Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[smallspy]

To you. I personally would not want 28 000 cars spewing for another year just to get say a slightly better concourse. Not worthwhile to me. That is letting perfect be the enemy of good.

That is quite the interesting take on the matter.

How important is the convenience of that transfer? How much time is it worth to the supposed 5700 people/hour who get a shitty transfer? How many more people would use the transfer if it was better laid out? How many people might switch to transit if it was better laid out? What is the effect of all of the above over the lifespan of the project?

Dan

 

[picard102]

Doug Ford government interfered in Metrolinx tree removal communications, emails show

Internal emails obtained by the Star cast doubt on the independence of provincial transit agency Metrolinx.

www.thestar.com

From the article:

In a series of emails between the province and the transit agency, Ministry of Transportation staff overrode Metrolinx’s recommendation to include New Democrat MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam and then official Opposition leader Peter Tabuns — two vocal critics of Metrolinx — on notices about the need to remove trees in their ridings to allow construction of the new Ontario Line subway, with staff saying the order came from minister Caroline Mulroney’s office.

Communications staff at the ministry also ask Metrolinx in the emails to remove from construction notices the estimated number of trees that will be taken down, at the request of Ford’s office.

BuT MeTROlInX IS jUSt DoIng ThEIr BeSt And hAve No iLL INTEntioNS

 

[ARG1]

Calling people on this forum NIMBY's is such a strange line of thinking to me. The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss the merits of various projects across the city and critique them with like minded people. Just because I think this station is lacking doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bath water. If one had complained about the crosstown being buried in the wrong places and low floor being a wrong choice it wouldn't make them a NIMBY, it would make them a critic of that project. It's been insinuated that I'm a NIMBY for acknowledging that urban green space is important and should be transparently dealt with. Now that we have more information, it appears the keyhole shaft is necessary in the current location, and I'm satisfied with that explanation. Can the station building be moved? Or connections improved? TBD what that would entail.

I don't think anyone is accusing anyone of being a NIMBY themselves, the accusation is more like standing by NIMBYs and enabling their antics for whatever reason it might be. A way to grandstand about how much better the DRL was? A way to crap on Ford's pet project? Maybe several people are actually concerned about the greenspace.

At least for me personally, the soapbox of needing to save 5 trees in a park with like 20-30 as justification of needing to redesign the station is a bit ridiculous, and isn't comparable to the criticism of using a low floor train design for no good reason that will do nothing but limit capacity long term. Now if the discussion was on needing to redesign the station because of how awful the transfer to Line 1 is due to not wanting to underpin? Now I'm completely on board, and I would absolutely agree that I'd rather bite the bullet to build the station shallower if it means it takes less time to reach the station faster, and to have a better and more direct transfer to the University Line. This is a complaint that will affect the functionality of the line, rather than one that concerns something so trivial.

 

[cplchanb]

Star article on a heritage report Osgoode has received from its consultant.

Metrolinx plans for Osgoode Hall will cause ‘permanent damage to one of the most historic sites in Canada’: Heritage report

“Slicing a corner from the site and placing an inappropriate transit pavilion there is, in my opinion, tantamount to drawing a cartoon in the corner of a painting done by a great master.”

www.thestar.com

typical of these reports. They shape the report on an already predetermined conclusion. common practice...

 

[T3G]

typical of these reports. They shape the report on an already predetermined conclusion. common practice...

So would I be correct in presuming that we can apply the same conclusion to any report which supports Metrolinx's plans?

 

[Allandale25]

If anyone wants to watch the hearing today at 2pm, see here for the Zoom link:

Update on proceedings: Hearing today at Ontario Superior Court as Law Society seeks injunction against Metrolinx | Law Society of Ontario

A hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. today at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as the Law Society seeks an injunction prohibiting Metrolinx from taking further actions on the historic grounds of Osgoode Hall.

lso.ca

 

[crs1026]

You'd take a full year delay on a 10 year project

Ml seems to feel exactly this way about Union station, and about many elements of its GO Expansion program, which clearly will not get done before the 2024-2024 promise.

