Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[MrGoose]

I'm fascinated how quick we are to make local citizens that care about their community the villains. Some of them may be acting out of complete self interest, but they have also raised fair points Metrolinx hasn't come close to addressing.

Fair points? Hah!

Take the Leslieville crowd. Their "reasonable" request is,

1. Throw your original plan for routing the Ontario Line out the window in favor of the napkin drawing plan that Steve Munro drew.
2. Tell us how much extra money the new plan would cost ok mmm thanks.

Which makes it very hard on Metrolinx to address "fairly" for many reasons.

1. If Metrolinx lets communities and randoms on the street start designing infrastructure projects for them, what is the point of Metrolinx. Why even bother? Just crowdsource and crowdfund Ontario's public infrastructure.
2. Even if Metrolinx were to abandon their own plan and go with the Save Jimmie Simpson plan, the community is not the only stakeholder here. Every potential rider, the engineering consultants who you have to pay to redo the plan, the City of Toronto who you have to coordinate the construction with because of the midtown access sewer, the Province, the developers of the East Harbor site, etc.
3. It takes time and resources to redo the plans/ redesign plans. People have deadlines to meet and someone has to do the design work and the cost estimate work. Constructing a second set of plans can increase costs or cause delays or both.
4. Their concerns are entirely self centered and narrowly focused on the infrastructure. That makes it very very hard to believe that local citizens are either acting in good faith or concerned about the community.

 

[DirectionNorth]

People caring about their community isn't whining.

If you lived in one of these communities you might be singing a different tune.

Lots of people are anti-NIMBY until something is proposed in their community.

A lot of them are researching and fact checking. The problem is that Metrolinx can't answer their questions nor are they honest with them.

The Leslieville crowd are also being dishonest - a quick google image search of "Save Jimmie Simpson" reveals some tactics that are borderline politician - it's not a lie, but it's not true/missing a large part of the picture.

I'm fascinated how quick we are to make local citizens that care about their community the villains. Some of them may be acting out of complete self interest, but they have also raised fair points Metrolinx hasn't come close to addressing.

I see this as a symptom, rather than a disease of our planning communities. It reflects the frustration about the pace of t ... r ... a ... n ... s ... i ... t ... ... p ... l ... a ... n ... n ... i ... n ... g in this city, and especially the Relief Line, to the point where frustration comes up anytime anyone threatens to slow it down.

Fair points? Hah!

Take the Leslieville crowd. Their "reasonable" request is,

1. Throw your original plan for routing the Ontario Line out the window in favor of the napkin drawing plan that Steve Munro drew.
2. Tell us how much extra money the new plan would cost ok mmm thanks.

Which makes it very hard on Metrolinx to address "fairly" for many reasons.

1. If Metrolinx lets communities and randoms on the street start designing infrastructure projects for them, what is the point of Metrolinx. Why even bother? Just crowdsource and crowdfund Ontario's public infrastructure.
2. Even if Metrolinx were to abandon their own plan and go with the Save Jimmie Simpson plan, the community is not the only stakeholder here. Every potential rider, the engineering consultants who you have to pay to redo the plan, the City of Toronto who you have to coordinate the construction with because of the midtown access sewer, the Province, the developers of the East Harbor site, etc.
3. It takes time and resources to redo the plans/ redesign plans. People have deadlines to meet and someone has to do the design work and the cost estimate work. Constructing a second set of plans can increase costs or cause delays or both.
4. Their concerns are entirely self centered and narrowly focused on the infrastructure. That makes it very very hard to believe that local citizens are either acting in good faith or concerned about the community.

Both sides are probably at fault here.

Metrolinx has a bad record with changing plans without consultation, and renenging on promises to the community.
Leslieville is expecting that a rail corridor never be expanded - and OL trains are quieter than GO trains.

I'm not an engineer, but something tells me that the Ontario Line announcement really threw it off - the way they've designed it, it has to go above ground and take up land in Leslieville, or else the project won't make sense.

