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

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Exactly. I fear that critics of the Ontario Line are hyper partisans whom can't see past their disapproval of Ford to think things through more logically. The Ontario Line has the superior alignment and flexibility not to have to go fully tunneled its whole length. It proposes a rapid transit to Eglinton East in the immediate term. What's not to like?

I don't think it is necessarily "superior" - it is good enough that it should proceed further along the design process without getting bogged down by the specifics. I am not going to sing its' praises as if it is the second coming either because the deficiencies of the studies are pretty self-evident as well.

COMPROMISE for goodness sake, build the line with TTC stock but a more advanced signalling system. Build the line with the extensions to the EX and Eglinton, but keep the downtown section with the previous plan. Have the city pick up the extra 2 billion for the additional downtown tunnelling costs, and keep the Ontario Line name (it's a good name anyway, especially if it will eventually end at Ontario place). Work that's already been done can be used, Ford gets his extensions, GO gets extra space on the lakeshore line for future tracks, the province doesn't have to pay for driver operations, the line gets to keep the name, Eglinton gets crowding reduction, etc etc etc.

Rolling stock and interoperability is less of an issue than sizing of hard-infrastructure - stuff that you only do once.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't think it is necessarily "superior" - it is good enough that it should proceed further along the design process without getting bogged down by the specifics. I am not going to sing its' praises as if it is the second coming either because the deficiencies of the studies are pretty self-evident as well.

At some point - and, we’re talking about an $11 Billion rapid transit line here - we’re going to have to start dealing with specifics. So let’s hope that the City and Metrolinx can work together to create a plan that addresses its flaws and deficiencies and can actually be implemented.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At some point - and, we’re talking about an $11 Billion rapid transit line here - we’re going to have to start dealing with specifics. So let’s hope that the City and Metrolinx can work together to create a plan that addresses its flaws and deficiencies and can actually be implemented.

I am counting on that - it is important to maintain the momentum and not turn this into a political liability for anyone.

AoD

 

[smallspy]

Exactly. I fear that critics of the Ontario Line are hyper partisans whom can't see past their disapproval of Ford to think things through more logically. The Ontario Line has the superior alignment and flexibility not to have to go fully tunneled its whole length.

Is it really superior, though?

The original alignment of the DRL was not just to help reduce transfers at Bloor-Yonge, but also to help capture riders from the east end of the City below Danforth Ave. There simply hasn't been enough detail released on the Ontario Line to know whether it will make those transfers from surface transit convenient, or whether it will simply prioritize connections to the GO services.

So in some cases it's not a matter of being a partisan or not - but rather of simply not knowing all of the facts yet.

Dan

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'll say that I really see no reason for City Council to not "endorse" the Ontario Line. The agreement between the City and Queen's Park has enough outs that if the Ontario Line plan remains non-specific and inadequate, the City can simply refuse to release the funding. There's really no reason not to proceed with Ontario Line planning at this point. Whether or not this plan is ever implemented is going to totally depend on whether Metrolinx can adequately answer to the City's numerous and totally valid concerns.

Now given that QP's whole modus operandi has been to be as authoritarian and un-cooperative with other levels of government as possible, I'm obviously not optimistic that this collaboration will be productive. But we'll see.

 

[syn]

At a fundamental level, OL isn't all that different from DRL - it is supportable simply because of that. There are no reasons why the remainder of the issues (vehicle choice, detailed alignment, sizing) are showstoppers.

AoD

There shouldn't be. The problem is that the PC government has defined the Ontario Line largely by the train technology it will use and cost savings.

If it was an underground line using full capacity subway trains then I don't think people would have any major issues with it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There shouldn't be. The problem is that the PC government has defined the Ontario Line largely by the train technology it will use and cost savings.

If it was an underground line using full capacity subway trains then I don't think people would have any major issues with it.

What train technology have they defined, other than saying that it will use ATO, which is really nothing to brag about in year 2019. it's the bare minimum.

Anyways this focus on train technology is a distraction. People (well, the government mostly) keep throwing around this "technology" word as if there's some magical innovative technological solution that will transform how we build transit. The fact of the matter is that the fundamentals of rapid transit "technology" really hasn't changed substantially since the Toronto Subway was introduced in 1954, save for the introduction automatic train control. And, no, smaller trains is not a "technology". It's a smaller train.

And I'm disappointed that with all this talk of technology, that Metrolinx has paid no attention to alternative construction methods. A lot of inspiration could be taken from Barcelona's Line 9.

I can't stand when politicians talk technological solutions. Ten out of ten times, they're talking out their backside to compensate for the fact that they have nothing useful to contribute. Please just stop talking.

 

[syn]

What train technology have they defined, other than saying that it will use ATO, which is really nothing to brag about in year 2019. it's the bare minimum.

Anyways this focus on train technology is a distraction. People (well, the government mostly) keep throwing around this "technology" word as if there's some magical innovative technological solution that will transform how we build transit. The fact of the matter is that the fundamentals of rapid transit "technology" really hasn't changed substantially since the Toronto Subway was introduced in 1954, save for the introduction automatic train control. And, no, smaller trains is not a "technology". It's a smaller train.

And I'm disappointed that with all this talk of technology, that Metrolinx has paid no attention to alternative construction methods. A lot of inspiration could be taken from Barcelona's Line 9.

I can't stand when politicians talk technological solutions. Ten out of ten times, they're talking out their backside to compensate for the fact that they have nothing useful to contribute. Please just stop talking.

