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

smallspy said:
Many, many, many things, although in fairness very few of the issues are directly derived from the technology used on the line. The two largest issues stem from age - the rolling stock and computers used to operate the line are both long past their best-before dates - and from the fact that the line was originally intended to be operated with streetcars rather than the rolling stock that does actually operate today, and so the alignment, geography and track configurations are not ideally designed. The second point is such a concern that the current off-the-shelf versions of the rolling stock will simply not fit on the line. Due to both of these points, the ridership of the line has been artificially constrained for the better part of 15 years.

Dan
Click to expand...
Personally I still think that going back(?) to an LRT rolling stock and connecting the RT with the Eglinton Crosstown would have been the best use of money there, instead of ploughing it into a new right of way.

But of course in Toronto transit planning, the perfect is the fatal enemy of the good...
 
jje1000 said:
Personally I still think that going back(?) to an LRT rolling stock and connecting the RT with the Eglinton Crosstown would have been the best use of money there, instead of ploughing it into a new right of way.

But of course in Toronto transit planning, the perfect is the fatal enemy of the good...
Click to expand...
That would require modifications of the line in excess of 1 billion dollars and would decrease the service quality (with the exception of a removed transfer, but the majority of scarborough commuters would still likely take Line 2 over Line 5). Adjusting the line to enable Mark IIIs is probably the most sensible use of funds, and is therefore the best short term solution, while a subway extension is probably the best long term (>60 years) solution. Forcing the crosstown to use the RT right of way would have also removed the potential for an Eglinton East LRT, which honestly compliments the eastern section of line 5 better than the RT way.
 
I'm still rather enamored of a halfway LRT option with high floors, catenary and standard gauge. Done right this uses off the shelf equipment, gets a lot of the commonality that is theoretically possible with the other LRTs, minimizes station rebuilds and makes a Sheppard rebuild for SRT compatibility much more feasible.

Bear in mind that a 100m platform is equivalent to four high floor LRVs along the lines of Edmonton or Calgary's with capacity equivalent to anything talked about for the Ontario line.
 
Streety McCarface said:
That would require modifications of the line in excess of 1 billion dollars and would decrease the service quality (with the exception of a removed transfer, but the majority of scarborough commuters would still likely take Line 2 over Line 5). Adjusting the line to enable Mark IIIs is probably the most sensible use of funds, and is therefore the best short term solution, while a subway extension is probably the best long term (>60 years) solution.
Click to expand...

Of course, that also has the added detriment of tying the TTC in to one rolling stock vendor, and making further extensions to the line/system more expensive as well.

As for a subway extension, it is unlikely to ever be required in any of our lifetimes from a ridership standpoint.

Streety McCarface said:
Forcing the crosstown to use the RT right of way would have also removed the potential for an Eglinton East LRT, which honestly compliments the eastern section of line 5 better than the RT way.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? It certainly didn't do so during the planning and EA stages for the original concepts of the lines.

Dam
 
smallspy said:
Of course, that also has the added detriment of tying the TTC in to one rolling stock vendor, and making further extensions to the line/system more expensive as well.

As for a subway extension, it is unlikely to ever be required in any of our lifetimes from a ridership standpoint.



How do you figure that? It certainly didn't do so during the planning and EA stages for the original concepts of the lines.
Click to expand...
But there's certainly a law of diminishing returns at play here. How much will rolling stock prices affect the final price of the project overall? Assuming it'll cost an additional 1 million dollars per vehicle, that's like a 30 million dollar premium to purchase Mark III stock over a flexity (or other 30m LRV). Certainly, that's less expensive than rebuilding even one SRT station, or the McCowan yard for that matter, and I would still argue that the Mark IIIs offer a better ride experience over the flexity.

Maybe not within our lifetimes, but again, we build rapid transit for the long-term future, not just the short term. We certainly prioritize the short term, but (when building a subway anyways), if we don't consider the 30+ year ridership numbers, no rapid transit in North America will ever make fiscal sense, especially with the current costs of expansion. You said so yourself that ridership was constrained by the technology choices of the 80s, so is it possible that ridership within a 40-year timeframe will eventually warrant the capacity of rapid transit? No one really knows the answer to that question, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did (especially when you consider the changes in transportation dynamics that are occurring today).

The history of the Eglinton Crosstown is super ugly and I really do not feel qualified to make concrete statements regarding why the two weren't interlined, but I do know for certain that the Eastern section of the Crosstown would have been significantly busier than under the current proposal. Not to say that's a bad thing, but it was definitely non-ideal from an operations perspective. After all, having on-street frequencies of <3 minutes is not something the City of Toronto would likely support, and I doubt they'd grant signal priority to trains with that level of service frequency. If they can't do it with the streetcars downtown, why would they do it on Eglinton?

smallspy said:
Dam
Click to expand...
???
 
How does this affect the actual service? Is the service itself unreliable because of the technology? What effect does its streetcar design have on it? Sharp curves? Is the line near capacity? Given the problems, would a skytrain-like solution with Mark IIIs work for the Ontario Line if current technology is better?
 
