kv1990
New Member
this is a little hyperbolic but it would almost be better to move the satiation further west and let people connect at street level ... 
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
Same point I made earlier about the politics of all this. From somebody more eloquent than me...
whydidimakethis
Active Member
As much flaws as there is with the plan, it desperately needs to happen and we can't afford to keep pushing this back. This line has been proposed in some fashion or another for almost a century at this point. Again, it's really not ideal and I agree that there are flaws, but at this point we've delayed this far too long. This plan as a line on the map (neglecting the stations) is IMO the best proposal so far as it avoids tunneling as much as possible.
I'm not sure what the claim is when they say that this is "cheaping out". These trains are perfectly fine and are necessary for the relatively complex nature of the routing. Based on the renderings, these trains look even nicer than the TR's IMO. These trains would be considered full heavy duty in a lot of places in the world, the Toronto subway just has very wide trains compared to average (not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't mean we need to emulate it for the Ontario line at a steeper cost).
Last edited:
kv1990
New Member
I honestly think this can still be saved/ improved ... I hope ML and the city can work together and give the Osgoode Plaza option a serious look. I think that is the best proposal that saves the trees and the the heritage sites and also improves the public realm. And if they can improve the interchange between lines in the process that would be great!
I don't really have any other major issues with the line ... though i don't know how the interchange at Yonge and Queen is going to be like ...
I don't really have any other major issues with the line ... though i don't know how the interchange at Yonge and Queen is going to be like ...
Northern Light
Superstar
Same point I made earlier about the politics of all this. From somebody more eloquent than me...
I know John, and I will talk to him about his piece, it was rushed, and ill-informed, as Steve Munro clearly demonstrates, Parsons didn't even get basic spelling right in their report. Several key considerations in terms of design are simply overlooked by oversimplifying this to be about trees, without addressing issues like a cumbersome transfer that verges on the absurd.
This is about so much more than trees. Its about competence. Which few, if any, believe Mx possesses.
Northern Light
Superstar
A perfectly reasonable take; and one which requires delay here; but not delaying the entire project. Osgoode as an interchange will not take 10 years to build in this or any other form.
The Line can proceed and this station can be delayed by a few months while the design is refined.
officedweller
Senior Member
Look at the Metrolinx website here:
Ontario Line
A 15.6-km subway line in Toronto that will run from Exhibition Place to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
www.metrolinx.com
Note that it's an "interactive" website, so you may have to hover you mouse over various icons on a map and click to open up information on the stations (yes, that's annoying).
officedweller
Senior Member
I suppose you'd still be able to access Osgoode Station from the existing in-street stair.
You also see this at Waterfront Station for transfers between Canada Line and SkyTrain.
The reason is probably so that the passengers are counted when they go through turnstiles,
and the passenger counts are used for operator payments, evaluation of performance and the scheduling of service under the operating contract of the Ontario Line separately from Line 1.
In theory, if you have more people counted as accessing the Ontario Line, the automated system can respond by speeding up trains and increasing frequency. I don't know if any automated systems anywhere are responsive like that on a real-time basis.
In Vancouver, more trains are dispatched to serve scheduled events like fireworks, football and hockey games, but I don't know if they do so on a real-time basis, or if they are just scheduled in advance.
Before Canada Line had turnstiles, there were infrared passenger counters installed under overhead signs.
Those became redundant when turnstiles were installed.
Here's a more sophisticated example with counters on trains at doorways, but numbers entering trains is probably different information than just entering the Ontario Line system as a whole.
Automatic passenger counting for public transport | Xovis
Track passenger movements and simplify operational planning for public transportation with Xovis 3D sensors.
Also, transit agencies now seem to like some walking distance between platforms to spread people out and prevent crush load volumes transferring within a small physical area (like at Bloor-Yonge).
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Active Member
I'm so glad that our "transit advocates" are advocating for more custom outdated technology rather than modern, off the shelf designs.
Apparently some people have gotten the idea into their heads that you can build a transit line without any impact whatsoever. You cannot build a transit line in a dense urban core without some impacts.
I'm glad we agree that Metrolinx is awful, but you know as well as I do that we don't need another five years of delays to re-re-design the project so that everyone will like it.
Your posts on this subject are borderline goalpost moving; Metrolinx sucks, but I still haven't seen any arguments in favour of spending money to redesign the line so that heritage trees or whatever can be protected.
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/metrolinx-other-items-catch-all.27710/
T3G
Senior Member
Sorry, I don't find these two quotes to be compatible with each other.
I am aware that the proposed trains should be enough for the projected ridership as is known right now. However, I do not find this to be a convincing argument in favour of scaling down the rolling stock. No man is infallible and Metrolinx much less so, even they cannot account for everything that is going to happen in the future. Remember, the TTC streetcar order was supposed to be more than enough for the network at the time the order was put together in 2006 - but then, ridership grew on the streetcar network by 44% by the time the order was completed, and the numbers of cars required no longer ended up matching what we had on order. Why take that chance again? If the Ontario Line is such a deeply, truly, profoundly necessary project that we must stop at nothing and preserve nothing in order to get it done as soon as possible, would it not also therefore be logical that we equip it with the largest subway cars money can buy, so that it takes longer to reach its maximum capacity?
