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

[superelevation]

Seems a bit undemocratic. People are going to be the ones using (and paying for) the subway, we should have some say.

Meh, the politicians who ultimately pull the trigger on these projects are democratically elected, at some point we have to accept that. If there was some atrocity going on the politicians would be booted, not bending to every local whim is maybe a feature not a bug.

Well because the alignment they chose is much tighter than the previous one because they have to connect with their East Harbour station. Again, they could have not gone through Riverdale. Also, this would be great if only the Yonge Line was TTC gauge. I would be all for retracking but that costs a lot of money.

What makes it weaker?

Third rail is limited in voltage, TTC third rail is 600V, BART is about the highest at 1000V IIRC, OL and many modern metro lines in places like Japan are 1500V with overhead wire - which also helps winter reliability and safety during evacuations etc. at the same time, TTC cars are long and heavy which hurts performance as well, shorter cars means more wheel - weight ratio which helps things like climbing grades.

 

[APTA-2048]

Thanks! I actually have an idea that can be similar to that. It was inspired by the Aga Khan Museum. Haven’t drawn up a finalized version though.

Got around to finishing more Ontario Line concept art.

 

[44 North]

Third rail is limited in voltage, TTC third rail is 600V, BART is about the highest at 1000V IIRC, OL and many modern metro lines in places like Japan are 1500V with overhead wire - which also helps winter reliability and safety during evacuations etc. at the same time, TTC cars are long and heavy which hurts performance as well, shorter cars means more wheel - weight ratio which helps things like climbing grades.

Wouldn't the shorter car end up heavier then, since like you pointed out has more wheel to weight ratio. Also third rail doesn't need a transformer on board, further reducing weight. Seems more efficient.

I'm still a third rail supporter. Costs are lower, tunnels are more realistically sized, for open-air sections it looks nicer and cleaner.

Got around to finishing more Ontario Line concept art.

Oooh so nice. Love that front end. Very aggressive design.

 

[sche]

^ what do you mean by wacky electrification?

TTC uses 600V DC third rail, which is not completely bespoke like the rail gauge, but generally 750V DC is generally the standard for most modern systems using third rail. Higher voltage is also more efficient and requires fewer power substations, which is also why most new systems are now moving to catenary which allows for safe operation at higher voltages (usually 1500 V DC for metros)

 

[Allandale25]

^ Interesting thanks. Has the TTC ever considered going to a higher voltage? Any benefit?

 

[daniel_kryz]

that say only means more cost and delay however.

for example one reason we seem to be only using TBMs is because it is "less disruptive" but if we used much reduce cost, which would have possible made it easier to go with a longer line to begin with with make the entire line underground.

Public involvement in my option always makes these transit project worst by adding cost, time and produces a reduce project because of said costs

There's a difference between changing the methods of construction and shaping the architectural expression of the stations. One costs much more money and is way more disruptive than the other.

 

[smallspy]

Third rail is limited in voltage, TTC third rail is 600V, BART is about the highest at 1000V IIRC, OL and many modern metro lines in places like Japan are 1500V with overhead wire - which also helps winter reliability and safety during evacuations etc. at the same time, TTC cars are long and heavy which hurts performance as well, shorter cars means more wheel - weight ratio which helps things like climbing grades.

There is no difference in reliability in the winter between overhead and third rail. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day, they're both basically the same. Yes, there are certain advantages to using a higher voltage, and yes using a higher voltage generally foregoes the ability to use a third rail, but there are disadvantages to it too such as the inability to use any of the existing TTC power distribution network.

The trucks are generally the heaviest part of any railcar. More of them usually means more weight per foot of car length. That's why most light, fast railcar designs (think the Flirt or Coradia) use articulated trainsets - they can use fewer trucks for the same overall length.

^ Interesting thanks. Has the TTC ever considered going to a higher voltage? Any benefit?

Not really. While the 600Vdc choice has always been something of a holdover from the olden days of early electrification, the fact of the matter is that changing it to something different now would entail an absolutely massive amount of work for no benefit. Keep in mind that the TTC's power distribution system covers both the subways and the streetcars, and is integrated. To change only one mode would require first separating the systems. It's doable, but to what ends?

Dan

 

[Obsidian]

There's a difference between changing the methods of construction and shaping the architectural expression of the stations. One costs much more money and is way more disruptive than the other.

After months of delay (and therefore more cost) to change the architectural expression and some other people don't like the new expression, do we go back again for another architectural expression.......????

If you want timely and cost effective transit projects, ANY Public involvement is bad. And by making transit projects more expensive, it leads fewer transit projects getting built, or the cost has to be made up someone else such as lines getting shorten, features getting cut, etc...

