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

[Sunnyside]

To be fair, the city planners had the foresight to build the Don Valley crossing for a future subway line ~40 years in advance (1918 completion of the Prince Edward Viaduct vs. 1958ish for decision to build Line 2). This would have been the most complicated part of the project.

I cannot recall any foresight on a comparable scale done by transit planners since.

The 407 Transit right-of-way, easily. And before it, the Finch hydro corridor. Just waiting for us to use it properly…

 

[PL1]

DVCB works today from the Leaside bridge:

First, they've pushed some earth around north of the river. Not sure this is related, but photo

Then work on the future crane site next to the DVP

Last, view of the portal above/south of the DVP

Also, mods: is it worth having pages for the two crossing bridges (DVCB and WDCB) separately, or keep them within this thread?

 

[kotsy]

 

[duty free]

It's easy to frame it as such when people cherry-pick dates that help suit their narrative.

The reality of the situation is that the B-D was built in concert with the University line as a single project. Shovels hit the ground in 1957 for that with the University line opening in 1962. The first bit of construction solely for the B-D line started in 1959, with the opening of the first section of the B-D in 1966.

The 4 year number is just the amount of time to dig the tunnels and stations, and ignores the 3 years of construction previous to that required to move all of the utilities, demolish buildings, prep sites, etc.

Dan

I appreciate learning something new here. Thanks.

However, I didn't "cherry pick dates to suit my narrative". I simply read the information I had access to out of genuine curiosity as to why we used to get more for less, quicker.

Even using your timeline they still managed to build a 22km subway line in 9 years (Islington to Warden). It was built pragmatically using multiple different construction methods. Compare that to the TYYSE and you can see a clear difference in vision, execution and results. It's okay to want nice things, built within my lifetime. Don't try and make me feel guilty for wanting that. We should all demand that and expect that.

The biggest take away from your post is that continuous transit construction, planning and funding is what leads to completing projects efficiently. Maybe we should just keep building for the next few decades until our system approaches being overbuilt. I see our system as being 30 years behind where it needs to be once everything currently being built is completed in the next decade. Time to start planning and allocating funding for what's next.

 

[smallspy]

However, I didn't "cherry pick dates to suit my narrative". I simply read the information I had access to out of genuine curiosity as to why we used to get more for less, quicker.

I wasn't suggesting that you were cherry picking those dates. It's the authors of the information that you are using that are guilty of that.

Even using your timeline they still managed to build a 22km subway line in 9 years (Islington to Warden). It was built pragmatically using multiple different construction methods. Compare that to the TYYSE and you can see a clear difference in vision, execution and results. It's okay to want nice things, built within my lifetime. Don't try and make me feel guilty for wanting that. We should all demand that and expect that.

Yes, but the line was also designed and built from the outset in stages. In a very rough way, they basically designed the line to start to be built downtown and from there out to the suburbs, opening sections as they went. Consider the original schedule:
- Stage 1 - Union to St. George.
- Stage 2 - St. George to Greenwood
- Stage 3 - Greenwood to Woodbine, St. George to Jane
- Stage 4 - Woodbine to Warden, Jane to Islington

Now, obviously they modified this somewhat and opened up Stages 2 and 3 simultaneously. But even look at the rolling stock purchases, they were timed to coincide with the requirements of the openings:
- M1 cars - 36 cars for Stage 1
- H1 cars - 164 cars for the remainder

Compare this to TYSSE. At a very, very early point in the project it was envisioned to open in stages - from Downsview to Steeles, and then from Steeles north. By the time the money showed up, they decided to built it all in one fell swoop. That's not the fault of the project, that was the reality of the time with funding.

The biggest take away from your post is that continuous transit construction, planning and funding is what leads to completing projects efficiently. Maybe we should just keep building for the next few decades until our system approaches being overbuilt. I see our system as being 30 years behind where it needs to be once everything currently being built is completed in the next decade. Time to start planning and allocating funding for what's next.

While I agree that we should be focusing on continuous transit construction, there is also a danger to it as well. The reality is that the funding of the project is only the start of it. There needs to be funding for the operation and renewal of it too. And subways are fucking expensive to operate. Yes, they can swallow crowds of people, and yes they are efficient at moving those people very quickly. But it is all too easy to get caught up in that side of the equation without realizing what it entails to operate them, and the drag on the system their costs can have when they are not running completely full.

In any ideal world, all of our transit systems would have more than enough money to spend on every single project they want, both in terms of capital funding and operating funding. The reality is that they don't.

Dan

 

[duty free]

I wasn't suggesting that you were cherry picking those dates. It's the authors of the information that you are using that are guilty of that.


