Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

I think @nfitz has the correct (potential) pipeline: Sheppard and the EW Airport extension.

I don’t think Finch West extensions are being studied, and the waterfront LRT is a TTC/Toronto project. As a result, it’s being slow-rolled in the hope that some magical pot of money will open up and allow the city to build it without really having to spend a lot (while the city waits for this, the cost of everything goes up, up, up).

Yes - I’m bitter.
 
What about the Sheppard extensions East and west that we keep hearing about? I know it’s not announced but it seems close to announcement. Would be nice if they could at least extend line 2 to Cloverdale or Sherway
The Ford Governments motif has been subways subways subways. What I think this has manifested as is prioritizing our subway projects at the expense of planning new surface LRT projects. Even if it’s because subways align with key voters, it is probably money wise in the long-term given our critical need for new transit, so I’ll let it slide- especially seeing as WELRT probably wouldn’t get funded either way. So, we can probably expect getting Line 5 to Pearson, extending line 4 east and west, and OL North.

BUT, this means not building more of Finch or any other LRT. We will have to wait and see if this means no BRT either, but I find it unlikely. If the PCs are weighing absolute mobility against the cost, BRT fits the bill. Besides, the ‘next phase’ must have something for outlying areas too. Trafalgar Rd is an approaching candidate for BRT I hear often. Besides that, it’s anyone’s guess. New RTP coming soon!

Edit- the PCs could make a play for the Milton Line if they wanted to really undercut the Liberals’ transit platform.
 
Edit- the PCs could make a play for the Milton Line if they wanted to really undercut the Liberals’ transit platform.
They can try for the Milton Line but CPKC doesn't like to play ball when it comes to commuter rail using their corridors. They've been vehemently opposing Milton Line expansion for many years. The only reason the Milton Line even exists in the first place is because of Hazel McCallion. She threatened to sue CP over the costs born by the City of Mississauga after the 1979 derailment near Mavis Rd.
 
For what it’s worth:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...t-plans-billions-in-waste-bad-for-the-planet/

13E6CDFD-F6FA-4D0F-92D1-1B04C126508D.jpeg


The paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab442f
 
Last edited:
Underground tunnelling “takes much longer, and it uses much more construction material, which has a massive environmental impact,” said Shoshanna Saxe, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto’s school of engineering. Prof. Saxe and two colleagues recently wrote a paper on the subject and found that underground rail generates 27 times more greenhouse gases than surface rail.
Great, now do car dependancy
 
Great, now do car dependancy
needlessly burying trains, at great cost (both fiscally and environmentally) is a form of car dependancy. Tunnels are a tool in the transit tool belt when trains need to travel in dense urban areas with no realistic surface alignments - They should not be the default. But the Ford government's preference for building underground deep into the suburbs where there is ample surface space available in order to avoid inconveniencing suburban drivers is as car-dependant thinking as it gets. All the while massively increasing cost, complexity, and time for these projects.
 
Endlessly enhancing text size does not improve its accuracy or utility.

While there is some truth in what is stated above; the numbers quoted are grossly misleading and the product either of sensationalism or lazy research.
Hmm. I don't see anything particularly grossly misleading in the paper (I very, very quickly skimmed it - so I could have missed something). Is there something specific you're reacting to? From what I see, the authors do state that:
  1. They had to do a survey
  2. There's wide hetrogeneity in how the data is calculated
  3. There's wide hetrogeneity in system conditions (a tunnel in Toronto isn't the same as a tunnel in NYC and doesn't have the same challenges).
  4. They had to make a lot of simplifying assumptions
In the end, they're only accounting for the km of line built and the material used (AFAICT?) and, honestly, that does pass the smell test. Surface rail has less embodied GHG than elevated, which has less embodied GHG than tunneling. 🤷‍♂️
 
This is a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal.

@allengeorge

Lots of things you (and I ) would disagree with are published in peer-reviewed journals. Many are wrong. Peer-review is often superficial and light, and examining only basic facts and rudimentary honesty.

It often fails to check the assumptions made, and whether the comparisons are valid.

This is a survey piece of other work, its not original.

And its very poorly done.

All people, no matter what their position, on any issue, must be prepared to treat research neutrally, and evaluate its quality on the merits.

That doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate point somewhere.

But this survey work is absolutely terrible to the point of being borderline worthless.

Here's the underlying paper:


I actually read it all, and I understand it.

The margins of uncertainty and the comparison of entirely unlike things measured in unlike ways exceeds credulity by an order of magnitude.

Let me quote:

"When considering the payback period of these 10 cases, there is an uncertainty up to 75%."

1703733335742.png


****

Of course tunneling is more intensive construction work than building on the surface....if all other things were equal (duh!)

But all other things are not equal, there is no weight allotted for all the carbon-intense structures that must be removed to allow for a new surface corridor, that wasn't measured.

Nor is there any understanding of displacement. By which I mean, if you build on the surface in a core, urbanized area.....that is growing...........where does the development that would have gone on the surface go instead?

If you build over the track, that is extremely carbon-intensive, and creates an above-ground tunnel, to what project is that being charged?

