p_xavier said:
If there's already the need for seperate garages and folks are already trained forsuch expertise, it really doesn't matter at the end. It's an OCD thing.
Click to expand...
There are also operational challenges and additional costs. As we know, the greatest way we can reduce costs when purchasing rolling stock is to increase the size of the order. Without that advantage, our capital costs increase significantly. Also, having different crews trained on different systems costs a lot of money as well.
BurlOak said:
Shoulda made this argument when LRT was proposed.
Click to expand...
I did...Maybe not on UT, but I certainly did elsewhere.
 
Streety McCarface said:
There are also operational challenges and additional costs. As we know, the greatest way we can reduce costs when purchasing rolling stock is to increase the size of the order. Without that advantage, our capital costs increase significantly. Also, having different crews trained on different systems costs a lot of money as well.

I did...Maybe not on UT, but I certainly did elsewhere.
Click to expand...
That's not really a major advantage for large orders if you use standard of the shelf train models. Hence why I'm against Ontario Line using archaic heavy rail technology.
 
Streety McCarface said:
There are also operational challenges and additional costs. As we know, the greatest way we can reduce costs when purchasing rolling stock is to increase the size of the order. Without that advantage, our capital costs increase significantly. Also, having different crews trained on different systems costs a lot of money as well.

I did...Maybe not on UT, but I certainly did elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If you look at Delhi right now, they are currently planning "Metrolite" technology as the cost of full out metro's have become unsustainable so I see the same thing with Toronto. Not to mention that its common outside of Canada for metro's to have lines completely incompatible with one another (Paris is pretty notorious for this). With the (hopefully) cheaper construction method and generally more up to date bells and whistles, I see the benefits easily outweighing the costs of having different operations especially since the line needs a new maintenance facility anyways. It's like Air Canada ordering the 787 instead of the 777. Yes, you need to re-specialize your crews, but the cost savings from the more advanced model pretty much outweighs the cost of operating off two different models along with the fact that the 787 serves markets that aren't very profitable with a 777. Same to me with the Ontario Line. On the last point about orders, I really don't see how not being able to do "mass" orders is a major factor given that those types of capital expenses only happen every 3 decades and the fact that TR's and T1's are already on two different life cycles (lets also remember the TTC doesn't practice "mass" ordering with their bus fleet). The Ontario Line/Relief line rolling stock would probably be on different lifecycle than both our existing rolling stocks regardless of choice in technology so I don't see how this will make a serious dent in the TTC's finances.
 
Last edited:
ViveleCanada said:
If you look at Delhi right now, they are currently planning "Metrolite" technology as the cost of full out metro's have become unsustainable so I see the same thing with Toronto. Not to mention that its common outside of Canada for metro's to have lines completely incompatible with one another (Paris is pretty notorious for this). With the (hopefully) cheaper construction method and generally more up to date bells and whistles, I see the benefits easily outweighing the costs of having different operations especially since the line needs a new maintenance facility anyways. It's like Air Canada ordering the 787 instead of the 777. Yes, you need to re-specialize your crews, but the cost savings from the more advanced model pretty much outweighs the cost of operating off two different models along with the fact that the 787 serves markets that aren't very profitable with a 777. Same to me with the Ontario Line. On the last point about orders, I really don't see how not being able to do "mass" orders is a major factor given that those types of capital expenses only happen every 3 decades and the fact that TR's and T1's are already on two different life cycles (lets also remember the TTC doesn't practice "mass" ordering with their bus fleet). The Ontario Line/Relief line rolling stock would probably be on different lifecycle than both our existing rolling stocks regardless of choice in technology so I don't see how this will make a serious dent in the TTC's finances.
Click to expand...
New Delhi has some of the worst public transit for a major city in the entire world. I don't know if they're going away from traditional technology because they can't afford it or because they're too cheap to pay for it. Either way that city should not be used as any example in public transit unless the point is to not delay delay delay building transit until it's such a irreversible mess. Oh wait... thats exactly what we've been doing for 100 years.
 
It's strange how much opposition there is to having a full subway on this line. When we're talking about suburban expansions, they have to be subways to respect the residents of those areas, not treat then like second class citizens, etc. When it comes to the Ontario Line/DRL, apparently Toronto's subways are archaic and unsustainable.

That may eventually be true - we might have transporter technology by the time we actually get something built.
 
ViveleCanada said:
If you look at Delhi right now, they are currently planning "Metrolite" technology as the cost of full out metro's have become unsustainable so I see the same thing with Toronto. Not to mention that its common outside of Canada for metro's to have lines completely incompatible with one another (Paris is pretty notorious for this). With the (hopefully) cheaper construction method and generally more up to date bells and whistles, I see the benefits easily outweighing the costs of having different operations especially since the line needs a new maintenance facility anyways. It's like Air Canada ordering the 787 instead of the 777. Yes, you need to re-specialize your crews, but the cost savings from the more advanced model pretty much outweighs the cost of operating off two different models along with the fact that the 787 serves markets that aren't very profitable with a 777. Same to me with the Ontario Line. On the last point about orders, I really don't see how not being able to do "mass" orders is a major factor given that those types of capital expenses only happen every 3 decades and the fact that TR's and T1's are already on two different life cycles (lets also remember the TTC doesn't practice "mass" ordering with their bus fleet). The Ontario Line/Relief line rolling stock would probably be on different lifecycle than both our existing rolling stocks regardless of choice in technology so I don't see how this will make a serious dent in the TTC's finances.
Click to expand...
The 787 makes sense for AC because they previously had 767s and A330s fill the market niche that the 787 fills now. They also serve routes with lower usage than others. The Ontario line is not in that situation, it's being built DOWNTOWN. It's a vital corridor that needs capacity for the future.
 
And there goes any hope of a Conservative government unilaterally releasing DRL funding for the OL, which was likely the only way Ford’s vision for the OL could be funded. Queen’s Park will now spend the next two years fighting with the City to develop a plan that is, you know... actually feasible, before 2022 rolls around and we all pretend this never happened

Brace yourself. I hear Doug’s handlers are about to release him from his kennel.
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
And there goes any hope of a Conservative government unilaterally releasing DRL funding for the OL, which was likely the only way Ford’s vision for the OL could be funded. Queen’s Park will now spend the next two years fighting with the City to develop a plan that is, you know... actually feasible, before 2022 rolls around and we all pretend this never happened

Brace yourself. I hear Doug’s handlers are about to release him from his kennel.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the Liberals will need the support of the NDP, who want to see better public transit and climate change initiatives.
 
COMPROMISE for goodness sake, build the line with TTC stock but a more advanced signalling system. Build the line with the extensions to the EX and Eglinton, but keep the downtown section with the previous plan. Have the city pick up the extra 2 billion for the additional downtown tunnelling costs, and keep the Ontario Line name (it's a good name anyway, especially if it will eventually end at Ontario place). Work that's already been done can be used, Ford gets his extensions, GO gets extra space on the lakeshore line for future tracks, the province doesn't have to pay for driver operations, the line gets to keep the name, Eglinton gets crowding reduction, etc etc etc.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
At a fundamental level, OL isn't all that different from DRL - it is supportable simply because of that. There are no reasons why the remainder of the issues (vehicle choice, detailed alignment, sizing) are showstoppers.

AoD
Click to expand...

Exactly. I fear that critics of the Ontario Line are hyper partisans whom can't see past their disapproval of Ford to think things through more logically. The Ontario Line has the superior alignment and flexibility not to have to go fully tunneled its whole length. It proposes a rapid transit to Eglinton East in the immediate term. What's not to like?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top