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

NoahB said:
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'.
Click to expand...
It's not about prejudice, it's about desiring something other than a Vegas strip environment.
 
asher__jo said:
The hydro corridor.
Click to expand...
1606967079580.png

That's an interesting corridor, to say the least, and is likely to be difficult to curve the TRs towards, not to mention that having Hydro One to agree to transit in their corridors seems to get more difficult over time.
 
ARG1 said:
View attachment 286462
That's an interesting corridor, to say the least, and is likely to be difficult to curve the TRs towards, not to mention that having Hydro One to agree to transit in their corridors seems to get more difficult over time.
Click to expand...
It's a shame the subway is a fortune. But McCowan is upzoned perhaps not all is lost.
 
robmausser said:
Lol everytime I see this rendering it makes me laugh. 4 stairwells on every corner for one stop? Nowhere is this ever done.

Purposeful overkill.
Click to expand...

If you want a centre of road station (which itself makes it expensive), here's one planned for the Surrey SkyTrain Extension (that's an emergency exit on the right side).
All the others are side-of-road stations.

140-street-station-fraser-highway-surrey-langley-skytrain-expo-line-f2.jpg
 
asher__jo said:
It's not about prejudice, it's about desiring something other than a Vegas strip environment.
Click to expand...
It is prejudice if you're all thinking of Dubai in the UAE when I'm talking Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. iugdflkuh

It's like seeing NYC and Edmonton as the same just because it snows in both. You are not helping your argument.
 
smallspy said:
Nice straw man. Try again?

Dan
Click to expand...
How is this a strawman? People are arguing that it makes no sense that the Ontario Line is above ground, while the province is burying the Scarborough extension, so I'm asking in return if they can name an alignment that would see the subway run above ground, instead of tunneled, and serve the same amount of people and have the same development potential as the underground option, or in other words, not the RT.
 
AFAIK Kennedy Station would have to be rebuilt to pursue any above ground solution that doesn't require a ton of expropriation. Simply elevating it over Eglinton and McCowan would also require a ton of expropriation. Line 2 was built to be extended eastward on Eglinton.
 
officedweller said:
If you want a centre of road station (which itself makes it expensive), here's one planned for the Surrey SkyTrain Extension (that's an emergency exit on the right side).
All the others are side-of-road stations.

140-street-station-fraser-highway-surrey-langley-skytrain-expo-line-f2.jpg
Click to expand...

better, but still not necessary for the Eglinton West LRT if elevated.

There doesnt need to be a fare payment building like in this rendering, as an on-street LRT wouldnt have one either.

But I digress as this is not the thread topic, I was just stating how purposefully overbuilt the elevated Eglinton plan was as to sabotage it.

Well, those people who did that to try and force the on-street alignment got exactly what was coming to them; its now going to be buried at great expense.

It feels like the RT conversion to LRT for Scarborough (rather than doing the RT refurbishment plan that the TTC wanted) that opened up pandoras box and now we have a subway line planned.
 
robmausser said:
better, but still not necessary for the Eglinton West LRT if elevated.

There doesnt need to be a fare payment building like in this rendering, as an on-street LRT wouldnt have one either.

But I digress as this is not the thread topic, I was just stating how purposefully overbuilt the elevated Eglinton plan was as to sabotage it.

Well, those people who did that to try and force the on-street alignment got exactly what was coming to them; its now going to be buried at great expense.

It feels like the RT conversion to LRT for Scarborough (rather than doing the RT refurbishment plan that the TTC wanted) that opened up pandoras box and now we have a subway line planned.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I actually do think that Fare Gates would've been a good idea. I think even operationally, TTC would rather reduce the amount of points where people can enter without payment, so if a certain section gets grade separated where the installation of fare gates is simple and painless, there is no reason not to do that. As shown in Vancouver, even stations that weren't designed to have fare gates in the first place, can usually have them built in with little to no trouble whatsoever. The only downside is this often leads to situations where the two platforms aren't within the same pay zone, which isn't elegant to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top