Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

syn said:

"The Ontario Line, provincial officials say, will be a "free-standing artery" — independent of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) — in order to boost "current, proven and much less costly" technology.

It will be a light rail line that's mostly underground with the potential for an elevated track along certain portions of the route, like crossing over the Don River. The project is slated to be finished by 2029,or two years earlier, and will include the possibility of driverless trains."

This is absurd. The DRL needs subway capacity, not light rail.

Apparently the same technology that would be treating Scarborough like '2nd class citizens' is good enough for the busiest area of the country.

We constantly hear that building a subway in Scarborough is for the future - why would you not build a fully integrated subway solution where demand is already high?
Click to expand...

The Toronto idea of what light rail is, is flawed due to our streetcar system.

This is light rail in other parts of the world, and what the province is talking about:

1200px-UAE_Dubai_Marina_img3_asv2018-01.jpg


dubai-090909.jpg


image.jpg


Fully automated, lightweight trains, but with a large capacity and high floor/3rd rail similar to the subway.

Smaller than the current toronto subway system, but the driverless tech and their light weight means you can have them coming every 30 seconds in rush hour.

Elevated here, but can be underground too of course.

Another advantage is that since they are more narrow, allowing for single bore tunnels.

barcelona-2-line-9-station.jpeg


Like Line 9 in Barcelona.

Single bore can be cheaper for several reasons.
 
Allandale25 said:
Rather than looking at it through the lens of like or don't like, I prefer to note the challenges:
1. getting federal and municipal funding per ""While earlier this week the premier billed the plan as an $28.5 billion investment, the government clarified that Ontario would contribute just $11.2 billion, which it said exceeded its election pledge to spend $5 billion on Toronto subways. The federal government, Toronto, and York Region would be asked to make up the rest of the $28.5 billion." (from the Star article)
2. time to do design and EAs.

On 1., the Ford said he may go in alone on this. On 2., he could amend various pieces of legislation to speed up the study process/EAs. I think @alexanderglista mentioned the Quebec gov did this for REM.
Click to expand...

Levy a local tax specifically for transit.
 
robmausser said:
1. New Spadina Station for GO, taking relief for Union. GO trains in the west no longer have to terminate at Union.
Click to expand...

The problem with a Bathurst-Spadina GO terminus station is how it's the absolutely worst possible solution for almost every existing GO user., and the politicians that would support it would be eradicated in the subsequent election by members of a party that pledged to "stop destroying commuters lives."
 
Reecemartin said:
Doesn't need to necessarily be third rail, overhead would be better in snow and ice thats why Montreal went with it.
Click to expand...

Overhead requires bigger tunnels.

So the cost savings you had from using light rail are suddenly negated for using overhead.

You can do dual-mode, with overhead outside of tunnels and 3rd rail in tunnels though


heres a train lowering its panto to then run on 3rd rail inside a tunnel.
 
Allandale25 said:
Rather than looking at it through the lens of like or don't like, I prefer to note the challenges:
1. getting federal and municipal funding per ""While earlier this week the premier billed the plan as an $28.5 billion investment, the government clarified that Ontario would contribute just $11.2 billion, which it said exceeded its election pledge to spend $5 billion on Toronto subways. The federal government, Toronto, and York Region would be asked to make up the rest of the $28.5 billion." (from the Star article)
2. time to do design and EAs.

On 1., the Ford said he may go in alone on this. On 2., he could amend various pieces of legislation to speed up the study process/EAs. I think @alexanderglista mentioned the Quebec gov did this for REM.
Click to expand...
It's almost frightening...well...it *is* frightening how many folks have fallen for the 'Springfield Monorail' on this. The term 'vapour' comes to mind.

I think the City's plan was also vapour, but this is even more nebulous in terms of gaping holes for financing. Something can and should be built, but we're still not seeing anything solid here.

I can't believe Metrolinx aren't distraught at this time. "He took our concept, pissed all over it, and made it look like a complete joke".

Hopefully an adult will step forward to makes sense of this...
 
LMVDR said:
Levy a local tax specifically for transit.
Click to expand...

1) We already have a levy to raise $1B over 30 years. This looks like its calling for at least $5B from the city, possibly more. Good luck with that?

2) Why the hell should we raise a levy to pay for infrastructure the Province is bullying us to take over? I'd rather put everything on pause until the next election, quite frankly.
 
robmausser said:
The Toronto idea of what light rail is, is flawed due to our streetcar system.

This is light rail in other parts of the world, and what the province is talking about:

1200px-UAE_Dubai_Marina_img3_asv2018-01.jpg


dubai-090909.jpg


image.jpg


Fully automated, lightweight trains, but with a large capacity and high floor/3rd rail similar to the subway.

Smaller than the current toronto subway system, but the driverless tech and their light weight means you can have them coming every 30 seconds in rush hour.

Elevated here, but can be underground too of course.

Another advantage is that since they are more narrow, allowing for single bore tunnels.

barcelona-2-line-9-station.jpeg


Like Line 9 in Barcelona.

Single bore can be cheaper for several reasons.
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what it is, there's just concern over it's ability to handle the capacity over a long period of time. It also means any additions to this line will have to use the same technology.

Much of this line will be going through the densest parts of the city, which are continually getting denser.

Kind of mind boggling that we're spending money to have two full capacity subway lines intersect at this intersection:

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com

While using a lower capacity option where we need to maximize capacity.
 
bobbob911 said:
1) We already have a levy to raise $1B over 30 years. This looks like its calling for at least $5B from the city, possibly more. Good luck with that?

2) Why the hell should we raise a levy to pay for infrastructure the Province is bullying us to take over? I'd rather put everything on pause until the next election, quite frankly.
Click to expand...

That's one of the main problems with this plan.

Ford keeps arguing that the city can't get anything done because it don't have the money. His solution is to take over, and still ask the city to raise the kind of money he says they're not capable of raising in the first place.

He says City Council can't get anything done, but his entire argument for cutting it in half was that they'd finally be able to get things done.

Why not just give the city the money to implement the necessary plans as quickly as possible?

The Ford plan gives the province full control while the city has to fund their political maneouvering. This isn't what he talked about in the election - the whole idea was that the province would take over capital expansion costs and the city would run it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top