Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Whenever we draft rights-of-way documents (i.e. for sewers, etc), there is always a "temporary work area" surveyed along the entire route that widens the permanent right-of-way for constuction purposes.
That sounds like what this is aimed to accomplish.
 
officedweller said:
I think that it would have a wider impact if they built the lines (double track) on a 'bench' that extends the GO corridor embankment.
If they instead build the line elevated on columns, there is less square footage used 'on the ground' and the areas below the line remain accessible.
The areas would be in shadow, but the appearance can be mitigated with plantings, etc. as it is under the SkyTrain lines in Vancouver.
That's the dirty little secret of elevated lines - the space below the guideway remains largely useable.

For a width reference, here's SkyTrain on a 'bench' in Grandview Cut:


Community gardens under SkyTrain guideway:


This building shown in Steve Munro's blog post seems to be probematicly close to the north side RoW:


This area along Commercial Drive is about the closest that the guideway comes to buildings in Vancouver (other than integrated projects):


www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com


www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

I think that's what most people thought when the proposal first came out - a single column guideway. Or an inverted L cantilevered. At least that's what I thought. Both would be quite tall since it's already on an embankment and needs clearance for trains below, but would only take the space of one mainline track rather than two. Just seems like it makes more sense to group the tracks together. Having OL on separate sides at a lower grade doesn't seem like a winner...basically creating two subway-mainline buffers instead of one, so more space needed.
 
44 North said:
I think that's what most people thought when the proposal first came out - a single column guideway. Or an inverted L cantilevered. At least that's what I thought. Both would be quite tall since it's already on an embankment and needs clearance for trains below, but would only take the space of one mainline track rather than two. Just seems like it makes more sense to group the tracks together. Having OL on separate sides at a lower grade doesn't seem like a winner...basically creating two subway-mainline buffers instead of one, so more space needed.
Click to expand...
Also having both tracks on the same side would make it easier to put in switches for turnbacks in case of problems in either direction.
 
syn said:
Interesting.

They seem to finalize changes before presenting them to community...so there's no real conversation/consultation.

More PR.
Click to expand...
Worse to me, seems that the people at Metrolinx are not really "transit" experts, but rather "want-to-be" experts who demand that others do as they say.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Worse to me, seems that the people at Metrolinx are not really "transit" experts, but rather "want-to-be" experts who demand that others do as they say.
Click to expand...
"want-to-be" is too good to describe this organization. They don't care much beyond the direction the political wind is blowing. They just get some mediocre writer to write some good PR and blogs to make them look like experts. They and planning based on the financial constraints of the budget not what the community feedback. After all, the community won't pay for it nor they aren't experts either in ML's eyes.
 
Steve X said:
"want-to-be" is too good to describe this organization. They don't care much beyond the direction the political wind is blowing. They just get some mediocre writer to write some good PR and blogs to make them look like experts. They and planning based on the financial constraints of the budget not what the community feedback. After all, the community won't pay for it nor they aren't experts either in ML's eyes.
Click to expand...
I find it a bit ironic that you would make such a disparaging remark against the organization. Aren't we all wannabes as well? If you're so good at transit planning why aren't you part of metrolinx? You would be a godsend to them

There's so much toxicity in these forums of people claiming to be omniscient in the ways of transit planning and blaming the agencies on a whim when they have no idea how to juggle a political football along with budgets, public opinions and the govt.
 
cplchanb said:
I find it a bit ironic that you would make such a disparaging remark against the organization. Aren't we all wannabes as well? If you're so good at transit planning why aren't you part of metrolinx? You would be a godsend to them

There's so much toxicity in these forums of people claiming to be omniscient in the ways of transit planning and blaming the agencies on a whim when they have no idea how to juggle a political football along with budgets, public opinions and the govt.
Click to expand...

I think it's wise to distinguish between Metrolinx planning/engineering staff who I'm sure are up to scratch when it comes to technical matters--and management who bend whichever way the political winds blow. But it's not like the latter have a choice. The province's relationship with Metrolinx is fundamentally flawed.
 
syn said:
Interesting.

They seem to finalize changes before presenting them to community...so there's no real conversation/consultation.

More PR.
Click to expand...
You can't please everyone all of the time.
When SkyTrain was built through Grandview Cut, people were chaining themselves to trees to block construction, like protesters do for pipelines today.
 
This may be better suited for the fantasy thread. But the Ontario line seems to be designed for a planned elevate extension to Don Mills. Do you think there will be further extension north beyond that? Seneca college seems like the next obvious destination, but from there does it make sense to use the Finch hydro corridor to cut across to Old Cummer GO, and use the rail corridor to extend up to a connection with Line 1 at Langstaff?
 
I've always thought the Ontario Line would get extended long term to the major employment node at Woodbine / Steeles, following Don Mills up to finch, across the hydro corridor to the 404, and up the 404 to Woodbine/Steeles.

The beautiful thing is any future north extensions will be elevated, which means they will be relatively inexpensive. I fully expect a sheppard extension in short order following completion, which will cost fairly little for a 6km extension.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top