Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

W. K. Lis said:
Must not forget that the City may own that patch of grass, sidewalk, and tree on "your" property. Pape Avenue maybe narrow south of Gerrard, but it may widen Pape Avenue or make use of their property. without expropriating any land.

As they did with Dufferin Street around Dundas Street West in the early 1950's.
Click to expand...

And as they did on Pape north of Riverdale in the 1920s:

pAPE.jpg
 

Attachments

  • pAPE.jpg
    pAPE.jpg
    222.6 KB · Views: 648
Skeezix said:
Then veer east at Gerrard. (I say that not knowing at all whether it is even remotely feasible from an engineering or financial perspective. :) )

By alignment in East York, you mean later phases north of Pape Station?
Click to expand...
To me, East York = area between Don River and Scarborough south of the valley, including Riverdale, Leslieville, The Beaches and Old East York. Old East York = Old city of East York, before amalgamation. I don't know if that is the common way to refer to it or not, for me it makes sense anyway as East York is east of York (downtown Toronto).

As for the alignment, I don't think it is very feasible to turn like that and have room for a station at Pape-Gerrard.
 
WislaHD said:
To me, East York = area between Don River and Scarborough south of the valley, including Riverdale, Leslieville, The Beaches and Old East York. Old East York = Old city of East York, before amalgamation. I don't know if that is the common way to refer to it or not, for me it makes sense anyway as East York is east of York (downtown Toronto).
Click to expand...

No, that's not common at all, and quite confusing. Your further comment about Old East York adds to the confusion, since Old East York and the former City of East York are not usually thought of as the same thing (with the latter incorporating Leaside, Crescent Town and Thorncliffe Park as well as Old East York). However, there is no name police. You're perfectly entitled to call it whatever you like - maybe it will catch on. :) I do like your naming logic.

(As an aside, even in 1834 when York became Toronto, its boundaries extended east of the Don, south of what is today Queen East, all the way to what is today Maclean Ave. So the area you're referring to is, I suppose arguably, more accurately Northeast York. In any event, though, East York wasn't named due to its location vis-a-vis York/Toronto's boundaries back in the day, but rather to the fact that it was the eastern enclave of the old Township of York (in 1924 it separated from the western portion of the township, the northern portion (North York) having separated two years earlier). So the "East" wasn't in relation to Toronto, but to what became the City of York in the west end. Sorry for the boring spiel.)
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
No, that's not common at all, and quite confusing. Your further comment about Old East York adds to the confusion, since Old East York and the former City of East York are not usually thought of as the same thing (with the latter incorporating Leaside and Thorncliffe as well as Old East York). However, there is no name police. You're perfectly entitled to call it whatever you like. :)
Click to expand...
Heh, well names in this city get confusing, especially post-amalgamation. Don't even get me started on the Midtown/Uptown debate.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Isn't Greenwood Yard at capacity? I don't think using it is a viable option for most of the trains on a (Phase II) RL. We can rule out Davisville (too small) and Wilson (too far) as well.
Click to expand...
As the shitshow at Yonge earlier in the week showed, BD line needs a western yard. If SSE goes ahead it needs one anyway to be able to push enough trains into service.

M II A II R II K said:
The DRL could also take advantage of the Keele Yard when it gets extended west.
Click to expand...
Vincent Yard is tiny. That's why they had to borrow trains from Line 1 during the incident noted above.
 
I was at last night's meeting. The Q&A after the presentation was by far the most emotional I've seen.

As has already been mentioned, the most common complaints were choosing Pape instead of Carlaw for the route south of Gerrard, and the possibility of expropriations. There were also complaints about noise and vibration, and lack of communication from the city and local councillors. MPP Peter Tabuns was the only local politician in attendance as far as I could tell.

A person presumably working in the industry worried about the loss of the film district, and the NIMBY highlight of the evening was when someone asked about the effect of electro-magnetic fields.

It was estimated this won't be shovel-ready for 6-8 years.
 
GenerationW said:
I was at last night's meeting. The Q&A after the presentation was by far the most emotional I've seen.

As has already been mentioned, the most common complaints were choosing Pape instead of Carlaw for the route south of Gerrard, and the possibility of expropriations. There were also complaints about noise and vibration, and lack of communication from the city and local councillors. MPP Peter Tabuns was the only local politician in attendance as far as I could tell.

A person presumably working in the industry worried about the loss of the film district, and the NIMBY highlight of the evening was when someone asked about the effect of electro-magnetic fields.

It was estimated this won't be shovel-ready for 6-8 years.
Click to expand...

That's why it's so hard to develop transits in Canada. If the ridership is low it won't justify the spending and if the ridership is high it will crush the line. If you build from scratch then good luck with NIMBYs.
 
BurlOak said:
Was there any talk about a train yard?

What are the options?
  1. Build a giant Y at Danforth-Pape
  2. Have a separate tunnel from Pape/Gerrard or Eastren/Broadview to the Greenwood yard - this is 1 or 2 kilometres
  3. There will likely be a cross-over and tail tracks north of Danforth so you are half way to Cosburn already. Continue the tunnel north on Pape to the Don Valley, bridge across the valley, and put the yard near the water treatment plant. A bit more costly, but greatly reduced disruption when phase 2 begins - and the cost is not wasted because that length needs to be built eventually (and the sooner the better).
The other question is whether there are plans to rough-in the DRL station at Eglinton. Has nobody asked this at the open houses?
Click to expand...


As usual, I preface my remarks with I know what I know which is little. But from what I have read:

1. The Yonge North planning includes another major yard. That line is long enough that deploying trains from Wilson in the morning will take over an hour to Richmond Hill Centre. Don't be surprised also to see completing the missing Sheppard Yonge to Downsview Park link if only as a spur to deploy trainsets.
2. Greenwood is very full. There are planning documents for line 2 that refer to another west end yard at Kipling on the scale of Greenwood. There is no yard explicitly on the relief line and current thinking has the new west end and Greenwood yards storing those trainsets.
3. Building a Greenwood yard to relief line tunneled spur was discounted as being too expensive.
 
Pape Avenue was originally a level railway crossing, north of Gerrard. The Harbord streetcars had to jog over to Carlaw Avenue to reach Gerrard Street, from Pape Avenue via Riverdale Avenue.

pictures-r-1335.jpg


The level crossing was replaced with a pedestrian bridge.
urbantoronto-6336-20375.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top