superelevation said:
And the alternative to OL was to aim to extend the RLS North, for all we know we could have waited a decade for that to happen, certainly a worse outcome if you want relief.
Click to expand...

Whatever your take on OL/RL is - that's purely a self-made issue by Metrolinx/Ontario.

AoD
 
superelevation said:
LRV does mean something. LRV's are street running capable units that are self contained, the REM cars are not LRVs.
Click to expand...
there's nothing stopping the trains from running on the street. I mean there are huge freight trains that run on streets. There's no real agreed-upon definition for an lrv
 
TheTigerMaster said:
You can not say for certain that it can be done. Perhaps MX should do their due diligence and make sure capacity enhancements are possible before throwing $11 Billion down the drain. Or, you know, they could just build the thing right the first time, and save us the time and greater expense.
Click to expand...
You can though, there is almost nothing that could not be relocated at the end of a subway platform (we have done mining before for station expansions) if it is absolutely infeasible you can use SDO, it isn't that hard.
syn said:
Why?

Why couldn't the government simply do what they said they'd do and build it as quickly as possible?
Click to expand...
Why should we be concerned about a line getting built half way to where it needs to go and sitting that way for a long time, in Toronto?
 
KhalilHeron said:
there's nothing stopping the trains from running on the street. I mean there are huge freight trains that run on streets. There's no real agreed-upon definition for an lrv
Click to expand...
They cannot run on streets in service for regulatory reasons, they are not designed to withstand a crash from a vehicle. There is 100% an agreed upon definition.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
You can not say for certain that it can be done. Perhaps MX should do their due diligence and make sure capacity enhancements are possible before throwing $11 Billion down the drain. Or, you know, they could just build the thing right the first time, and save us the time and greater expense.
Click to expand...
You say this as if you know they aren't doing their due diligence and are designing a bad line. Have you seen the engineering design documents that backup that claim? Or do you just assume the engineers at Metrolinx don't know what they are doing?
 
tsm1072 said:
You say this as if you know they aren't doing their due diligence and are designing a bad line. Have you seen the engineering design documents that backup that claim? Or do you just assume the engineers at Metrolinx don't know what they are doing?
Click to expand...

No offense, but Metrolinx couldn't/wouldn't even provide details on the exact configuration of the stations right now - nor did the business case mention anything about demand from northward extension of the eastern leg.

AoD
 
superelevation said:
Ultimately, it should be pretty obvious we were not getting the OL with TR stock, because it would probably cost at least 1.7-2x as much. Having relief far sooner is better than putting all our money on one line that was never going to fix crowding on Yonge entirely anyways. It is also a legitimately good opportunity to show us that we can build cheaper and faster by going elevated and not insisting on the same rolling stock on every line (very few subway systems use a single rolling stock standard for good reason), there's a reason trains the size of the OL ones have become popular even in massive cities like Shanghai and Seoul.

The OL is not and can not be the last line we build in Toronto and it cannot be the last line we build to downtown. Showing us that we can do more, more quickly and for less is incredibly valuable.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People act like this is the last transit line that needs to be built. If the Ontario Line gets full, then start preparing to build another one like other cities do.
 
superelevation said:
Why should we be concerned about a line getting built half way to where it needs to go and sitting that way for a long time, in Toronto?
Click to expand...

This makes no sense:

superelevation said:
The OL is not and can not be the last line we build in Toronto and it cannot be the last line we build to downtown. Showing us that we can do more, more quickly and for less is incredibly valuable.
Click to expand...

If, apparently, we're going to be building another downtown transit line, why would it be so impossible for them to build the DRL North now??

Adjei said:
Exactly. People act like this is the last transit line that needs to be built. If the Ontario Line gets full, then start preparing to build another one like other cities do.
Click to expand...

I'll ask it again - where is this new transit line going to go?
 
syn said:
This makes no sense:



If, apparently, we're going to be building another downtown transit line, why would it be so impossible for them to build the DRL North now??



I'll ask it again - where is this new transit line going to go?
Click to expand...
We have a terrible history of building transit projects and building them quickly in Toronto, not sure why that needs to be explained. A complete OL is better than an incomplete RL.

It's not impossible, but if it was going to happen it would have, it would be much more expensive and difficult to do in one phase which again creates the above issue.

There are several potential corridors where we could use more capacity.
 
superelevation said:
We have a terrible history of building transit projects and building them quickly in Toronto, not sure why that needs to be explained. A complete OL is better than an incomplete RL.

It's not impossible, but if it was going to happen it would have, it would be much more expensive and difficult to do in one phase which again creates the above issue.

There are several potential corridors where we could use more capacity.
Click to expand...

Building a complete OL does not preclude designing the system with higher capacity.

Also, if we have terrible history of building transit, we really oughta build the OL with sufficient capacity in the first place. Saying that we're terrible at building transit, but that it's okay to underbuild the OL because we can just build another line makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: syn
superelevation said:
We have a terrible history of building transit projects and building them quickly in Toronto, not sure why that needs to be explained. A complete OL is better than an incomplete RL.

It's not impossible, but if it was going to happen it would have, it would be much more expensive and difficult to do in one phase which again creates the above issue.
Click to expand...

If we have a terrible history of building transit projects and building them quickly, then why on earth would you justify the capacity issues of this line by suggesting we can build another one?

Seems obvious to me building this one properly in the first place is far more affordable in the long run, and far more sensible given it may be the last new downtown line we see for many decades.

superelevation said:
There are several potential corridors where we could use more capacity.
Click to expand...

Where?
 
syn said:
I'll ask it again - where is this new transit line going to go?
Click to expand...

As a start, 4 minute frequencies on a straightened (and partially tunnelled?) Richmond Hill line (stops at a few major streets only) would be cool. $10B can make non-trivial upgrades to that line, including a downtown routing which avoids Union.

Yonge and Ontario Line are both largely local-service lines. A high capacity all-day express serving that quadrant of the city (Yonge to Don Mills) would be genuinely useful with a normalized TTC/GO fare.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top