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

CapitalSeven said:
If we think there will be complaining at the north end of this plan, wait until folks in South Riverdale see some sketches. Not only will they have to put up with a doubling of GO trains whizzing by about 30 meters from their bedrooms over the next few years, they'll also get 3 years of heavy construction followed by about 60 trains an hour 20 meters from their bedrooms. Have a look at where the "Leslieville" station is; a number of houses along that stretch are only 20 meters from the existing track, and a station about 18 meters wide would completely cover DeGrassi in some places, and nearly touch houses. There are also complicated issues around the Pape/Gerrard portal area.
Click to expand...

I wonder what this means for ML's ability to add a fourth (or more) track for GO RER.

I would be pretty upset with ML if they decided to not go ahead with that, and gave up that capacity in favour of the OL. That tradeoff is no longer a debate about the best route for a transit line, it's stealing from Peter to support Paul. That decision ought to be made in public and not in private. ML is supposed to be the objective and non-political "conscience" of transit planning - yeah, I know, we blew past that idea long ago. Just sayin'.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I wonder what this means for ML's ability to add a fourth (or more) track for GO RER.

I would be pretty upset with ML if they decided to not go ahead with that, and gave up that capacity in favour of the OL. That tradeoff is no longer a debate about the best route for a transit line, it's stealing from Peter to support Paul. That decision ought to be made in public and not in private. ML is supposed to be the objective and non-political "conscience" of transit planning - yeah, I know, we blew past that idea long ago. Just sayin'.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Does Dougie even know what RER is?

On second thought, it’s probably best he’s left in the dark
 
Steve X said:
I wouldn't say TTC trains is the best option. TTC's T1's and TR's aren't exactly the best technology out there. Although they are up to modern standards in terms of size and length, they have lower acceleration than most new systems. If they use a newer technology that accelerates faster with a higher top speed (i.e. 100 km/h instead of 80 km/h), the delay caused by slow turns can be offset by faster traveling times elsewhere. The stations are space further part north of Gerrard therefore will benefit with a faster train. I'm being optimistic.
Click to expand...
smallspy said:
Toronto's subway cars are capable of matching the acceleration of most modern high-performance rapid transit systems - by virtue of being designed, largely, as a modern high-performance rapid transit system. Even though the system may have started to be designed in the 1940s, the first generation of 75 foot long Toronto subway cars were the template for just about every modern North American subway car design since (as well as a bunch of them elsewhere in the world).

(There are operational reasons why the TTC may not operate their trains as fast as you'd like - but that's a different conversation.)

As for wanting higher speeds, there's no reason why that can't be done with the current equipment. But the there are trade-offs to it, plus the fact that those higher speeds won't be possible underground without totally redesigning the tunnels.

Dan
Click to expand...

I've read about the TTC testing "high-rate" operations before in the 1980s but I've never found a clear explanation of how it worked out. Does anybody know more about it and if it's ever likely to see something like that return?
 
chinesehorse said:
I've read about the TTC testing "high-rate" operations before in the 1980s but I've never found a clear explanation of how it worked out. Does anybody know more about it and if it's ever likely to see something like that return?
Click to expand...

See here.

I'm not knowledgeable on the electrical theory, but I suspect that it's a very different proposition with today's propulsion systems than it was in the days of relays and such. I'm sure you can design whatever acceleration parameters you want, especially if there is no need for interchangeability with the existing TTC fleet.

- Paul
 
CapitalSeven said:
While some things in the new path look doable (lots of interesting questions and issues though) what no longer makes much sense is the Queen routing through downtown. Going all the way south to the railway at both the Don and the Exhibition and then swerving half a mile north under Queen with 4 big curves is not very bright. I always thought this line should run under Front and Wellington, and now I'm back to that position.
Click to expand...

If you put any weight into the paperwork the bureacrats produced thus far then a King/Wellington line always made more sense from a transportation and development angle. The city's own planning docs said so. It was only when Tory and Keesmat's crew sunk their teeth into the plan that Queen emerged as the favoured.

The team Tory people supported it because they needed to prop up Smarttack to keep Tory from getting embarrassed. They put too much weight into his 100% bogus surface subway plan which is currently about 1/3rd of what was promised (and shrinking every day) The Keesmat crew's interest was in social engineering because they made a point in the planning docs on gifting Moss Park and Regent Park individual stations to help the homeless, addicts, and others lift themselves out of poverty which is how they ended up with a subway station under a highway.

I don't support all of the premier's ideas or this new plan but at least this fixes one of the glaring omissions of the first draft now that one of the biggest employment nodes outside of downtown at Parliament and King gets a stop.

