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

[Streety McCarface]

Experts cast doubt on deadline, budget in Ontario Line business case | The Star

An expert doesn't even need to cast doubt, it's completely obvious that everything here is vastly understated.

EDIT: It's a paid article. Is there any valuable information in there worth sharing?

 

[BurlOak]

Business case for Ford's proposed Ontario Line released; transportation engineer gives it a nod

 

[Steve X]

An expert doesn't even need to cast doubt, it's completely obvious that everything here is vastly understated.

EDIT: It's a paid article. Is there any valuable information in there worth sharing?

Basically experts agree the OL is a better line as it serves more places. It's worth it even if it cost more and takes longer to build.

 

[44 North]

and there it is, lol

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154498075882393600

Where is it?

My bottom line is, there isn't a lot to quibble with on a technical level, it's basically quite a doable project. But it's politically shameful, and opportunistic.

Is it doable? As much as some are praising the plan, it's pretty clear that it's in its infancy and likely for big changes. It's more of a concept. This isn't an opinion, it's literally spelled out in the report. On a technical level I do wonder how doable it is, specifically the southernmost Don crossing and Broadview station. How are OL's tracks on each side of the GO tracks. What about the RH line veering past, and the Don Yd.

1) If at-ground/elevated is such a good idea, where has ML and the Province been in insisting that it be used in past (TYSSE) or currently in-planning projects (EWLRT, Line 2). How much money could be saved if the Line 2 extension were elevated instead of a deep bore? Wouldn't it make sense to redirect that project before it goes any further? And how about elevated construction on Eglinton across Ford Nation in Etobicoke?

Exactly. It says right there in the IBC that "Eglinton West is an underground extension of the Crosstown". Considering Verster lauds elevated, the IBC claims vehicles which can handle "steep grades" and "tight curves" (just like the Flexity Freedom) are optimal for elevated, and when it comes to corridors good for guideways Eglinton West is like A1, then where are the Prov's other plans for other elevated lines around Toronto?

4) I continue to wonder if squeezing this line in next to GO will either prevent, or make more expensive, eventual RER expansion. If that is the case, then Durham Region and Stouffville/Markham will be shortchanged on their needs. This is a hugely nasty robbing of Peter. I worry that this may be kept under the radar and not appreciated by those to the East and North. If it were out in the open, the reaction from those regions would be enormous.

Ignoring if it's doable technically, I think if sections of GO corridors can be commandeered for a subway it's generally worth it. Not a full takeover, just sections still allowing some GO passage. Rapid transit always has higher ridership because it's more attractive of a service. Look at Line 3. A short undersized line, oddly placed, facing serious maintenance/capacity issues, and it carries 3x more than all of the 50km Stouff corridor it parallels. And RER was too hyped up facing a reality check that taking some GO space wouldn't hurt it as much as some might think imo.

Other points tho I fully agree. The capacity issue is a serious headscratcher. I'm a huge advocate of 100m subway's across the GTA, but there's literally only one location where they must be built bigger. And that's any line going into the core.

 

[syn]

An expert doesn't even need to cast doubt, it's completely obvious that everything here is vastly understated.

EDIT: It's a paid article. Is there any valuable information in there worth sharing?

Generally, it's an improvement on what's there, has merit. There is concern about the above ground implementation (the other work being done in the area, the lack of space available to expand GO services and fit the OL without expropriation, the resistance of local residents).

Capacity is an issue, and Levy seriously questions whether 90 second intervals are realistic.

Cost and timeline (especially) are not considered sensible.

 

[Allandale25]

Experts cast doubt on deadline, budget in Ontario Line business case | The Star

From the article: "According to the business case, Ontario Line vehicles would be up to 100 metres long, and carry up to 850 passengers. By comparison, the TTC’s newer model subways are 138 metres long, and can carry a maximum of about 1,460 people."

I'm big on visuals so here's where 100 metres is on this chart.

 

[Northern Light]

Basically experts agree the OL is a better line as it serves more places. It's worth it even if it cost more and takes longer to build.

This is a completely BS argument. The RL was already contemplated to go north to Don Mills & Eg (and beyond); it simply wasn't in phase 1.

A western extension was also envisioned by had not yet been studied.

There is nothing intrinsic to the technology chosen that limits or promotes greater line length.

That's a budget issue and the OL has a larger one.

RL would be longer with more money too!

 

[crs1026]

Ignoring if it's doable technically, I think if sections of GO corridors can be commandeered for a subway it's generally worth it. Not a full takeover, just sections still allowing some GO passage. Rapid transit always has higher ridership because it's more attractive of a service. Look at Line 3. A short undersized line, oddly placed, facing serious maintenance/capacity issues, and it carries 3x more than all of the 50km Stouff corridor it parallels. And RER was too hyped up facing a reality check that taking some GO space wouldn't hurt it as much as some might think imo.

In theory I agree with you, but this particular stretch is one place where GO cannot afford to be throttled. Once the Stouffville line comes on line with some greater 2WAD frequency, and if extension to Bowmanville leads to any further express service, three tracks will not suffice. Especially if VIA hangs around.
OL will likely fit on the north side, but there are places where that north side was earmarked for the fourth track. There may be room for the fourth track on the south side, but only if additional fill and retaining walls are put in. That may greatly increase the cost of that fourth track. Does the OL get the cheaper deal? The other consideration is if LSE is electrified - will there still be room for the overhead structures which presumably go on the outside of the GO line?

