News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.2K     1 
News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.9K     3 
News   Sep 24, 2021
 1.8K     0 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,560
Reaction score
11,399
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Looking at the Front and Parliament intersection on Street View - is it known yet exactly where the station is planned to be constructed? I assume it'll be either the Budget car rental site or the vacant lot directly north of the data centre.
The STATION is on/below the Staples lot NORTH of Front. Lots of details on Steve Munro's site.
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,560
Reaction score
11,399
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Last I read it will be at Berkeley and King. The whole Staples and Porsche dealership are to be demolished anyway to stage a tunnel bore site
I think the tunnel boring entry site is the First Parliament block on south side of Front. See useful Metrolinx maps on Steve Munro's site plus, of course, his observations. EDIT: Steve states: "The block north of Front [Staples] will be used for the tunnel launch while the block to the south [First Parliament] will be used for construction materials staging."
 
Last edited:

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
3,345
I hadn't seen that proposal before. I like the idea of traffic calming, interesting road treatment, reduction of lanes and bike lanes, etc... but I would hate to see the large median removed and University Ave to become any other street. If anything I would take away the two middle most lanes and many of the turn around points and make the median even more grandiose.

I'd hate to see the median go too, assuming the city showed any interest in making it truly grand.

Expanding the median is a great idea, I'm just not sure how practical that would be given the concerns people would have over traffic.

If anything, extending the east side out to provide a wide pedestrian area for the entire street would make it very unique.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
3,345
Big Change (increasing the height of the rail berm by 0.9 - 1.6M)

Not announced; but quietly shown.......

Suggests that it might not withstand scrutiny.

Very disruptive to the existing corridor, and adjacent areas.

Very expensive.

Doesn't just add costs for the work; changes the height of the sound barriers; changes the shadow impacts...........etc etc.

Also, how do you deal w/the fact some of the bridges are historical? Can the existing walls simply have height added in a similar style?

SMH.

It's becoming increasingly clear (and understandable) why certain communities are pushing back against Metrolinx.

As the Steve Munro article demonstrated, they do not deal with these communities in anything close to a respectful, transparent way.
 

dullturtle06

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
32
Reaction score
85
Location
Toronto
Steve's Article begins with a notation that the work is intended to raise bridge clearances:

View attachment 329005

Also of note is a significant change in the profile of the embankment as seen here (original on top, new at the bottom)

The intent appears to be to remove much of the (presumably vegetated) soils that would have covered the retaining walls.

View attachment 329006
So Steve Munro decided to compare the portion by the park original, with the new rendering that is the station and by the community center. Which by the way never had a landscaped wall, just the park area between stations.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
13,101
Reaction score
6,439
Location
Best Toronto
It's becoming increasingly clear (and understandable) why certain communities are pushing back against Metrolinx.

As the Steve Munro article demonstrated, they do not deal with these communities in anything close to a respectful, transparent way.
I'm pretty much as anti-NIMBY as they come, but I don't envy any homeowners that have to deal with MX.
 

Steve Munro

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
14
Reaction score
74
So Steve Munro decided to compare the portion by the park original, with the new rendering that is the station and by the community center. Which by the way never had a landscaped wall, just the park area between stations.
I didn't "decide to compare" anything unfairly. Metrolinx has made a point of talking up the landscaped wall as a way to soften the effect of the widened corridor. Now, poof, it has vanished. So they offered something they are not planning to build. Bait and switch. The Metrolinx way.
 

dullturtle06

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
32
Reaction score
85
Location
Toronto
I didn't "decide to compare" anything unfairly. Metrolinx has made a point of talking up the landscaped wall as a way to soften the effect of the widened corridor. Now, poof, it has vanished. So they offered something they are not planning to build. Bait and switch. The Metrolinx way.
Well on comparison is of Jimmie simpson park, while the other is by the community center, where the station would be. Those are two different location on the corridor. The area by the community center never had a landscaped embankment. It was always a wall to fit the station platform in the corridor.
 

allengeorge

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
880
Reaction score
2,066
Well on comparison is of Jimmie simpson park, while the other is by the community center, where the station would be
I was curious about this, and indeed - it appears @dullturtle06 is correct. These diagrams appear to be of two locations: one of the corridor next to the green space of Jimmie Simpson Park, the other next to the Jimmie Simpson Recreation Centre building. Two things aren’t clear to me:

1. Would there be such a difference between the two sections of the corridor that are so close together?
2. Why did the second diagram replace the first on the Metrolinx website as opposed to being added?
 

Steve Munro

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
14
Reaction score
74
I was curious about this, and indeed - it appears @dullturtle06 is correct. These diagrams appear to be of two locations: one of the corridor next to the green space of Jimmie Simpson Park, the other next to the Jimmie Simpson Recreation Centre building. Two things aren’t clear to me:

1. Would there be such a difference between the two sections of the corridor that are so close together?
2. Why did the second diagram replace the first on the Metrolinx website as opposed to being added?
Metrolinx has taken to using the cross section just north of the Jimmie Simpson Centre because it is the widest point of the corridor and therefore makes their proposal look the least intrusive. The area further south close to and at Queen has almost no space outside of Metrolinx property and the retaining wall will be at the sidewalk line. The drawings misrepresent what would be built. In any event, Metrolinx has repeatedly talked of a landscaped embankment as a way to soften their impact. You have to remember that they often resort to misrepresentation to deflect criticism. The difference in the drawings arises not from the location, but from one drawing being old and the other being new. It would not surprise me if this is a very recent change and whoever updated the web page did not fully understand what they were illustrating. Metrolinx has a chance to clarify this at the online consultation on June 24, although I hope to learn more beforehand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,512
Reaction score
4,651
Steve's Article begins with a notation that the work is intended to raise bridge clearances:

View attachment 329005

Also of note is a significant change in the profile of the embankment as seen here (original on top, new at the bottom)

The intent appears to be to remove much of the (presumably vegetated) soils that would have covered the retaining walls.

View attachment 329006
I know that Steve's analysis said that.....

But I also found zero reference to it within the publicly-available Metrolinx literature. Granted, it may have come during his (many) discussions with their staff, but might it also have been an assumption which may not necessarily hold true (higher rails = more room below).

Dan
 

allengeorge

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
880
Reaction score
2,066
The difference in the drawings arises not from the location, but from one drawing being old and the other being new.
Thanks for the comments. I’m a little confused about your statement above however: it does seem like these are two different locations along Jimmie Simpson.

My take is that the diagrams refer to (approximately):

Screen Shot 2021-06-20 at 09.03.25.png


In (1, first Metrolinx diagram) - the final state may involve a landscaped embankment. In (2, second Metrolinx diagram) next to the Rec Centre the final state includes no embankment at all, only noise walls, and the vegetation between the tracks in the corridor removed and the entire area flattened and raised.

Of course, this is conjecture on my part. It does need to be cleared up by Metrolinx.
 

gibsonm

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
182
Reaction score
239
University Ave. was laid out at a time when you had the luxury of space
- and you could afford to have space that was purely ornamental, for show, that was not used on a regular basis.
But that time has passed.
I disagree. Even dense New York City has far more squares than Toronto. The monuments, fountains, trees, and greenery along University are a significant city feature. It’s good to have a ceremonial road for large civic celebrations. There was once a plan to turn Queen and University into a circle similar to Piccadilly Circus. As usual, plans got watered down.
E87EC60B-05D7-49F4-A3E2-3AC0E494884E.jpeg


Read about Vimy Circle: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/26/the_five_greatest_ideas_toronto_never_built.html
 
Last edited:

Top