[ARG1]

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.

Have you been around here? There are still people here who believe that if you don't like Suburban LRTs, then that means you're simply a car advocate who doesn't want to see trains above ground, taking away space from cars.

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).

The issue is things like bespoke train designs is ultimately the type of things that pump up subway costs. I'll be frank for a moment, but I absolutely have a thing for having a consistent uniform design across a metro/train network - this is one of the reasons I like the Moscow Metro so much, and why seeing using custom incompatible rolling stock on Lines 5 and 6 pains me so much (Incompatible to the rest of the Streetcar network). That being said, pushing my personal feelings aside and looking at the on the ground facts, unless you have a really, really strong reason to use custom designs (such as your new line is interlining with an existing segment of the Subway network), all they do jack up the cost often for very minimal gain. The OL sorta had that with Obico yard, and the need to upgrade Greenwood yard, but I don't think that's that big of a justification in turn of having a cheaper line with a more more sensible alignment (minus the lack of Cherry Station, please add a Cherry Station).

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.

The SRT was Progress for Progress Sake, meanwhile the Ontario Line is just catching up to what literally everyone else is doing in the 21st century. There is a difference between being futuristic, and being modern.

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.

That's exactly what the Ontario Line is.

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.

It's less about technology, and more about using off the shelf design. It is far cheaper to go to the store and pick out an existing teddy bear, than it is to go to the factory, and commission your own bespoke teddy bear design, especially if you're the only one who has a use case for it.

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.

Overall, this whole post is a strawman on a point nobody is actually making, and makes it seem like you don't actually understand what the Ontario Line is doing.

 

[ARG1]

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?

The part where NIMBYs are typically not familiar with all of the details of an infrastructure, such as, idk, the fact that the Ontario Line WILL be subway scale?

 

[ARG1]

This is the most alarming part of the blog post. Unless I'm interpreting things wrong, there is no direct connection between platforms. The only connection between in the lines is the Osgoode keyhole shaft. (Someone can confirm or correct if I'm wrong.) It appears there are engineering challenges that they are avoiding, but the shorter platform and platform placement don't appear to give any advantage to transit users.

Meaning a person entering the station at the new Simcoe entrance/a person who exits the western most door of a train, would have to walk the whole platform, exit the paid fare area, go up the escalators, re-enter the turnstiles and go back down the escalators if they intended to transfer to the university line.

If this is true, this is what we should be talking about here. Not having direct transfers is BAD. I don't care how they do it, there should be a direct transfer between platforms. Destroy the surrounding neighborhood if you have to!

(P.S. For those who don't get it, I am being a bit facetious here, but the point I'd be fine with larger construction impacts to make that work).

 

[kEiThZ]

Do try, however much it pains you, to be respectful.

@AlvinofDiaspar @interchange42

This is exactly the type of policing by non-mods that I've complained about.

Please let me know what exactly is disrespectful here other than the offence of not agreeing with Northern Lights.

 

[kEiThZ]

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?

It's exceptionally rare for NIMBYs to be flat out opposed to something. The new NIMBYism is the, "Yes but...." variety, where NIMBYs keep demanding changes without consideration to schedule, cost or feasibility, untill the project is either rammed through or scope creep kills it.

The very fact that this discussion started about a station box and has now moved on to questioning everything about the project, the organization that runs it and the government funding it, makes me question the sincerity of critics who claim to really, really want transit. Seems to me, most want transit built exclusively on their terms or not at all.

I personally didn't vote for this government. I don't think Metrolinx is great or has consulted enough. But I will sure take a slightly flawed project sooner than put up with months or years of delays. And I daresay, that I am probably closer to public sentiment on this, than the folks who see this as opportunity to settle scores with Metrolinx.

"Never let perfect be the enemy of good." -A concept that I think of lot of people in this city and even country seem to struggle with.

 

[dusk]

@AlvinofDiaspar @interchange42

This is exactly the type of policing by non-mods that I've complained about.