- Paul

 

[BurlOak]

This is a completely BS argument. The RL was already contemplated to go north to Don Mills & Eg (and beyond); it simply wasn't in phase 1.

A western extension was also envisioned by had not yet been studied.

There is nothing intrinsic to the technology chosen that limits or promotes greater line length.

That's a budget issue and the OL has a larger one.

RL would be longer with more money too!

Based on Table 22, the OL is about 14% more expensive than the DRL. Let's add that to Pape and you get an extra km - which maybe adds a Cosburn station. I don't think the metrics on the DRL would change that much with 1 added station.

 

[Steve X]

This is a completely BS argument. The RL was already contemplated to go north to Don Mills & Eg (and beyond); it simply wasn't in phase 1.

A western extension was also envisioned by had not yet been studied.

There is nothing intrinsic to the technology chosen that limits or promotes greater line length.

That's a budget issue and the OL has a larger one.

RL would be longer with more money too!

I think they are applauding the fact they plan to build more at the same time than the plan itself. The biggest issue mention is not that we can't built stuff but every government changes plans.

With the RL, I say we won't even see the line head north of Danforth a decade after RL south opens and maybe 2 decades for a westernly expansion. If they can commit to building it to Eglinton, it'll be a great start. Then they could extend it to Sheppard or beyond.

 

[Rainforest]

Based on Table 22, the OL is about 14% more expensive than the DRL. Let's add that to Pape and you get an extra km - which maybe adds a Cosburn station. I don't think the metrics on the DRL would change that much with 1 added station.

Yes, OL will have lower per km cost than the previous version of DRL; at the price of lower capacity limit, and chipping away some space from the eastern rail corridor. Not sure such a trade-off should be celebrated ..

 

[Steve X]

Yes, OL will have lower per km cost than the previous version of DRL; at the price of lower capacity limit, and chipping away some space from the eastern rail corridor. Not sure such a trade-off should be celebrated ..

There is one thing ML expects. That is trains won't dwell at station to keep up with the capacity. They better hire a team of officers to hand out tickets for those holding doors and trying to slip on at the last second. That's how they expect the capacity won't go down as much compared to the subway.

 

[Rainforest]

There is one thing ML expects. That is trains won't dwell at station to keep up with the capacity. They better hire a team of officers to hand out tickets for those holding doors and trying to slip on at the last second. That's how they expect the capacity won't go down as much compared to the subway.

I understand that higher frequency plus more precise operation can partly compensate for smaller train size and platform length. Remains to be seen how that will work in practice.

Plus, the rail corridor space .. Saving for OL will likely lead to extra cost or lower capacity for RER down the road.

 

[44 North]

In theory I agree with you, but this particular stretch is one place where GO cannot afford to be throttled. Once the Stouffville line comes on line with some greater 2WAD frequency, and if extension to Bowmanville leads to any further express service, three tracks will not suffice. Especially if VIA hangs around.
OL will likely fit on the north side, but there are places where that north side was earmarked for the fourth track. There may be room for the fourth track on the south side, but only if additional fill and retaining walls are put in. That may greatly increase the cost of that fourth track. Does the OL get the cheaper deal? The other consideration is if LSE is electrified - will there still be room for the overhead structures which presumably go on the outside of the GO line?

- Paul

Dang there'd only be three tracks left? VIA needs one clearly. So that'd be two for LSE and Stouff? With varying services of diesel, express, and electric. That doesn't seem like much leftover. Also doesn't solve the Don Yd or RH connection issue, which is something maybe that isn't a biggie and not technical enough to weigh into.

And for the record I was more talking about commandeering other sections of rail line. Taking over a swath of what is effectively USRC and the original elevated chunk built into the core seems like a no no. Even +30yrs ago one of the elevated true "DRL" concepts had the line elevated above the rail corridor. Def not taking it over.

Based on Table 22, the OL is about 14% more expensive than the DRL. Let's add that to Pape and you get an extra km - which maybe adds a Cosburn station. I don't think the metrics on the DRL would change that much with 1 added station.

But there'd still be lots of room for keeping the original RLS route, while still incorporating aspects of this OL. Elevated north of O'Connor, using unconventional trains by Toronto standards (narrower, shorter cars for better turning, seltrac), perhaps running to Ontario Place as a spur built only for 50m. There was always room for tweaking, and hacking costs down. This seems more like Doug brought Schabas to Swiss Chalet and they were given crayons.

 

[syn]

This is a completely BS argument. The RL was already contemplated to go north to Don Mills & Eg (and beyond); it simply wasn't in phase 1.

A western extension was also envisioned by had not yet been studied.

There is nothing intrinsic to the technology chosen that limits or promotes greater line length.

That's a budget issue and the OL has a larger one.

RL would be longer with more money too!

Exactly.

I'd love to see a legitimate, full DRL comparison to this. Speed, reliability and most importantly, capacity would likely see significant improvements.