I think the Federal Govt should take over this project. And hire proper transit experts to design this line. Toronto's subway system will over capacity by 2030 and the harm that will cause the economy will have repercussions for all of Canada so Toronto's transit is of national importance.
 
Mercenary said:
I think the Federal Govt should take over this project. And hire proper transit experts to design this line. Toronto's subway system will over capacity by 2030 and the harm that will cause the economy will have repercussions for all of Canada so Toronto's transit is of national importance.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You'd think that since the Province can "take over" a project from the city, the Feds could "take over" a project from the Province.

The truth is that the province yields a lot more power, and cities in a province are simply at the mercy of that province. But its not the same with with feds and provinces.

The feds job is to make sure all the provinces play nice with each other, and foreign affairs, as well as issues of national security within the country.

There are exceptions to that rule, but for something like a takeover of a capital project from the Province would be seen as a huge misstep of power.

This is why Quebec was allowed to hold a referendum, why Ontario can opt out of the gas tax. Etc etc.
 
Apparently the Ontario Line City staff report has been moved from the September 18th executive committee agenda to the October 23rd agenda. Apologies if that's already been posted here.
 
From the neighborhood group in opposition:


"Hello Everyone

We wanted to thank all of you who came out to the Town Hall Meeting last evening. Special thanks to those who spoke up on behalf of our community.

It was standing room only and we believe the message is getting out to the community. Besides Peter and Paula, Metrolinx Representative Jamie Robinson, Director of Community Relations and Communications - Rapid Transit Projects was present, as well as Jessica Bell who serves as the Ontario NDP critic for Transit and is MPP for University/Rosedale. Jessica spoke about the flaws in the Ontario Plan. Media was also in attendance, with Ben Spurr of the Toronto Star live tweeting the meeting via Twitter.

Once we have had a chance to decipher all the notes on the wall, we will send out highlights from the meeting. Next Steps: Paula and Peter are planning a follow-up meeting with the community to develop a strategy on how to mobilize as a group politically. The meeting will be held either October 8 or 10th. We will keep you posted.

If you were not able to make last night’s meeting, attached are the handouts that were provided. We recommend emailing Peter and Paula to be added to their distribution lists, so that you receive updates directly from them as well:

Peter Tabuns: tabunsp-co@ndp.on.ca

Paula Fletcher: councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca

Important: The City Executive Council Meeting of September 18 has taken the Ontario Line discussion off the agenda, so do not attend this meeting if you were planning on it. The Ontario Line discussion is now going to take place on October 23rd. Mark your calendar.

Finally, we will have a booth at the Ralph Thornton Community Centre open house tomorrow (Saturday), September 14 from 12 - 5 P.M."
 
Streety McCarface said:
But there's certainly a law of diminishing returns at play here. How much will rolling stock prices affect the final price of the project overall? Assuming it'll cost an additional 1 million dollars per vehicle, that's like a 30 million dollar premium to purchase Mark III stock over a flexity (or other 30m LRV). Certainly, that's less expensive than rebuilding even one SRT station, or the McCowan yard for that matter, and I would still argue that the Mark IIIs offer a better ride experience over the flexity.
Click to expand...

And what about the ongoing costs?

McCowan Yard, in any reconfiguration of the line - even to fit Mark III cars - would be removed and a new, larger facility would be required.

Streety McCarface said:
Maybe not within our lifetimes, but again, we build rapid transit for the long-term future, not just the short term. We certainly prioritize the short term, but (when building a subway anyways), if we don't consider the 30+ year ridership numbers, no rapid transit in North America will ever make fiscal sense, especially with the current costs of expansion. You said so yourself that ridership was constrained by the technology choices of the 80s, so is it possible that ridership within a 40-year timeframe will eventually warrant the capacity of rapid transit? No one really knows the answer to that question, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did (especially when you consider the changes in transportation dynamics that are occurring today).
Click to expand...

No, we don't prioritize the construction of lines that we MIGHT need in 50 years because there are almost certainly going to be other, more pressing needs that will come up before then. There's also the small concern of paying for 50 years worth of upkeep and maintenance needlessly when it wasn't necessary to do so.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
No, we don't prioritize the construction of lines that we MIGHT need in 50 years because there are almost certainly going to be other, more pressing needs that will come up before then. There's also the small concern of paying for 50 years worth of upkeep and maintenance needlessly when it wasn't necessary to do so.

Dan
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant, I was specifying that we prioritize projects based on their need within the short-term outlook. The Relief Line is a more pressing issue than the SSE and therefore should get prioritized. While both may see ridership at levels justified for subway service in the future, the relief line, at the present, runs along a corridor that is badly overcrowded and needs a subway. That's something I hope no one disagrees with. Now, if we assume the relief line is built or nearing completion, we reanalyze what projects get priority, whether it's the SSE or Sheppard West/East, or Relief Line North/West. That prioritizing is done through the lens of short term needs because it considers the important issues of the day, not issues that were priorities 10 years in the past or will likely be priorities 10 years in the future.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top