News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 2.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.2K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 1.2K     0 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
By your logic, Yonge line should have ended at Eglinton.
The Yonge Line was extended along one of Toronto's major streets with a direct connection to the downtown core. It made a lot of sense at the time, given the kind of growth they expected.

In any case, that wasn't my point, and it's certainly not my 'logic'.

I was simply demonstrating how silly it is to call these people out for what are legitimate concerns, especially when their Premier grants transit projects to citizens based on who 'deserves' it. If Scarborough 'deserves' full, underground transit that doesn't interfere with their life on the surface, why don't people in Leslieville 'deserve' less noise?

Yet another reason they should've just stuck with the DRL plan that was put together in cooperation with local constituents, instead of just forcing it on them.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
Except no not really. Yes they will have trains every minute and a half, but that will happen with or without the Ontario Line. With GO Expansion, Metrolinx is planning to run 8 Stouffville Line trains every hour per direction off peak, as well as 4 trains per hour per direction on LSE. Already that's a total of 24 trains per hour in that stretch, or about a train every 2.5 minutes. On top of that, Metrolinx is planning to run an additional 5 trains per hour on LSE, and 3 trains per hour on Stoufville during rush hours, bringing the total to 32 trains per hour, or a train every minute and 50 seconds. ON TOP OF THAT, Via is currently working on HFR, which will see a train run every 20 mins per direction, bringing the total to 38 trains per hour excluding the Ontario Line, which is approximately a train every 90 seconds. All of these trains are also heavy rail trains that will be SIGNIFICANTLY noisier, and will have significantly more impact on the surrounding community than a tiny OL train. When up against all of this, a tiny electric light train running every 45 seconds is practically insignificant, and if the neighborhood of Leslieville is legitimately concerned about the sound levels in their area, they're seriously barking up the wrong tree.
Really? It's just a tiny electric train?

Did Metrolinx put out a new blog touting their tiny, noise free electric trains, guaranteed to not be noticed?

You actually did a great job of pointing out exactly why they're concerned. Adding another train every 90 seconds to what you already listed is going to make the situation worse.

Why wouldn't they question it when there was already time and money invested in another plan that didn't contribute additional noise to their neighbourhood?

Why wouldnt' they question it when the province is spending billions to fast track and bury a line on Eglinton?
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
300
Reaction score
688
Really? It's just a tiny electric train?

Did Metrolinx put out a new blog touting their tiny, noise free electric trains, guaranteed to not be noticed?

You actually did a great job of pointing out exactly why they're concerned. Adding another train every 90 seconds to what you already listed is going to make the situation worse.
Its called facts. Smaller Light Metro style trains produce SIGNIFICANTLY less noise than heavy rail trains. Don't believe me? Take a trip to Vancouver and stand directly underneath a SkyTrain elevated guideway, and talk to me about how many decibels are emitted that allegedly burst your eardrums and make it so you can't sleep at night. Want something more local? Go to Ottawa and tell me how much 'noise' the Confederation Line produces. As someone who lived for a bit quite literally right next to the Confederation Line, you can hear it maybe if you have your windows wide open and there is absolute silence in your room. Even then your brain will learn how to tune it out in days. Light Metros being quieter isn't miracle technology, its basically standard, and compared to the noise produced by GO, the OL will basically be drowned out.

Why wouldn't they question it when there was already time and money invested in another plan that didn't contribute additional noise to their neighbourhood?
Because they can get a plan that basically costs the same, but has a route that isn't complete ass, and can reach farther and serve far more communities, as well as key locations of interest.

