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

[Coolstar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1286306653017649152

"There's still no guarantee that transit riders will be able to transfer between the Ontario Line and the TTC on the same fare!"

Doesn't that little statement seem off though? It's like saying the Eglinton Crosstown would have a different fare due to the fact the line doesn't use existing subway trains.

 

[syn]

"There's still no guarantee that transit riders will be able to transfer between the Ontario Line and the TTC on the same fare!"

Doesn't that seem off though? It's like saying the Eglinton Crosstown would have a different fare due to the fact the line doesn't use existing subway trains.

It does seem off. I assumed you'd be able to transfer as you would anywhere else in the system.

Is this something the Conservatives have not been up front about?

 

[Coolstar]

It does seem off. I assumed you'd be able to transfer as you would anywhere else in the system.

Is this something the Conservatives have not been up front about?

I'm sure there will be a seamless transfer between the rest of the TTC system. and the Ontario Line under the same fare. If not, you're pretty much paying an extra fare to get downtown from say Line 2 and that would go against Metrolinx's idea for fare integration.

 

[NoahB]

I've seen that. Based on their own calculations you're looking at a max capacity 15% lower than using standard subway stock.

15 percent is not the end of the world.

The other problem is that this is essentially conjecture. For example:

*exact length and number of cars to be finalized at financial close by winning proponent

The exact length and number of cars is a key factor, yet right now we're left to assume a best case scenario. Ford transit plans always presents best case scenarios that aren't terribly realistic.

This plan has been put together so quickly and with so little detail that we're making assumptions based on other transit systems. The problem is that even a small change in train length and car size could reduce the capacity even further beyond that 15% gap.

That's unacceptable for this line.

The contract will be awarded based on the specification the government puts out. The train could be long but narrow or short but wide and still have the same capacity. You can have a high capacity train that comes infrequently or a medium-capacity train that comes frequently and have the same capacity. You can have a 102m train with 6 17m cars or a 95m 5-car train with 19m cars and have the same capacity. (by simply switching to side seating)

The only thing that matters is the capacity, reliability, and passenger experience that gets contracted into the PPP. That's why the gov can only give a ballpark for things like the length of the train. This is how things are done now. The tech (and nitpicking) don't matter. The results do.

You need to fight to make sure that Metrolinx contracts for a high capacity system. Not for just using Toronto Rockets and calling it a day.

The exact length and number of cars is a key factor, yet right now we're left to assume a best case scenario. Ford transit plans always presents best case scenarios that aren't terribly realistic.

Again... stop with the 'it's unrealistic' BS. Just because you dont believe in it doesn't mean it is not possible. Montreal is literally building an Ontario Line-style system as I write this. And they are doing it with mostly off the shelf/standard components. (Same trains and signaling systems as Sydney Metro, Paris Metro, Singapore MRT, and Riyadh Metro)

 

[sixrings]

I'm sure there will be a seamless transfer between the rest of the TTC system. and the Ontario Line under the same fare. If not, you're pretty much paying an extra fare to get downtown from say Line 2 and that would go against Metrolinx's idea for fare integration.

Why not just say that it's the same fare system if it were the case. Why the ambiguity.

 

[syn]

15 percent is not the end of the world.

Interesting. Metrolinx is claiming a 17% ridership reduction on the Yonge Line due to the Ontario Line is significant.

A transfer isn't the end of the world either, yet it's being used as one of the major justifications for the SSE, which the government seems willing to spend anything on.

I'd say a 15% reduction in capacity for a critical line is not something that can be ignored.

Again... stop with the 'it's unrealistic' BS. Just because you dont believe in it doesn't mean it is not possible. Montreal is literally building an Ontario Line-style system as I write this. And they are doing it with mostly off the shelf/standard components. (Same trains and signaling systems as Sydney Metro, Paris Metro, Singapore MRT, and Riyadh Metro)

Which Ford transit plans have been realistically priced and thought out?