Do you know what opportunity cost is? If it costs $2B to save 2 years, what would you cut?

We could recoup the cost by, for instance, charging people a small amount when they renew the license sticker on their vehicle. I hear that some jurisdictions find that works well. Another option would be to curtail or delay construction of Highway 413. We do, actually, have doable choices.

Getting Queen-University right is indeed worth extra time and money.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Ml seems to feel exactly this way about Union station, and about many elements of its GO Expansion program, which clearly will not get done before the 2024-2024 promise.

Indeed. I have not suggested by any stretch they are great. They need to get moving. But there's a big difference between delaying an upgrade and a whole new line altogether. The former at least offers some capacity right now.

We could recoup the cost by, for instance, charging people a small amount when they renew the license sticker on their vehicle. I hear that some jurisdictions find that works well. Another option would be to curtail or delay construction of Highway 413. We do, actually, have doable choices.

There's a lot of things we could do. But proponents like @picard102 never want to actually make the hard choices. Just suggest that it will can all be automatically solved.

Getting Queen-University right is indeed worth extra time and money.

With all due respect, a retired engineer who doesn't have to get crammed into a train at Yonge everyday is going to have a lot more tolerance for delays on these projects. It's easy to volunteer others to suffer when the cost to us is minimal. I'm begging people to keep in that beyond all this transit nerdom there are real people waiting at Yonge-Bloor getting stuffed into trains everyday. One year for them is not a small matter.

There's a lot of folks who seem to forget that this region is going to grow by another million residents by the end of the decade. If you think the roads and transit is bad now, just imagine what it will be with that added pressure. Every day counts. And that is true whether delays come from NIMBYism or incompetence from Metrolinx or government.

 

[kEiThZ]

People in 100 years won't care it took an extra year in addition to the extra year or two this project will run over.

People in 100 years will have it even worse, if we keep up this inability to actually build transit.

The government has plenty of tools at its disposal to pay for it.

Suggest some.

How important is the convenience of that transfer? How much time is it worth to the supposed 5700 people/hour who get a shitty transfer?

Has a shitty transfer at one station on a line stopped you from ever taking transit? Annoying? Suboptimal? Absolutely. Demand killing? No evidence for that.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think anyone is accusing anyone of being a NIMBY themselves, the accusation is more like standing by NIMBYs and enabling their antics for whatever reason it might be. A way to grandstand about how much better the DRL was? A way to crap on Ford's pet project? Maybe several people are actually concerned about the greenspace.

This. The original protest was supposedly about trees. And yet all the discussion on here is about everything but the trees. Lots of people with lots of axes to grind looking for an excuse. Hard not to see that as at least NIMBY enabling or NIMBY adjacent. They cheer on the tree defenders in the hopes of extracting other concessions. Talk about bad faith.

 

[picard102]

Indeed. I have not suggested by any stretch they are great. They need to get moving. But there's a big difference between delaying an upgrade and a whole new line altogether. The former at least offers some capacity right now.

Except a whole line isn't being delayed. A station is.

There's a lot of things we could do. But proponents like @picard102 never want to actually make the hard choices. Just suggest that it will can all be automatically solved.

I'm also not the one complaining it's going to take to long so let's just collapse at ML feet.

People in 100 years will have it even worse, if we keep up this inability to actually build transit.

Hyperbole. Transit is being built. Fixing a stations flawed design isn't preventing transit form being built.

Suggest some.

Raise taxes for all I care. If it's so imperative that we save a year, then the money will be there.

Has a shitty transfer at one station on a line stopped you from ever taking transit?

Yes if that transfer station is part of my route.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That Toronto Star story gives credence to the anti Metrolinx people's points. No one likes nimbys but come on... and yet the voters are to blame for putting Ford back in.

 

[Northern Light]

As to whether a poor transfer impairs demand, it absolutely does and there is ample evidence for same.

In Toronto, one could note the light number of transfers at Spadina Station because of the long walk, added-time for the transfer; Now, that particular example is partially offset by St. George providing a comparable transfer one station over; however, this does not serve the Line 1 to 510 transfer market conveniently at all.