Why wouldnt' they question it when the province is spending billions to fast track and bury a line on Eglinton?
Good Question.
 

jelbana

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
65
Why wouldnt' they question it when the province is spending billions to fast track and bury a line on Eglinton?
This is the only valid criticism here because as others have pointed out, the rail corridor is already being planned for far greater noise additions from the convergence of two GO RER lines, so the incremental noise addition from the Ontario Line is small in comparison. But unfortunately, this observation works in the direction that is opposite to what you prefer. Both the Ontario Line and Eglinton West should be not be buried.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
Its called facts. Smaller Light Metro style trains produce SIGNIFICANTLY less noise than heavy rail trains. Don't believe me? Take a trip to Vancouver and stand directly underneath a SkyTrain elevated guideway, and talk to me about how many decibels are emitted that allegedly burst your eardrums and make it so you can't sleep at night. Want something more local? Go to Ottawa and tell me how much 'noise' the Confederation Line produces. As someone who lived for a bit quite literally right next to the Confederation Line, you can hear it maybe if you have your windows wide open and there is absolute silence in your room. Even then your brain will learn how to tune it out in days. Light Metros being quieter isn't miracle technology, its basically standard, and compared to the noise produced by GO, the OL will basically be drowned out.
Yes, they produce less noise than larger trains. Why would they prefer that to a plan that offered no additional noise?

Because they can get a plan that basically costs the same, but has a route that isn't complete ass, and can reach farther and serve far more communities, as well as key locations of interest.
It doesn't cost the same. They could've simply expanded the previous, higher capacity plan to add a western portion and continue progressing on the DRL North.

Good Question.
Exactly. :)
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
This is the only valid criticism here because as others have pointed out, the rail corridor is already being planned for far greater noise additions from the convergence of two GO RER lines. But unfortunately, this observation works in the direction that is opposite to what you prefer. Both the Ontario Line and Eglinton West should be not be buried.
Disagreed. The OL should be buried, using the same high capacity vehicles they currently use on the subway.

There is also the question of how much future GO capacity is removed due to the OL.
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
207
Reaction score
182
The Yonge Line was extended along one of Toronto's major streets with a direct connection to the downtown core. It made a lot of sense at the time, given the kind of growth they expected.

In any case, that wasn't my point, and it's certainly not my 'logic'.

I was simply demonstrating how silly it is to call these people out for what are legitimate concerns, especially when their Premier grants transit projects to citizens based on who 'deserves' it. If Scarborough 'deserves' full, underground transit that doesn't interfere with their life on the surface, why don't people in Leslieville 'deserve' less noise?

Yet another reason they should've just stuck with the DRL plan that was put together in cooperation with local constituents, instead of just forcing it on them.
Can SSE run along rail lines and still provide same level of connectivity? No, it can't. It has already been discussed how useless SRT's route is.

Are we compromising on connectivity by running OL on ground for a short segment? I doubt that. It is still running under Queen St. It is still connecting downtown with eastern parts of the city. It is still running on Don Mills and Pape/Carlaw.

Modern subway trains make a fraction of noise compared to diesel locomotives of GO trains. I live on 30th floor near Oriole GO station. I can hear the locomotive inside my unit with all doors and windows closed. People won't be able to hear OL trains if they are inside their home. If they are used to GO trains, then they will be alright.
 

jelbana

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
65
Disagreed. The OL should be buried, using the same high capacity vehicles they currently use on the subway.

There is also the question of how much future GO capacity is removed due to the OL.
The capacity argument is being used to justify an ideological stance on underground versus above-ground. It is more than technically feasible for an overground automated light metro to be high capacity. The argument about future GO capacity definitely deserves some looking into though.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
The capacity argument is being used to justify an ideological stance on underground versus above-ground. It is more than technically feasible for an overground automated light metro to be high capacity. The argument about future GO capacity definitely deserves some looking into though.
Can SSE run along rail lines and still provide same level of connectivity? No, it can't. It has already been discussed how useless SRT's route is.

Are we compromising on connectivity by running OL on ground for a short segment? I doubt that. It is still running under Queen St. It is still connecting downtown with eastern parts of the city. It is still running on Don Mills and Pape/Carlaw.