It's not mutually exclusive, people.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not an engineer, but something tells me that the Ontario Line announcement really threw it off - the way they've designed it, it has to go above ground and take up land in Leslieville, or else the project won't make sense.

Lots of people are anti-NIMBY until something is proposed in their community.

Always true; but an important take away is that all opposition is not evil/scandalous etc. It can be merited, in whole, or in part. Self interest is not a bad thing, it motivates us all.

Yes, the greater good is more important than narrow self-interest (or it should be); but that doesn't mean one can't listen to objections with a measure of empathy, ascertain their veracity; and consider
whether its possible to improve a proposal to satisfy said concerns, reasonably.

The answer will not always be 'yes'. And depending on the proposal in question, it may need to move forward regardless, or it may need to die on the vine in its current form.

I'm not an engineer, but something tells me that the Ontario Line announcement really threw it off - the way they've designed it, it has to go above ground and take up land in Leslieville, or else the project won't make sense.

For better or worse, the cost of Munro's suggestion has been roughly costed by Mx at 800M, that is well less than the contingency on the O/L estimated cost, which is low-balled anyway. We're talking less than 10% lift, maybe as little as 6%. The O/L is entirely viable while undergrounding in this area (whether one supports that or not is a different question).

I remain opposed to overgrounding here, even though I don't live/work etc. in the area. I oppose it because I believe the rail corridor capacity is required for HFR/HSR/VIA as well as further augmentations to GO; I think this is a mis-use of a finite resource.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Always true; but an important take away is that all opposition is not evil/scandalous etc. It can be merited, in whole, or in part. Self interest is not a bad thing, it motivates us all.

Yes, the greater good is more important than narrow self-interest (or it should be); but that doesn't mean one can't listen to objections with a measure of empathy, ascertain their veracity; and consider
whether its possible to improve a proposal to satisfy said concerns, reasonably.

I don't remember saying that the NIMBYs in Leslieville were totally wrong.

The answer will not always be 'yes'. And depending on the proposal in question, it may need to move forward regardless, or it may need to die on the vine in its current form.

For better or worse, the cost of Munro's suggestion has been roughly costed by Mx at 800M, that is well less than the contingency on the O/L estimated cost, which is low-balled anyway. We're talking less than 10% lift, maybe as little as 6%. The O/L is entirely viable while undergrounding in this area (whether one supports that or not is a different question).

I remain opposed to overgrounding here, even though I don't live/work etc. in the area. I oppose it because I believe the rail corridor capacity is required for HFR/HSR/VIA as well as further augmentations to GO; I think this is a mis-use of a finite resource.

I would support whatever the hell gets this thing built faster.

 

[ARG1]

I remain opposed to overgrounding here, even though I don't live/work etc. in the area. I oppose it because I believe the rail corridor capacity is required for HFR/HSR/VIA as well as further augmentations to GO; I think this is a mis-use of a finite resource.

If the feds want to pay for the Ontario Line to be buried in order to run more Via service there, they're free to do so.

 

[Northern Light]

If the feds want to pay for the Ontario Line to be buried in order to run more Via service there, they're free to do so.

The Feds are contributing several billion to the Ontario Line proposal, you know that right?

 

[Voltz]

remain opposed to overgrounding here, even though I don't live/work etc. in the area. I oppose it because I believe the rail corridor capacity is required for HFR/HSR/VIA as well as further augmentations to GO; I think this is a mis-use of a finite resource.

This is what I haven't liked about the plan from the beginning, I'm sure I've seen GO expansion plans in the past that called for six or more railway tracks through here. Limiting it to four is a chokepoint that will limit service all the way to Ottawa and Montreal.

Also the idea of building a new line in and out of downtown with less capacity than the existing established mode is just wrong.

 

[ARG1]

The Feds are contributing several billion to the Ontario Line proposal, you know that right?