But the real heroes of this show are the Pape avenue NIMBY's aided and abetted by their communist councillor. I bet those idiots over there complaining about having a subway stop too close to their door are kicking themselves now. Not only did their complaining add hundreds of millions of costs to the proposed design but they delayed everything for a year while workers went to mark their legislative checkboxes. Imagine if they had spent that year advancing design and preparing funding requests and contracts!

TheTigerMaster said:
Part of the rationale for not putting Relief Line 1 on King was that RER + the Relief Line would put way too much pressure on pedestrian infrastructure on the area. Remember that traffic at Union is expected to double in the coming decades.
Click to expand...

This is one of those repeated UT myths like "Rob Ford meets women in Mutual Street apartment" where you need to show your work. AFAIK Keesmat's crew never formally presented any proof to support this during the design and consult process. If anyone can link to a pedestrian traffic study on the RL site to show it that would be welcome.

But your statement is also misleading because the implication is that all the traffic from Union will be headed north to clash with people getting off the subway when a large chunk of that traffic growth will be headed west from Union to developments on Front and south to developments between Lake Shore and QQ.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Oh dear Lord! :rolleyes:

The subway is elevated in sections too, like through the affluent High Park neighbourhood. We can also visibly see trains running through even more affluent Rosedale. But you don't hear me complaining about that now do you?

The perennial problem with the SLRT proposal is always that it forces all the many thousands of daily transit users whom desire a through trip through Kennedy and not have to get off there, to have to get off there to exchange trains. I was all for the Glenn Murray plan. Got it? Capisce!
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's a Scarborough specific hypocrisy.

There are many reasons citizens in Thorncliffe Park may not want kilometers of elevated transit running through their community - especially when their illustrious Premier seems to think a certain area of the city deserves better.

Why should Thorncliffe Park be treated like "second class citizens", unlike those in Scarborough?
 
Allandale25 said:
Interview now up:


Some thoughts by Matt Elliott (thread):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154068110422491141
Click to expand...

Geez he's all over the place. The DRL Plan isn't any good because it's too late, should've been built 25 years ago. Transit should be built incrementally...which is why the Ontario Line is great, because it's not being built incrementally....but it is because it's connecting communities.

lol
 
People are glossing over the fact that the Ontario Line, although only sharing 3Km with the previous DRL, will actually be using the same alignment through the most complex part of the route (Downtown Toronto) where the stiffest engineering challenges exist. Using the existing rail corridor could be less complex depending on the amount of space on the corridor, and building the line as an elevated skytrain through Throncliffe to Eglinton would save money as well since there's lots of Right-of-Way for build the line while mitigating impacts to the existing roadway. Also, the residential buildings around Thorncliffe are significantly set-back from the roadway, Noise and visual pollution wouldn't be very severe. The biggest technical challenge IMO is the crossing of the DVP, which was always going to be a challenge regardless of whether it was the Ontario Line, or the DRL.
 
BMO said:
People are glossing over the fact that the Ontario Line, although only sharing 3Km with the previous DRL, will actually be using the same alignment through the most complex part of the route (Downtown Toronto) where the stiffest engineering challenges exist. Using the existing rail corridor could be less complex depending on the amount of space on the corridor, and building the line as an elevated skytrain through Throncliffe to Eglinton would save money as well since there's lots of Right-of-Way for build the line while mitigating impacts to the existing roadway. Also, the residential buildings around Thorncliffe are significantly set-back from the roadway, Noise and visual pollution wouldn't be very severe. The biggest technical challenge IMO is the crossing of the DVP, which was always going to be a challenge regardless of whether it was the Ontario Line, or the DRL.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone's glossing over that, it's just not a reason to give them any credit.

The other changes they've made arguably cancel out their commitment to that 3km stretch.

They're trying to cut corners on a project that simply can't afford it. It's too critical to Toronto's transit future.
 
I honestly cannot believe people are over analyzing and jumping to conclusions over a plan, which at this point is a line on a map only. People don't want to admit it, but the negativity stems from the fact that it was Ford's government who came up with plan. Now, I did not vote for the tories, nor do I agree with some of their policy choices, but the attacks on this forum (as well as most media) is shameful.
People are crying that the RL south is not going forward? well, judging by transit development history in this city, the relief line wouldn't have been built anytime soon. Relief line north? give me a break, 2040 at the earliest. Relief Line west? not even on anyone's radar.
Missing EA's for Ontario Line? good! the less studies, unnecessary documentation, the better and faster we get transit built. Argue all you want, but all EA's come to a pre-determined conclusion that only benefits consultants and delays actual construction.
If you remember, there was an RFP for Ontario Line in Merx, that I believe closed in June. It must have been awarded by now, or close to being awarded. If they can complete it by winter, followed by release of the RFQ (like Verster suggested today), then this pace would be unprecedented in Ontario.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top