Moreover, as this would apply here to an O/L to Line 1 transfer or to simply boarding of Line 1 from new entrance (Simcoe), there is little question that there would be at least a marginal impact. I doubt that has been quantified, but it is known that the longer one takes to reach a convenient/desired point, the less the enthusiasm for said trip.

Again, its an entirely fair discussion to ask whether these issues can be remedied at reasonable cost, in both time and money; and the honest answer should be yes on time; as I have clearly asked and had answered the question of probable range of delays; money is simply an unknown at this juncture and would require further assessment/

This is a study which overviews impacts on modal share (transit vs car); and clearly illustrates that total trip time is among the key factors.

If an awkward transfer (or climb to the surface adds 1M or 2M more than would otherwise be necessary that can be a tipping point factor for many riders.

Public transport competitiveness vs. the car: Impact of relative journey time and service attributes

In order to give empirically based policy advice on public transport (PT) competitiveness, we have studied revealed mode choice for commuting trips. T…

www.sciencedirect.com

There are many additional on-point studies linked to in the above.

 

[crs1026]

For the benefit of anyone who is thinking that our complaints about ML are petty or meanspirited, I am offering a list of “critical and urgent things Metrolinx didn’t get right, and/or issn’t getting done at warp speed”.

While completing the Ontario Line is arguably urgent, so are…..

1) Failure to complete the Agincourt creek bridges, preventing use of the past few years’ investment and delay to service improvement re double track to Unionville

2) Design and then cancelation of a flyunder junction at Scarborough Jct to manage conflicts between LSE, Stouffville, and VIA traffic (I personally feel it might still be the smarter option…)

3 Approval and then non-initiation of a new GO Woodbine station, which is a prerequisite to completing quad tracking on the Kitchener line and opening of an expensive set of tunnels sitting unuses under the 401/409

4) Failure to install switches connecting the east end of platforms at West harbour to the mainline, forcing a time consuming backup move for Niagara GO trains

5) Planning and then retracting a capital plan to extend LSW to Confederation station, With significant project delay and much change in scope including bridge construction at Confederation which may not be fully necessary given a downsized design

6) Slow pace and delayed construction of the rebuilding of trackage between Aldershot and Hamilton Jct, after initial completion of a third track bridge which sat unused for years - delaying the start of hourly service to Hamilton by years

7) Design and land expropriation for an Oshawa/Bowmanville routing which was ultimately abandoned, construction in the interim of a new Oshawa GO station which fit neither the original nor final plan, pursuit and promotion of other routings which were found to be substandard

8) Refusal to entertain a Park Lawn GO station to serve the dense and growing Humber Bay area, citing technical and engineering problems which ultimately were shown to be solvable

9) Decades of study and design proposals to reconfigure Union Station platforms, none actioned until after construction of new platforms at the south end which have since been demolished

10) Failure to complete negotiation of a solution with CN Bramalea-Silver despite Mr Verster’s public assurances some years ago that he was personally participating in negotiations and giving these top priority

11) Implementation of a London GO service over 30 mph track without a business case nor a capital improvement plan

Even if the end result of these reversals and detours was a better outcome, i challenge anyone to show which of these were managed with transparency, a sense of urgency, or even concern with staying the course on a plan to achieve fastest completion and lowest cost.

And I challenge anyone to show how these tortuous and unsuccessful ventures were delayed or impaired by crazy nimby’s or Boomers with antiquated ideas. Or City of Toronto intransigence. These failures are all on Metrolinx.

One can understand why with this track record ML might want to prove that they can “get one right the first time” - but rework, obstacles, and unforeseens plague all megaprojects The test is whether the right thing - or a reasonable thing - emerged in the end.

In the scope of all the wasted effort and money that I have cited above, fixing Osgoode properly is small change and small delay.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

This thread was locked down yesterday so the Judge's ruling in favour of Metrolinx hasn't been posted yet. Media article below.

CityNews

toronto.citynews.ca