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

BurlOak said:
If somebody was on the ball, they should have realized the need for the DRL Science Centre station 5 years ago, and tendered the 2 stations together. That could have actually saved some money.
Click to expand...

Since nobody knew the requirements for the Ontario line station back then, and nobody knows those requirements now, it is utterly impossible to begin designing that station.

Station length, platform height, center vs side platforms, the number and width of stairs and escalators, even the ventilation requirements, all depend on the selected car/train types and the design capacity of the line.
 
aquateam said:
The most successful transit systems in the world are more real-estate development initiatives than transport initiatives (though they combine both.) In Japan and Hong Kong, the agency planning the transit owns the station lands and gets developers to build apartment/mall/office complexes on top of where the stations will go. The transit agency reaps both the ridership and the rents.
Click to expand...
This was the basis for early Toronto planning (The Belt Line and other lines, the Belt Line succumbing to streetcar competition), London's Metropolitan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land many of New York's pre LIRR contituents, and so on. Why it's become such an abstract concept now is curious.
W. K. Lis said:
Are they talking about the going over the Don River near Eastern Avenue or near Millwood Road? The budget is unclear about where this "bridge" is located. We need much more documentation about the "more cost-effective and modern trains". Sounds like someone sold Doug Ford and Victor Fedeli a sales pitch, without any knowledge on public transit, nor did they do any research. What glossy brochure were they given?
Click to expand...
It's the lower Don, I don't have a link handy, but just think about it for moment, and review the context the statement was made under, and in reference to. The TTC DRL didn't go north of Danforth. So that leaves one crossing.

As for Ford and Fedeli...nobody sold them on this. They saw a presentation, and went all Rorschach, the dope made Ford's jaw drop, and he hallucinated fairy dust on what was probably a very sensible and considered proposal of which we're not yet party to see.

Look, all we have is the rambling of a fool and half. Guess which one is the 'half'? Metrolinx are probably shidding themselves to keep as far away from this as they can.

This may be a ruse, it may be a drug overdose, it may be Satan farting in our general direction. What it isn't is real.
""more cost-effective and modern trains" Yes. Do some reading. Just because the clowns put it in their dog and pony show doesn't mean there isn't a case to do this far better than what had been touted.

Over 80 other cities can't be wrong. Except to Torontonians who can't even understand what Montreal, Van, Edmonton, Calgary, etc are doing, let alone 'world leading cities'.

And while we're at it...who exactly was going to pay for the "DRL Theory" that the City was proposing, and rumoured to be 2% complete for design? Godot ain't coming! And he won't for the latest Ford, Fedeli, donkey and dork show either.

We still have work to do, and Ford Festival has already made it bog clear in the very Budget some refuse to read for what's stated:
Adopting Market-Driven Transit-Oriented Development
Ontario is moving forward with a new kind of partnership with the private sector to optimize the use of government-owned land and increase transit ridership. The market-driven, Transit-Oriented Development Strategy will leverage third-party investment to reduce provincial funding for transit expansion and offer new opportunities to deliver more transit services faster and at a lower cost to taxpayers. For example, allowing developers to build above transit stations in exchange for building new transit infrastructure can help create mixed-use communities around stations and allow people to travel to and from their homes easier. This is part of the government’s plan to unlock greater value from its assets, reduce the burden on taxpayers and promote residential development close to transit.
Click to expand...

All well and good, I just spent the last two hours reading up more on how Australia's experience has been with this, and ironically ran into Jessica Bell ( NDP Transportation critic) earlier today at the library, had no idea it was her until we'd talked for a good ten minutes or so. We have more to discuss, but the Ozzies not only do P3 to a much steeper degree than Ontario is, they have a history with successes (and some mistakes) of how to deal with this. It's new to Ontario and like it or not, it's the only way forward for a society that votes on taxes, not building a better future. And the 27th lowest tax rate in the OECD btw, lower than the US.

Figure it out, where's the money coming from?

But on the flip side, if I were an investor, Fedeli and Ford would be the last guys I'd trust in a deal.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
how so? The budget explicitly mentioned electrification literally 3 days ago. Could you explain how things have changed since?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was three days ago.

C'mon, get real. How gullible do Torontonians need to be? Make that Ontarians. The Budget MEANS NOTHING! They've partitioned a hard drive to put a certain amount of information in it.

If you feel I'm out of order in my claim, then be my guest, show the written and signed contracts to build...

Did I mention I'm flying to the moon, because I arranged my bank account to do it when the money comes in?

[...]
The Province will look to the private sector to propose innovative approaches to meet future GO Transit rail service levels, including opportunities for technology that could be used to electrify core segments of the GO Transit rail network, such as an overhead catenary system or hydrogen fuel cells.

Adopting Market-Driven Transit-Oriented Development
[...]
Click to expand...
http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/chapter-1b.html

That's what I'm reading! If someone else has a reference to buttress @innsertnamehere 's claim, please provide it...The Law of Diminishing Reality (apologies to Utility) demands it.

Not even a mention here:
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2019/04/premier-ford-unveils-transportation-vision.html
 
Last edited:
Rainforest said:
Since nobody knew the requirements for the Ontario line station back then, and nobody knows those requirements now, it is utterly impossible to begin designing that station.

