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

[EnviroTO]

MTO will look at any type of transit for highway as long as it doesn't remove any existing lanes of traffic. One reason the subway from Kipling to the airport will never get off the ground using 427 or anything in place of a subway on the surface.

I don't know why they can't come to an agreement to use the hydro corridor though.

 

[Undead]

I don't know why they can't come to an agreement to use the hydro corridor though.

I believe hydro is pretty picky about what they allow in their corridors.

 

[EnviroTO]

I believe hydro is pretty picky about what they allow in their corridors.

It seems to change from season to season. There is fast food, grocery stores, and car dealerships under hydro corridors today. I think it just requires coming to an agreement with the hydro company, the city, and likely insurance companies.

 

[TorontoBun]

Things are vastly below optimal.

I would never whine.

I simply say straight out, as currently proposed we're better off cancelling this project in its entirety.

There is no real progress being made.

We don't even have a high level design complete, let alone detailed design.

The property required has not been acquired, no tenders have closed.

This project is nothing more than a consultant enrichment scheme at this point; and a waste of time and money.

I’d like to add that the province has a colourful history of forcing “new or different technology” on Toronto and we’d get the lemon souring our tastes from the start.
This is how we get white elephants like the SRT which is now going to be a subway. Another lesser known example is the push for CNG buses in which we found that the natural gas escaped from the tanks to collect on the outside environment, hence the “No CNG buses” signs at Lawrence and Jane stations. At least we were able to convert a select few to diesel while prematurely retiring the rest due to early frame corrosion.

 

[drum118]

I don't know why they can't come to an agreement to use the hydro corridor though.

Talk to Hydro One as they are not allowing thing like this on their lands anymore.

 

[lenaitch]

Without knowing for certain, perhaps they have decided they don't want the liability grief, such as electrical fields interfering with onboard and signal systems, reduced access for maintenance or the prospect of somebody saying they got cancer from working on or riding the system.

 

[drum118]

Without knowing for certain, perhaps they have decided they don't want the liability grief, such as electrical fields interfering with onboard and signal systems, reduced access for maintenance or the prospect of somebody saying they got cancer from working on or riding the system.

It opens up a can of law suites as well taking down haft the city power for everything if a set or 2 transmission support towers come down. It will leave everyone in the dark for a week or 2 as well no system to ride.

Never have support transit in the hydro corridor and never will unless it in an area not needed for future transmission towers nor have any effect on both systems. At the end of the day, no transit in Hydro corridor.

 

[aquateam]

It opens up a can of law suites as well taking down haft the city power for everything if a set or 2 transmission support towers come down. It will leave everyone in the dark for a week or 2 as well no system to ride.

Never have support transit in the hydro corridor and never will unless it in an area not needed for future transmission towers nor have any effect on both systems. At the end of the day, no transit in Hydro corridor.

What about the York University busway? That's in a hydro corridor.

 

[crs1026]

As for the disruption/cost of shifting existing GO tracks, I know it was done for the Georgetown South Project and I believe some work on LSW, and around the Bayview Junction. Any thoughts on how those projects compare to the potential shifts to to the GO tracks in this stretch @crs1026 @smallspy ?

-( Slowly clearing backlog of reading + mail...)

I don't know the precise standards, but here's a comparison to the stretch of TTC subway that runs next to CP's Galt Sub with 4-track width.

You can do anything with enough fill and retaining walls, I guess... but this sure looks tight. TTC subway is not that much wider than OL will be.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ Completely forgot when I was doing those maps of the great example of 2 TTC tracks and 4 CP Rail tracks. Did you use Google Earth to draw that measurement line?

 

[crs1026]

^ Completely forgot when I was doing those maps of the great example of 2 TTC tracks and 4 CP Rail tracks. Did you use Google Earth to draw that measurement line?

Yes, it’s imprecise, but it’s certainly informative.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

What about the York University busway? That's in a hydro corridor.

View attachment 309725

The agreement in the early 2000's that the Hydro bus corridor was to be built and in operation until the subway extension open. This was stated at a TTC meeting by Mayor Miller who sat on the commission at the time and supposed to taken some arm twisting to get Hydro One to agree to it. I was at that meeting.

Since then, no clue why it still in use. Hydro One in the late 2000's stated they need all their land for future needs and why the plan LRT on Dundas for Mississauga got reject as well forcing the long delay opening of the Transit Hub since it couldn't go where it was supposed to go.

Think what the results would be for High Order Transit if wire(es) fell on to it or a tower fail?? Then what happen if by chance that a derailment of an High Order Transit train took out a tower or 2??? Not all hydro corridors are like this with the 427 being the worse of them for anything. It will not be an overnight fix and the HOT would remain close until the results of an investigation surface.

Using hydro corridor is for long haul routes if it happens since too many transfers to get to routes riders needs between stops. The Sheppard corridor and service on Sheppard was a hot topic years ago for doing this as well Finch.

The 407 BRT is only allow to run between the Hydro corridor and the 407.

 

[drum118]

It seems to change from season to season. There is fast food, grocery stores, and car dealerships under hydro corridors today. I think it just requires coming to an agreement with the hydro company, the city, and likely insurance companies.

Most likely temporary, low risk just like various paths and gardens that have been built. When time hydro One wants the land, notice is given and X moves on within months to a year. With transit, take years or decades to build a new line and that does not fit Hydro One time line.

