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

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually, city planners examined the route (in a report) and determined it is much better than the relief line in almost every aspect. The RL's north extension would've probably open in the 2040s, it wasn't planned to connect to the East Harbour station, and wouldn't serve as many riders & developments, so I'm not sure why people are complaining.

That's not an apples to apples comparison - conveniently removing the RL north component in the comparison to OL is Metrolinx playing games. Not to say that RL couldn't have been more efficient.

There is no reason to have our metros run underground unless its absolutely needed.

Like Eglinton West, where the need, the ridership and the case is so strong that the tunneling contract needed to be expedited to procurement before the rest of the project

AoD

 

[ARG1]

That's not an apples to apples comparison - conveniently removing the RL north component in the comparison to OL is Metrolinx playing games.

AoD

Except the fact that we're getting the Science Center part of the line far sooner is incredibly important. Yes its totally fair to compare the DRL with OL because they are similar in both budget and timeframes. Anything that happens after the initial plan is often up for debate and can be easily changed, as a result, extensions like RLN should be used as consideration, but it shouldn't be included in the discussion. I can just as easily say "Metrolinx said that provisions for extensions North and West from Science Center and Exhibition will be included for easier extensions later" but both future extensions to both OL and RLN were just that, hypotheticals, hypotheticals that easily wouldn't have happened.

 

[MisterF]

At this point the Ontario Line is no less hypothetical than what came before. Toronto's subway lines have been extended multiple times where there's been demand. No reason to think that the RL would be any different.

Doesn’t matter if the trains are smaller if they run more of them. After all Vancouver’s 2 carriage RT carries more people a day than Lakeshore East GO train

Even better than a small train running more often is a big train running more often.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Except the fact that we're getting the Science Center part of the line far sooner is incredibly important. Yes its totally fair to compare the DRL with OL because they are similar in both budget and timeframes. Anything that happens after the initial plan is often up for debate and can be easily changed, as a result, extensions like RLN should be used as consideration, but it shouldn't be included in the discussion. I can just as easily say "Metrolinx said that provisions for extensions North and West from Science Center and Exhibition will be included for easier extensions later" but both future extensions to both OL and RLN were just that, hypotheticals, hypotheticals that easily wouldn't have happened.

You must have forgotten that RL north went to Metrolinx itself for development - which leads me to suspect the takeover was the plan all along.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

Like Eglinton West, where the need, the ridership and the case is so strong that the tunneling contract needed to be expedited to procurement before the rest of the project

AoD

So What? Yes Eglinton West should've been elevated, what's your point? At the very least I'm thankful that's its not the original plan of running it in the median of Eglinton Road.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So What? Yes Eglinton West should've been elevated, what's your point? At the very least I'm thankful that's its not the original plan of running it in the median of Eglinton Road.

The point being - there is insufficient rigour in your belief that underground should be used only where necessary - especially if you want to bring up cost as an argument. Eglinton West is about as far away from need as there could be.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

The point being - there is insufficient rigour in your belief that underground should be used only where necessary - especially if you want to bring up cost as an argument. Eglinton West is about as far away from need as there could be.

AoD

Except that Doug Ford lives in the Kipling & Eglinton West neighbourhood, so Eglinton West LRT extension MUST be underground, out of HIS sight when he drives around in his SUV.

 

[ARG1]

The point being - there is insufficient rigour in your belief that underground should be used only where necessary - especially if you want to bring up cost as an argument.

AoD

Search up "Strawman Argument" and "whataboutism", its quite useful here. I honestly couldn't care less what dumb decisions Doug Ford is making for other projects. We're not discussing those here are we? This is a discussion about the Ontario Line, and the Ontario Line alone, leave the other projects out. If you do want to bring up other projects, why don't you bring up Yonge North where Metrolinx is trying to convince York Region to have part of the line be above ground in the CN corridor?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Search up "Strawman Argument" and "whataboutism", its quite useful here. I honestly couldn't care less what dumb decisions Doug Ford is making for other projects. We're not discussing those here are we? This is a discussion about the Ontario Line, and the Ontario Line alone, leave the other projects out. If you do want to bring up other projects, why don't you bring up Yonge North where Metrolinx is trying to convince York Region to have part of the line be above ground in the CN corridor?

Well, except that transportation budget isn't as non-zero sum as you have put it to be. Do you believe that the extra funding spent on tunnelling along Eglinton West would serve a better purpose enabling a higher system capacity on OL (where frequency was used to make up for, among other things, smaller platforms than as proposed in RL)? Look at how easily you dismissed that extra cost elsewhere with a big meh, whereas cutting cost for the project with the highest projected ridership is portrayed as "wise".

AoD

 

[ARG1]

Well, except that transportation budget isn't as non-zero sum as you have put it to be. Do you believe that the extra funding spent on tunnelling along Eglinton West would serve a better purpose enabling a higher system capacity on OL (where frequency was used to make up for, among other things, smaller platforms than as proposed in RL)?

AoD

Sure absolutely, as long as the alternative they gave to Eglinton West was an elevated line and not one in the median. My point is despite some of the drawbacks to the OL, it's still as a package better than the RL.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sure absolutely, as long as the alternative they gave to Eglinton West was an elevated line and not one in the median. My point is despite some of the drawbacks to the OL, it's still as a package better than the RL.

Personally I have no problem with choosing OL over RL when all else is equal - but there are definitely improvements to be had for OL which is inferior in some aspects.

AoD

 

[p_xavier]

It's actually considerably more expensive than that; the Fire Safety upgrades (more airflow; I believe Finch is the only finished station) are a pre-requisite and had a separate $1B+ lineitem.

The "doors" were relatively cheap. Strengthening platform edges and removal of asbestos were a big chunk of that price.

I work on the Orange line platform door project in Montréal and the original estimate was way too high. We found many efficiencies to have, airflow models have barely no impact in the end so there won't be any changes done on ventilation. We won't do any platform strengthening either (ok, 3 stations) because the doors' supports will be directly connecting to the ground and will support the platform itself. Each door will be independant so one or two will be installed every night. Doors are full height too.

 

[syn]

I really can't believe how much resistance there is to building a full capacity subway for this line. It's like 10 years of Ford/Tory rhetoric has really worn us down.

 

[ARG1]

I really can't believe how much resistance there is to building a full capacity subway for this line. It's like 10 years of Ford/Tory rhetoric has really worn us down.

We were given 2 options, a crappy route with slightly better capacity, or a far better route with slightly worse capacity, both with similar price tags, but the latter being far more cost efficient. I'll take option #2 any day with a heart beat.

 

[syn]

We were given 2 options, a crappy route with slightly better capacity, or a far better route with slightly worse capacity, both with similar price tags, but the latter being far more cost efficient. I'll take option #2 any day with a heart beat.

What was crappy about the first route?

What qualifies as 'slightly worse capacity'?