And last I checked they haven't requested any modifications to have it buried in order to allow for room for VIA. If they need the trackspace, and are willing to pay for the burial of the Ontario Line for their VIA HFR project, they can do so.

 

[pardonmyfrenchcanadian]

Fair points? Hah!

Take the Leslieville crowd. Their "reasonable" request is,

1. Throw your original plan for routing the Ontario Line out the window in favor of the napkin drawing plan that Steve Munro drew.
2. Tell us how much extra money the new plan would cost ok mmm thanks.

Which makes it very hard on Metrolinx to address "fairly" for many reasons.

1. If Metrolinx lets communities and randoms on the street start designing infrastructure projects for them, what is the point of Metrolinx. Why even bother? Just crowdsource and crowdfund Ontario's public infrastructure.
2. Even if Metrolinx were to abandon their own plan and go with the Save Jimmie Simpson plan, the community is not the only stakeholder here. Every potential rider, the engineering consultants who you have to pay to redo the plan, the City of Toronto who you have to coordinate the construction with because of the midtown access sewer, the Province, the developers of the East Harbor site, etc.
3. It takes time and resources to redo the plans/ redesign plans. People have deadlines to meet and someone has to do the design work and the cost estimate work. Constructing a second set of plans can increase costs or cause delays or both.
4. Their concerns are entirely self centered and narrowly focused on the infrastructure. That makes it very very hard to believe that local citizens are either acting in good faith or concerned about the community.

The worst part is that Save Jimmie Simpson and others (aided by Steve Munro) are the loudest in the room. There are many others in Riverside/Leslieville who would like meaning input into these plans and station design, but can't because the conversation is completely sidetracked by their over-the-top uncompromising NIMBYism.

 

[sche]

I remain opposed to overgrounding here, even though I don't live/work etc. in the area. I oppose it because I believe the rail corridor capacity is required for HFR/HSR/VIA as well as further augmentations to GO; I think this is a mis-use of a finite resource.

Really, electrified VIA rail trains are the most appropriate thing to tunnel, followed by express GO trains. If there are parallel services with different stopping patterns, the most express service is generally the most appropriate for tunnelling.

The most expensive thing about tunnelling is building stations, and one of the main disadvantages of deep tunnelling is that it takes a long time to access stations. An express tunnel has very few or no stations, and the impact of 5 mins going down escalators or elevators is not a big deal if your destination is Oshawa or Montreal, but it is if your destination is only a few km away.

A VIA tunnel from say, Jones to Cherry would have zero stations, and an express GO tunnel could do with only one 300m station at East Harbour (which probably doesn't even need to be 300m if we increase frequency). Both would probably be cheaper than building an OL tunnel of similar length with three ~100-150m underground stations.

In the meantime, four tracks is more than sufficient. The Berlin Stadtbahn and the eastern approach to Rotterdam Centraal both are four track, and both carry very high volumes of rail traffic of varying service types (local and express), certainly more than LSE.

 

[DirectionNorth]

This is what I haven't liked about the plan from the beginning, I'm sure I've seen GO expansion plans in the past that called for six or more railway tracks through here. Limiting it to four is a chokepoint that will limit service all the way to Ottawa and Montreal.

A 4-track route can handle a train every 45 seconds in each direction, if we want to run them at 90 second headways on each track. Have an express and a local track. It's not an issue.

Also the idea of building a new line in and out of downtown with less capacity than the existing established mode is just wrong.

I agree on the capacity part, but at this point, whatever the hell gets built will do. If a lower capacity OL is what it takes to get the idea of cheaper light metro into Toronto circles, it's a sacrifice that I'm personally willing to make in this city.

 

[ARG1]

Really, electrified VIA rail trains are the most appropriate thing to tunnel, followed by express GO trains. If there are parallel services with different stopping patterns, the most express service is generally the most appropriate for tunnelling.

