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

NoahB said:
I present to you the under construction Riyadh Metro. It uses a modular design where each station has one to two elevated concourses that can have pedestrian bridges attached to them. Each pedestrian bridge has an elevator, escalator, and stairs. Stations have 2 to 4 entrances. The modular design of the bridges makes them easily connectable to development, and also for an entrance to snake between existing buildings to a consutrcutable entrance location. This was designed by Parkins & Will, who designed stations for Ottawa and Vancouver, and the REM in Montreal.

Fun fact: they are building 6 lines with 85 stations, 176km at once as a starter system. To do that they needed to get 3 consortiums contracted at the same time. Alstom, Bombardier, and Seimens are each in a consortium. The design of the vehicles and stations was purposely unified. But each consortium will use their own signalling system, rolling stock, and separate maintenance facilities. The trains probably can't be moved between lines.
View attachment 286300
View attachment 286305
View attachment 286304
View attachment 286301
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Saudi Arabia = Etobicoke

Rich nations in the middle east should never be used as examples for proper urban planning or infrastructure. Its like playing god mode in Sim City, when there's unlimited funds people just do things because they can.
 
smallspy said:
When compared to Eglinton West or where the majority of the Scarborough Subway Extension will run? Absolutely.

Dan
Click to expand...
Can you name me a suitable above ground corridor for the Scarborough Extension to run? And no, the current RT corridor doesn't count since that serves absolutely nobody.
 
ARG1 said:
Can you name me a suitable above ground corridor for the Scarborough Extension to run? And no, the current RT corridor doesn't count since that serves absolutely nobody.
Click to expand...

Even assuming your assertion is correct (which I argue not, but let's entertain it for one second) - so you want to spend 6B for an underground alignment that produces one station between Kennedy and SCC - a station that will see a daily usage of what? And there we are, in a thread about a new line that propounds the benefit of above ground rail, running besides existing rail lines and the need to accept compromises for the sake of fiscal reality?

AoD
 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
Ah yes, Saudi Arabia = Etobicoke

Rich nations in the middle east should never be used as examples for proper urban planning or infrastructure. Its like playing god mode in Sim City, when there's unlimited funds people just do things because they can.
Click to expand...

You asked a question. I answered.

You shouldn't discount a place just because you don't like the place nor the answer. And your comment is filled with prejudice. it's unsightly... Simply put, Canada's governments are much richer than the Saudi government in revenue and GDP, etc.

Also your "Saudi Arabia = Etobicoke" doesnt even make sense. One is a country and the other is part of a municipality. If anything, Riyadh (the city) and Etobicoke share many aspects like being made up of a giant grid of wide streets filled with auto-centric mid- and low-rise neighbourhoods of smaller, disconnected cul de sacs.

There are other projects like this one in Asia. But I'm less familiar with them. Also, Perkins and Will are a Toronto firm that designed many stations in Canada and might design the ones for Toronto's upcoming projects. I would say that is very relevant. The REM's stations in Montreal are basically an angular (and further value engineered) version of the Riyadh Metro stations...

The Riyadh metro is also built more affordably than the Spadina extension, SSE, and ECLRT. The Riyadh Metro simply was built to the bidders' design. The biggest problem Toronto has is the neverending bickering and restarts. So don't give me this attitude about 'rich nations'.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Even assuming your assertion is correct (which I argue not, but let's entertain it for one second) - so you want to spend 6B for an underground alignment that produces one station between Kennedy and SCC - a station that will see a daily usage of what? And there we are, in a thread about a new line that propounds the benefit of above ground rail, running besides existing rail lines and the need to accept compromises for the sake of fiscal reality?

AoD
Click to expand...
I mean this comes back to our previous discussions of where one mistake (or two, with Eg West) does not mean you need to make the same mistake again and again. There is absolutely an element of hypocrisy involved, especially with Eg west, but there is also a long history with the Scarborough extension that makes it more difficult to modify.

If I had my way all 3 would be elevated. But just because two are buried doesn't mean the third needs to be as well. The issue lies with Scarborough and Eg West, not the OL.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I mean this comes back to our previous discussions of where one mistake (or two, with Eg West) does not mean you need to make the same mistake again and again. There is absolutely an element of hypocrisy involved, especially with Eg west, but there is also a long history with the Scarborough extension that makes it more difficult to modify.

If I had my way all 3 would be elevated. But just because two are buried doesn't mean the third needs to be as well. The issue lies with Scarborough and Eg West, not the OL.
Click to expand...

This isn't about OL needing to get buried - this is about the credibility of an organization claiming - nay - lecturing - the superiority of this choice while rubberstamping the exact opposite in other builds. Why should anyone trust Metrolinx when it had already rubberstamped 2 mistakes for political expediency? And I don't give two s**ts about long history - this is Toronto, there is a pretty long history with RL, EC, Sheppard East - pretty much any transit line you can put your finger on.