The Portlands Monorail?

The Sheppard Extension to STC, paid for entirely by the private sector?

The 32km of subways for $9 billion?

Is that a track record that inspires trust?

 

[NoahB]

Interesting. Metrolinx is claiming a 17% ridership reduction on the Yonge Line due to the Ontario Line is significant.

A transfer isn't the end of the world either, yet it's being used as one of the major justifications for the SSE, which the government seems willing to spend anything on.

I'd say a 15% reduction in capacity for a critical line is not something that can be ignored.



Which Ford transit plans have been realistically priced and thought out?

The Portlands Monorail?

The Sheppard Extension to STC, paid for entirely by the private sector?

The 32km of subways for $9 billion?

Is that a track record that inspires trust?

Notice that none of the examples I mentioned above were referring to a Monorail. (Which Bombardier actually does have a model that would kind of fit the Ontario line specifications but I digress)

You forget that you are talking about the Premiere of Ontario who holds a majority government of clapping seals. He has the legislation power to make it happen, unlike his councillor days. He can literally borrow all the money with impunity and the PC circus will clap, the NDP will screech, and Libs will wonder why they didn't think of it first.

The SSE is a completely other matter with a different history. Your whataboutism argument does not hold.

 

[syn]

Notice that none of the examples I mentioned above were referring to a Monorail. (Which Bombardier actually does have a model that would kind of fit the Ontario line specifications but I digress)

You forget that you are talking about the Premiere of Ontario who holds a majority government of clapping seals. He has the legislation power to make it happen, unlike his councillor days. He can literally borrow all the money with impunity and the PC circus will clap, the NDP will screech, and Libs will wonder why they didn't think of it first.

The SSE is a completely other matter with a different history. Your whataboutism argument does not hold.

It's not 'whataboutism' when we're talking about the same system, funded by the same taxpayers. You brought up the example, so a same-system comparison is completely relevant.

The examples I provided were not to illustrate different technologies, but a lack of credibility.

 

[NoahB]

It's not 'whataboutism' when we're talking about the same system, funded by the same taxpayers. You brought up the example, so a same-system comparison is completely relevant.

The examples I provided were not to illustrate different technologies, but a lack of credibility.

Ontario Line: A completely new line that uses new technology (for Toronto) that has become the world standard because of its flexibility and efficiency. The Ontario gov promised to build more kilometres and faster than an old plan that used TTC's standard technology.

SSE: An extension to an existing line that is not even planned to get ATC before the Ontario Line opens. It replaces a 1 stop 6km plan (wtf is this a GO train?) which replaced an LRT plan which is meant to replace an existing line.

NOT. THE. SAME.

The LRT plan could have been a Skytrain-style system. But people are so provincially minded that they cant see past their front yards. (I'm talking about using streetcar style trains for the SRT replacement)
The SSE flipflop was a city council issue and it wasn't even the Fords who proposed the SSE extension. It was Karen Stintz. The one stop version was from John Tory/ Jennifer Keesmaat.

So yes. The SSE is a separate topic.

 

[syn]

Ontario Line: A completely new line that uses new technology (for Toronto) that has become the world standard because of its flexibility and efficiency. The Ontario gov promised to build more kilometres and faster than an old plan that used TTC's standard technology.

SSE: An extension to an existing line that is not even planned to get ATC before the Ontario Line opens. It replaces a 1 stop 6km plan (wtf is this a GO train?) which replaced an LRT plan which is meant to replace an existing line.

NOT. THE. SAME.

The LRT plan could have been a Skytrain-style system. But people are so provincially minded that they cant see past their front yards. (I'm talking about using streetcar style trains for the SRT replacement)
The SSE flipflop was a city council issue and it wasn't even the Fords who proposed the SSE extension. It was Karen Stintz. The one stop version was from John Tory/ Jennifer Keesmaat.

So yes. The SSE is a separate topic.