Yes, but the line was also designed and built from the outset in stages. In a very rough way, they basically designed the line to start to be built downtown and from there out to the suburbs, opening sections as they went. Consider the original schedule:
- Stage 1 - Union to St. George.
- Stage 2 - St. George to Greenwood
- Stage 3 - Greenwood to Woodbine, St. George to Jane
- Stage 4 - Woodbine to Warden, Jane to Islington

Now, obviously they modified this somewhat and opened up Stages 2 and 3 simultaneously. But even look at the rolling stock purchases, they were timed to coincide with the requirements of the openings:
- M1 cars - 36 cars for Stage 1
- H1 cars - 164 cars for the remainder

Compare this to TYSSE. At a very, very early point in the project it was envisioned to open in stages - from Downsview to Steeles, and then from Steeles north. By the time the money showed up, they decided to built it all in one fell swoop. That's not the fault of the project, that was the reality of the time with funding.


While I agree that we should be focusing on continuous transit construction, there is also a danger to it as well. The reality is that the funding of the project is only the start of it. There needs to be funding for the operation and renewal of it too. And subways are fucking expensive to operate. Yes, they can swallow crowds of people, and yes they are efficient at moving those people very quickly. But it is all too easy to get caught up in that side of the equation without realizing what it entails to operate them, and the drag on the system their costs can have when they are not running completely full.

In any ideal world, all of our transit systems would have more than enough money to spend on every single project they want, both in terms of capital funding and operating funding. The reality is that they don't.

Dan

The reality is that they do have the funding for both capital and operational cost, while there's also many ways to reduce operational and capital costs.

The TTC is one of the most successful transit systems in the world and has historically been vastly underfunded. That's a choice made by a government that is making frivolous proposals like tunnelling under the 401. Got an extra $100 billion lying around? Great put it into transit.

 

[smallspy]

The reality is that they do have the funding for both capital and operational cost, while there's also many ways to reduce operational and capital costs.

That's just it.

From the TTC's standpoint, one of the best ways of reducing their operating costs is to "right size" the transit. A subway to Scarborough Town Centre looks great to those who will use it, but to the TTC it's grossly oversized for the required capacity and so will be a black hole on the budget for years to come. The same has been the case for Sheppard since 2002. An LRT doesn't look particularly exciting to most of the people here, but its ability to improve transit service without exponential increases in operating costs means that it's been felt to be the right solution for that corridor.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

From the TTC's standpoint, one of the best ways of reducing their operating costs is to "right size" the transit. A subway to Scarborough Town Centre looks great to those who will use it, but to the TTC it's grossly oversized for the required capacity and so will be a black hole on the budget for years to come. The same has been the case for Sheppard since 2002. An LRT doesn't look particularly exciting to most of the people here, but its ability to improve transit service without exponential increases in operating costs means that it's been felt to be the right solution for that corridor.

I agree in theory. But is the marginal operating cost of the 3-station Line 2 extension higher than the total operating cost of the 6-station SRT? Also, unlike Sheppard subway extensions - the ridership is already relatively strong.

 

[smallspy]

But is the marginal operating cost of the 3-station Line 2 extension higher than the total operating cost of the 6-station SRT?

It's tough for us to know as the TTC never explicitly broke out the operating costs of the SRT, but my feeling is yes.

Consider the additional elevating devices that are needed at the stations. Consider the life-safety systems that are required due to it being an underground system.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

It's tough for us to know as the TTC never explicitly broke out the operating costs of the SRT, but my feeling is yes.

Consider the additional elevating devices that are needed at the stations. Consider the life-safety systems that are required due to it being an underground system.

At the same time, elevators are reduced because of the SRT - and the TTC would have had to have built 8 more elevators at the other 4 SRT stations long before the Line 2 extension opens.

In particular what I'm thinking of though is the elimination of an entire (albeit small) yard. At the cost of increased capacity somewhere else. The Line 3 fleet was never big enough to achieve any economy of scale.

On the other hand, they are building 6 emergency exits for the Line 2 extension. Those things aren't cheap - especially at the depths this subway is being built - and adds maintenance costs.

 

[hawc]

 

[hawc]

South of Gerrard/West of Carlaw behind Rock Oasis.

Carlaw.

Dundas & Carlaw.

Queen (flipped around now and looking South).

Eastern.

The brdige that's taking forever to get its footings.


So am I looking at brand new Ontario Line rail lines on nice fresh ballast and shiny new tracks beside the existing GO Tracks in the bottom 3 photos?

Seems like a lot of progress if true.

 

[leopetr]

So am I looking at brand new Ontario Line rail lines on nice fresh ballast and shiny new tracks beside the existing GO Tracks in the bottom 3 photos above?

That seems like a lot of progress if true.

No, you're looking at realigned and elevated (by ~1m) GO tracks. The final layout is to have 4 GO tracks and 2 Ontario Line tracks. The Ontario Line tracks will both be on the North side, which is on the right in the Queen St photo above. The photos seem to mostly face South.

 

[marcus_a_j]

Is the old bridge staying or will it be removed to raise the tracks and provide additional clearance above Queen St?

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Here's a crude mock up over top of your photo @hawc. I just iteratively copied the profile of each rail and rotated to sort of compensate for how the perspective is distorted by the lens. Also turned down brightness just to highlight my sketch.

The space between OL tracks is for the platform, there is also a gap between GO and OL for a fence and OCS poles. I'm not sure if there will be any air gap between bridges or if it will be one bridge in the end.