Also, it is patently wrong to isolate this as an OL vs SSE vs ECW issue - there is only one pot of money, and only one taxpayer.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
This isn't about OL needing to get buried - this is about the credibility of an organization claiming the superior of this choice while rubberstamping the exact opposite in other builds. Also, it is patently wrong to isolate this as an OL vs SEE vs ECW issue - there is only one pot of money.

AoD
Click to expand...
The one put of money is paying for all 3 at the same time and they are all moving forward regardless of the pot. Yes, there is hypocrisy, but if they get built by the early 2030s then all is fine. The OL is mostly being built as it should be while the SEE and ECW are being overbuilt. What's going on here is mostly political, which is very unfortunate. Can't complain too much if we get all three to construction before we get another transit reset...
 
NoahB said:
The one put of money is paying for all 3 at the same time and they are all moving forward regardless of the pot. Yes, there is hypocrisy, but if they get built by the early 2030s then all is fine. The OL is mostly being built as it should be while the SEE and ECW are being overbuilt. What's going on here is mostly political, which is very unfortunate. Can't complain too much if we get all three to construction before we get another transit reset...
Click to expand...

This is rewarding bad planning (and given the players involved - bad faith - if you want to talk about why transit got delayed) with a wave of the hand. How much more transit can we get if SSE and ECW *aren't* being overbuilt? Why are we building underground where there is literally no impact to low density areas and elevating where there is (as justifiable as ameliorateable as it can be)? These aren't questions one should just pretend we don't see. It isn't "all fine"

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
This is rewarding bad planning (and given the players involved - bad faith - if you want to talk about why transit got delayed) with a wave of the hand. How much more transit can we get if SSE and ECW *aren't* being overbuilt? Why are we building underground where there is literally no impact to low density areas and elevating where there is (as justifiable as ameliorateable as it can be)? These aren't questions one should just pretend we don't see. It isn't "all fine"

AoD
Click to expand...
We won't get much more transit if these got paired down. History dictates that the money just goes back to the gov to spend on other things. That is what happened when the Eglinton Subway got filled in. And that is what happened when the SRT upgrade got shelved.
I totally agree with you. These new plans are overbuilt. They should be elevated! but the gov isn't really playing a zero-sum game. They are doing a 'take or leave it' by making each project palatable given each project's political history. It's dumb. It's stupid. but it is what it is. 😞
 
NoahB said:
We won't get much more transit if these got paired down. History dictates that the money just goes back to the gov to spend on other things. That is what happened when the Eglinton Subway got filled in. And that is what happened when the SRT upgrade got shelved.
I totally agree with you. These new plans are overbuilt. They should be elevated! but the gov isn't really playing a zero-sum game. They are doing a 'take or leave it' by making each project palatable given each project's political history. It's dumb. It's stupid. but it is what it is. 😞
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, there are quite a few projects requiring funding - be it Line 2 ATC, Waterfront LRT, ECLRT-East, etc - none of which are funded, any of which can be partially (if not completely) funded by this cost delta. And don't forget, the whole raison d'etre of OL is the cost savings allowing for a longer line - if I also recall correctly you pushed this line of argument yourself. It is intellectually untenable (and logically absurd) to argue that efficiency anywhere else can't produce positive outcomes.

Anyways, I am not sure what is more dumb and stupid - doing this, or letting those responsible off the hook by saying it is what it is and then pretend that they are somehow all about fiscally sound implementation of transit projects. Now what will you say the next time when Mlinx say they propose that Sheppard East be buried underground huh?

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
If I recall correctly, there are quite a few projects requiring funding - be it Line 2 ATC, Waterfront LRT, ECLRT-East, etc - none of which are funded, any of which can be partially (if not completely) funded by this cost delta. And don't forget, the whole raison d'etre of OL is the cost savings allowing for a longer line - if I also recall correctly you pushed this line of argument yourself. It is intellectually untenable (and logically absurd) to argue that efficiency anywhere else can't produce positive outcomes.

Anyways, I am not sure what is more dumb and stupid - doing this, or letting those responsible off the hook by saying it is what it is and then pretend that they are somehow all about fiscally sound implementation of transit projects. Now what will you say the next time when Mlinx say they propose that Sheppard East be buried underground huh?

AoD
Click to expand...

It is completely absurd. But that is how the political 'play' has been going for the last 40 years. I did argue that the tech and plan used to make the Ontario Line more affordable are very sound. I want that to be done for the SSE and EWLRT too. But the gov isn't following any sound transit construction logic in their decisions here. They are simply saying what they think constituents want to hear at any given moment for a given project. As for the logical absurdity, what's going on is that the outcome of this efficiency (saving money/time/better service/etc) is not being applied to what you see as the positive outcome. The government of the day's positive outcome is what they decide. (reducing a deficit, getting votes, building for the future, etc)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top