I'm not saying they're the same.

I'm saying they're part of the same system, being funded by the same taxpayers.

You're dismissing a minimum 15% reduction in capacity as 'no big deal', when in reality it's a very big deal.

We're burying/overbuilding the Eglinton West LRT and SSE at great expense, and value engineering a critical line that that demands the absolute most capacity. The Eglinton West extension and SSE both run through areas that Ford and the Conservatives benefit from politically.

It's all a perfect example of everything wrong with transit planning in Toronto.

 

[kali]

Why not just say that it's the same fare system if it were the case. Why the ambiguity.

I think it's just about throwing as much crap at Ford and the OL as possible (even if it's contrived). The OL will almost certainly be part of the TTC network and use TTC fares.

 

[adys123]

If we build the line the way the city was planning it will likely cost something close to twice as much. Sure using bigger trains On the same alignment would *only* cost a billion or two, but again this is insane that we are talking about sums of money like that. We have a problem when stuff is costing this much. 1-2B should be enough to add 5K ppdph to the Yonge Line, or ATC to Line 2, or starting building another central rapid transit line.

I don’t really agree that being at 90% forces a line to not run well, it’s really a matter of improving our operations. Another case where yeah we could overbuild and this project would be ok, or we could improve our operational practices and every project we do from now on and all our existing lines would benefit.

I've been reading a lot of your posts for a while. I'm going to respond to them now because you have been using a lot of assumptions to justify the decision-making of the OL. What I'm seeing here is a lack of understanding for civil engineering work and transportation planning. The initial business case is riddled with random unjustified assumptions and poor methodology. How can you look at the project and expect that it will be significantly cheaper per kilometre without cutting some very important corners? While I have no huge preference of the rolling stock used, I do believe that operations can be much simplified when there are fewer differences from what we already know. This doesn't even touch on Metrolinx's own requirements for ROW space in the Lakeshore East Corridor.

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.

While this makes sense in principle, that you would go with the option with better value, there is very little evidence that the cost of the OL will only be 10 to 11B. We're comparing a 5% design to an almost 30%, costs change dramatically once more work has been done.

 

[ARG1]

I've been reading a lot of your posts for a while. I'm going to respond to them now because you have been using a lot of assumptions to justify the decision-making of the OL. What I'm seeing here is a lack of understanding for civil engineering work and transportation planning. The initial business case is riddled with random unjustified assumptions and poor methodology. How can you look at the project and expect that it will be significantly cheaper per kilometre without cutting some very important corners? While I have no huge preference of the rolling stock used, I do believe that operations can be much simplified when there are fewer differences from what we already know. This doesn't even touch on Metrolinx's own requirements for ROW space in the Lakeshore East Corridor.



While this makes sense in principle, that you would go with the option with better value, there is very little evidence that the cost of the OL will only be 10 to 11B. We're comparing a 5% design to an almost 30%, costs change dramatically once more work has been done.

The costs are being cut by having a good chunk of it be overground. The original DRL was entirely underground cut using deep-boring technology with large cavernous stations planned. By having key stations especially the LSE corridor above ground, you significantly reduce the cost since you no longer have to literally tunnel underneath the Don River.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The costs are being cut by having a good chunk of it be overground. The original DRL was entirely underground cut using deep-boring technology with large cavernous stations planned. By having key stations especially the LSE corridor above ground, you significantly reduce the cost since you no longer have to literally tunnel underneath the Don River.

Now if only they can say the same with the Line 1 Richmond Hill extension and the Line 5 Eglinton West LRT extension.

 

[ARG1]

Now if only they can say the same with the Line 1 Richmond Hill extension and the Line 5 Eglinton West LRT extension.

Well Metrolinx is considering an above ground option with the Line 1 extension by having it run alongside the CN corridor north of Center, so Metrolinx cutting costs by moving the track to a rail corridor isn't exclusive to the Ontario Line.