That is quite enough, thank you! Just because I do not agree with you on how the project should be executed does not give you a right to suggest I am somehow not a transit advocate, or question my motives. Everyone here clearly has the city's best interests in mind, we just have different visions on how to get there. Casting aspersions on one's motives derails the discussion and gives the forum a bad name.
As for your actual argument, that line of thinking is exactly what we don't need in transit (except for the part about off the shelf designs, but I highly doubt designing a 75 foot subway car that is otherwise standard in the parts it uses is an insurmountable task).
Transit is not supposed to be cutting edge, it's supposed to be functional. If the design still works (and manifestly it does, otherwise the TTC would have gone back to the drawing board for the proposed T1 replacement rather than building on more of the same), and there is no urgent argument in favour of doing so, such as wheelchair accessibility or energy efficiency, what need is there to change it, exactly? I'm not saying that this is what's going to happen to the Hitachi trains, but progress for progress' sake is what got us white elephants like the SRT. Ask any rider on the next subway platform you step on and I'm sure they'll agree, provided they are not Gadgetbahn enthusiasts, that having a proven type of vehicle, albeit with the regular comforts passengers have come to expect in the 21st century, would be superior to having something that is cutting edge and doesn't work.
And I don't see where you are getting the idea that this "technology" is outdated, anyway, considering I haven't actually said anything at all about the type of technology that should be used on the trains, just their length. If the new Hitachi things were the dimensions of a TTC subway car, but kept everything else intact, they'd hardly be out of date.
And why stop there? There is nothing about subway trains that is modern to begin with, they have been around for more than 150 years. If pushing technology to its limits is the goal here, why not make the Ontario Line into a maglev or something? Or ask Elon Musk to build his Hyperloop in its place?
Progress for progrsss' sake is bad.
MrGoose
Active Member
By the time the Ontario Line reaches capacity, it would be time to construct another subway line. The trains should be able to match the Yonge Line's current capacity and we can all agree that it is way past time to build more lines into the downtown core. Only once we've totally maxxed out our capacity to add more rail transit into downtown Toronto should we consider maxxing out the size of the trains ala the Elizabeth line in London.
Then we can have all the same tired debates about heritage trees all over again.
This argument that we should be building for the largest possible trains also ignores that ML is greatly expanding the capacity of rail into the Downtown core through the GO Expansion/RER, which this line is supposed to augment.
I'm very confused where this argument is coming from. Metrolinx is following in the footsteps of countless other transit agencies around the world by purchasing off the shelf trains that are already commonly used, not custom gadgetbahns. Everything about the Ontario line is about taking the best practices that other countries have learnt and trying to apply it to Toronto.
Faster automated trains mean more frequent service and better capacity for your infrastructure. Smaller but more frequent trains means smaller stations which means faster and cheaper construction. Using off the shelf trains from a proven vendor means better hardware support. Nothing about the Ontario line is "Progress for progress' sake".
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Wherever I see interviews with NIMBYs they always have a reason why their particular cause is special and not NIMBYism. Rare is the NIMBY who is sufficiently self-aware of what their obstruction means on a wider scale. They all think they are doing the right thing and working for the betterment of their community/neighbourhood/city.
I look forward to him explaining to you the difference between facts and optics and why young people are increasingly disillusioned with Boomer politics (as he alluded to in his piece). Do share how that conversation goes.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
For every NIMBY interview that you count, I could probably count an interview with an executive, project manager, or bureaucrat who maintained that any deviation to their project plan would cost billions and halt the project dead for years at a time, and their work was so mission critical that it can’t be halted even for a month. And were later proved wrong, or at least the world didn’t end when a delay happened.
All projects have stop-and-revisit pauses. There are often more than one way to design something.
The Parsons report may end up validating Ml’s choice here, but it also raises nuggets that deserve such pauses. One is the suggestion that the underground structure may remove sufficient soil depth to ever allow large trees to grow there again. That’s a much more material change to the public realm than just planting new trees and letting the site regrow. And some people are finally seeing the station form for the first time - and asking about flow and connectivity. That’s not my area of expertise, but it’s a pretty big concern. Why did it take a “bunch of nimby’s” to spot that one? Just how much design review did the station design get ?
I’m curious which city this younger demographic might cite as a shining example of where the administration blew past the red tape and adopted a damn the torpedoes approach to decisionmaking. How did that turn out?
The suggestion that “Boomer politics” is behind this is rich, considering how many issues start out as individual grievances aired on social media and end up forcing enormous retooling and rethinking by governments and bureaucracies. Boomers may be more comfortable putting their views forward through vigils and injunctions than rushing to Twitter, but a small group challenging a big powerful organization that is indifferent to smaller scaler matters is still pretty ageless.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
Do try, however much it pains you, to be respectful.
T3G
Senior Member
By what known definition of the term am I a NIMBY for suggesting the trains on the Ontario Line should be subway scale instead of anything smaller?