 

[superelevation]

This is going to be a long one, bear with me . . .

Notably the LSE Corridor capacity for both GO and VIA; the capacity of the O/L itself; the requirement to essentially waste Greenwood Yard which can't host the next generation of trains in its current configuration (hence the need to build a yard

...

At this point, I not only support cancelling the O/L project...........

I strongly support firing Phil Verster whose role in all this ineptitude is unforgivable.

...

Build the damned Relief Line as it was conceived and extend it north to Eglinton as soon as it reaches Danforth.

We will have four tracks and what like 30 tph? We do not have a capacity issue, 2 tracks with modern signalling can easily do 30 tph.

One of the biggest problems you have with this plan is it leaves a large chunk of land in the core of one of the cities with the most expensive real estate in the world open for redevelopment or reuse??

Oh yes, cancel the project and fire the leader of the org that is doing it. This project is a model for what other projects like SSE and Eglinton West should be. Above ground almost anywhere it's possible, more modern trains, PSD's, and most importantly given the work going on - better integration with GO.

I will accept what consequences follow for describing this statement as so completely asinine as to be beyond words.

If you really have no idea what's being talked about, be quiet and learn.

For the record. The ecological component being discussed is about the the impacts on both the Walmsley Brook ravine and the West Don Valley.

Nothing to do w/Leslieville. You would know that if you'd read the thread.

...

The design of the *R/L* was almost build-ready, and much further along than the O/L design is at this point.

Yes, there would be more sunk costs; that is beyond unfortunate. It ought to be criminal.

But its time to stop the bleeding and cauterize the wound.

It's amazing that even on a forum about transit we have people asking what the impact on a number of already deeply modified / impacted natural features is, rather than the broader impact of not having nearly enough electrified rapid transit.

Don't kid yourself, the RL was at like 15% design, saying it was build ready is not at all accurate. It's also worth noting that the RL was a shorter and more complex project which likely would have required longer construction and design timelines - especially without the level of provincial backing the OL has.

The supposed benefits of moving to the OL plan was, (1) to allow for faster construction times, (2) to lower development costs and (3) the cross-platform transfer benefits.

On point one, there isn't an engineer with their head screwed on properly that would ever suggest that cancelling a highly developed plan, years into development, to chase a brand new plan at 0% development would yield faster project completion. That whole justification from the government was complete and utter BS, and we don't need technical documentation to be certain of that. By reverting to a less developed plan, they introduced significantly more risk to the project (in terms of cost and timeliness) vs continuing on with the existing plan.

On point two, the government has yet to provide an apples-to-apples cost comparison of the Relief Line vs the Ontario Line. All they've said is that the Relief Line South had a higher per-mile cost that the OL, which is a completely meaningless piece of information. Shorter transit projects will always cost more on a per-mile basis than similar projects of greater length, because the longer projects can spread out the one-time startup costs across the greater length of the project. Furthermore, the less developed OL faces significantly greater risk of cost overruns imposed by project delays - we all know how costly delays in transit construction are in Toronto.

And on point three, well we know what has happened with that today. MX is using NIMBYs as justification for no longer utilizing cross-platform transfers, however since Day 1 it's been clear that the idea was very expensive, and likely not physically feasible. I sense the NIMBYs are being scapegoated here.

As you said, if the government was serious about getting this project built, they would've just extended the RLS west and north. It certainly would've been the safer option on a technical basis. Their failure to do so still has me doubting the government's motivations behind the OL.

There are so many benefits you don't acknowledge, but I'll address those you do.

1) The line will be built faster? More tunnelling needed for RL is more time and more importantly *more risk*, look at the TYSSE. Also again, the RL was by no means "highly developed" it was at like 15% design. The fact that TBMs were able to be procured which I am sure someone will mention is that like the current gov is with ECWLRT and SSE - govs were willing to take additional risk and potentially accept a longer total construction timeline in order to start sooner.

2) It still has lowered development costs? The OL costs like 30% more but goes much farther?

3) Yes, but this is not a binary thing . . . transfers are mentioned as a time / distance, not as a 1 or a 0.

Just because benefits have been reduced as a project becomes more developed (not really surprising - costs for the RL also increased over time), does not mean it is a good project.

View attachment 308482

So we should move stations underground and tracks underground at high cost when there is a perfectly good 100 year old rail right of way that people chose to buy / rent near? (And again I don't actually think the OL has a negative impact - its literally more transit)

Why was there was little to-no resistance to the DRL? Because it was built in cooperation with the community, instead of forcing it on them without listening to their concerns.

Also because if you built every transit line deep underground where nobody could hear or see it, then of course nobody would complain? So should we just put every transit line deep underground?

I simply say straight out, as currently proposed we're better off cancelling this project in its entirety.

There is no real progress being made.

We don't even have a high level design complete, let alone detailed design.

The property required has not been acquired, no tenders have closed.

This project is nothing more than a consultant enrichment scheme at this point; and a waste of time and money.

What do we think Metrolinx and the Gov is doing right now, no progress is being made?

 

[syn]

Also because if you built every transit line deep underground where nobody could hear or see it, then of course nobody would complain? So should we just put every transit line deep underground?

We should put transit lines underground in the dense, urban environments that high-capacity underground transit was designed for.