Modern subway trains make a fraction of noise compared to diesel locomotives of GO trains. I live on 30th floor near Oriole GO station. I can hear the locomotive inside my unit with all doors and windows closed. People won't be able to hear OL trains if they are inside their home. If they are used to GO trains, then they will be alright.
We are compromising on capacity, which is the #1 reason this line is needed. Additional capacity. The Yonge Line is already over capacity. It has nothing to do with ideology.

There is absolutely no reason they couldn't have found a better, more affordable solution for the SSE. They already had it in the planned LRT that was cancelled.
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
207
Reaction score
182
I am not debating about capacity of OL line. I am talking about some NIMBY's reaction towards almost silent subway trains passing in their neighbourhood. I don't remember people in Scarborough making noise about SRT's surface route passing in their backyards. I am not sure if you have heard SRT in between the stations. It is a lot louder than Stouffville GO line that runs along it.

What is your solution to have a more affordable solution to SSE that is also convenient and has as good catchment. If people from places as far as Vaughan, and in a few years, Richmond Hill can have direct access to downtown without changing trains, then what's the issue with Scarborough. Scarborough has the same population as Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill combined.
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
300
Reaction score
688
Yes, they produce less noise than larger trains. Why would they prefer that to a plan that offered no additional noise?
They can prefer whichever plan they want, but if they weren't so self centered, maybe they'd consider the needs of people travelling to downtown Toronto instead of feeling entitled to fully underground transit, when an alternative solution exists and its just as good if not better than the underground alignment. This is completely unlike say the Scarborough LRT where the rail alignment is significantly worse and more pointless than the McCowan allignment.

It doesn't cost the same. They could've simply expanded the previous, higher capacity plan to add a western portion and continue progressing on the DRL North.
12B vs 11B. Sure 1B is a lot of money, but considering how much farther it goes, and how much the route is simply better, its significantly more worth it. The same route using the original DRL plan and heavy rail technology would be far more expensive, and for what? A significantly worse route, far longer interchanges, and the only benefit being a smidge of higher capacity? Give me a break.
[/QUOTE]

Glad we agree, although I'm still trying to understand how stupidity in relation to another project somehow affects this one? They're making a smart move with OL and are being stupid with EW, so what? Also make up your mind, is """"high"""" noise level a bad thing or not? Why is it a bad thing if Leslieville doesn't have "perfect" soundproofing, while Scarborough and Etobicoke don't? Is it because the latter are less dense than the former therefore are somehow not qualified to supreme amenities that should be bestowed on the royalty that live in Leslieville? Give me a break, and just decide whether noise is ok or unacceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
I am not debating about capacity of OL line. I am talking about some NIMBY's reaction towards almost silent subway trains passing in their neighbourhood. I don't remember people in Scarborough making noise about SRT's surface route passing in their backyards. I am not sure if you have heard SRT in between the stations. It is a lot louder than Stouffville GO line that runs along it.

What is your solution to have a more affordable solution to SSE that is also convenient and has as good catchment. If people from places as far as Vaughan, and in a few years, Richmond Hill can have direct access to downtown without changing trains, then what's the issue with Scarborough. Scarborough has the same population as Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill combined.
"Almost silent"?

I think that's a huge stretch.

The vast majority of the SRT runs through commercial/industrial areas, and it certainly doesn't run every 90 seconds.

To be fair, Vaughan has one subway station. Scarborough already has three. Technically speaking they already have direct subway access.

Vaughan's line goes straight downtown because it happens to be north of Toronto.

Personally I don't think the TYSSE, and proposed Yonge extension should not happen/have happened anytime soon.

For Scarborough, I think the LRT replacement, for the RT, along with a Sheppard extension east (with a stop at STC), and a DRL to Don Mills would've made a lot more sense.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
2,332
They can prefer whichever plan they want, but if they weren't so self centered, maybe they'd consider the needs of people travelling to downtown Toronto instead of feeling entitled to fully underground transit, when an alternative solution exists and its just as good if not better than the underground alignment. This is completely unlike say the Scarborough LRT where the rail alignment is significantly worse and more pointless than the McCowan allignment.
People travelling downtown, along with the rest of the city, would be much better served with a higher capacity line.

