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

The general way you have to think about these things is how the money can be spent elsewhere. Would you take a few lost trees here and maybe a park in exchange for, say, $1,000,000,000 in spending in affordable housing? That's about 5,000 deeply affordable units. At $200 a tree, that's 5,000,000 tree plantings. That gets you the Waterfront East LRT. That buys a whole lot of new parkland. And that's just the savings from this stretch in Leslieville. The whole line saves a couple billion over building the same length line with TRs.

The cost savings from building the OL this way instead of with standard TRs means the government has more options later to address capacity if this line does run over a generation from now as well. Sure, if you have to build a relief line for the relief line in 2060 you could have prevented it with building the relief line better, but it's a generation away and at the end of it you end up with 2 subway lines serving everyone better rather than 1 serving everyone in an OK way. Probably at a lower overall opportunity cost as well.
 
warrens said:
We're so bad at this, we can't even get a second exit built at Greenwood for fire safety & accessibility reasons because people got all up in arms over the possibility of a cafe closing.
Click to expand...

Don't make it sound like it is unique to TTC/old Toronto - is Eglinton West getting built above ground? Did SSE end up using the existing RT alignment? You can literally save billions in both scenarios. If not, ask yourself why not. Don't anyone dare give me that "but it's better than the old plan in the median of the road" or the "but that RT alignment is so bad" excuses - you know they aren't worth billions.

innsertnamehere said:
The cost savings from building the OL this way instead of with standard TRs means the government has more options later to address capacity if this line does run over a generation from now as well. Sure, if you have to build a relief line for the relief line in 2060 you could have prevented it with building the relief line better, but it's a generation away and at the end of it you end up with 2 subway lines serving everyone better rather than 1 serving everyone in an OK way. Probably at a lower overall opportunity cost as well.
Click to expand...

This argument only flies if it is a policy that is applied unwaveringly in all our new builds - and given the two examples above, we know it isn't - and I am quite confident you will find more need of future capacity with OL (particularly if you get extensions north and westward - which is being put forward as the selling point and the impact of which is not publicly discussed, if even modelled) than other projects.

AoD
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
So 6 GO tracks is fine if GO determined they needed it, but 4 GO and 2 OL is unacceptable and is immediately deserving of $1,000,000,000 in spending to prevent? I mean Parkdale has 8 GO tracks and nobody is complaining out there.

The impact of this proposal is not 6 tracks vs 0, it's 6 vs 4. It's a marginal impact at most. I'd argue it's even less of an impact than Bloor and Keele since most of the impact already exists with the existing rail corridor.

Capacity is unrelated in the sense that the issue at hand isn't whether a traditional Toronto Subway technology should be built above grade. It's either this proposal with lower capacity, more versatile trains, or a buried alternative with either option for capacity. Nobody is proposing to run TRs along this corridor. The whole reason Metrolinx is opting for a lower (ish) capacity system is that it delivers far greater benefits by allowing the trains to run above grade instead of in tunnels 100ft below grade.

By the way though, again, I'd be totally fine with TRs running above grade. It's just not what's being discussed here.
Click to expand...

You keep suggesting I'm making statements I am not; and you keep saying ridiculous things that either aren't true or are grossly misleading.

After this post, I won't engage further with you in this thread, because it will start degenerating into expletive-laced tirades.

Much as with your stubborn support for endless highways and sprawl; you don't sincerely debate; you stubbornly hold fast to indefensible positions. So be it. But it adds little to the quality of the discussion.

****

Parkdale's railway corridor is not at grade or above-grade to the residents of Parkdale.

The slopes and walls on the north side of the corridor project a large part of the noise Lakeward.

Residents do still complain, but the noise of the Gardiner is already there, and there is little to be done, except cover over the corridor, which, the City did study some time ago.

The original residents from what was once an affluent area are long gone, and many of the nice old homes were bulldozed for the mediocre apartments present today; while others spent decades as rooming houses.

