News   Jan 27, 2021
 157     0 
News   Jan 27, 2021
 480     0 
News   Jan 27, 2021
 490     0 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

warrens

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
173
If one believes I drew this line correctly (It appeared to me that the track begins 4 lots south of McCleary Playground on McGee.

The mapping program says 146M

Whatever numbers you or I come up with in a mapping program, it's extraordinarily unlikely that they would build anything approaching a 146m platform. Even 125 seems excessive. Given that one of their diagrams is already provably incorrect, it's probably not worth any extra thought right now.

The important thing is that they've found a good location to put the platforms that won't interfere with any buildings or parks.
 

warrens

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
173
Metrolinx could technically just take the playground.

That wouldn't be necessary. There's more than enough space at the corner of Queen & McGee for a station box. It wouldn't be big, but it doesn't need to be.

Then, move the eastbound streetcar stop to that corner, and you've got an efficient transfer for people going eastbound after alighting at Leslieville.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
1,322
Good Lord that Metrolinx blog post was borderline propaganda. Only in their world is an increase of $2-4 Billion "a slightly higher cost". Aside from that, it's good to see they're able to fit so much into the existing corridor, but at the same time, they're definitely trying to avoid talking about what is going to have to be demolished. Also they really should have shown all 4 GO tracks on the map, because right now it's confusing to imagine how it's all going to fit together. The blog post says an additional track is being added for GO, so why not show that in the diagrams?

All that said, I am happy to see they're adding pedestrian crossings with the Lower Don bridge, I kinda expected them to cheap out on that.
I feel sad that all the trees have to die for this.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,741
Reaction score
13,130
Location
Toronto/EY
A few hundred trees or a billion dollars? That's the choice.

There's a great deal more at play here than that, and you know it.

Burying is completely the right choice here, and there is no credible argument to the contrary.

This is not Eglinton West.

****

From undersized capacity, to stations w/no weather protection, to profoundly negative impacts on the surrounding communities, including on parks, mature trees, heritage and noise.
 

sche

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
284
There's a great deal more at play here than that, and you know it.

Burying is completely the right choice here, and there is no credible argument to the contrary.
Even though I too think that this is kind of a bad plan because it will essentially forever restrict the GO/VIA corridor to 4 tracks, I find this somewhat ludicrous.
Is saving billions of dollars not a credible argument? Or much more convenient transfers between GO and RL/OL?
From undersized capacity,
Well, probably. However, I do think a second RL is needed regardless of whether RL or OL is built, maybe just a little bit sooner if we chose OL. Induced demand affects transit too (logically, whenever crowding is the thing restricting demand, demand will immediately increase when crowding decreases).
to stations w/no weather protection,
Don't see why that's such a big deal, people still take the Skytrain, Confederation Line, Scarborough RT, Allen Rd section of Line 1, etc. Plus we still have no clue what the stations will look like, they could still be REM-like with PSDs and weather protection.
to profoundly negative impacts on the surrounding communities, including on parks, mature trees, heritage and noise.
Parks and trees, yes that will be affected somewhat. Heritage - what heritage is there that's getting removed? Some houses and the No Frills? As for noise, Skytrain really isn't that loud, and it looks like more noise walls are going to be installed, which will also reduce noise from GO trains (which are the main source of noise anyways).
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,741
Reaction score
13,130
Location
Toronto/EY
Even though I too think that this is kind of a bad plan because it will essentially forever restrict the GO/VIA corridor to 4 tracks, I find this somewhat ludicrous.
Is saving billions of dollars not a credible argument? Or much more convenient transfers between GO and RL/OL?

On a scale of a 15B project? So, less than a standard contingency amount? I would say no, when balanced against other considerations.
Don't see why that's such a big deal, people still take the Skytrain, Confederation Line, Scarborough RT, Allen Rd section of Line 1, etc. Plus we still have no clue what the stations will look like, they could still be REM-like with PSDs and weather protection.

The stations will not be the like the RT/Sky Train; in the latter case, Toronto's winter ain't Vancouver's.........

But beyond that....the platforms are on the side; even if there were an over-arching roof (which I doubt); It would have to have an opening at each end large enough for all six tracks, plus a clearance that allows freights and electrification.

That's a lot of cold air flow or penetrating rain, even if there's an over-arching roof. Which is a scenario I find unlikely.

By comparison, at least the Spadina line above ground and SRT have full roof structures, and openings only large enough for their 2 tracks.

The Confederation Line has had so many problems I don't think we would want to cite it as an example of anything.

Parks and trees, yes that will be affected somewhat. Heritage - what heritage is there that's getting removed? Some houses and the No Frills? As for noise, Skytrain really isn't that loud, and it looks like more noise walls are going to be installed, which will also reduce noise from GO trains (which are the main source of noise anyways).

The Queen Street overpass is considered heritage. The new tracks along side will screen it, as will new entrances and exits.

There will be other heritage impacts.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,902
Reaction score
10,101
There's a great deal more at play here than that, and you know it.

