I’d put the Expo line up there between its technology choice, long term impact and quality of the project. It is slightly detracted from by just how much of it was recreating an abandoned interurban, but even if that HAD somehow survived the 50s there was never a good path to the Central Park line getting private ROW into downtown proper, and the Dunsmuir tunnel certainly wouldn’t have accommodated full size LRVs.

Interesting how much the theme of this “best projects” list is that regional scale light metros are really good projects.

As for the Ontario Line, my sense of the categories of general rejections of it are broadly:
  • ‘Reform Council’ like “no more subways/no more downtown development” arguments
  • Suburban “no more downtown projects“ stuff
  • Specific desire for traditional TTC subway and/or the Relief Line short project
  • Objection to further revisions to ”approved” (noting the relief line never was) projects
  • Objection to complex projects likely to be delayed and over budget (I think Miller is trying to sound like this)
  • Openly partisan anti-Ford positions; ie Ford pushed it and the name is dumb so we shouldn’t build it
 
Last edited:
jmi22 said:
The technology chosen is also amazing, and once completed the Ontario Line will be the most modern heavy rail line in North America. The tech allows for more curving and grade changing routings. This has been used to elevate and run at grade the various portions of the line, lowering costs and time in a city infamous for slow transit construction.
Click to expand...

Two Toronto experiences with 'more curving and grade changing'. When the SRT first opened, there was a loop at the Kennedy station, so the trains could run in one direction continuously at that end, only switching directions, and the operators changing control cabs at the the McCowan end. While the Kennedy loop was presumably within design specifications, the associated wear on the trucks was so much that the cars were noticeably wobbling as they moved at speed. It was not very long before the loop was decommissioned, and the operators had to switch ends at both the Kennedy and McCowan ends.

Anyone who has taken the UP to Pearson recently may have noticed that the trains now crawl exceedingly slowly along the curved section from the mainline tracks up to the Terminal 1 station. According to the operator I spoke with - the curved section was beating the trucks up so much they were becoming exceedingly difficult to maintain. The speed reduction in this section is to alleviate the damage to the UP vehicles.

Boasting about how the Ontario Line new technology will enable it to push the limits on curves and grade changes - well I just hope that whatever gets built is well back of the theoretical design limits, as what may work in theory quite often does not pan out so well in practice.

As the famous quote from Yogi Berra goes: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is"
 
AHK said:
Two Toronto experiences with 'more curving and grade changing'. When the SRT first opened, there was a loop at the Kennedy station, so the trains could run in one direction continuously at that end, only switching directions, and the operators changing control cabs at the the McCowan end. While the Kennedy loop was presumably within design specifications, the associated wear on the trucks was so much that the cars were noticeably wobbling as they moved at speed. It was not very long before the loop was decommissioned, and the operators had to switch ends at both the Kennedy and McCowan ends.

Anyone who has taken the UP to Pearson recently may have noticed that the trains now crawl exceedingly slowly along the curved section from the mainline tracks up to the Terminal 1 station. According to the operator I spoke with - the curved section was beating the trucks up so much they were becoming exceedingly difficult to maintain. The speed reduction in this section is to alleviate the damage to the UP vehicles.

Boasting about how the Ontario Line new technology will enable it to push the limits on curves and grade changes - well I just hope that whatever gets built is well back of the theoretical design limits, as what may work in theory quite often does not pan out so well in practice.

As the famous quote from Yogi Berra goes: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is"
Click to expand...
The Ontario Line is not "pushing the limits", it is simply able to function differently than the traditional heavy metro seen on Line 1/2. This is by no means an untested technology. Additionally, the two examples of issues with curved routings are not very objective examples, The SRT technology, as well as the UP trains have been plagued with operational issues since they were put into service, and as we all know this has been one of the main reasons the SRT will be shut down. Curves are clearly not the problem, as hundreds of Line 1 trains navigate the Union station sharp curve, as well as the Spadina/St. George 90 degree turn daily, without issue.

The original downtown relief line also featured a sharp turn, between the proposed Broadview and carlaw stations. As apart of the new routing with the Ontario Line this portion of the line now follows the much more gentle curve of the Lakeshore east GO corridor.
 
T3G said:
You think a single transit line is going to put us up there with the likes of New York and London?
Click to expand...
Toronto is already the fastest growing city in the western hemisphere and currently the site of hundreds of massive construction sites. So yes I think being able to move (with the rest of the transit network) the millions of people that currently call Toronto home, and the millions more that will arrive, makes this transit line worth praising.
 