The corridor in that location, in conjunction with the Gardiner made the waterfront there far less accessible and the combined choice entirely regrettable.

Its another terrible, off-point example that has no place in a cogent debate.
 
Northern Light said:
Its a very Toronto thing that we assume all transfers must be done by escalator.
Multiple high-speed, high capacity, fully automated elevators would work fine.
Click to expand...

Where has this been done successfully before in a transit application at scale? Toronto should not be a test-bed for unproven ideas.

Northern Light said:
The render you're showing is based on a 4-track configuration.

It is certainly possible they will do that with six tracks, though it isn't likely.

PS, that opening in the middle is still large enough to let in a fair bit of rain and snow; and certainly won't keep the platform a nice temperature in winter.
Click to expand...

It's a conceptual drawing of what East Harbour is intended to be someday. It's not an engineering plan. Don't get over-invested in it. Other designs that have been shown include a complete canopy.

It'll change, but it's not going to be some wide-open wind-swept field where everyone will fucking freeze to death while waiting 90 seconds for the next train.
 
warrens said:
Where has this been done successfully before in a transit application at scale? Toronto should not be a test-bed for unproven ideas.
Click to expand...

Not using it as an argument for an underground station/complexity per se - Barcelona Line 9/10. you know, where they also had "unproven" ideas like driverless trains, platform doors, etc... Also see Hong Kong Island Line, HKU station. TfL also have some much older examples as well.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Don't make it sound like it is unique to TTC/old Toronto - is Eglinton West getting built above ground? Did SSE end up using the existing RT alignment? You can literally save billions in both scenarios. If not, ask yourself why not. Don't anyone dare give me that "but it's better than the old plan in the median of the road" or the "but that RT alignment is so bad" excuses - you know they aren't worth billions.
Click to expand...

I find myself saying this over and over to people who presumably don't know this part of town at all: Using the existing Scarbrough RT alignment is problematic because nobody is using the stations that were built after 40 years. No real densification has happened, other than a block of townhouses, and is unlikely to ever happen.

As for Eglinton West, I believe something completely different is going on here: It's Ford's old ward, and it's currently the associate transportation minister's riding. So that's just a boatload of shenanigans. Exact same shit we dealt with with Mel Lastman's Sheppard Subway To Nowhere, and Greg Sorbara getting a TTC subway going right through his alma mater (York University) to his Vaughan riding. Perhaps not coincidentally, Sorbara is now the chancellor of York University.

Personally I feel it can & should be above-ground like it is through the Golden Mile.
 
warrens said:
I find myself saying this over and over: Using the existing Scarbrough RT alignment is problematic because nobody is using the stations that were built after 40 years. No real densification has happened.

As for Eglinton West, I believe something completely different is going on here: It's Ford's old ward, and it's currently the associate transportation minister's riding. So that's just a boatload of shenanigans. Exact same shit we dealt with with Mel Lastman's Sheppard Subway To Nowhere, and Greg Sorbara getting a TTC subway going right through his alma mater (York University) to his Vaughan riding. Perhaps not coincidentally, Sorbara is now the chancellor of York University.

Personally I feel it can & should be above-ground like it is through the Golden Mile.
Click to expand...

You are building only 3 stations in the SSE with the McCowan alignment (2 - Lawrence and STC if you leave Sheppard out because that's literally an extension) - you think your ridership will somehow significantly exceed the current alignment in a subway-subway comparison scenario? It's like people saying the BD alignment sucked looking at low use stations (Old Mill, Castle Frank, whatnot) in between stations with high usage. Better yet - do you sincerely believe, after all the talk about economic efficiency and whatnot, that the new alignment is worth 6 billion? At least BD managed it with an elevated route where needed.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Don't make it sound like it is unique to TTC/old Toronto - is Eglinton West getting built above ground? Did SSE end up using the existing RT alignment? You can literally save billions in both scenarios. If not, ask yourself why not. Don't anyone dare give me that "but it's better than the old plan in the median of the road" or the "but that RT alignment is so bad" excuses - you know they aren't worth billions.



