News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

I think 2032 is possible. Not every project is the Crosstown; especially not this one.
I would of course be happy to be proven wrong, but Metrolinx's track record does not exactly encourage me.

Not every project is the Crosstown, but much like the Crosstown, the OL is a complex, many km-long underground line under the most densely built up part of the city. The possibilities of complications are endless.
 
The big delay on the Crosstown was Eglinton station and the underpinning - Metrolinx has been very careful to avoid that experience again in the design of the OL interchange stations from my understanding.

It's unfortunate. They could start excavation early, deck over it for traffic, fix structural issues; then issue a separate tender to build the station once it is fully designed.

In short, underpin as a separate early-works project so the timeline isn't bumped and we still get a practical interchange for riders.

Instead of adjusting the process, Metrolinx removed a feature (convenient interchanges). Oh well. It's an imperfect improvement but Metrolinx learns from experience, so perhaps they'll figure out that detail in the 2030's.
 
Last edited:
I think the progress of the Crosstown west will be very indicative of how late (or maybe even on time) the OL will be. So far, for a majority tunneled project, progress has been good. Then again its under a 6+ lane arterial with scarcely a building nearby. Only time will tell.
 
Mm yes, I'm sure DRL would have been on time and under budget.

It would likely have been neither; on the other hand, its budget was smaller and its overage would likely have been too; and it since it could have started sooner, its delayed opening would still likely have been sooner.
 
It would likely have been neither; on the other hand, its budget was smaller and its overage would likely have been too; and it since it could have started sooner, its delayed opening would still likely have been sooner.
True, however with two fewer rapid transit connections, three less streetcar connections, would not serve Liberty Village or East York and much more difficult terminuses for future extensions. Everything has trade offs but personally I'd rather get a better subway five years later than an ok one sooner with no extensions in sight.
 
True, however with two fewer rapid transit connections, three less streetcar connections, would not serve Liberty Village or East York and much more difficult terminuses for future extensions.

I'm not sure why they would be that much more difficult; the option also existed to begin building and approve extensions during construction (this was how Line one grew with its northern extension doing further, sooner than was initially planned; and likewise line 2, which grew from Woodbine to Keele, to Warden to Islington while construction was underway.

I frankly prefer a continuous build plan (open segment one, extend line in both directions by 2 station every 2 years for decade or more). It has proven to be a much more cost-efficient model, almost everywhere.

Everything has trade offs but personally I'd rather get a better subway five years later than an ok one sooner with no extensions in sight.

I would agree with the former, if I agreed with the latter.

As noted above, I see no reason the DRL could not have been extended, continuously, indeed the northern leg was already under study.

But lets not relitigate, again, my point was no more or less than basic math.
 
I'm not sure why they would be that much more difficult; the option also existed to begin building and approve extensions during construction (this was how Line one grew with its northern extension doing further, sooner than was initially planned; and likewise line 2, which grew from Woodbine to Keele, to Warden to Islington while construction was underway.

I frankly prefer a continuous build plan (open segment one, extend line in both directions by 2 station every 2 years for decade or more). It has proven to be a much more cost-efficient model, almost everywhere.



I would agree with the former, if I agreed with the latter.

As noted above, I see no reason the DRL could not have been extended, continuously, indeed the northern leg was already under study.

But lets not relitigate, again, my point was no more or less than basic math.

Line 5 could be extended north of Renforth Station (currently the Eglinton West LRT extension is under construction) to the Pearson Transit Hub.

The Finch West LRT Line 6 could be extended afterwards. The debate is between extending east to at least Finch Station (Yonge) Line 1, or the Pearson Transit Hub and Line 5.
 
Line 5 could be extended north of Renforth Station (currently the Eglinton West LRT extension is under construction) to the Pearson Transit Hub.

The Finch West LRT Line 6 could be extended afterwards. The debate is between extending east to at least Finch Station (Yonge) Line 1, or the Pearson Transit Hub and Line 5.

Not that I disagree, but lets not turn this thread into a line drawing exercise.
 
Instead of adjusting the process, Metrolinx removed a feature (convenient interchanges). Oh well. It's an imperfect improvement but Metrolinx learns from experience, so perhaps they'll figure out that detail in the 2030's.
If you know how Metrolinx works, the people who learned that lesson will switch to a totally unrelated department 8 months later, and their replacements (also coming from a totally unrelated department) will entirety lack that knowledge
 
I'm not sure why they would be that much more difficult; the option also existed to begin building and approve extensions during construction (this was how Line one grew with its northern extension doing further, sooner than was initially planned; and likewise line 2, which grew from Woodbine to Keele, to Warden to Islington while construction was underway.

I frankly prefer a continuous build plan (open segment one, extend line in both directions by 2 station every 2 years for decade or more). It has proven to be a much more cost-efficient model, almost everywhere.



I would agree with the former, if I agreed with the latter.

As noted above, I see no reason the DRL could not have been extended, continuously, indeed the northern leg was already under study.

But lets not relitigate, again, my point was no more or less than basic math.
extensions to the DRL would be possible, but extending a subway that is tunneled within a heavily urbanized area (bloor/pape + queen/university) is much harder than to extend an elevated or at grade line within what is essentially a large construction site for the foreseeable future (the ex + don mills/eglinton). Construction delays are unpopular and drl extensions would have seen downtown and the danforth get ripped up twice.
 

Back
Top