News   Jul 03, 2020
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 03, 2020
 666     0 
News   Jul 03, 2020
 1.7K     2 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,642
More community backlash... this time from the East End Transit Alliance.

1581098660880.png
Even looking at the typical section, it looks like the 6m setback is a big waste of space. They are widening for 7+ tracks, but only getting 6 due to the setbacks.
Perhaps the logical thing to do is widen the corridor to 5 tracks with minimal (to no) additional land being required, and put the "subway" elsewhere.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,357
Reaction score
6,760
Location
Toronto/EY
Even looking at the typical section, it looks like the 6m setback is a big waste of space. They are widening for 7+ tracks, but only getting 6 due to the setbacks.
Perhaps the logical thing to do is widen the corridor to 5 tracks with minimal (to no) additional land being required, and put the "subway" elsewhere.
Oh, I dunno...........maybe a tunnel would work?
 

Tommy521

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
101
Location
Ontario
Even looking at the typical section, it looks like the 6m setback is a big waste of space. They are widening for 7+ tracks, but only getting 6 due to the setbacks.
Perhaps the logical thing to do is widen the corridor to 5 tracks with minimal (to no) additional land being required, and put the "subway" elsewhere.
I have high doubts that this is the actual 'typical section' for the OL along the GO transit corridor. We know that the track arrangement at East Harbour is as shown below:
1581102661335.png

(Source: OL Business Case)

However, considering that we need to go north at Pape, you would run into issues quite quickly trying to get both lines to the same side:
1581102828593.png


I would highly suspect that at some point before this, we will get a section more akin to this:
1581103020717.png

Especially given the business case states "Ontario Line assumes some elevated guideways, especially at key transfer stations", I would not be surprised if the section shown is only present across the Don up until the Eastern Ave station. At some point between it and Leslieville station, I would expect it to switch to the other side, either above or below. In my earlier post you can see that there is room for at least two tracks on either side of the current corridor, even including a 4th rail. I would say the potential locations for this switch boil down to:
  • BMW Parking lot, Immediately after the transfer
  • Bruce Mackey Park, somewhere within the already widened rail ROW on the west side
  • Utilizing the parking lot near Thackeray St, as here the track is nearly at grade
  • Gerrard Square (owned by Davpart)
  • Riverdale shopping centre
Given the immense amount of real estate value that will be generated by the stations, I would be not surprised if the "insider" talks going on with ML were with the owners of the two shopping centres where the line would transition from above-ground to below-ground, as well as the BMW dealership. These large spaces could certainly be the location of some of the construction work, and it's possible the land owners want to ensure they get a slice of the cake instead of having all their land expropriated and getting nothing. Hard to know for sure though.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,052
Reaction score
3,338
Even looking at the typical section, it looks like the 6m setback is a big waste of space. They are widening for 7+ tracks, but only getting 6 due to the setbacks.
Perhaps the logical thing to do is widen the corridor to 5 tracks with minimal (to no) additional land being required, and put the "subway" elsewhere.
It may be a big waste of space, but the fact of the matter that the two types of vehicles meet very, very different sets of standards in terms of crashworthiness. The space may be mandated by Transport Canada to ensure that the two types of vehicle never have a chance to come in contact with each other.

Dan
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
1,794
It may be a big waste of space, but the fact of the matter that the two types of vehicles meet very, very different sets of standards in terms of crashworthiness. The space may be mandated by Transport Canada to ensure that the two types of vehicle never have a chance to come in contact with each other.

Dan
The SRT is built to the same minimum distance standards, so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,348
Reaction score
1,658
Location
Ward 28
Especially given the business case states "Ontario Line assumes some elevated guideways, especially at key transfer stations", I would not be surprised if the section shown is only present across the Don up until the Eastern Ave station. At some point between it and Leslieville station, I would expect it to switch to the other side, either above or below. In my earlier post you can see that there is room for at least two tracks on either side of the current corridor, even including a 4th rail. I would say the potential locations for this switch boil down to:

Given the immense amount of real estate value that will be generated by the stations, I would be not surprised if the "insider" talks going on with ML were with the owners of the two shopping centres where the line would transition from above-ground to below-ground, as well as the BMW dealership. These large spaces could certainly be the location of some of the construction work, and it's possible the land owners want to ensure they get a slice of the cake instead of having all their land expropriated and getting nothing. Hard to know for sure though.
I thought it was pretty much concluded awhile ago that between Carlaw and East Harbour it will be elevated above the rail corridor, one side. With the guideway roughly taking up the equivalent of one track on the expanded corridor. And the guideway wouldn't use regular T columns, but an inverted L, sort of cantilevered and allowing one mainline track below. The two station structures will probably straddle a bit outside the rail corridor though.

