Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[blacksquirrels]

People still think this line will ever be built ?

Step 1 - Cancel previous plan.
Step 2 - Suggest new "better" plan which is obviously flawed.
Step 3 - Conduct more EA's, more community consultations, more debates, causing further delays.
Step 4 - Construction costs inflate.
Step 5 - Nothing gets built.
Step 6 - Rinse and repeat previous 5 steps.

Some things never change and you guys fall for it everytime.

 

[ARG1]

Why?

The whole point of the province taking over transit construction was to fast track things.

No reason they couldn't have done that as originally planned. They could've added a western extension too. Ford said they wanted to build subways and build them faster than anyone else - all they had to do was continue with the plans already created.

There is no defense for the critical shortcomings of this project.

Let me ask you something. What makes you so sure that the Ontario Line wasn't originally planned before Ford? Let's look at some facts. Despite Doug Ford pushing "4 priority subway projects", somehow we only have information on 3 of them, the one missing is Yonge North, and why is that? While we don't know the answer for sure, according to the star, Ford has been trying to push an above ground alternative that would see the extension use the Bala sub near Richmond Hill Centre station. Now let's get this straight, by slightly changing how a line terminates, we have extended any official announcements or plans by what, almost 2.5 years now? Yet the plans of the Ontario Line somehow went from back of napkin to early detailed engineering drawings in like 6 months. This is unreasonably fast. What's most likely happening here (and this is the case with EW and SSE as well) is that all of these plans were drafted and designed LONG before Ford was elected. Evidence of this can actually be seen in the later Open Houses for the DRL where Metrolinx was showing off different rolling stock as options for the DRL, and this was a few months before Ford was elected. We are talking about 2018, and Metrolinx was outright saying that we're not sure we're even going to be using TRs. The conclusion then is simple, the Ontario Line isn't something Doug Ford made up on the fly, and forced down to everyone. It was something that Metrolinx was working on long before ford as an alternative to the DRL (perhaps even planned by the Liberals), and when Doug Ford came to power, he asked Metrolinx for alternate plans for upcoming transit projects, and stuff like the underground Eglinton West allignment and 3 stop SSE (both of which was already studied long before Ford) was given to Ford, and he liked them the most over everything else they showed him. Same thing happened with the Ontario Line where Metrolinx showed him both the DRL, and this longer and cheaper Light Metro alternative that they were working on in the background, and Ford liked the Light Metro option better. All he did then was change the name to the Ontario Line to make it look like his plan and give his branding, and here comes April 2019, Doug Ford released the Ontario transit plan with the brand new Ontario Line.

 

[NoahB]

Many people here dont seem to realize that the Ontario Line is the RLN being fast-tracked. Metrolinx was the one studying the RLN. And they are the ones who came up with this alignment. (it is a combination of multiple of their old GO / Yonge relief plans) It is a nice break from the city's fixation on having Flexities and TR vehicles as the only options for any rapid transit plan.

The Ontario Line is all about going from the weird Toronto thinking of deep bored tunnels everywhere to the more pragmatic reuse of existing corridors and assets like what is being done for the REM. I can almost guarantee, as the armchair enthusiast I am, that the Ontario Line plan has a much lower risk of delays than the RLS. (before even considering the RLN timeline)

 

[sche]

Even though I despise NIMBYS, this is slipping a bit into Utilitarianism, which is not how our system of democracy in Canada works, and should never work. The best outcome for the most number of people should never infringe on the rights of even one man, is something central to the rights and freedoms of our country.

However, that being said, it must be made true that something is being infringed upon, and in the case of Leslieville, I don't think having a nice transit line through your neighborhood stands up to that challenge.

I never intended to suggest that we should infringe on people's rights; I apologize if my post had that effect. "Majority rule, minority rights" is a basic principle of democracy that I fully support.

However, what I do have a problem with is when a vocal or influential minority ends up getting what they want instead of a less vocal or influential majority. This is stuff like the airport not allowing Uber because taxi drivers want to keep their monopoly, or how some public sector employees get paid more than private sector employees doing the same thing, or most NIMBYism, or powerful companies lobbying the government to get whatever they want.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Many people here dont seem to realize that the Ontario Line is the RLN being fast-tracked. Metrolinx was the one studying the RLN. And they are the ones who came up with this alignment. (it is a combination of multiple of their old GO / Yonge relief plans) It is a nice break from the city's fixation on having Flexities and TR vehicles as the only options for any rapid transit plan.

The Ontario Line is all about going from the weird Toronto thinking of deep bored tunnels everywhere to the more pragmatic reuse of existing corridors and assets like what is being done for the REM. I can almost guarantee, as the armchair enthusiast I am, that the Ontario Line plan has a much lower risk of delays than the RLS. (before even considering the RLN timeline)

It's only counts as fast-tracking if the thing actually gets built. The lack of transparency and the early delays don't exactly inspire confidence. Successive governments have a long history of deceiving the public on their intention to build transit (eg, Sheppard East LRT).