Burying is completely the right choice here, and there is no credible argument to the contrary.

This is not Eglinton West.

****

From undersized capacity, to stations w/no weather protection, to profoundly negative impacts on the surrounding communities, including on parks, mature trees, heritage and noise.

I heartily disagree. This city buries far too much, driving the cost of transit infrastructure far too high. I agree Eglinton West absolutely shouldn't be buried - but this shouldn't either.

Undersized capacity is a whole other cup of tea that isn't really related to whether it should be buried.

The stations can be weather protected as it will have platform doors. And even if they aren't, who really cares, the line is going to be running at sub-2 minute frequencies. Nobody's standing in the cold for long here.

These profoundly negative effects on surrounding communities take the form of utilizing an existing, overgrown rail corridor and demolishing an existing strip plaza.. not really "profound" in my mind. It's not like they are mass expropriating residences. Which, by the way, would also be fine with me if it was cheaper than burying. Subway infrastructure is worth that kind of impact.

Losing a small pocket park to build the station sucks, sure, but are we really going to spend, again, $1,000,000,000 to save a park that a handful of people sit in and watch the birds every day? Nah. If it's really that bad, spend $20 mill and build a huge new community park in the area or something.

Noise - Ok, but in exchange these people are getting access to super high quality rapid transit. And is noise here really any different than on Eg West?

This city gets all in a huff about impacts from infrastructure. We saw it on the SSE when the city planned to expropriate a few houses and the city opted instead to spend a few hundred million to dodge them. That kind of proposition has 0 value for money. It's politics, and it's a big reason this city has built such little infrastructure in the last generation.

Think back to Toronto's first subway line. They bought up several hundred houses and demolished them to build the line, to the result of much greater impacts than this line is proposed, and in return delivered a project at much lower cost. A generation later, can anyone even tell what these "impacts" were? Same with the Bloor-Danforth line. I'm guessing the people living around Keele and Bloor weren't too happy about that massive elevated structure. Do they care today though?

The reality is that large infrastructure projects have impacts. The problem is in this day and age everyone is convinced that you can just spend your way out of it, no matter the cost.
 
Last edited:

warrens

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
173
There's a great deal more at play here than that, and you know it.

Burying is completely the right choice here, and there is no credible argument to the contrary.

Faster transfer times is a perfectly credible argument. We call it "rapid transit" because the concept of it being fast is an intrinsic part of the expectation!

Go back and have another look at the picture I posted of the proposed RLS Gerrard Station. Should we really spend a billion dollars so that people commuting from, for example, Kennedy to Queen/Yonge via GO+OL would be forced to take five escalators each way, every day, just in one station? I really don't think people have grasped how f-cking ridiculous Gerrard Station was going to be, but it was necessitated by geotechnical concerns.

Like seriously.... think about the enormous escalator at this entrance to Queen Station...
1601481915764.png


.... and then multiply it by 3.

From undersized capacity, to stations w/no weather protection, to profoundly negative impacts on the surrounding communities, including on parks, mature trees, heritage and noise.

I really don't get the melodrama expressed here. We're talking about an incremental change to a neighbourhood, not a complete bulldozing.

Most of the trees in question are already fenced off from public use anyways. Replacing them with a tall soundproofing wall (something the community has already been asking Metrolinx for), isn't going to ruin the "heritage" of the neighbourhood. Will it change? Yes, of course, but please don't pretend that there is some public service that is being taken away here. Those trees were likely planted with the express purpose of buffering the neighbourhood from the visual sight of the trains. A wall will do that, too.

And besides, there is a bunch of space in some parts of the corridor before the trees:
1601482735881.png


A good design should be able to minimise the number of trees that would be affected.


Oh, and, where-ever did you get the idea Gerrard, Leslieville and East Harbour stations would have "no weather protection"? It's easy enough to conceive that the Leslieville platforms could be like Davisville with full-size platform screen doors. You know, like the outdoor Montreal REM stations? And, I remind you that East Harbour GO has been planned to be mostly indoors from the outset. Here's one of the most recent conceptual drawings, albeit from shortly before the OL announcement:
1601486343300.png
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,741
Reaction score
13,130
Location
Toronto/EY
Undersized capacity is a whole other cup of tea that isn't really related to whether it should be buried.

The turn and grades currently feasible above grade would not be were the trains the correct length which would be the way to enlarge capacity.

Similarly, outdoor platforms would have to be larger and have commensurately more egress capacity.

So there is indeed a relationship.

There would also be additional demolition/expropriation w/larger trains, assuming the issues of grade and radii were overcome.
Think back to Toronto's first subway line. They bought up several hundred houses and demolished them to build the line, to the result of much greater impacts than this line is proposed, and in return delivered a project at much lower cost. A generation later, can anyone even tell what these "impacts" were? Same with the Bloor-Danforth line. I'm guessing the people living around Keele and Bloor weren't too happy about that massive elevated structure. Do they care today though?

