceivable that they could just shorten the western leg (Spadina instead of Exhibition), and build the all-underground line with no tight curves, all the way to Eglinton, for the same amount of money.

3. Some already pointed out: if the line has to swing south at both ends, is Queen still the best choice for the central section? Or, should the whole line be shifted south?

4. If OL runs in the eastern rail corridor, that space won't be available for the future RER expansion. That corridor isn't known for being particularly wide.

5. Elevated through the Thorncliffe and Flemmington neighborhoods: some of the locals will complain. That issue can be resolved if the elevated rail is decorated well, but the temptation to cheapen out might win instead.

6. And finally, the MSF location that will be difficult to connect to the actual line.

I'm not going to argue for the new plans. There are major issues, especially lack of community inputs.

1. Tight turns doesn't limit capacity. Theoretically, if every train moves at the same speed and dwells for certain amount of seconds, every train will complete the trip in the same amount of time. Thus capacity never changes regardless if the line includes a 5 minute detour or snails along at 5km/h. The 30k simply means how many people can pass through a certain point on the line as it's calculated by the (passengers) x (number of trains per hour per direction). Line capacity (ppdph) has nothing to do with the number of people carried between points A and B over a period of time. Thus the line capacity hasn't changed (on schedule) when TTC keeps adding more trip time to subways, streetcars and buses. It doesn't matter if they are all bunched up, as long as they serve every stop, don't short turn and no trips are missed, the line capacity is the same. It's definitely not a good way to measure reliability!

2. Right now as things stand. There is no proof ML will deliver the entire line using TBMs. Heck he could close roads (especially outside the core) and trench the line for a significantly cheaper cost than a deep tunnel under the Don River. Especially the curve east of Sherbourne doesn't run under a major road (it's west of Parliament on the map)

5. I think the roadway is wide enough for an elevated structure. Although I would be sad if they have to rip out the green medium to put this line in. Overlea Blvd is definitely one of the better looking roads in TO.