Transit planning should be left up to the bureaucrats and when they present the plan that's it, no consulting just build it as planned. years and billions would be saved this way. The public would stop complaining as well because they know the plans wouldn't be changed. People in China don't complain about transit projects being built all over their cities because they know they can't stop it.

 

[cplchanb]

After added months of delay (and therefore more cost) to change the architectural expression some people don't like the new expression, do we go back again for another architectural expression.......????

If you want timely and cost effective transit projects, ANY Public involvement is bad. And by making transit projects more expensive, it leads fewer transit projects getting built, or the cost has to be made up someone else such as lines getting shorten, features getting cut, etc...

Transit planning should be left up to the bureaucrats and when they present the plan that's it, no consulting just build it as planned. years and billions would be saved this way. The public would stop complaining as well because they know the plans wouldn't be changed. People in China don't complain about transit projects being built all over their cities because they know they can't stop it.

ive mentioned this for years... most of the time its these minority lobbyists who keep on complaining and stalling what the majority wants. For optics i still think we should have maybe 1 or 2 rounds of consultation but afterwards thats it and draw the line. unlike china, if they dont like what they see they are always free to move out to another quiet suburb.

 

[DirectionNorth]

After months of delay (and therefore more cost) to change the architectural expression and some other people don't like the new expression, do we go back again for another architectural expression.......????

Nobody (except your strawman) is advocating to bending over for every demand that NIMBYs make, but rather, to see whether there is overwhelming demand for a change.

If you want timely and cost effective transit projects, ANY Public involvement is bad. And by making transit projects more expensive, it leads fewer transit projects getting built, or the cost has to be made up someone else such as lines getting shorten, features getting cut, etc...

How about we get the politicians out instead?

It's not community consultation that cancelled the elevated option for EWLRT, or filled in the Eglinton West Subway, or got the DRL changed to the OL ...

Your "any public involvement is bad" is authoritarian. We're all paying for it, we deserve a say in how it's designed.

Transit planning should be left up to the bureaucrats and when they present the plan that's it, no consulting just build it as planned. years and billions would be saved this way. The public would stop complaining as well because they know the plans wouldn't be changed. People in China don't complain about transit projects being built all over their cities because they know they can't stop it.

So basically, the government can do whatever it wants to do to build things.

I've mentioned this for years... most of the time its these minority lobbyists who keep on complaining and stalling what the majority wants. For optics i still think we should have maybe 1 or 2 rounds of consultation but afterwards thats it and draw the line. unlike china, if they dont like what they see they are always free to move out to another quiet suburb.

Consultation can improve the transit line for the community. If we didn't have consultation (or sham consultations), governments could run transit lines in destructive ways without consequences.

If you think about it for a few minutes, you'll realize that urban freeways were often built like with this method, screwing a lot of things in its path.

 

[generalcanada]

Nobody (except your strawman) is advocating to bending over for every demand that NIMBYs make, but rather, to see whether there is overwhelming demand for a change.

How about we get the politicians out instead?

It's not community consultation that cancelled the elevated option for EWLRT, or filled in the Eglinton West Subway, or got the DRL changed to the OL ...

Your "any public involvement is bad" is authoritarian. We're all paying for it, we deserve a say in how it's designed.

So basically, the government can do whatever it wants to do to build things.

Consultation can improve the transit line for the community. If we didn't have consultation (or sham consultations), governments could run transit lines in destructive ways without consequences.

If you think about it for a few minutes, you'll realize that urban freeways were often built like with this method, screwing a lot of things in its path.

I clearly remember during one of the OL meetings with riverside where a community member (one of the more vocal ones if i remember) SPECIFICALLY asked
"if we want this project cancelled will you listen to us and cancel it

If this transit line was cancelled based on what that person said, would you say thats fair? would you say thats how democracy should work?
what about the other hundreds of thousands who would have taken that transit line daily?
"public consultation" as we see with housing developments is just the new word for "put it somewhere else"

considering the fact that the riverside community is telling metrolinx "we want the transit line someplace else" you should read this as "Not in my backyard"

Its fine to ask "what measures can we take to minimize your impacts"
The community will respond with "noise walls, no truck idling, no late night construction" Ok sure, but that actually increases costs, increases timelines and makes it harder to build stuff.

Point is...There has to be a limit of public consultation. there has to be a limit to what Nimbys can ask for. because anything they ask for either delays or cancels projects entirely. That includes housing too

 

[DirectionNorth]

I clearly remember during one of the OL meetings with riverside where a community member (one of the more vocal ones if i remember) SPECIFICALLY asked
"if we want this project cancelled will you listen to us and cancel it

If this transit line was cancelled based on what that person said, would you say thats fair? would you say thats how democracy should work?