I guess what's more important is that they've defined that it won't be using the standard, high capacity TTC subway train.

The rest of your post highlights my point - while they haven't been even remotely specific, most of the discussion around the line revolves around new technology and cost savings.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I guess what's more important is that they've defined that it won't be using the standard, high capacity TTC subway train.

The rest of your post highlights my point - while they haven't been even remotely specific, most of the discussion around the line revolves around new technology and cost savings.

Well, we'll see how long that lasts. The City surely isn't foolish enough to fall for Metrolinx's 90-second headway bs.

I anticipate that we'll see trains larger than Metrolinx had hoped, but with significantly reduced seating to allow them to not be as large as the Rockets. It's yet to be seen how this might affect line routing and track geometry.

At a reasonable headways of 110 seconds (32.7 trains per hour), these trains will need a capacity of 1069 passengers per train to achieve a capacity of 35,000 pphpd, which is exactly the capacity of our six-car Rockets. Moving to a 100% bench seating configuration would allow for more standing room, and allow for a modest reduction in train size.

Now intuitively, I don't feel that seating in the TRs take up a particularly large portion of floorspace, relative to other major metro systems and light rail vehicles. That means that removing or reconfiguring seating won't necessarily yield large increases in standing room or significant reductions in train sizes. I would not be surprised if these trains still end up being 80 to 90 percent the length of the TRs, regardless of seating. If that's the case, these OL trains would still be slightly larger than a 5 car Rocket (obviously assuming train widths stay the same). We'll see what future reports say

 

[MetroMan]

Been discussing this on Twitter but how was Madrid able to build 150 stations over almost 200km’s of track in 12 years? We have a lot of red tape in Ontario. We build transit at an excruciatingly slow pace here. Why is that? There's no reason other than inefficient government why this one line should take 10-15 years to complete.

We live in the same world as everyone else, yet we seem to take 10X longer to build anything, not even counting the time to get started on anything. I'd get it with Shanghai which created explosive growth in a decade, it's a country where they don't play by the same rules and human life and wellbeing isn't a factor. But Madrid is a western city with labour laws.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Been discussing this on Twitter but how was Madrid able to build 150 stations over almost 200km’s of track in 12 years? We have a lot of red tape in Ontario. We build transit at an excruciatingly slow pace here. Why is that? There's no reason other than inefficient government why this one line should take 10-15 years to complete.

We live in the same world as everyone else, yet we seem to take 10X longer to build anything, not even counting the time to get started on anything. I'd get it with Shanghai which created explosive growth in a decade, it's a country where they don't play by the same rules and human life and wellbeing isn't a factor. But Madrid is a western city with labour laws.

I really thought this would be one aspect that the PCPO government changes, but alas...

Sad, because that's probably the single most meaningful thing thing they could've done to improve the transit building process in this city

 

[asher__jo]

COMPROMISE for goodness sake, build the line with TTC stock but a more advanced signalling system. Build the line with the extensions to the EX and Eglinton, but keep the downtown section with the previous plan. Have the city pick up the extra 2 billion for the additional downtown tunnelling costs, and keep the Ontario Line name (it's a good name anyway, especially if it will eventually end at Ontario place). Work that's already been done can be used, Ford gets his extensions, GO gets extra space on the lakeshore line for future tracks, the province doesn't have to pay for driver operations, the line gets to keep the name, Eglinton gets crowding reduction, etc etc etc.

Agreed. TR rolling stock is modern, signally system is completely separate from that.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Been discussing this on Twitter but how was Madrid able to build 150 stations over almost 200km’s of track in 12 years? We have a lot of red tape in Ontario. We build transit at an excruciatingly slow pace here. Why is that? There's no reason other than inefficient government why this one line should take 10-15 years to complete.

We live in the same world as everyone else, yet we seem to take 10X longer to build anything, not even counting the time to get started on anything. I'd get it with Shanghai which created explosive growth in a decade, it's a country where they don't play by the same rules and human life and wellbeing isn't a factor. But Madrid is a western city with labour laws.

There are two things that are fundamentally different about Spain. The first is the obvious one, they receive a steady stream of subsidies from the EU to build infrastructure projects like transit. It is much easier to plan transit when you're given a budget of $1 billion that needs to be spent each year (don't quote me on exact numbers).

Second, Spain is a unitary government. That has a lot of drawbacks for their country, such as substantial resentment from places like Catalonia due to central government overreach. BUT on the transit front it is quite productive as there is no provincial level of government to negotiate with (their lower level of government, autonomous communities, are "Creatures of Madrid" the same way the Canadian territories are of Ottawa, or the City of Toronto is to Queen's Park). This means that their national government is able to directly plan and finance projects, without the constraints of a constitutionally split tax base and jurisdiction.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The federal NDP is not going to go against their provincial counterparts and the City to impose the Ontario Line on Toronto.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds silly from both Federal and Provincial NDP.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Second, Spain is a unitary government. That has a lot of drawbacks for their country, such as substantial resentment from places like Catalonia due to central government overreach. BUT on the transit front it is quite productive as there is no provincial level of government to negotiate with (their lower level of government, autonomous communities, are "Creatures of Madrid" the same way the Canadian territories are of Ottawa, or the City of Toronto is to Queen's Park). This means that their national government is able to directly plan and finance projects, without the constraints of a constitutionally split tax base and jurisdiction.

Not to mention there was a very concerted effort by the national government to build up Madrid as the primate city of the country - don't quote me on the figure, but for a period of time about 60% of national infrastructure funding was directed to that city.

AoD