They expressly conflate unlike projects, HSR, Commuter Rail, Freight and Metro and compare rural, suburban and urban areas as if they were the same and blank slates. I would use the word preposterous to describe this conflation.

This is just very lazy work.
 

Attachments

  • 1703733160748.png
    1703733160748.png
    3.8 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
needlessly burying trains, at great cost (both fiscally and environmentally) is a form of car dependancy. Tunnels are a tool in the transit tool belt when trains need to travel in dense urban areas with no realistic surface alignments - They should not be the default. But the Ford government's preference for building underground deep into the suburbs where there is ample surface space available in order to avoid inconveniencing suburban drivers is as car-dependant thinking as it gets. All the while massively increasing cost, complexity, and time for these projects.
I agree with all of your points and have argued for them myself, but what's that have to do with the the subject of this thread, the Ontario Line, or is burying this line in the particular places they are planning to, a waste?
 
Last edited:
The Ford Governments motif has been subways subways subways. What I think this has manifested as is prioritizing our subway projects at the expense of planning new surface LRT projects. Even if it’s because subways align with key voters, it is probably money wise in the long-term given our critical need for new transit, so I’ll let it slide- especially seeing as WELRT probably wouldn’t get funded either way. So, we can probably expect getting Line 5 to Pearson, extending line 4 east and west, and OL North.

BUT, this means not building more of Finch or any other LRT. We will have to wait and see if this means no BRT either, but I find it unlikely. If the PCs are weighing absolute mobility against the cost, BRT fits the bill. Besides, the ‘next phase’ must have something for outlying areas too. Trafalgar Rd is an approaching candidate for BRT I hear often. Besides that, it’s anyone’s guess. New RTP coming soon!

Edit- the PCs could make a play for the Milton Line if they wanted to really undercut the Liberals’ transit platform.
As we saw with the whole Green Belt debacle, Ford's government is in deep with the home builders of Ontario. Property values are higher when they're close to underground rail lines versus above ground lines. Wouldn't surprise me if the RE industry in pushing Ford's government to build these subways and expecting preferential access to build on the land above them.
 
I agree with all of your points and have argued for them myself, but what's that have to do with the the subject of this thread, the Ontario Line, or is burying this line in the particular places they are planning to, a waste?

This is the thing.............there can be some legitimacy to the point, I'm not arguing against it.

I'm arguing against a bad study that I would argue artificially inflates differences in embodied emissions by not applying proper apples to apples, contextual comparisons.

I think bad evidence makes good arguments worse.

Also, as you point out, the relationship of this poor, old, study to the Ontario Line, as proposed is entirely unclear.
 
As we saw with the whole Green Belt debacle, Ford's government is in deep with the home builders of Ontario. Property values are higher when they're close to underground rail lines versus above ground lines. Wouldn't surprise me if the RE industry in pushing Ford's government to build these subways and expecting preferential access to build on the land above them.
Its really a few related things I think.

- developers love transit infrastructure, from king street to spadina to yonge street, All types of infrastructure improve property values.
- Suburban voters normally have 1 thing on their mind, their house, its retirement value and how much its currently worth

If those are true then any new infrastructure helps ford.

The fact you can build houses over the transit lines is a new thing only now where developers can offset the cost of the project, Ive seen this opinion pop up every now and then, its basically calling IO, metrolinx and all the projects they run corrupt which is just laughable considering IO is running the TOC stuff now
 
They can try for the Milton Line but CPKC doesn't like to play ball when it comes to commuter rail using their corridors. They've been vehemently opposing Milton Line expansion for many years. The only reason the Milton Line even exists in the first place is because of Hazel McCallion. She threatened to sue CP over the costs born by the City of Mississauga after the 1979 derailment near Mavis Rd.
Yeah, I understand this. Hence why it would be a bit of a play- we can estimate the cost of such a project, and (thankfully) it’s within the range of one subway project- anywhere from $2-4B. It’s the kind of scope that would mean putting off another plan, or what the internal planners say needs funding, I suppose…

As we saw with the whole Green Belt debacle, Ford's government is in deep with the home builders of Ontario. Property values are higher when they're close to underground rail lines versus above ground lines. Wouldn't surprise me if the RE industry in pushing Ford's government to build these subways and expecting preferential access to build on the land above them.
I think developers just want rails to build near. Perhaps if demand wasn’t so high they’d be more particular about elevated vs underground, but besides that rails are rails. LRT is the implied alternative, but ours were planned largely to stimulate development in the first place. Now I’m sure RE might prefer subways generally, especially given they are familiar, but I think this comes back to conservative ‘philosophy’ more than developers’. Subways are tried and true, efficient, and more cost-effective (in terms of sheer mobility) than LRTs. It’s the “conservative” thing to do when “do nothing” isn’t a real option.

Now, is Ford cozy with developers? I don’t know, the writings on the wall… but so long as we don’t see any more attacks on the social contract like with the GB, I can stomach his intensification policies. They are ambitious at best and maliciously motivated at worst, but provide a net benefit and illustrate political will to build things- a scarce resource. You do not see conservatives build subways every day.
 

Back
Top