 

[syn]

Many people here dont seem to realize that the Ontario Line is the RLN being fast-tracked. Metrolinx was the one studying the RLN. And they are the ones who came up with this alignment. (it is a combination of multiple of their old GO / Yonge relief plans) It is a nice break from the city's fixation on having Flexities and TR vehicles as the only options for any rapid transit plan.

The Ontario Line is all about going from the weird Toronto thinking of deep bored tunnels everywhere to the more pragmatic reuse of existing corridors and assets like what is being done for the REM. I can almost guarantee, as the armchair enthusiast I am, that the Ontario Line plan has a much lower risk of delays than the RLS. (before even considering the RLN timeline)

Weird Toronto thinking?

Our Premier is burying the Eglinton West LRT for no good reason and has done absolutely nothing to explore above ground options for the SSE. His entire transit MO during his time in politics has been about putting everything underground. This is not weird Toronto thinking. I'd say the subways built in the 20th century were fairly well thought out and served us well.

And I'm not sure how this thing has lower risks of delay when it's already been delayed.

I'm amazed how passionately many can argue for the SSE (not referring to you NoahB, just in general) just because it eliminates a transfer, while justifying a project that fails at providing maximum relief. If this was truly the DRL North it would accomplish this with ease. At the very least it would go all the way to Sheppard.

 

[Jonny5]

It's only counts as fast-tracking if the thing actually gets built. The lack of transparency and the early delays don't exactly inspire confidence. Successive governments have a long history of deceiving the public on their intention to build transit (eg, Sheppard East LRT).

The wonders of two term governments making the actual cash spend on transit plans always a weighted average of more than eight years in the future. Make any plans you want because someone else will have to actually pay to build it or pay to cancel it.

 

[sche]

In respect of the Leslieville section, I remain largely indifferent to the 'Nimby' concerns' and far more worried about the severe constraints on rail corridor capacity.

There is insufficient capacity for all GO trains to serve East Harbour; and VIA is going to be up against it to get room for anything more than hourly service.

I'm also concerned about the O/L capacity overall. I went over this awhile back in the thread; but the assumptions being used do not hold up to scrutiny in my judgement.

Finally, I have to tell you, that many in Toronto's Forestry unit and the TRCA are not happy w/the proposal for the above ground section in Thorncliffe following the Walmsley Brook corridor (Gatineau Corridor) and the valley crossing. They have considerable concerns over ecological damage.

The issue for me is not fundamentally overground/underground; its capacity, rail-corridor (non-Ontario Line) capacity; ecological impact; and adverse impact on riders where some station locations are now sub-optimal.

If you go back maybe a few months ago in this thread, I also raised the concern that the OL will basically forever restrict the corridor to four tracks, instead of six, and six will be needed some day. However, I don't think limiting the corridor to four tracks is the end of the world. Four tracks is still more than the current three, it will save money in the short term for sure, and there are four track corridors like Berlin Stadtbahn that seem to work pretty well. When capacity starts becoming a problem, we could probably think about signal upgrades, platform extensions for longer trains, and maybe shifting VIA HFR to the Don Branch. And eventually, a downtown GO tunnel will probably be needed to relieve Union, so when that happens the east portal can be put just east of Pape to completely resolve the problem.

I also agree some of the station locations are not great, particularly the new Leslieville station. However, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the fact that the stations are closer to ground level at least somewhat makes up for it. The above ground Eglinton terminus is also unfortunate, but given the lack of information we really don't know how bad the transfer will be (I don't have my hopes very high though - ML doesn't exactly have a stellar track record with convenient transfers). At least it will be a good transfer to the bus terminal though.

I also agree that the proposed station design at East Harbour is also very bad right now, but I that is really mostly to do with the lack of platform for the middle two tracks and less to do with the OL. East Harbour is empty right now and I see no good reason as to why we can't fit both OL and platforms for every GO track.

As for the northern section, what exactly are the concerns? Is it just tree removal? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Northern Light]

If you go back maybe a few months ago in this thread, I also raised the concern that the OL will basically forever restrict the corridor to four tracks, instead of six, and six will be needed some day. However, I don't think limiting the corridor to four tracks is the end of the world. Four tracks is still more than the current three, it will save money in the short term for sure, and there are four track corridors like Berlin Stadtbahn that seem to work pretty well. When capacity starts becoming a problem, we could probably think about signal upgrades, platform extensions for longer trains, and maybe shifting VIA HFR to the Don Branch. And eventually, a downtown GO tunnel will probably be needed to relieve Union, so when that happens the east portal can be put just east of Pape to completely resolve the problem.

I also agree some of the station locations are not great, particularly the new Leslieville station. However, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the fact that the stations are closer to ground level at least somewhat makes up for it. The above ground Eglinton terminus is also unfortunate, but given the lack of information we really don't know how bad the transfer will be (I don't have my hopes very high though - ML doesn't exactly have a stellar track record with convenient transfers). At least it will be a good transfer to the bus terminal though.

I also agree that the proposed station design at East Harbour is also very bad right now, but I that is really mostly to do with the lack of platform for the middle two tracks and less to do with the OL. East Harbour is empty right now and I see no good reason as to why we can't fit both OL and platforms for every GO track.

As for the northern section, what exactly are the concerns? Is it just tree removal? I'm genuinely curious.