The real estate aspect seems a bit unfortunate with the Leslieville station. Obviously the better bet for a station would be Carlaw/Queen, not DeGrassi 500m away with no N/S transit route.
 

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
113
Reaction score
241
Kind of relevant:
"If we give people alternative ways to get onto the Danforth, we're going to have better housing, for transit, for retail. And we're about to spend billions of dollars putting an underground Ontario Line at Pape and Danforth — it's not going to be eight storeys above a billion-dollars'-worth of infrastructure," he said. "It's going to look like Main and Danforth — not Pape and Danforth."
-Mark Richardson, technical lead with HousingNowTO
From Danforth study 'most comprehensive' of its kind
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
1,794
Today is proof that the Ontario line SHOULD be built to TTC specifications AND there should be a wye at Pape at the very least. Line 1 experienced a catastrophic incident that would have been made significantly worse had the T1s not been able to enter Line 1. In the event that the Ontario Line goes out of service for any reason and the yard is blocked off from another area of the line, trains from Greenwood (or eventually Wilson and Davisville when the line is extended to Sheppard) would be able to be deployed on the line.
 

leopetr

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
367
Reaction score
15
Today is proof that the Ontario line SHOULD be built to TTC specifications AND there should be a wye at Pape at the very least. Line 1 experienced a catastrophic incident that would have been made significantly worse had the T1s not been able to enter Line 1. In the event that the Ontario Line goes out of service for any reason and the yard is blocked off from another area of the line, trains from Greenwood (or eventually Wilson and Davisville when the line is extended to Sheppard) would be able to be deployed on the line.
Which block at Pape and Danforth do you want to demolish for the wye? North-East or North-West? I suppose there are fewer historic landmarks in the North-East block, but it's not going to be pretty or popular.

If you want a wye, put in a connection between the Ontario line and Greenwood yard along/under the rail corridor. The Greenwood yard abuts the rails corridor.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,887
Reaction score
5,596
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Which block at Pape and Danforth do you want to demolish for the wye? North-East or North-West? I suppose there are fewer historic landmarks in the North-East block, but it's not going to be pretty or popular.

If you want a wye, put in a connection between the Ontario line and Greenwood yard along/under the rail corridor. The Greenwood yard abuts the rails corridor.
Must be new to this thread?


Go and look at http://www.east-toronto.ca/downtown-relief-line-update/ to see what the plans were before Doug Ford showed up with his napkins and crayons.

Instead of ADDING to the existing plans, he basically threw those plans away and started all over again with his own plans
 

Tommy521

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
101
Location
Ontario
Today is proof that the Ontario line SHOULD be built to TTC specifications AND there should be a wye at Pape at the very least.
I would anticipate that adding a wye track to an active subway line would either require substantial service disruption (not really feasible), or weekend work meaning it will take an excessive amount of time. Think of how long trackwork takes using weekend shutdowns on the current lines. Wye construction could take a decade at that rate.

If running TTC spec subway cars along the OL alignment, surface tracks along the GO corridor would allow for a much cleaner connection to GWY, and eliminate the need for excessive trackwork and surface disruption of a wye track. The corridor is nearly at grade passing by GWY, and running the tracks at grade as opposed to elevated along the corridor is certainly 'possible' (see previous post on space constraints). It is an additional ~850m of track, but that may be less substantial in terms of cost than running a tunnel from GWY to the underground alignment or creating a wye into Line 2. I would imagine that even if the RLS underground alignment is reconsidered for this section, a wye track is unlikely. I would expect a separate tunnel connection to GWY. It sounds too difficult to connect a wye to Line 2 without issue.

Doing this provides similar system redundancy to adding a wye track (GWY access is one stop away from Pape) without disrupting Line 2 for lengthy construction. Slight GWY reconfiguration could allow for some storage to be here (great for starting morning trains for the busy GO transfer), with main storage being held at the proposed Thorncliffe facility. Even the 850m of excess track could be used for short turns or additional train storage. A bypass of GWY to the OL alignment could be created to allow for faster train transfer in the event of a substantial delay like we saw today. That's purely speculation though.

This sounds to me like this is a strong case for making the OL trains fit the TTC track gauge, but it is not a very strong case supporting the construction of the wye track. System redundancy is crucial when designing these large scale networks, and it is pretty clear that shuttle busses are not a very suitable replacement for a blocked subway line. But there are easier ways to do it than using the wye configuration.
 

Top