News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.4K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 399     0 

Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)

TheTigerMaster said:
Oh wow. I had no idea that the Don Valley was that shallow. The difference in high between the bottom of the valley and the surrounding areas is just 40 metres.

At the Pape terminus of the Relief Line South, the tunnel rests at 90 metres above sea level, while ground level is at 110 metres. At the bottom of the Don Valley, 2.0 km to the north, ground level is at 78 metres above sea level. Lets say they want the tunnel though the valley to be 10 metres below the surface of the valley (same depth as Line 2); that would put the tunnel at 68 metres above sea level. Do the math, and that's a grade of just 1.1%. A subway train can easily handle that grade change.

Of course, the slope between Pape Station and the bottom of the Don Valley isn't constant. Nevertheless, this does indicate that tunnelling under the Don Valley could be plausible.
Click to expand...

Its a bit of an optical illusion.... where the end of the wye is, ground level is about 118/119 meters. At the cliff edge of the valley the ground is 128 meters. So it is deep, it just deep compared to the cliff drop. I find Toronto's geology is fascinating. Be interesting if they do tunnel.... that Overlea station could be really really deep. And consider there is 3.48 % grade between Gerrard and Danforth station ... getting under the Don river tunneling would be rather easy on the grade.
 
Kitsune said:
Its a bit of an optical illusion.... where the end of the wye is, ground level is about 118/119 meters. At the cliff edge of the valley the ground is 128 meters. So it is deep, it just deep compared to the cliff drop. I find Toronto's geology is fascinating. Be interesting if they do tunnel.... that Overlea station could be really really deep. And consider there is 3.48 % grade between Gerrard and Danforth station ... getting under the Don river tunneling would be rather easy on the grade.
Click to expand...
I was just going to say that they would have to skip the Cosburn and Thorncliffe Stations because they would be too deep.
 
The river sits about 43m below the Millwood bridge deck. That is about 140ft.

tunnelling under the valley likely won't happen as it would force ridiculously deep Cosburn and Thorncliffe Park stations. If that alignment is selected, it will probably be a bridge structure.
 
I'm kind of hoping for a bridge; think of the amazing views of the Don Valley. Much nicer to get sunlight and see the city when travelling than to be trapped in a tunnel like some kind of troglodyte.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The river sits about 43m below the Millwood bridge deck. That is about 140ft.

tunnelling under the valley likely won't happen as it would force ridiculously deep Cosburn and Thorncliffe Park stations. If that alignment is selected, it will probably be a bridge structure.
Click to expand...

Lets use an actually elevation map instead of google: http://en-ca.topographic-map.com/places/Don-River-569688/

It is about 82-83 meters deep around the millwood bridge ... although it does dip to 75m west of there.
 
Would bridge over the Don Valley be a good way to prevent the deep stations? Would it be cheaper to put the bridge in than the tunnel?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Skipping those stations would be a travesty. This project must not move forward without Thorncliffe. This is one of the most dense communities in the GTA
Click to expand...

Don't think for a second I support nixing stops. I was seizing more on the tunnel depth aspect of BurlOak's comment.

I could not envision anything short of a new bridge crossing to Thorncliffe Park from the Danforth, which traveling southbound on the new subway would offer riders some badass panoramic views of the downtown en route.
 
I just hope that any bridge that will bridge the Don Valley will be a picturesque bridge, not some cheap spartan bridge.

800px-Jerusalem_Chords_Bridge_5.JPG

From link.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Skipping those stations would be a travesty. This project must not move forward without Thorncliffe. This is one of the most dense communities in the GTA
Click to expand...

I don't think there's much likelihood Thorncliffe would be skipped, and it's a bit of a waste of time to present a routing option that does. It's effectively been a high-density new 'complete' downtown decades before such a concept became fashionable, East York mayors demanded an rt station there 40+ years ago, and on the whole it's a very nice area. Any bypass option amounts to little more than a means to draw-out the study phase.

And that area of Cosburn too is awesome. It's like a picture-perfect suburban redevelopment that doesn't get much attention for how well it works. High density, bike lanes, nice lawns, good scale. Again decades before it became chic. IMO it's more urban than many new condo projects downtown.

Fear though is that since we're skipping any inline stations with SSE (Eg/Danforth, Lawrence), which is unprecedented, then what will we skip with RLS/RLN?
 
44 North said:
I don't think there's much likelihood Thorncliffe would be skipped, and it's a bit of a waste of time to present a routing option that does. It's effectively been a high-density new 'complete' downtown decades before such a concept became fashionable, East York mayors demanded an rt station there 40+ years ago, and on the whole it's a very nice area. Any bypass option amounts to little more than a means to draw-out the study phase.

And that area of Cosburn too is awesome. It's like a picture-perfect suburban redevelopment that doesn't get much attention for how well it works. High density, bike lanes, nice lawns, good scale. Again decades before it became chic. IMO it's more urban than many new condo projects downtown.

Fear though is that since we're skipping any inline stations with SSE (Eg/Danforth, Lawrence), which is unprecedented, then what will we skip with RLS/RLN?
Click to expand...

Hopefully nothing is skipped. The Crosstown is more the line model the DRL should be emulating with stops almost everywhere there needs to be one. A pitch/case should even be made for Mortimer, Barber Greene and Graydon Hall stops.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Hopefully nothing is skipped. The Crosstown is more the line model the DRL should be emulating with stops almost everywhere there needs to be one. A pitch/case should even be made for Mortimer, Barber Greene and Graydon Hall stops.
Click to expand...

More stops =! more ridership. More surface connections == more ridership, especially in suburban areas. If the increase in stops doesn't increase the number of surface connections, they're not worth it, especially when this line is supposed to be a quicker alternative to the Yonge line. Anything more and people that don't live outside the stations won't use it.
 
44 North said:
I don't think there's much likelihood Thorncliffe would be skipped, and it's a bit of a waste of time to present a routing option that does. It's effectively been a high-density new 'complete' downtown decades before such a concept became fashionable, East York mayors demanded an rt station there 40+ years ago, and on the whole it's a very nice area. Any bypass option amounts to little more than a means to draw-out the study phase.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of that. I wonder why route an RT to Thorncliffe would have taken.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top