I think the line is important and long overdue, yes, but it is but one piece of the missing transit network. It is going to be a big boon for many commuters on the eastern side of the inner city, but it is not going to be enough to be considered transformative for the city as a whole, or put us up there with the likes of New York or London which have far vaster metro networks. I think celebrating the transformation of our transit system because of this one line is premature. We are only just beginning; we have a very long way still to go before our transit is even considered acceptable, never mind anything more than that. It is not going to bring us into the 21st century, it's going to bring us into the 1990s, when the line should've been completed. It would be like if New York had only built the original IRT, and done so in 1950 instead of 1904.

P.S. on the Scarborough RT topic, you are mixing apples with oranges. The chief reliability issues with the SRT was not to do with sharp curves, but with the exposed induction rail freezing over in the cold.
 
T3G said:
I think the line is important and long overdue, yes, but it is but one piece of the missing transit network. It is going to be a big boon for many commuters on the eastern side of the inner city, but it is not going to be enough to be considered transformative for the city as a whole, or put us up there with the likes of New York or London which have far vaster metro networks. I think celebrating the transformation of our transit system because of this one line is premature. We are only just beginning; we have a very long way still to go before our transit is even considered acceptable, never mind anything more than that. It is not going to bring us into the 21st century, it's going to bring us into the 1990s, when the line should've been completed. It would be like if New York had only built the original IRT, and done so in 1950 instead of 1904.

P.S. on the Scarborough RT topic, you are mixing apples with oranges. The chief reliability issues with the SRT was not to do with sharp curves, but with the exposed induction rail freezing over in the cold.
Click to expand...
Yes the city is still about half a century behind in terms of transit construction, but one of the reasons I like the Ontario Line so much as opposed to the DRL is the ease of a northern extension up don mills/victoria park and a western extension from exhibition along the Queensway or up the Kitchener GO corridor. It is kinda setting up the city to finish catching up and establish a rapid transit network that gets to most corners of the city

your right, the srt comment was not great, but the post I was replying to was making a bit of a non point arguing against curves or grade shifts in transit lines.
 
I am basically in favour of the project, but if you are asking why the mixed reviews, here's my take

What I like best about the project is -
- the line in my view is justified and badly needed
- the routing is basically sound - as good a compromise as one could get, anyways
- it is being built as an end to end project, ending the timid "only do a short stretch and then pause and probably not go further" mentality which both the first Eglinton initiative and the Sheppard subway suffered from and which the DRL appeared poised to perpetuate by stopping at Danforth
- the decision to go all the way to Exhibition vs ending at Osgoode is justified and serves a key area of the city

What I see as major risks - these are not reasons to not build, just my personal reservations and things deserving more attention -
- the "choice of technology", while breaking the mold vs standard TTC thinking, may not offer enough personal space, may feel dinky, may be more costly to operate than traditional TTC stock. The size and length of traditional TTC subway is a strength, in my view, and this may not match that.
- the line's capacity is unproven and may be over optimistic
- I am waiting to see how well the various heritage properties affected (I'm not referring to Osgoode but to other buildings along Queen and King) are treated and what the net cumulative impact on the streetscape turns out to be
- Whether the line will stimulate TTC to change and do better, or just prove to be something that doesn't mesh with TTC realities, also remains to be seen

What I would have done differently is - spend another year on vetting the design - it might have led to the same result but ML's heavy handed, secretive handling certainly taints the effort. And some of the corners that ML cut could have been avoided, or mitigated in better ways.

- Paul
 
Happening tomorrow. A Liberal MP is the guest speaker. Link to post.

Screenshot_2023-05-24_155825.jpg


Screenshot_2023-05-24_155841.jpg
 
Man, the problem with these things is it’s always too vague for the flyer to convey what the actual goal is, so it can pretend to be for the public good when really it’s a localized concern. To the trained eye this poster just forces you to read between the lines, and anyone here will conclude they’re just thinly veiled NIMBYs. The imagery tells me they want a TTC-style subway, but its probably not concerns for the gauge. So, the only logical assumption is they just want the line to be underground near them.

Not only is it disingenuous, it makes it look like this is something that can actually be changed now- someone didn’t do their homework and is opposing the line wayyy too late into the process. They are sowing their own contempt. Sorry folks, that’s not how things work.
 
Allandale25 said:
Happening tomorrow. A Liberal MP is the guest speaker. Link to post.

View attachment 479738

View attachment 479739
Click to expand...

I think from looking through many different iteration of these community issues on many different transit projects and proposals. Here is my recommendation for all such projects going forward.

We will not build any transit line or infrastructure close to any community! That way there are no community concerns that come!!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top