This argument only flies if it is a policy that is applied unwaveringly in all our new builds - and given the two examples above, we know it isn't - and I am quite confident you will find more need of future capacity with OL (particularly if you get extensions north and westward - which is being put forward as the selling point and the impact of which is not publicly discussed, if even modelled) than other projects.

AoD
Click to expand...

The OL is how all infra projects in this city should be designed. Just because we are wasting money elsewhere doesn't mean we need to waste it here.

I've complained multiple times how much of a waste the Eg West extension is in the respective thread. All elevated is the correct approach for that corridor.

Regarding capacity, projections have the OL at about 1/3 total capacity opening day. And the difference between the OL and TRs isn't as much as people make it out to be. We are talking about ~4,000PPHD here. The OL design capacity can carry more people than the Yonge Line does today. It's not a low capacity line, it's just *lower* than the TRs. The additional cost of achieving that 4,000PPHD, which again, is a marginal change, is much more than a marginal amount of money. It comes back to my points about diminishing returns and how this city too often doesn't properly weigh that.
 
Northern Light said:
You keep suggesting I'm making statements I am not; and you keep saying ridiculous things that either aren't true or are grossly misleading.

After this post, I won't engage further with you in this thread, because it will start degenerating into expletive-laced tirades.

Much as with your stubborn support for endless highways and sprawl; you don't sincerely debate; you stubbornly hold fast to indefensible positions. So be it. But it adds little to the quality of the discussion.

****

Parkdale's railway corridor is not at grade or above-grade to the residents of Parkdale.

The slopes and walls on the north side of the corridor project a large part of the noise Lakeward.

Residents do still complain, but the noise of the Gardiner is already there, and there is little to be done, except cover over the corridor, which, the City did study some time ago.

The original residents from what was once an affluent area are long gone, and many of the nice old homes were bulldozed for the mediocre apartments present today; while others spent decades as rooming houses.

The corridor in that location, in conjunction with the Gardiner made the waterfront there far less accessible and the combined choice entirely regrettable.

Its another terrible, off-point example that has no place in a cogent debate.
Click to expand...

I was discussing the Georgetown corridor, which has 8 tracks and is roughly comparable to this corridor, in the northern portion of Parkdale along Queen St. Apologies for the mis-communication.

The real barrier in south Parkdale is the Gardiner, specifically the Jameson interchange, which is terribly designed. Crossing Dufferin St to access the waterfront is relatively unobtrusive.

I may have extrapolated a bit with my initial statement, but it was trying to draw a parallel between different infrastructure projects and what are considered acceptable impacts. My points regarding marginal impacts and how it's problematic that many people see the solution to solving a $20 million problem is to spend $1 billion stand.
 
warrens said:
Using the existing Scarbrough RT alignment is problematic because nobody is using the stations that were built after 40 years.
Click to expand...

I'm not about to argue in favour of the existing SRT alignment; but this statement is preposterous.

Hold on, the SRT is at capacity in rush hour. (pre-Covid); it actually can't handle anymore people.

So to suggest no one is using the stations is just plain wrong.

If you argued that utilization at McCowan and Midland are both poor, you would be on safe ground. That owes in part to the former not being served by buses, and the latter by only one, and w/o a terminal.

Crowds are concentrated at Scarborough-Centre and Kennedy; but Lawrence East and Ellesmere, both ugly, poorly located stations that they are; still have ok levels of utilization.

***

May I suggest, as a new member, who is unfamiliar with many or most of the regular posters than you refrain from presuming what others know or don't know.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Regarding capacity, projections have the OL at about 1/3 total capacity opening day. And the difference between the OL and TRs isn't as much as people make it out to be. We are talking about ~4,000PPHD here. The OL design capacity can carry more people than the Yonge Line does today. It's not a low capacity line, it's just *lower* than the TRs. The additional cost of achieving that 4,000PPHD, which again, is a marginal change, is much more than a marginal amount of money. It comes back to my points about diminishing returns and how this city too often doesn't properly weigh that.
Click to expand...

