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

[robmausser]

From the Budget:

Note the stations at King/Bathurst and the angle to/from Queen/Spadina, the angle again to Exhibition/OP

Also note stations marked Leslieville and Flemingdon Park

There remains a station marked Sumach, but the drawing is inconclusive about the original or an alternate location.

Budget states their costing includes a yard, does not state location.

Man so revolutionary (cough) http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20111123/November 23 2011_Presentation_Union Station 2031 and Related Planning Studies - FINAL (DS).pdf

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

So there are these details from the budget:

If the bridge option for crossing the Don was so much better, why wasn't it being considered again?

 

[MisterF]

That's my concern as well.

I also feel like a great chance is being missed to get the DRL South-West complete. A transit connection to Ontario Place/Exhibition is great, but it seems like they could take it along Queen up to Dundas West instead. With this plan, it seems the portion between Bathurst and Dundas West will never be served by underground transit. This seems like a mistake in the grand scheme of things.

Overall, I can't help but feel there are still a lot of hurdles. How can they confirm funding will be secured from other levels? I seriously doubt they'll go at it alone.

Turning down to Ontario Place / Exhibition seems a bit wasteful. Serve that area with RER/Smarttrack/whatever. Should be able to connect to it easily from the "Ontario", Bloor, Danforth, and YUS lines.

I'd rather have the Ontario Line go further west through the denser part of the city to serve the whole West End better.

There's always the option of having two branches. One branch goes to Exhibition while the other continues west under Queen Street. Lots of cities have branching subway lines and there's no reason that Toronto couldn't too.

 

[44 North]

So there are these details from the budget:

View attachment 181064

If the bridge option for crossing the Don was so much better, why wasn't it being considered again?

Hmm, is it possible the Prov is referring to the Queen crossing this whole time? When they talked bridge stuff it made sense that it was Leaside. But if they mean Queen vicinity then someone needs to tweet Metrolinx asap and get details on this backroom vision. Where's the bloody report. We've all looked at this for years, and for a sub-grade alignment there's pretty much zero opportunities for crossing above-grade between the lake and Gerrard. Where's their uproar for tunneling under river valleys in Scarb, or virtually zero density outer suburb areas in Markham/Vaughan. Doesn't add up.

 

[Steve X]

So there are these details from the budget:

View attachment 181064

If the bridge option for crossing the Don was so much better, why wasn't it being considered again?

The bridge is cheap but where will it go? The only possible solution I see is to demolish the current Eastern Av overpass and build a two level bridge over the Don. Maybe this can be Toronto's signature bridge LOL

The the line can remain elevated over the GO tracks till Gerrard Station. They will save billions here with this option. If they can shift the GO tracks and build beside them, even more money can be saved. With a light metro technology that can handle tighter curves, we'll likely see half the line above surface.

Then the have two more Don crossing at the Millwood Bridge and the West Don River crossing. The cheapest option is elevate the line through both these crossing. They might as well elevate it through Thorncliffe Park too and over Eglinton. It'll be expensive to dig under Science Centre Station.

 

[tayser]

So there are these details from the budget:

View attachment 181064

If the bridge option for crossing the Don was so much better, why wasn't it being considered again?

$11billion sounds about right for a ~14km-15km underground railway with 15 or so stations (at least 4 of which would be interchanges according to the published maps).

For comparison's sake, the second phase of Sydney Metro's 1st line - dubbed City and Southwest, is 15.5km (twin single bore tunnels) with 7 underground stations. The entire project is broken up into PPP packages and the Tunnel and Stations Excavation works package is $2.81 billion (see here: https://gateway.icn.org.au/project/...southwest-tunnel-and-station-excavation-works ). This is purely civil construction work, (procuring TBMs, running them through the ground, excavating the station pits etc).

Late last year the NSW government announced the winner of the package of work to 'fit-out' the tunnels and stations which is valued at $1.376 billion (see here: https://www.sydneymetro.info/article/1376-billion-line-wide-contract-awarded ). This contract puts all the services - including track(!) - into the tunnels after the TSE package is complete.

So in total, to simply build the tunnels and stations and all the electrical/signalling systems they require is valued at $4.186 billion (Australian Dollars - $3.99 billion Canadian at current rates).