At East Harbour I would expect the issue is the need for more property from the adjacent land owners; land that likely won't come cheap.

But I can't say that's the issue for sure.

****

In respect of the northern corridor, let me start by saying I don't speak for the City or the TRCA or their staff; only that I'm friends with or know several; and some have shared their thoughts.

The choice to route via Walmsley Brook (the hydro corridor and associated ravine) would certainly mean some tree cutting, it would also be a noise intrusion and impede some wildlife movement.

Aside from affecting additional space (vs crossing with the Overlea Bridge, above or below grade, where the areas is already disturbed).................there's issue of the sheer distance of the valley crossing they've chosen.

Overlea is a much shorter crossing, therefore reducing impact.

Longer distances will mean greater effects and disruptions, permanently, as well as during construction. Its unlikely Mx would allow trees to grow under their guideway support system, were that otherwise feasible.

In point of fact, the issue of access for maintenance will also be in play.

There's also a question of how drainage will be handled and potential erosion issues.

To my understanding, Mx is being less than forthcoming, even w/their fellow civil servants.

 

[Rainforest]

Well if the Province was going for optimal capacity the OL wouldn't be a thing and we would still be building the DRL. However that ship for the moment has sailed and if this new technology allows us to reduce costs by bringing the line above ground more easily then full size subway tech, then we should make the most of it.

If the provincial government makes good on their promises and actually funds the construction, them I am inclined not to oppose it. Rather than risk another 5 years or 10 years delay in getting any kind of relief line, I'd take OL which brings a less-than-desired, but yet pretty substantial new transit capacity into downtown. The subways, both Yonge and the new OL, may get crowded again soon, but that new crowding will support more jobs and more human activity than the current crowding. And then the city will have to start planning RL-2.

But in case the province chooses to delay OL for whatever reason - an unfortunate outcome, but not improbable based on the past experience - to the point where the slate is open again .. then I'd prefer to go back to the previous, tunneled, high-capacity RL plan.

 

[allengeorge]

To my understanding, Mx is being less than forthcoming, even w/their fellow civil servants.

Unsurprising, given what we've seen with Smalls Creek.

Overlea is a much shorter crossing, therefore reducing impact.

I still hate that new routing, instead of running along Overlea.

 

[afransen]

At East Harbour I would expect the issue is the need for more property from the adjacent land owners; land that likely won't come cheap.

But I can't say that's the issue for sure.

****

In respect of the northern corridor, let me start by saying I don't speak for the City or the TRCA or their staff; only that I'm friends with or know several; and some have shared their thoughts.

The choice to route via Walmsley Brook (the hydro corridor and associated ravine) would certainly mean some tree cutting, it would also be a noise intrusion and impede some wildlife movement.

Aside from affecting additional space (vs crossing with the Overlea Bridge, above or below grade, where the areas is already disturbed).................there's issue of the sheer distance of the valley crossing they've chosen.

Overlea is a much shorter crossing, therefore reducing impact.

Longer distances will mean greater effects and disruptions, permanently, as well as during construction. Its unlikely Mx would allow trees to grow under their guideway support system, were that otherwise feasible.

In point of fact, the issue of access for maintenance will also be in play.

There's also a question of how drainage will be handled and potential erosion issues.

To my understanding, Mx is being less than forthcoming, even w/their fellow civil servants.

Couldn't that land be acquired in exchange for density concessions? As long as the overall district density can be achieved, is it so important to not concede sliver along the rail ROW?

 

[Northern Light]

Couldn't that land be acquired in exchange for density concessions? As long as the overall district density can be achieved, is it so important to not concede sliver along the rail ROW?

As I noted, I can't say what the issue is for sure. That was a guess on my part.

 

[TorontoBun]

I find it funny that the very proponents of the SSE railed against the 3-4 storey transfer are in favour of the OL-ECLRT transfer that will be at that very minimum. Even if shovels do hit the ground on this, I wouldn’t be surprised if they fail to construct an indoor transfer between the lines (or get cut due to ballooning cost estimates).
I also wonder if there will even be space allotted for a streetcar terminal at the Gerrard station. It’s going to be an up an coming area in short order...

 

[Streety McCarface]

I find it funny that the very proponents of the SSE railed against the 3-4 storey transfer are in favour of the OL-ECLRT transfer that will be at that very minimum. Even if shovels do hit the ground on this, I wouldn’t be surprised if they fail to construct an indoor transfer between the lines (or get cut due to ballooning cost estimates).
I also wonder if there will even be space allotted for a streetcar terminal at the Gerrard station. It’s going to be an up an coming area in short order...

Quit mentioning this, we've already discussed this like 5 times. No one knows what the design of the OL's interchange at Science Center is going to look like. Why on Earth would we complain about it when we don't even have a design?

Also, if it's a 4 story vertical transfer, I guarantee you everyone in this thread will complain, just like all of us on UT did when the Kipling terminal opened, whenever the spadina transfer is brought up, when discussing Main Street GO or Bloor GO's integration with the local subway stations, when discussing any of the TYSSE's access times, etc. This is nothing new. Quit trying to push a narrative that doesn't exist.