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

[thettctransitfanatic]

"I asked Metrolinx for any background reports that supported the idea the Ontario Line could be built for $10.9 billion by 2027. They told me I would have to file an FOI." Ben Spurr, April 16, 2019

Spurr is right. We, and probably the PCs themselves doubt that the Ontario Line could be built for 10.9B. I just really think that the idea it could be "built on the cheap" is a literal joke. We probably won't experince the Ontario Line until we die, but even then will probably still be under consturtion,

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

lol! I'm just so shocked...shocked I tell you! Let me guess, this was just one of the scenarios put on the table for view at Metrolinx HQ. Ford and Fedelli, Partners of Perniciousness were attracted to the sparkling sprinkles someone had splashed on this particular scheme, since Metrolinx considered it so cheap as to not be taken seriously, so had to do something to make it look at least desirable. I'm sure the practical schemes weren't even considered by the dynamic duo.

The sprinkles became the Truth!
Homer: Donuts - is there anything they can't do?

I'll try and find Spurr's Twitter and link it.

See what I mean, Metrolinx just does NOT want to take the Ontario Line seriously,

 

[narduch]

We'll get back to you in 2028...

"I asked Metrolinx for any background reports that supported the idea the Ontario Line could be built for $10.9 billion by 2027. They told me I would have to file an FOI." Ben Spurr, April 16, 2019

I've seen them claim they can have shovels in the ground by end of 2020.

We'll know a lot sooner then 2028 how full of shit they are. And we already know they are pretty full of it.

 

[steveintoronto]

I've seen them claim they can have shovels in the ground by end of 2020.

We'll know a lot sooner then 2028 how full of shit they are. And we already know they are pretty full of it.

The real danger is that there are almost inevitably some excellent schemes on Metrolinx' display table. They won't be 'cheap' by any means, but they will be excellent value. But of course, the Die-namic Duo have no concept of value.

The cost to do this right with the "400,000 passengers per work week day" that Verster is on record as discussing (and that's with it truncated at Eglinton, it has to go to Steeles and beyond) is for needed mainline EMUs, that are extant and running in real 'world class cities'. Not just "new tech"...but proven and in production. Even the latest 'metro' trains are now surpassed. (They fit a niche superbly in many cases. This isn't one. This needs mainline (RER) trains to do it)

But hey, I'm sure Deco Labels can print up "World Class City" stick-ons for Torontonians to flash as they wait endlessly on over-crowded platforms. To paraphrase Homer again:
"Is there anything a tax-cut can't do?"

 

[muller877]

This Star article has a good overview of all the key aspects.

Over the Don and under Fort York — where experts say building the Ontario Line could get tricky

Planning and transit experts say the province’s Ontario Line plan has some advantages over the city’s relief line proposal, but challenges and possibl...

www.thestar.com

Coles Note Version

To Science Centre - critical for Line 1 and very good
Don River (@ Eastern) -- cheaper but hurts the neighbourhood (you need land).
Don River (North) -- Can they use the Leaside Bridge? (let's wait for the engineers to do the study)
Downtown - underground and complicated (duh!)
Underground stations - require 2 entrances (duh!)
you will have to go above or below the GO lines + fort york issues
You have to run more vehicles if they are smaller for the same capacity (duh!)
A new yard is required (duh!)

Other comments:
Yard -- Use Greenwood for Ontario line, use Kipling/Canpa for the subway.
Today in the paper it was indicated that Exhibition GO/Ontario Line will be a transfer station. To relieve Union Station.

 

[Kitsune]

... the leaside bridge was built to handle streetcar weight, however that capacity was taken up by the addition of the two outside lanes.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Wouldn't that be ironic if they have to remove car lanes on the bridge to accommodate the OL trains.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Reading some of the comments on here, you would think that people want the Ontario Line to fail.

 

[Tuscani01]

Today in the paper it was indicated that Exhibition GO/Ontario Line will be a transfer station. To relieve Union Station.

Where did you see this? Does this mean the final stop is Exhibition GO, and not Ontario Place as originally thought? If so, that's already a major improvement to the alignment.

