Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

M II A II R II K said:
So at Exhibition the new line will share the same platform like the UP at Bloor.
Click to expand...
No. At Bloor GO and UP trains use the same tracks. At Exhibition, they'll never use the same tracks. But you might have GO on one side, and Ontario Line on the other ... though the drawings are far from clear ... there might be an elevation difference. East Harbour looks a lot more like it might be GO on one side, and Ontario on the other, where the Ontario Line straddles the GO line (or does it ... wouldn't there need be two portals to the west, instead of one?).
 
JSF-1 said:
Yea I'll believe that when I see it. PSD's are always one of the first things to get canned as a "Cost cutting measure" and it seems every time we build something the penny pinchers come out of the woodwork. Given the current financial situation of the province moving forward I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives begin looking for ways to "save money" on these types of projects. As well Vancouver shows you don't need PSD's for fully automated lines, so the precedent is there. I would like PSD's on all the subway lines but it never happens because nobody wants to spend any money on anything more then the bare essentials.
Click to expand...
At least in the case of the TYSSE, the PSDs didn't actually get cut because of cost-cutting. They got cut because there were concerns about the implementation of ATC on Line 1, and to be safe, the PSDs were cut from the design. This actually ended up costing more because the PSD supports were structural to the stations, which meant the entire platform areas had to be redesigned without the support columns the PSDs would have provided.

I think the most likely reason we'll get PSDs on the OL is because having the additional supports provided by the door structures makes the stations easier to design and cheaper to build, vs having to look at cantilevers and transferring more mass to further away supports. PSDs are super expensive to retrofit into existing stations that weren't designed for them, but should be fine to include in a new line where they can be an integral part of the station structure.
 
nfitz said:
No. At Bloor GO and UP trains use the same tracks. At Exhibition, they'll never use the same tracks. But you might have GO on one side, and Ontario Line on the other ... though the drawings are far from clear ... there might be an elevation difference. East Harbour looks a lot more like it might be GO on one side, and Ontario on the other, where the Ontario Line straddles the GO line (or does it ... wouldn't there need be two portals to the west, instead of one?).
Click to expand...
Yeah, the plan for East Harbour is 1 OL Track - 4 GO Tracks - 1 OL Track. So they'll need 4 portals total for that over-ground section (2 near Carlaw, 2 near Cherry)
 
TossYourJacket said:
Yeah, the plan for East Harbour is 1 OL Track - 4 GO Tracks - 1 OL Track. So they'll need 4 portals total for that over-ground section (2 near Carlaw, 2 near Cherry)
Click to expand...
The two near Carlaw are quite clear on the plans I've seen. Somehow I've only seen one at Cherry. I'll have to look again. But I suspect I'm the issue here ... not the plans. :)
 
superelevation said:
Irrespective of my disagreement RE capacity, I want to question this "great" plan.

The old plan lacked:

- Phase one build West of Osgoode and North of Bloor serving super fast growing Downtown Communities, and lower income transit starved Northern Communities
- Cross platform transfers to GO which are clearly better than the deep Downsview Park style transfers we would have had
- Elevated rail used extensively (which will likely change the perception of elevated rail in Toronto - potentially significantly reducing costs for future suburban lines - because yes obviously on those wide suburban roads elevated makes way more sense)
- A modern train platform - the Toronto Subway trains are fine, but newer trains with higher power requirements (hence catenary) can climb steeper slopes and hit higher speeds
- Very strong incentive for the province to finally force regional agencies to the table to integrate fares (needed for cross platform transfers)
- Automation and Platform Screen doors as a given (they were also "planned" for the TYSSE, who knows if their fate would have been the same for DRL)
Click to expand...

First of all I don't think your first point really applies because this project is already getting delayed by another 3 years - I have a hard time believing it won't be delayed further. Yes it's a larger plan than the previous one, but further behind. This is why a phased approach can be helpful.

There's no reason Ford couldn't have fast tracked the existing plan, designed in conjunction with local stakeholders, and started immediately on the DRL North to Don Mills.