It has nothing to do with entitlement.

12B vs 11B. Sure 1B is a lot of money, but considering how much farther it goes, and how much the route is simply better, its significantly more worth it. The same route using the original DRL plan and heavy rail technology would be far more expensive, and for what? A significantly worse route, far longer interchanges, and the only benefit being a smidge of higher capacity? Give me a break.
The DRL South was estimated to be $8 billion on the low end, not $11 billion. The OL is almost guaranteed to rise in cost.

Ultimately, the cost to do it properly would probably be just a few billion more when factoring in a DRL North. About the cost of burying Eglinton West.

This is the Premier who told us uploading subway construction would allow for economies of scale, building proper subways faster and cheaper than before.

It seems that only applies to projects in areas that are politically advantageous to him...without the cost savings.

Glad we agree, although I'm still trying to understand how stupidity in relation to another project somehow affects this one? They're making a smart move with OL and are being stupid with EW, so what? Also make up your mind, is """"high"""" noise level a bad thing or not? Why is it a bad thing if Leslieville doesn't have "perfect" soundproofing, while Scarborough and Etobicoke don't? Is it because the latter are less dense than the former therefore are somehow not qualified to supreme amenities that should be bestowed on the royalty that live in Leslieville? Give me a break, and just decide whether noise is ok or unacceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
Seems like you've bought into Ford's 'Downtown Elites' rhetoric.

They aren't just concerned about the noise.
 
Last edited:

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
300
Reaction score
688
People travelling downtown, along with the rest of the city, would be much better served with a higher capacity line.

It has nothing to do with entitlement.



The DRL South was estimated to be $8 billion on the low end, not $11 billion. The OL is almost guaranteed to rise in cost.

Ultimately, the cost to do it properly would probably be just a few billion more when factoring in a DRL North. About the cost of burying Eglinton West.

This is the Premier who told us uploading subway construction would allow for economies of scale, building proper subways faster and cheaper than before.

It seems that only applies to projects in areas that are politically advantageous to him...without the cost savings.
Even if you were to take the lowest estimate for the DRL, and compare it to the highest estimate for the Ontario Line, it is still 1.08 Billion Dollars per kilometre of track against 770 million, which is huge. A DRL spanning the same length as the Ontario Line would cost 16.76 Billion on the low end, and over 19 Billion Dollars on the high end, assuming similar costs per kilometre. Not to mention, by the time they would've gotten around to building RLN, the price would've gone up even further due to inflation. And again may I ask you, what do these extra billions of dollars grant you? Slightly better capacity? Noise reduction in Leslieville by, if we're being generous, 5%? That money can be spent literally anywhere else and a lot more effectively. Platform Screen doors on LIne 1? Sure. Pooled for another Relief Line that serves other locations in Toronto? Even better.

Seems like you've bought into Ford's 'Downtown Elites' rhetoric.
I haven't bought into anything, I'm just pointing out the stupidity in your crusade against what you consider to be too much sound. Also nice that you didn't actually argue any of my points.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,398
Reaction score
1,762
I am talking about some NIMBY's reaction towards almost silent subway trains passing in their neighbourhood.
To be fair this is an elevated viaduct on top of an elevated viaduct. I support doing it, even though I know it comes at the expense of a track on a constrained and planned-for rail corridor. But probably wise to call a spade a spade. In that it's not similar to Line 3 on the surface, and that it's a fairly tall order as far as transit plans in the city go. Not as much as Davenport Diamond. But fairly tall.

12B vs 11B. Sure 1B is a lot of money, but considering how much farther it goes, and how much the route is simply better, its significantly more worth it. The same route using the original DRL plan and heavy rail technology would be far more expensive, and for what? A significantly worse route, far longer interchanges, and the only benefit being a smidge of higher capacity? Give me a break.
How was it a "significantly worse route"? It was actually pretty good in following Carlaw. Seems like there are a lot of new posters who don't really know much
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn

Top