You seem to have missed my entire post. I started with: "Nobody (except your strawman) is advocating to bending over for every demand ..." Go and read my post again.

"public consultation" as we see with housing developments is just the new word for "put it somewhere else"

I see housing and transit as separate when it comes to public discussion.

Housing is built by private developers, on land they (usually) own, with their own money, for their own benefit. What does the public have to do with it?

Transit is built by our government, on land that is sometimes expropriated from private owners, with our money, for our benefit. There is plenty of room for discussion.

Considering the fact that the riverside community is telling metrolinx "we want the transit line someplace else" you should read this as "Not in my backyard"

Its fine to ask "what measures can we take to minimize your impacts"
The community will respond with "noise walls, no truck idling, no late night construction" Ok sure, but that actually increases costs, increases timelines and makes it harder to build stuff.

I see these demands as reasonable. Noise walls shouldn't cost anything compared to overall cost - the other two decrease construction impacts and are legitimate demands to ask for (with exceptions allowed).

In other communities (Jane/Finch, Thorncliffe Park), the consultation is actually creating results. In both those communities (which are, I'm sure, entirely coincidentally some of the poorest communities in the city), Metrolinx built MSFs and had to be pressured into reducing community impact. As you probably know, in Jane/Finch they were going to sell land set aside for a community centre to a developer.

Point is...There has to be a limit of public consultation. there has to be a limit to what Nimbys can ask for. because anything they ask for either delays or cancels projects entirely. That includes housing too

That's very fair, and I agree with this. Although I would not see the bolded part as a downside, if it improves the project overall.

 

[afransen]

A lot of consultation is performative anyway. You can tell by the answers that the experts think the commenter is an uninformed doofus that they are merely humouring.

 

[daniel_kryz]

After months of delay (and therefore more cost) to change the architectural expression and some other people don't like the new expression, do we go back again for another architectural expression.......????

Architecture is subjective and someone will always be unhappy. That being said, a lot of the stations here are quite bland.
Some are amazing, some don't convey anything, some use inappropriate materials, and some disregard the rhythm of urban streets. It's a mixed bag.
Metrolinx could have reached out to the public, saying "hey, what do you think our new stations should look like?" They only had one consultation where you got to comment on their broad design principles.

If you want timely and cost effective transit projects, ANY Public involvement is bad.

And by making transit projects more expensive, it leads fewer transit projects getting built, or the cost has to be made up someone else such as lines getting shorten, features getting cut, etc...

I am well aware of Toronto's history of having too much public consultation and unnecessary politics. Changes in façade designs don't cause years of delay unless it is used as a fake excuse.

Transit planning should be left up to the bureaucrats and when they present the plan that's it, no consulting just build it as planned. years and billions would be saved this way.

I agree that planners and engineers are usually better at creating transportation plans instead of politicians that do napkin drawings, but there needs to be some form of democracy (whether it is conventional or true public consultation) to hold them to account. There are different degrees of it, depending on the size and cost of each project, and there needs to be a balance. Public participation should be large and reflect the diversity of people, not only those that live right next to it and don't care about broader societal needs. What you are proposing is a radical approach that let Robert Moses destroy amazing communities, in favour of modernist tower-in-the-park projects ('affordable housing') and freeways ('fighting congestion'). What NIMBYs are proposing is also crazy, as they only care about what happens in their cul-de-sac.

The public would stop complaining as well because they know the plans wouldn't be changed. People in China don't complain about transit projects being built all over their cities because they know they can't stop it.

Right... let's get rid of democracy in the name of efficiency! Government doesn't serve you... why bother complaining?

***

Let me clear some things up. I agreed with the councillor that some of the station designs aren't good enough. How is this a major barrier to the construction of this project? Think logically - it isn't.
It's a minor change... especially since these renderings are conceptual, as the actual designs will be created after a bidder is chosen. I can and will comment on these renderings as we are now at the very start of the design process.

 

[gweed123]

As some have pointed out, the primary purpose for public consultation should be two-fold:

1) Here is what we are proposing.
2) Are there any modifications we can make to the design that you feel would improve the design, or minimize the negative impacts of the design?

Public consultations shouldn't be a referendum on the project itself. That's why we elect Councillors, MPPs, and MPs. One or more of those levels of government have chosen to proceed with the project (in the case of public infrastructure), and will have the final say on whether it gets built or not (either public infrastructure or private development).

If you feel the project itself shouldn't move forward, going to a public consultation and ranting about it isn't going to be constructive. In the case of a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project, the Planner or Engineer that you're giving a dressing down has no authority to do what you're asking. Go talk to your elected representative.