Given the second phase of Sydney Metro Line 1 is similar tunnel length, but half the stations (2 of the 7 underground stations are interchanges). 1 Interchange - at Central station - is another just under $1billion contract that will build the new metro platforms but also upgrade the entire station at the same time (see here: https://www.sydneymetro.info/article/955-million-central-walk-sydney-metro-contract-awarded )

There's another package/contract which relates to Over-station development - but it's not clear on total costs / benefits to (the financials of) the rail project - One station north of the Harbour and three south of the harbour will become PPPs - one of them, the other interchange at Martin Place, is well underway at the moment too. There's also a train ops and management contract but the value of that is not available and we know it's going to be the same organisation that's about to start operating phase 1 (this is where the cost to build the train stabling/maintenance facility was sunk if I remember correctly).

As a total back-of-the-envelope calculation, I'd say the Ontario line, if it were a system like Sydney Metro and its packages broken down in a similar way would be:
Tunnel and Station Excavation: ~$4-4.5 billion (double the amount of stations = double the amount of the most costly components of an underground railway).
Tunnel and Station Fit-out: ~$2.5 billion (more stations ti fit out, substations and the like)
50% of that projected total amount seems about right (Syd Metro and the Melb Metro Tunnel project are in the same league in terms of % of total cost). The rest would include building a yard, procuring a fleet and the total ~$11bil might include a portion of opex to run the system over X period (Sydney metro is 15 years).

TL;DR? In short: it passes the pub test/sniff test (IMO ).

 

[gweed123]

Alignment is fine. My concern is undersizing - a la Canada Line - trainset and station size/infrastructure to hit the bare minimum - like if someone built Line 1 at half the station length and claim that you can satisfy all projected future needs simply by running the trains more frequently.

The extension to Ex could be designed as a branch line perhaps?

AoD

I think we'll know pretty early on in the design process if this thing is going to be undersized, thankfully. I'm pretty sure the minute any station layout plans will be released, people on here will have their rulers out (even though the plans will be digital, unfortunately there's no real saying for that), measuring the platform lengths. If they're in excess of 150m, I think we should be good from a capacity standpoint, even if thinner vehicles are being used. If this thing only has 100m platforms, the cry will be pretty instantaneous and pretty loud.

 

[gweed123]

So there are these details from the budget:

View attachment 181064

They actually used the word "cheaper" in the budget??? Wow, this is indeed the government of Doug Ford.

And while a bridge may be less expensive, the portal to access it likely won't be. I wonder if they could run the line beside the existing GO line though, and have the East Harbour Station have tracks for both services on the same level.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Hmm, is it possible the Prov is referring to the Queen crossing this whole time?

That is what I gathered from the language.

If so, that would be a significant change from the municipal studies. Still, they couldn't have just thought this out of thin air, everything seems like it has Metrolinx's hands behind it.

Which, despite for all of Metrolinx's problems, is a sigh of relief with this govt.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That is what I gathered from the language.

If so, that would be a significant change from the municipal studies. Still, they couldn't have just thought this out of thin air, everything seems like it has Metrolinx's hands behind it.

Which, despite for all of Metrolinx's problems, is a sigh of relief with this govt.

I don't think so, the EA for the Relief Line South shows track level being 18 metres underneath of the Don riverbed.

If it's for the northern don river crossing, that would have required some ridiculously deep stations at Cosburn and Thorncliffe park as the elevation change is absolutely massive, especially if it's 40 metres underneath of the river. That would be about 80m below grade at the north end of Pape..

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Man so revolutionary (cough) http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20111123/November 23 2011_Presentation_Union Station 2031 and Related Planning Studies - FINAL (DS).pdf

So I see they didn't create this line after all.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think we'll know pretty early on in the design process if this thing is going to be undersized, thankfully. I'm pretty sure the minute any station layout plans will be released, people on here will have their rulers out (even though the plans will be digital, unfortunately there's no real saying for that), measuring the platform lengths. If they're in excess of 150m, I think we should be good from a capacity standpoint, even if thinner vehicles are being used. If this thing only has 100m platforms, the cry will be pretty instantaneous and pretty loud.

The question is whether you trust the government to do the right thing in this instance - or whether we will find out until it is way too late.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

The question is whether you trust the government to do the right thing in this instance - or whether we will find out until it is way too late.

AoD

I think there will still be public consultation requirements and such, so I think we'd find out sooner rather than later.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

My view is that this "Ontario" line does not provide much relief to the Yonge line: it needs to go at least up to Don Mills station on the Sheppard line. The new signalling will help in improving the capacity of the Yonge line, but without this extension of the Ontario line, the proposed extension of the Yonge line to the south end of Richmond Hill will largely undo its benefits.

Welcome to UT!

 

[M II A II R II K]

And do they tap Bombardier for those trains.