Given the procurement method, we can expect the proponent to shave the physical build to the bare minimum - we had the Canada Line as a lesson there. PPHPD figures alone isn't sufficient to guarantee future flexibility - you need some future proofing of hard infrastructure (particularly underground station platform length; above ground is relatively easy to add to provided you plan for it). Narrower/shorter trains - I am fairly agnostic about those - you can change those at a later time.

So in essence my position is - I don't really care much about the above/underground debate - these are peripheral issues - the meat of the matter is sizing the hard build to the maximum you can afford where the cost of future changes will be high - and that is platforms at underground stations.

And why did I mention those other examples? Because "what you can afford" is driven by what you are paying elsewhere for other stuff. It's unconvincing to me when someone argue we can't afford future proofing and then go thoughts and prayers blowing a few B at purely aesthetical choices for routes that will not even come close to ridership. It's indefensible.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
PPHPD figures alone isn't sufficient to guarantee future flexibility - you need some future proofing of hard infrastructure (particularly underground station platform length; above ground is relatively easy to add to provided you plan for it).
Click to expand...
PPHHPD can result in that future proofing. You can see that with the Canada Line. They didn't require a PPHPD of 30,000 and so stations weren't designed for that. Put 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 PPHPD ultimate and whatever service level you want on day 1 (PPDPH and frequency at peak), and the proponent will optimize for the requirements. That the proponent won't optimize for a requirement that isn't set out is a feature, not a bug. It makes the government think long and hard about its goals, short, medium, and long term. If the government wants future flexibility, it has to be willing to pay for it, and to get a dollar figure on what that flexibility costs, the government has to decide what flexibility means. The Canada Line set out their ultimate PPHPD at around 15,000 iirc because their demand studies had demand below that level at their planning horizon. When the corridor was chosen as the Lower Mainland's priority corridor, the complaints were that the corridor had forecast demand too low to justify higher order transit (people wanted a sky train extension built elsewhere).

The Canada Line isn't overcrowded at times because the stations are small -- there is lots of potential PPHPD capacity being unused there currently. It is because TransLink delayed pulling the trigger in the contract to provide higher PPHPD service too long, and the lead time since higher service levels requires more vehicles meant the delay is now acutely felt by users. Sure, it might be possible by mid century that the hard infrastructure in the case of the Canada Line is overburdened, but you have to think about all the money you saved by not building to the higher hard infrastructure standard to begin with. 45, 50 years of cost savings probably gives you a nice 'down payment' on a relief service, or enabled you to build another service in the mean time which increased high order transit catchment.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Given the procurement method, we can expect the proponent to shave the physical build to the bare minimum - we had the Canada Line as a lesson there. PPHPD alone isn't sufficient to guarantee future flexibility.

AoD
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Metrolinx is requiring a capacity as part of the procurement parameters to ensure this problem doesn't happen. they are leaving it up to the proponents on how to meet it, but are looking for a capacity of IIRC 34,000 PPHD. The P3 partners won't win the bid unless they demonstrate their bid can achieve this.

This is higher than the current Yonge Line's ~30,000, but lower than the ultimate capacity of the Yonge Line of ~38,000.

Of course since opening day demand is expected to be ~15,000 PPHD they won't be running that capacity on day one. No point of doing so.

Darwingo better explains the problem with the Canada Line. The problem isn't the initial design capacity, it's Translink's floundering on ordering new trains and faster than expected ridership growth.
 
No Taj Mahal stations. Okay, murals are acceptable.

64c7f341-df8b-4690-a0a0-ef6e1bea6714.jpeg

Pictured is a mural at Exit C of Dayan Pagoda metro station in Xi'an, Northwest China's Shaanxi Province depicting the Buddhist monk Xuanzang's anachronistic visit to the Taj Mahal of India.

From link.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top