Station length, platform height, center vs side platforms, the number and width of stairs and escalators, even the ventilation requirements, all depend on the selected car/train types and the design capacity of the line.
Click to expand...
If the Liberals before, or David Miller, or City Council when they took the transit file away from Ford, actually prioritized the DRL - then the station design would have been known.
 
BurlOak said:
If the Liberals before, or David Miller, or City Council when they took the transit file away from Ford, actually prioritized the DRL - then the station design would have been known.
Click to expand...
Council did take the planning away from the TTC, and replaced one bungle with another. There was no hope for the City ever building it. I'll allow Ford that one thing he got right. Even idiots can guess right one time out of ten...
 
Kitsune said:
Worth noting the original RL South had the tail tracks going up to Westwood Ave .... the engineering stuff can be found here: https://stevemunro.ca/2018/04/29/relief-line-south-station-and-alignment-plans/#more-20180

The Tailtracks are shown at a depth of almost 30 meters ... so it must be the northern crossing they are proposing to bridge.
Click to expand...
One of a number of examinations of the plan. Again, the reference is to what was to be the *City's DRL plan*. It was to only cross the Don at one point!
[...]
In his announcement, Ford claimed the new light-rail technology he wants to use can go over the Don River instead of tunneling underneath – a configuration he contends will save megabucks.

Whoever conceived of this hare-brained idea evidently didn’t spend any time looking at the Google maps of the area where Queen and the Don River intersect. According to the latest Relief Line alignment plans (which have been subjected to a substantial amount of regulatory due diligence), the route will dip south of Queen Street as it heads towards the Don River. On the east side, it will head towards a new station serving the giant East Harbour redevelopment site, at Broadview and Eastern Avenue, just steps from the proposed SmartTrack/GO station within the Unilever/Great Gulf precinct. The line then proceeds east under Eastern Avenue before turning northwards at Logan.

What’s anything but clear is how, under Ford’s plan, this light-rail line will get out of the tunnel west of the Don; where it will cross the river; and how it will re-enter a tunnel heading east. One need only look at the streetcar tunnels at St. Clair West or along Queen’s Quay to realize that the entrances and exits gobble up an enormous amount of space, simply because the grades can’t be too steep.

Moreover, the city blocks on either side of the Don in that vicinity are packed with condos, construction sites, valuable historic buildings, narrow streets and public spaces, like Corktown Common. It’s by no means obvious where those lengthy tunnel entrance/exit ramps will fit. And even if the engineers tasked with finding a solution can figure out how to thread the needle, the daylighted portion of the Ontario Line will need to be shoe-horned between apartment blocks and parks, etc. Either that, or the Ford government’s got to get to work expropriating and demolishing property.[...]
Click to expand...
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2019/04/11/lorinc-doug-ford-draws-a-subway-map/
[...]
I also pointed out the misconception that by bridging the Don at Eastern was somehow seen as being able to eliminate a five-storey-deep tunnel, even though that would only be at and near Gerrard Station, and is for reasons related to the sewer infrastructure.[...]
Click to expand...
https://stevemunro.ca/2019/04/10/ontario-announces-toronto-subway-plan/

To put a perspective on the depth of the Don Valley where a northern leg will be built, the Leaside Bridge is 45.5 metres from the top to the valley floor. Bloor Viaduct is over 40 metres high.
 
Last edited:
The DLR in London was built they way it was because it needed to be built on a tiny budget and no one expected the area to become filled with skyscrapers. It was expected to become another low rise inner london neighbourhood and that was the optimistic scenario at the time.

So the initial system was built for just £88 (1988) million. Sure in the end various other heavy rail lines were needed to cope with the tidal wave of development, but that does not mean the DLR should not have built. Even with hindsight a higher capacity DLR would have been a good idea as it's smaller stations mean it can serve so many more locations and that of course is what drives so much ridership and development.

The key thing about the DLR is that the vehicles themselves are made up of short cars (which means a small turning radius), so bends on the route can be easily made. This is important when you are trying to squeeze an elevated line through an urban area.

In contrast Crossrail is very expensive, It's probably going to end up costing £20 billion.
The key driver for costs for Crossrail is that the need to build 250m long underground stations that mostly can't be built cut and cover. These trains are huge and when they run at maximum length the stations will have to cope trains carrying almost 2000 passengers per train arriving 36 times an hour ( initially only 24 times an hour). The stations are like aircraft carriers sunk into the ground.

So how much capacity does Toronto need and more importantly want to pay for.
An automated line running 100m trains at 40 times an hour could shift quite a few people. 28000 ppdph is not to be sniffed at.

If the stations are smaller then they cost less and is they are above ground then they cost a fraction of the cost. The real cost for the Ontario line is the number of stations built. The more stations built the more expensive it will be and the more passengers it will carry. It will also slow the transit time down, but frequent stations will draw more local transit users from the trams and encourage more development throughout the inner city area instead of clustering just in the downtown core.