 

[crs1026]

^ Nobody wants it to fail. It's not a bad idea. The issues deserving pushback include:

- Ford has slagged TTC and City Planning as incapable of planning and executing transit construction. Actually, the staff and engineering work on the DRL is pretty solid and it is reaching a defined level of completion and defensibility. It's quite reasonable to point out that the Ford-ML plan, in contrast, is at a much earlier stage, and its technical feasibility is based on much less due diligence.
- It's also quite reasonable to look at ML's performance on its projects and challenge whether their track record is really any better.
- Ford/ML have claimed that his version will be cheaper than traditional TTC subway. The onus is on Ford/ML to substantiate this. Again, their design is at a much less developed point and their cost data is less developed, so this assertion does not rest on data.
- Ford claims that his version will meet all foreseeable demand, even though it is physically smaller. Once again, the onus is on Ford to prove that assertion. Yeah, the City may have tainted its earlier forecasting (especially wrt the Line 2 Scarboro debate) but two booboos don't make a good plan. This to me is the show stopper - building a line that proves to be too small in the longest term is not appropriate.
- The routing at Exhibition/Ontario Place needs to be established in far more detail, particularly in relation to other things eg Liberty Village, new transit to the Humber, etc.

Ford/ML are counting on the city and the voter to be so sick of transit debates that they just roll over and say, get on with it. Sorry, but due diligence is due diligence. Ford/ML need to demonstrate their due diligence. That' not seeking failure, although one suspects that Ford/ML are further out on the limb than they claim, and any number of these arguments might fall apart with proper examination.

- Paul

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

^ Nobody wants it to fail. It's not a bad idea. The issues deserving pushback include:

All of which is fair, and sentiments shared by myself.

But there is really no reason to believe that this plan is inherently flawed or DOA yet. We've spent pages covering examples of smaller trainsets carrying similar capacities to the TTC, we have a good idea now that the final stop is Exhibition and not Ontario Place, in theory all the planned stops of the City's plan are maintained, and we know that capital cost estimates are wildly off the mark with all these projects anyway. I would like in particular to learn where the railyard is being proposed at, but these are all details to come.

I just feel there is a lot of pessimism going around for what is for all intents and purposes, committed funding for a Relief Line with expanded scope, really what Phase 1 should have always been. We have a federal election in the fall, so like it or not, Doug's government has displayed political cunning on this file, and we may get Federal funding re-committed or possibly expanded.

I'm a lot less pessimistic about the Relief Line than I was a week ago. For the first time, I can imagine riding it before I retire.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The difference is context, Vancouver really hadn't dealt with significant capacity issues on its rail lines prior to the Canada Line (some would argue it still hasn't given the Canada Line can still have its capacity almost tripled). Toronto is far too familiar with this issue.

That's utterly insufficient to allay those fears given the absence of information available thus far. Let me tell you what context we are familiar with - utterly disgraceful transit planning, prioritization and execution over the past 40+ years. That's the context we are dealing with.

And yes, tell me about how you can still triple Canada Line theoretically when the plan has been reamed throughly - simply put, it isn't just what you can run trains through - it is also what the stations themselves can handle.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

Capacity should be sufficient for a pretty long time. I'd argue that if we need subway level capacities but can build more with a lighter standard that we are better off just making more lower capacity lines ala Madrid.

I'm sitting here staring at my souvenir First Day Bloor-Danforth token from 1966, and thinking, gosh, that didn't feel like a "pretty long time". ;-)

The savings on the smaller technology are only a couple billion dollars. Building two lines at $10B each, instead of spending the extra two billion to right size the first one, doesn't strike me as good business.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm sitting here staring at my souvenir First Day Bloor-Danforth token from 1966, and thinking, gosh, that didn't feel like a "pretty long time". ;-)

The savings on the smaller technology are only a couple billion dollars. Building two lines at $10B each, instead of spending the extra two billion to right size the first one, doesn't strike me as good business.

- Paul

It isn't even the trainset per se (narrower metro cars aren't rare) - it is how the stations, etc are sized that's the key here. Also, Madrid had an ongoing commitment to build multiple lines - we can barely start one that has been identified since the 80s as a priority without constantly being told this jaw dropping BS by someone who don't even ride the subway. Would you buy from a salesman who don't even use what they sell?

AoD

 

[M II A II R II K]

It should also connect with King Liberty station, to intercept the north west GO routes as well.