The most expensive thing about tunnelling is building stations, and one of the main disadvantages of deep tunnelling is that it takes a long time to access stations. An express tunnel has very few or no stations, and the impact of 5 mins going down escalators or elevators is not a big deal if your destination is Oshawa or Montreal, but it is if your destination is only a few km away.

A VIA tunnel from say, Jones to Cherry would have zero stations, and an express GO tunnel could do with only one 300m station at East Harbour (which probably doesn't even need to be 300m if we increase frequency). Both would probably be cheaper than building an OL tunnel of similar length with three ~100-150m underground stations.

In the meantime, four tracks is more than sufficient. The Berlin Stadtbahn and the eastern approach to Rotterdam Centraal both are four track, and both carry very high volumes of rail traffic of varying service types (local and express), certainly more than LSE.

Really what this demands is at some point for Scarborough Junction to get built, so that we can have proper Fast/Slow Tracks rather than restricting the LSE and Stouffville Lines to specific tracks thus dooming Express Services to only be operated at set intervals (unless we want to declare that LSE tracks are now all fast tracks that VIA rail can use). A 4 track configuration like this will be more than good enough for the level of service we can expect on this corridor for at least 30 years, and if that's a problem, we can do as you say and build an express tunnel.

 

[syn]

1. If Metrolinx lets communities and randoms on the street start designing infrastructure projects for them, what is the point of Metrolinx. Why even bother? Just crowdsource and crowdfund Ontario's public infrastructure.
2. Even if Metrolinx were to abandon their own plan and go with the Save Jimmie Simpson plan, the community is not the only stakeholder here. Every potential rider, the engineering consultants who you have to pay to redo the plan, the City of Toronto who you have to coordinate the construction with because of the midtown access sewer, the Province, the developers of the East Harbor site, etc.
3. It takes time and resources to redo the plans/ redesign plans. People have deadlines to meet and someone has to do the design work and the cost estimate work. Constructing a second set of plans can increase costs or cause delays or both.
4. Their concerns are entirely self centered and narrowly focused on the infrastructure. That makes it very very hard to believe that local citizens are either acting in good faith or concerned about the community.

1) No one is asking Metrolinx to do this.
2) & 3) None of this seemed to matter when they discarded the previous plan to build a new one (the OL). If Metrolinx had designed this plan in cooperation with local communities instead imposing their will on them, we'd probably see much less resistance.
4) It is important that communities are able to voice their concerns and that they're taken seriously. I'd also argue that many of their concerns are valid, especially when it comes to safety. I do not live in the area and I'm in favour of not using the GO corridor for practical reasons.

 

[syn]

For better or worse, the cost of Munro's suggestion has been roughly costed by Mx at 800M, that is well less than the contingency on the O/L estimated cost, which is low-balled anyway. We're talking less than 10% lift, maybe as little as 6%. The O/L is entirely viable while undergrounding in this area (whether one supports that or not is a different question).

I remain opposed to overgrounding here, even though I don't live/work etc. in the area. I oppose it because I believe the rail corridor capacity is required for HFR/HSR/VIA as well as further augmentations to GO; I think this is a mis-use of a finite resource.

This is where the argument against burying it falls apart. The cost is relatively low compared to other projects (I believe it's at least $2 billion just to bury the EWLRT) and one could argue the benefit of keeping the GO corridor available for GO expansion has it's own significant value.

 

[KhalilHeron]

This is what I haven't liked about the plan from the beginning, I'm sure I've seen GO expansion plans in the past that called for six or more railway tracks through here. Limiting it to four is a chokepoint that will limit service all the way to Ottawa and Montreal.

Also the idea of building a new line in and out of downtown with less capacity than the existing established mode is just wrong.

I thought VIAs HFR plan would take trains through Peterborough to get to Montreal and Ottawa? So really there doesn't need to be all that much expansion in this corridor from VIA just GO. It may cause complications to serving Durham-Kingston but shouldn't be a problem connecting to Montreal and ottawa