There does not seem to be many stations on the Western side of the Ontario line. I expect some serious politicking over this on pro and anti development sides. But if the line ends up elevated along the rail corridor in the West I can't see why a few extra stops can't be squeezed in. For underground stations in purely residential areas you could consider purely elevator only stations for a much smaller cost and station development site. 6 high capacity lifts can shift quite a few people and will service a dense residential neighbourhood fine.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I don't understand why some are not supportive of the route ending at OP/Exhibition. It serves Liberty Village and a huge entertainment area and very importantly will connect up with Exhibition GO/RER helping to relieve Union traffic.
Click to expand...
I suspect the Province is eyeing something like #1 (red). Queen to Bathurst to Front under Fort York to station at CNE streetcar loop.
An alternative I could conceive of is #2 (orange). Quuen to Strachan to Fleet to Princes' to station near BMO Field.
The desire to not cut transit lines under building would preclude a lot of other choices.
OP.jpg
 
ErieHall said:
Could the line eventually be extended along/over the Go tracks to Humber Bay Shores and the Hurontario LRT?
Click to expand...
WislaHD said:
Hurontario is far.

Possible that it could extend to Long Branch GO station or Sherway Gardens (possible interchange with Line 2 extension from Kipling).
Click to expand...
I stopped this at the Ex for 2 main reasons.
  1. There is no clear indication which direction this Ontario Line will be extended.
  2. The discussion for this belong in the Ontario Line West thread.
 
... if this can handle tighter turns .. would it not be possible to have a stop on King at the new Liberty village Go station ... and then still have it end at Exhibition? That would allow it to intercept all go lines on the west side. The exhibition stop would be closer to / at Dufferin.
 
Rational plan said:
There does not seem to be many stations on the Western side of the Ontario line. I expect some serious politicking over this on pro and anti development sides. But if the line ends up elevated along the rail corridor in the West I can't see why a few extra stops can't be squeezed in. For underground stations in purely residential areas you could consider purely elevator only stations for a much smaller cost and station development site. 6 high capacity lifts can shift quite a few people and will service a dense residential neighbourhood fine.
Click to expand...
Rational: I see you hail from 'Sloff'...I was born and raised in Southall. As you know, the DLR was built initially using old trackbeds and existing ones that were underutilized. The DLR model wouldn't be built the same nowadays. And the distances involved in Toronto would tax the smaller vehicles used on DLR, even though it is full standard gauge track, and can interoperate with the tube and surface track. (The route to Bank was initially to be shared with the Tube, but line capacity was deemed insufficient to allow it).

If the 'metro' way is to be pursued, the example for Toronto would be the Alstom Metropolis or a competitor.
The trains are in service in 22 major cities around the world, representing more than 3000 cars, including Singapore, Shanghai, Budapest, Warsaw, Nanjing, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Lima, Santiago, Chile, Barcelona, Istanbul, Santo Domingo, Chennai and Kochi. Amsterdam ordered 23 Metropolis trains; the first one came into operation June 2013. Xiamen also ordered some Metropolis trainsets for the Xiamen Metro. Trains can be run in configurations of 2 to 10 cars using manned or unmanned operations.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

The DLR stock are used in one city (besides the German one that used the second hand ones as trams for a while)( Essen Stadtbahn ): London. The DLR isn't an example of technology as much as it is a 'stand-alone system'. And it's run by lease/franchise, something Toronto isn't yet ready for. I highly favour it, but Toronto operates in the past, not the future.

As to running up the Western Corridor on guideways....not needed. That corridor is already grossly underutilized. Any passenger volume can and should be handled at grade, and sharing the existing track. That would immediately make use of very light rolling stock like DLR incompatible legally and operationally with heavy rail vehicles as a non-starter. Either compatible GO RER EMU stock like the UK Class 345 or 700/710/717 could/should be used in that instance, and running on 25 kVAC catenary. If the tunnels dictate third rail use for a smaller bore, then the 700 series are hybrids (Third rail and Overhead Catenary), the 717s running in a bore less than what was proposed for the Downtown Relief Line. (TTC subway bore proposed is 5.4 metres) The Great Northern Line has a tunnel bore of 4.9 metres, and the 717s were configured specifically for that application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_717

The Siemens 700 series can and do operate ATO through the underground core of London.
Thameslink first with ATO over ETCS - Railway Gazette
Mar 20, 2018 - The Siemens-built Class 700 EMU ran between stops using the ATO and cab signalling, opening the doors automatically at the next station.
Click to expand...

All the driver has to do through the automatic section is close the doors, albeit even that can be done automatically too.

As you may or may not know, since you're at the western end of Crossrail, is that the Class 345 Crossrail trains and Thameslink Class 700+ are roughly the same performance and equivalence.

Which then leads me to ask you: Why build something for X amount cost to handle Y amount of passengers, when 2X can not only handle 10Y amount of passengers, but those trains can run on mainline tracks (electrified) to the extent of the regional system? Max speed for both Class 345 and 700 series is approx 100 mph, the 717 (for use in the Great Northern Underground tunnels is limited to 85 mph).

In other words, why buy a sub-compact car when you can buy a high-performance sedan for twice the price, and move an entire extended family in it? And at almost twice the speed to get where you're going...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top