Please let me know what exactly is disrespectful here other than the offence of not agreeing with Northern Lights.

I agree. It's fair to be a little animated over transit discussion. Have people never been in a debate? Most of the discussion has not been personal attacks but rather strong disagreements which are healthy (in my eyes at least).

No reason to call people disrespectful.

@Northern Light, do try to be a little tolerant of people's frustrations.

 

[dusk]

This is correct.

As proposed, the connection between the 2 lines is the eastern exit path/keyhole site at Osgoode Hall, which sees O/L passengers exit by coming up to a new connection to the existing concourse on the eastern side.

Passengers would then to exit an existing paid area and walk over to the existing concourse, re-enter the paid area and descend using the existing vertical circulation.

It is an exceedingly cumbersome proposal.

Ouch this is rough. Strongly agreed that this connection type is combersome to put it lightly.

 

[Northern Light]

Ouch this is rough. Strongly agreed that this connection type is combersome to put it lightly.

A partial correction to this is coming. I will make a note on that post, but leave it up for the record.

Thanks to people who trust my discretion and fairness, I now have a considerably deeper insight into things here. I will post soon on that.

 

[dusk]

A partial correction to this is coming. I will make a note on that post, but leave it up for the record.

Thanks to people who trust my discretion and fairness, I now have a considerably deeper insight into things here. I will post soon on that.

Probably not the right thread to post this on but never stop posting. You write some of the most insightful things on here even if we disagree on tone once or twice

 

[Undead]

@AlvinofDiaspar @interchange42

This is exactly the type of policing by non-mods that I've complained about.

Please let me know what exactly is disrespectful here other than the offence of not agreeing with Northern Lights.

Oh I dunno, the ageist slur? As a test case, I'm a young person and I'm against the tree protection angle, but you can't imagine how much this rhetoric turns me off any argument you make.

 

[ARG1]

Oh I dunno, the ageist slur? As a test case, I'm a young person and I'm against the tree protection angle, but you can't imagine how much this rhetoric turns me off any argument you make.

... what part of what he said is an ageist slur? Boomer? Really?

 

[kEiThZ]

... what part of what he said is an ageist slur? Boomer? Really?

He should join Northern Lights in telling John Michael McGrath that his article was "ageist" for pointing out the very same thing I said. Apparently, it's now offensive to point out that different demographics might have different political interests and concerns.

 

[dusk]

We should all meet up in an alleyway and settle this once and for all. West side story anyone?

Agreed. Let's stop with the ageism and let's also be more tolerant. Healthy discussion commence!

 

[Undead]

Yeah you two are just determined to misunderstand. I'm not getting drawn into this, but I'm disappointed having that rhetoric in a side supposedly supporting my views. You guys really don't know how to build consensus and win people over to your side. This also goes for the tree protection side.

In any other case, y'all would be squealing oppression-this, ageism-that. But anything flies when in support of my side, it seems.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When Line 5 western leg tunnels was being bored, the western TBM’s (Humber & Dennis) had to be extracted just west of Cedarvale Station. They were then reinserted east of Cedarvale Station. They then continued boring until just west of Eglinton Station. The eastern leg tunnels were bored by Lea & Don going west until just east of Eglinton. Cedarvale & Eglinton Stations and tunnels had to be dug using cut-and-cover.

For the Ontario Line, it looks like any intersecting station will have to get the TBM’s extracted on one side the the intersecting station, and reinserted on the other side. They will likely be mining the tunnels east of the Osgoode Station, but go cut-and-cover for the Queen Station. Mining the tunnels will have to be continued until the reinsertion point, somewhere east of the Queen Station.

That asks the question, will the TBM’s have to be extracted before the Pape Station at Line 2, and then reinserted after? The Science Centre Station will not face that dilemma, since the Ontario Line will be in an overhead guideway at that point.

How many TBM’s will they need in total? How many will likely be reused?