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

Ford is getting rid of the most obvious and sensible solution, throwing away many years and millions of dollars in the process. It will probably lead to years of nothing happening.

Seems like a family tradition.
 
syn said:
Ford is getting rid of the most obvious and sensible solution, throwing away many years and millions of dollars in the process. It will probably lead to years of nothing happening.

Seems like a family tradition.
Click to expand...

Saddest thing about all this is that the better, more robust plan, that has capacity to serve Toronto for the next 40+ years, the Relief Line North + South, would cost more or less the exact same amount of money to build (around $11 Billion). So this proposal from the government isn’t even achieving its most basic goal of saving money.

The Relief Line North + South could also be under construction today, and would serve significantly more people (including those deep in Scarborough).
 
So are we talking about an "El" style steel frame track 15-20m in the air running trough Leslieville/Riverside? (existing berm plus elevated track).
There isn't any room for two more tracks on the current rail berm is there? I suppose the berm could be widened without having to take out too many houses.
Could these new trains be using the same gauge as the go trains and possibly share the existing tracks?
I guess possibly nobody knows yet.

I live about 100m from the exiting berm so I have a selfish interest in just how ugly this is going to be.
On the other hand, a station right were I currently catch the 501 would be convenient.
 
BurlOak said:
The map shows a faint Spadina Front station. Is the for LSE or for Kitchener GO? If the latter, it would be nice to have a connection there.
Click to expand...
I think I read something a while back that the Spadina-Front GO Station was only for the Barrie Line, and it terminating there instead of ending/going though Union Station. Of course I think this was just a possibility and still up in the air if all GO lines will stop or terminate there.
 
Leo_Chan said:
I think I read something a while back that the Spadina-Front GO Station was only for the Barrie Line, and it terminating there instead of ending/going though Union Station. Of course I think this was just a possibility and still up in the air if all GO lines will stop or terminate there.
Click to expand...

That’s what I remember as well.
 
achender said:
So are we talking about an "El" style steel frame track 15-20m in the air running trough Leslieville/Riverside? (existing berm plus elevated track).
There isn't any room for two more tracks on the current rail berm is there? I suppose the berm could be widened without having to take out too many houses.
Could these new trains be using the same gauge as the go trains and possibly share the existing tracks?
I guess possibly nobody knows yet.

I live about 100m from the exiting berm so I have a selfish interest in just how ugly this is going to be.
On the other hand, a station right were I currently catch the 501 would be convenient.
Click to expand...
Why do people always seem to bring up the Chicago El when they hear about elevated rail? No modern system would look like that. It would look more like the SkyTrain or Docklands LRT. This isn't 1895. The El is irrelevant when it comes to picturing modern elevated transit.
 
Hopefully this helps to change the thinking about making everything underground. We need more elevated rail which can make for easier extensions. Elevated rail is not a blight like some make it to be. Amsterdamn which is much better looking city than Toronto has many elevated rail and metro stations like this and it works fine. Hopefully Toronto can finally mature as a city:

foto11.jpg

Source: http://www.henri-floor.nl/plaatjes/2009/11/14/foto11.htm

amsterdam-bijlmer-arena.jpg

Source: https://www.tripadvisor.co.za/Locat...e_Poort-Amsterdam_North_Holland_Province.html

LR_13279-02(c)LuukKramer.jpg

Source: https://www.archdaily.com/496355/am...station-maccreanor-lavington-architects-image
 
smallspy said:
50 years wouldn't even take you back to the construction, nevermind planning, of the Yonge Line.

But thanks for playing.

Dan
Click to expand...
It's hard to have a Spanish solution platform on a subway system with only 1 line.
The Bloor line was built in 1966 - 53 years ago. That is when it officially became an interchange station and when modifications to the Yonge line (and new construction on Bloor line) would have been feasible. Since I rounded to 1 significant digit, 50 years is pretty accurate.
 
Northern Light said:
There is nothing in this post, nothing, zero, nada and squat that is not untrue.

I would say you know better and are lying, but that would be unparliamentary of me..........so instead I'll simply assume this is the latest in a long line of posts that demonstrate your contemptible level of ignorance of just about everything.

I will reiterate, whether you are willfully posting false information, or simply too obtuse to know better, kindly stop wasting the time of people who actually care about the truth and the value of debating with sound facts.

Stop posting here. Forever. Go somewhere that people value nonsense and BS, I'm sure there's a Ford-lovers site for you somewhere.

I am happy to have discussions and read posts from any and all political perspectives; so long as they have some pretense to the truth. Sadly, your posts make no such contribution here.
Click to expand...
Ok.
Where was the next station North of Bloor. Not mentioned.
Would it go under the Don North or over - not mentioned.
Where was the next station West of Osgoode. Not mentioned.
Would it dip back down to King or stay on Queen. Not mentioned.
using Mark 3 or RER train. Not mentioned.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The benefit of narrower trains is narrower tunnels, which lowers tunnelling costs. However, narrower trains means that to maintain capacity, trains needs to be longer. Longer trains means longer station boxes, and stations are by far the most expensive component of any subway extension.

It’s a pretty safe bet that the costs of longer station boxes would thus erase any savings from having narrower trains and tunnels.

Remember, tunnel boring is the relatively cheap part of subway construction, and accordingly any savings from narrower tunnels will be relatively small. The 10 km of twinned tunnels for Line 5 cost just $500 million; a single station nowadays costs anywhere from $200 Million up to $500 Million for extremely complex stations

There’s no magic bullet solution here guys
Click to expand...
The question is how deep will they dig and how will the dig it. Will they just do a single tunnel and build the station inside the tunnel?

As for capacity, I'll take the Skytrains as comparison. Translink claims their Mark III Skytrain can hold 532 riders per 4 car train with the length of 68m. Doubling that would be 1064 riders for ~136m which is about the same length as the current T1/TR trains. The Mark III's have less seating and optimized for capacity which leads to higher rider per train. 30,000 ppdph is still reachable with ATO and current TTC length platforms. It's not the end of the world if Ford and the PC got their way.
 
MisterF said:
Why do people always seem to bring up the Chicago El when they hear about elevated rail? No modern system would look like that. It would look more like the SkyTrain or Docklands LRT. This isn't 1895. The El is irrelevant when it comes to picturing modern elevated transit.
Click to expand...
You don't even need to leave Toronto to see what an elevate line would look like, we've had one out here in Scarborough for over 30 years.
 
JSF-1 said:
You don't even need to leave Toronto to see what an elevate line would look like, we've had one out here in Scarborough for over 30 years.
Click to expand...
And that's the most built up part, built next to the existing SRT line near STC.
 
Last edited:
Steve X said:
The question is how deep will they dig and how will the dig it. Will they just do a single tunnel and build the station inside the tunnel?

As for capacity, I'll take the Skytrains as comparison. Translink claims their Mark III Skytrain can hold 532 riders per 4 car train with the length of 68m. Doubling that would be 1064 riders for ~136m which is about the same length as the current T1/TR trains. The Mark III's have less seating and optimized for capacity which leads to higher rider per train. 30,000 ppdph is still reachable with ATO and current TTC length platforms. It's not the end of the world if Ford and the PC got their way.
Click to expand...
So my math was not far off.
17m trains x 5 cars = 85m platform.
5 cars x 30 trains per hour (120 second freq.) x 133 passengers = 20k passengers on opening.
With modifications, 6 car trains at 100 seconds (36 trains per hour), it gives 29k.

Maybe it's best to up that to have 100m typical stations and 120m interchange stations (and add 1 car to each of above) to bring that up to 33.5k.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top