The reality is that large infrastructure projects have impacts. The problem is in this day and age everyone is convinced that you can just spend your way out of it, no matter the cost.

There is a material difference in the case of Line 1, between 2 tracks in a trench and 6 above grade.

Likewise the structures at Keele on Line 2 are also only 2 tracks.

The difference in scale is material.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,902
Reaction score
10,101
The turn and grades currently feasible above grade would not be were the trains the correct length which would be the way to enlarge capacity.

Similarly, outdoor platforms would have to be larger and have commensurately more egress capacity.

So there is indeed a relationship.

There would also be additional demolition/expropriation w/larger trains, assuming the issues of grade and radii were overcome.


There is a material difference in the case of Line 1, between 2 tracks in a trench and 6 above grade.

Likewise the structures at Keele on Line 2 are also only 2 tracks.

The difference in scale is material.

So 6 GO tracks is fine if GO determined they needed it, but 4 GO and 2 OL is unacceptable and is immediately deserving of $1,000,000,000 in spending to prevent? I mean Parkdale has 8 GO tracks and nobody is complaining out there.

The impact of this proposal is not 6 tracks vs 0, it's 6 vs 4. It's a marginal impact at most. I'd argue it's even less of an impact than Bloor and Keele since most of the impact already exists with the existing rail corridor.

Capacity is unrelated in the sense that the issue at hand isn't whether a traditional Toronto Subway technology should be built above grade. It's either this proposal with lower capacity, more versatile trains, or a buried alternative with either option for capacity. Nobody is proposing to run TRs along this corridor. The whole reason Metrolinx is opting for a lower (ish) capacity system is that it delivers far greater benefits by allowing the trains to run above grade instead of in tunnels 100ft below grade.

By the way though, again, I'd be totally fine with TRs running above grade. It's just not what's being discussed here.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,741
Reaction score
13,130
Location
Toronto/EY
Faster transfer times is a perfectly credible argument. We call it "rapid transit" because the concept of it being fast is an intrinsic part of the expectation!

My credibility argument was one when balancing all considerations. Including capacity, community impact, passenger convenience etc.

I believe a credible argument must always address the counter-arguments.

Its not a statement that costs don't matter or transfers don't matter; its a statement that they matter insufficiently in this case when balanced against other concerns.

Go back and have another look at the picture I posted of the proposed Gerrard Station. Should we really spend a billion dollars so that people commuting from, for example, Kennedy to Queen/Yonge via GO+OL would be forced to take five escalators each way, every day, just in one station? I really don't think people have grasped how f-cking ridiculous Gerrard Station was going to be, but it was necessitated by geotechnical concerns.

Like seriously.... think about the enormous escalator at this entrance to Queen Station...
View attachment 273164

.... and then multiply it by 3.

Its a very Toronto thing that we assume all transfers must be done by escalator.

Multiple high-speed, high capacity, fully automated elevators would work fine.

Most of the trees in question are already fenced off from public use anyways. Replacing them with a tall soundproofing wall (something the community has already been asking Metrolinx for), isn't going to ruin the "heritage" of the neighbourhood. Will it change? Yes, of course, but please don't pretend that there is some public service that is being taken away here. Those trees were likely planted with the express purpose of buffering the neighbourhood from the visual sight of the trains. A wall will do that, too.

The trees weren't planted, with the odd exception where a backyard come up against the ROW, the vegetation is all seeded in. The odd 'good' tree; but mostly non-native invasives.

However, they do serve to meet the City's Tree canopy goal and combat climate change; their removal can't be offset without adding back similar numbers of trees; this would require considerable property acquisition.

The trees also serve to provide some shade next to abutting public parks; and are broadly visually pleasing in a way that a noise barrier will not be.

And besides, there is a bunch of space in some parts of the corridor before the trees:

Oh, and, where-ever did you get the idea Gerrard, Leslieville and East Harbour stations would have "no weather protection"? It's easy enough to conceive that the Leslieville platforms could be like Davisville with full-size platform screen doors. You know, like the outdoor Montreal REM stations? And, I remind you that East Harbour GO has been planned to be mostly indoors from the outset. Here's one of the most recent conceptual drawings, albeit from shortly before the OL announcement:
View attachment 273189

The render you're showing is based on a 4-track configuration.

It is certainly possible they will do that with six tracks, though it isn't likely.

PS, that opening in the middle is still large enough to let in a fair bit of rain and snow; and certainly won't keep the platform a nice temperature in winter.
 

warrens

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
173
This city gets all in a huff about impacts from infrastructure. We saw it on the SSE when the city planned to expropriate a few houses and the city opted instead to spend a few hundred million to dodge them. That kind of proposition has 0 value for money. It's politics, and it's a big reason this city has built such little infrastructure in the last generation.

We're so bad at this, we can't even get a second exit built at Greenwood for fire safety & accessibility reasons because people got all up in arms over the possibility of a cafe closing.
 

Top