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

TheTigerMaster said:
lol... yea. This project has too many unknowns and risks at play. They will run into challenge and this will be delayed far beyond 2027, likely with substantial cost overruns as well. Not to say that it shouldn't be built... but this timeline is a boldfaced lie. The government needs to stop acting as if private sector magic will make engineering constraints vanish

If Metrolinx is intelligent, they'd design this project such that the most critical segment can be operational, in case that the other segments fail to be delivered on time. In this case, that means between Pape and Yonge. The fact that there hasn't yet been any plans for a staged opening is concerning
Click to expand...

You mean like the DRL south, which was already well on it's way? The city approach was actually the most sensible - the right project and the right technology, which the province could built off of with a northern Phase 2.

I'm increasingly losing faith that we'll ever see much intelligent decision making from Metrolinx.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Wow, that’s a good point I hadn’t thought of. Even if localized disruptions due to COVID-19 are minimal, supply chains might still be disrupted. Too early to really say for certain what the impact will be.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Knowing little about global trade, can you go into this further?
 
micheal_can said:
This gives a good reason to use existing subway tech so that they can use the Greenwood yard.
Click to expand...

I agree with this point. If the standard TTC gauge subway was used, it would be possible to connect to GWY from the rail corridor with only around 800m of additional track being required northeast from the planned portal near Gerrard. This would be far less expensive than a wye as was planned for the DRL's GWY connection or a separate tunnel. Laying rail on a pre-existing embankment would be fairly cost effective.
A big concern with using GWY for DRL south and/or OL's only MSF is that there is very little space for additional rails or portals, and I do not think you can convince residents to lose the parkland at the north end of the yard. It could also cause congestion on Line 2 if the same portal and track is used. By connecting from the rail corridor a lot of these issues could be avoided.
This could allow for staging of the line south of Pape as there would be some yard capacity before bridging the north section of the Don, and the capacity could be expanded upon with a full MSF in Thorncliffe when that stage is completed. Considering the above-ground section through Leslieville would already be reducing the rail corridor capacity by at least one track, having an embankment-grade track to GWY would not really be that big a concern.

The main issue I see with this idea is where the staging will be cut off. If Pape is excluded from the first stage, the line will really on be relieving the GO line. I could see this being an attractive option though as tunneling north of Gerrard wouldn't be required to open the stage. If Pape is in the first stage, it may be difficult to turn trains around as they exit GWY to have them run north to Pape. Perhaps some sort of short turn at Gerrard & Carlaw, though this could take up considerable space.
 
syn said:
You mean like the DRL south, which was already well on it's way? The city approach was actually the most sensible - the right project and the right technology, which the province could built off of with a northern Phase 2.

I'm increasingly losing faith that we'll ever see much intelligent decision making from Metrolinx.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is that the Relief Line South would’ve been starting construction around now. And with the City investing funds to accelerate work, it plausibly could’ve been delivered by 2029

Ontario Line won’t be starting major construction work for at least a year or two, and we’d be lucky to be riding it by 2031 (probably closer to 2033), despite the government’s claims of a 2027 opening.
 
Last edited:
Tommy521 said:
I agree with this point. If the standard TTC gauge subway was used, it would be possible to connect to GWY from the rail corridor with only around 800m of additional track being required northeast from the planned portal near Gerrard. This would be far less expensive than a wye as was planned for the DRL's GWY connection or a separate tunnel. Laying rail on a pre-existing embankment would be fairly cost effective.
A big concern with using GWY for DRL south and/or OL's only MSF is that there is very little space for additional rails or portals, and I do not think you can convince residents to lose the parkland at the north end of the yard. It could also cause congestion on Line 2 if the same portal and track is used. By connecting from the rail corridor a lot of these issues could be avoided.
This could allow for staging of the line south of Pape as there would be some yard capacity before bridging the north section of the Don, and the capacity could be expanded upon with a full MSF in Thorncliffe when that stage is completed. Considering the above-ground section through Leslieville would already be reducing the rail corridor capacity by at least one track, having an embankment-grade track to GWY would not really be that big a concern.

The main issue I see with this idea is where the staging will be cut off. If Pape is excluded from the first stage, the line will really on be relieving the GO line. I could see this being an attractive option though as tunneling north of Gerrard wouldn't be required to open the stage. If Pape is in the first stage, it may be difficult to turn trains around as they exit GWY to have them run north to Pape. Perhaps some sort of short turn at Gerrard & Carlaw, though this could take up considerable space.
Click to expand...

Just a thought - elevated yard....

They build a second level to the yard. They can then build a new building over existing tracks to work on the cars. In fact, for the subways, that should be the future building, double level yards.
 
micheal_can said:
Just a thought - elevated yard....

They build a second level to the yard. They can then build a new building over existing tracks to work on the cars. In fact, for the subways, that should be the future building, double level yards.
Click to expand...
A subway is not a building, the loading characteristics are completely different. Trains have the issue of causing heavier dead-loading (which is often point loaded to make matters worse) and they enact significant dynamic loading to a structure. Subway viaducts are expensive enough as is, but when you multiply the number of trains carried by a beam by 6, things get really messy.
 
Another flip flop.

This morning, Ford would not say that he still stands by his promise to have the provincial government pay the full cost of his $28.5B transit plan. Says he looks forward to sitting down with the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Streety McCarface said:
A subway is not a building, the loading characteristics are completely different. Trains have the issue of causing heavier dead-loading (which is often point loaded to make matters worse) and they enact significant dynamic loading to a structure. Subway viaducts are expensive enough as is, but when you multiply the number of trains carried by a beam by 6, things get really messy.
Click to expand...

With the challenge of economic space for yards being an issue, it might be a cheaper option, and better as the taxes that could be collected from land used as yard instead of commercial, industrial or residential is not and instead costing the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top