The GO transfer is good in theory, though I do question how often it'll be used.

The last three bolded points I don't agree with because the government isn't operating with any consistency. If anything, suburban residents have been told above ground transit is unacceptable, and are currently getting projects that support that position.

New trains - new is nice, but they don't seem a fit for this project, where capacity is crucial.

And finally, we shouldn't need to cut corners to force regional agencies to integrate fares.

Innovation is a great thing, but we're not seeing that here. If the 'innovation' undercuts the primary purpose of the project you have a problem.
 
syn said:
First of all I don't think your first point really applies because this project is already getting delayed by another 3 years - I have a hard time believing it won't be delayed further. Yes it's a larger plan than the previous one, but further behind. This is why a phased approach can be helpful.

There's no reason Ford couldn't have fast tracked the existing plan, designed in conjunction with local stakeholders, and started immediately on the DRL North to Don Mills.

The GO transfer is good in theory, though I do question how often it'll be used.

The last three bolded points I don't agree with because the government isn't operating with any consistency. If anything, suburban residents have been told above ground transit is unacceptable, and are currently getting projects that support that position.

New trains - new is nice, but they don't seem a fit for this project, where capacity is crucial.

And finally, we shouldn't need to cut corners to force regional agencies to integrate fares.

Innovation is a great thing, but we're not seeing that here. If the 'innovation' undercuts the primary purpose of the project you have a problem.
Click to expand...
1) Its being delayed by 3 years to 2030, the original planned opening date of the Relief Line, and before you say "further delays", I could say the same about the original DRL.
2) Quite Often: Even with the new Bay Concourse, travelling from Union Station to the Subway could take some time, so being able to transfer directly to a train that gets you directly to the Queen street area would be extremely helpful to a ton of commuters.
3) Please tell me a route you can take with the Scarborough Subway that has the same catchment area as the planned underground route, while eliminating the linear transfer and taking an above ground route. I'll wait. The amount of money it'll cost to build a portal to elevate Line 2 east of Kennedy and the amount of engineering required to get that to work would probably be the same or even more expensive than an all underground option.
4) New trains are a fine fit, and I've debunked this argument numerous times.
5) The only place this project is cutting corners in is your mind.
 
So at the GO interchanges there’ll be 2 platforms and each platform will have GO on one side and OL on the other. So there’ll be another Exhibition GO platform.
 
syn said:
It's unfortunate. How much money has been wasted from cancelling sensible plans?

With every government it's the same routine over and over again.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Governments should be embarrassed how wasteful they are of taxpayer money. There was a good, well consulted AND funded transit plan that was completely thrown out. It could've been modified to find cost efficiencies and improve concerns with station placement. Let's also remember that the RL didn't prescribe TR rolling stock, that was merely a preference. (line 2 yard could be used and new yard built at Obico as was considered).
 
Last edited:
Also, even if the DRL north hadn't been entirely finalised, it was pretty clear it was going to go to Don Mills and Eglinton (with either Don Mills or Victoria Pac beyond that). So at the least we could have safely extended the existing plan to Eglinton, with going north to Sheppard as a potential Phase 2 regardless of alignment.

We could have kept what we had, included the extension to Eglinton and then only needed to plan a new western leg during development instead of just throwing out the entire plan. Regardless of how well the OL may work, it's just a completely frustrating waste of time and resources to restart planning all over again.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Also, even if the DRL north hadn't been entirely finalised, it was pretty clear it was going to go to Don Mills and Eglinton (with either Don Mills or Victoria Pac beyond that). So at the least we could have safely extended the existing plan to Eglinton, with going north to Sheppard as a potential Phase 2 regardless of alignment.

We could have kept what we had, included the extension to Eglinton and then only needed to plan a new western leg during development instead of just throwing out the entire plan. Regardless of how well the OL may work, it's just a completely frustrating waste of time and resources to restart planning all over again.
Click to expand...
If it ends up being lower cost to extend further due to ending at surface/elevated, perhaps that is worth a 3 year delay.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top