Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

robmausser said:
The advantage to using modern "Intermediate Capacity" system like that on the REM has several potential advantages:
Click to expand...
Yeah, and REM is the 'largest construction project in Canada' at this time, so its visibility is very high, but of course, Van and Edmonton also offer precedents. What seems clear is that it won't be anything that the TTC is presently using. There's real irony in the SRT being the most advanced TTC heavier rail vehicle, and it's on its death bed. REM is going to come up a lot in discussion on this.
BurlOak said:
I am a huge proponent of elevated, but even don't think it will work through the core.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed. It goes without saying, albeit I've got to leave a crack open there, as other cities are doing it in their cores.
BurlOak said:
I still think cut-and-cover is the answer.
Click to expand...
I may disagree with what's apparent, but to not revisit it would be a massive mistake. Deep tunnelling has been sold to us as the only option. With the cock-up this has been from day one, I'm now ready to question anything and everything.
BurlOak said:
But to be different from the 50's, use pre-cast concrete and other rapid construction techniques for the construction.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. You see this in trenching operations. The underlying soil conditions must be appropriate though, but again agree, alternatives must be considered. Perhaps less boring used only where unavoidable and c and c in other spots might be doable, albeit that might be a false economy unless done right. To be continued...
BurlOak said:
Once the DRL gets north of Don Valley, elevated is a definite option.
Click to expand...
Not only an option, but a incentive to get some real distance for minimal cost. Some of the locals won't like it, but if they're paying, that alone changes their outlook.
nfitz said:
Perhaps if you tried limiting you posts to one or two simple sentence and no more than one relevant (brief) quote, with an underlying link for those that want to read further.
Click to expand...
Just because you can't read? You'll notice no-one else had a problem with it, and you continually have problems with others on exactly this point, as @Northern Light can readily attest.
 
When Doug Ford says he wants to do something different with the DRL, I can't help but be skeptical.

I could totally see a plan implemented to stick it to the "Downtown Elites" while he makes sure those in the suburbs are no longer treated like '2nd class citizens'.
 
syn said:
When Doug Ford says he wants to do something different with the DRL, I can't help but be skeptical.

I could totally see a plan implemented to stick it to the "Downtown Elites" while he makes sure those in the suburbs are no longer treated like '2nd class citizens'.
Click to expand...
I've got to jump in on this, as I'm completely with you and most everyone else in wondering "WTF?" But that's exactly the clue to all of this. Whether Ford or anyone understands, it doesn't matter. This is a 'stealth announcement': Something's going to change in a big way. And QP is going to be contributing close to nothing to it financially.

We're on the precipice of a 'Very Large Consortium' (or more) of doing an almost completely private massive project(s).

If it's working for Montreal (REM) then why not here? I'm not advocating that necessarily, just see it as being inevitable, and have done for some time now. And Tory gets that, btw! There's no use excoriating the man when there's just no money to do what all the Left Wing salivate about. This is Toronto and Ontario. No New Taxes.

I just hope the same thinking is applied to highways.
M II A II R II K said:
Ultimately it’s not the technology or size of the trains. It could be anything so long as high enough capacity and frequency is achieved.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. For the added up-front costs of state-of-the-art tech, the long-term savings are immense in most cases. A fool can screw-up anything. Not to mention a certain name...errr....Ford...

In the event, this is out of Ford's hands. A consortium will present the best of their tech as well as arrange funding and operation. That code has been voiced by Verster for over a year now. His standard deference is "That's up to the supplier".
 
Last edited:
^We're all just speculating here, and that's fine, but I would resist the temptation to redesign the thing and jump to all sorts of extreme conclusions or propose creative alternatives just because the province is signalling a turn. The clarification did not say "different than your existing subways", it said "different than Line 2". Which doesn't rule out TR's and ATC..... we just can't park them at Greenwood without some fancy dual mode resignalling from Pape to Greenwood.

Being Doug and the PC's, my immediate thoughts go to, indeed, someone out there has made a back room pitch and the fix is in. But that may well be giving them too much credit.

If we are going to redesign, we need to pop over to the other threads and take note of what people have suggested as the potential west end and north end routes and capacities. Moving to an intermediate capacity line might make sense on the basis of opening-day ridership (outside of rush hour, Phase I is projected to be pretty quiet). But if we then route west and then north in a full U... should we scrimp on capacity?

On the other hand, if RER isn't completely dead.... a tunnel that would admit some form of RER (even bilevel) EMU might make it possible to bring service off the Weston corridor, across downtown, and back up to Richmond Hill. Not an unappealing thought, if you can accept the added years of revising the EA and tearing up most of what has been designed to date. We must be up to about $100M in spent engineering by now, correct? Nothing cries Toronto like doing detailed engineering and then shredding it.

Personally I favour nice friendly TR's and a conventional Toronto subway template, because it's proven, quite up to date, and standardises things, and keeps the plan moving in a straight line.

Eye on the ball.....

- Paul
 
Last edited:
ICTS should have been a supplementary rapid transit service to subways and commuter rail that’s also spread out and far reaching.
 
None of the suggestions that this signal of change might actually be referring to the use of ATC or cut-and-cover over tunneling really addresses the crux of the issue: The province has "no money" and the Scarborough subway costs "have doubled". Spending more money on the Relief Line to incorporate RER or what-have-you doesn't address these points.

Something has to give.
 
WislaHD said:
None of the suggestions that this signal of change might actually be referring to the use of ATC or cut-and-cover over tunneling really addresses the crux of the issue: The province has "no money" and the Scarborough subway costs "have doubled". Spending more money on the Relief Line to incorporate RER or what-have-you doesn't address these points.

Something has to give.
Click to expand...

The catch is that none of these projects are getting built so all this debate is moot.
 
M II A II R II K said:
Ultimately it’s not the technology or size of the trains. It could be anything so long as high enough capacity and frequency is achieved.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, but if somehow costs a lot less than using heavy rail subway technology similar to Toronto, Chicago, New York, or even the new Elizabeth Line in London, then they've likely specified the capacity and frequency wrong. Think Canada Line in Vancouver and it's relatively claustrophobic 40 metre (expandable to 60 metre) platforms, that make the Sheppard Line trains look immense!
 
@tiffer24 : Indeed, there were hints that some somehow have overlooked, many quotes like this:
The Province wants the DRL to be completely free-standing in that it would not depend on Line 2 and the existing yard at Greenwood, but would be built completely separate from the existing subway network. Moreover, "alternate delivery methods" would be used for this project, a clear indication that this would be a privately designed, built, financed and operated line much as the Crosstown was intended to be before a deal was worked out to let the TTC drive the trains, at least for a time.
Click to expand...
There's a number of other quotes already in the public realm that go even further. The intent is very clear, if not the details, and your Tweets buttress that.

Some people have been sold on 'life as it is' in Toronto, in complete deference to what Enterprise is doing elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top