Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[gibsonm]

One advantage Toronto has are the streetcar lines in the downtown. Each (Flexity Outlook) streetcar is about one-fifth of a Montréal Metro train. There are currently four or five east-west streetcar lines. If, and its a big if, we will have a transportation department that will truly prioritize public transit over the single-occupant automobile in the future, Toronto would be ahead of most other North American cities.

It's true. If we get the Ontario Line and RER, even just as the SmartTrac alignment to begin with, then over time as zone-based fares are implemented across the GTHA, with RER throughout the system, and separate ROWs for existing and added streetcar lines, especially along streets like College, King, and Queen, we may have a very comprehensive transit system with multiple lines at both the regional and municipal level. However, all of the building blocks must be put in place now. That seems to be the plan, but time will tell.

 

[ARG1]

The OL alignment renders a King subway redundant in my opinion. I think we need coverage, not two lines that are a 3 minute walk from one another. Toronto is not Manhatten.

Dundas is interesting although where does it go? It may make sense through the core but east of the Don and west of Bathurst I'm not sure it's really needed.

Well an option is to have it run similarly to one of the planned DRL/RLN allignments up north along VP. Where it goes west would depend on where the OL goes, but something similar to the old Relief Line west plan where it follows Dundas to Dundas West station is a good place to start.

 

[gibsonm]

Well an option is to have it run similarly to one of the planned DRL/RLN allignments up north along VP. Where it goes west would depend on where the OL goes, but something similar to the old Relief Line west plan where it follows Dundas to Dundas West station is a good place to start.

I was disappointed that the OL didn't continue west along Queen and hit the Liberty Village RER/ST at Queen and Dufferin, but I can see the rational for bringing the OL to the Ex and south end of Liberty Village. I think the former DRL plan wouldn't have brought as many stations as the OL in the same time frame. The western branch of the DRL might have been put off for a long time. Where I see an opportunity is in the reconfiguration/extension of the Dufferin Streetcar Loop. Since it looks like the tracks are going to be extended from the foot of Dufferin to the OL station at Exhibition, why not run it as a proper LRT ROW up Dufferin, at least to Dufferin and Queen? That connects the ST/RER station at Liberty Village with the OL at the Ex. The problem is that means transferring between three transportation modes. Really what should've happened is that the OL station should have its platforms oriented north-south, with the south end entrance at the Ex Go station and the north entrance at the Liberty Village RER (at King). My guess is it might be too hard, the distance between King and the Lakeshore Go too long. I also know that interlining with the Go Lakeshore line saves money. I see the value of the OL alignment in terms of bang for buck overall.

 

[44 North]

Really what should've happened is that the OL station should have its platforms oriented north-south, with the south end entrance at the Ex Go station and the north entrance at the Liberty Village RER (at King). My guess is it might be too hard, the distance between King and the Lakeshore Go too long. I also know that interlining with the Go Lakeshore line saves money. I see the value of the OL alignment in terms of bang for buck overall.

I like this idea of a north/south station orientation since it could eventually be extended one station southward in the event we do something big at the Ex/OP (long-term). Still would like to see the potential for that at Lower Broadview/East Harbour. Def not saying it's needed. But part of me knows in 50yrs ppl will be arguing it was stupid to not at least plan for a subway spur into the east waterfront.

 

[ARG1]

I was disappointed that the OL didn't continue west along Queen and hit the Liberty Village RER/ST at Queen and Dufferin, but I can see the rational for bringing the OL to the Ex and south end of Liberty Village. I think the former DRL plan wouldn't have brought as many stations as the OL in the same time frame. The western branch of the DRL might have been put off for a long time. Where I see an opportunity is in the reconfiguration/extension of the Dufferin Streetcar Loop. Since it looks like the tracks are going to be extended from the foot of Dufferin to the OL station at Exhibition, why not run it as a proper LRT ROW up Dufferin, at least to Dufferin and Queen? That connects the ST/RER station at Liberty Village with the OL at the Ex. The problem is that means transferring between three transportation modes. Really what should've happened is that the OL station should have its platforms oriented north-south, with the south end entrance at the Ex Go station and the north entrance at the Liberty Village RER (at King). My guess is it might be too hard, the distance between King and the Lakeshore Go too long. I also know that interlining with the Go Lakeshore line saves money. I see the value of the OL alignment in terms of bang for buck overall.

Weren't they thinking of some sort of people mover running between Ontario Place, Exhibition, and Liberty Village? I'm not sure the current Ontario Line placement is any sort of death sentence to good connectivity at all.

 

[gibsonm]

Weren't they thinking of some sort of people mover running between Ontario Place, Exhibition, and Liberty Village? I'm not sure the current Ontario Line placement is any sort of death sentence to good connectivity at all.

I guess the next station beyond Exhibition could be at Queen and Dufferin eventually, but we'll see how warranted it is once the current OL plan is built and operating alongside ST/RER.

 

[superelevation]

As was noted by @nfitz your assertion is fundamentally off.

There are no standing heritage buildings on this site; therefore no one is seeking to protect the non-existent.

The concern is over a move to seize the property; rather than working with the City to ensure not only preservation of any archeological artifacts, but also the construction of a long-planned historical interpretation of the First Parliament site; and a desperately needed new Library Branch.

These uses and a proposed subway station are not incompatible uses; therefore the attempt to seize the land draws suspicion about intended future use and cooperation.

The reason construction of transit costs so much in North America and the UK is the Nimbyism and the degree to which we treat transit projects as if they are not just existing to serve a transportation need but, instead they must solve all social and city organization related ills. It's not enough to have a transit station to connect you to the city it has to also be one hundred other things. Do we need more libraries in Toronto? Maybe (though Downtown has several and getting to them on transit is a breeze), but it should not be the job of a transit project to do so many things which are not transit. Build the line which we have needed for 30-40 years now, build the library or whatever later.

 

[superelevation]

I don't know how many people here read Alon Levy but, I think this paragraph from one of his blogs would be of great value to many here:

"In that sense, the role of the planner is to say no – and moreover, to say no to charismatic groups representing much-romanticized people. No, dear mother with children, we will not build you a noise wall just because you think 140 km/h electric trains will reduce your quality of life. No, dear tradesman much-profiled as a non-college white voter, we will not hire you for $110/hour when there exist people who will do your job better than you can at $35/hour. No, dear third-generation business owner, we will not listen to what you think about traffic as we replace parking spots with bus lanes. No, dear anti-gentrification activist, we will not pay you as an equity consultant, we will just build the subway in the city. No, dear white flight homeowner, we will not build you a tunnel just to avoid taking a few houses through eminent domain. No, dear deindustrialized city leader, we will not require companies to set up factories in your city at high cost when we can get cheaper imports. "

 

[Northern Light]

The reason construction of transit costs so much in North America and the UK is the Nimbyism and the degree to which we treat transit projects as if they are not just existing to serve a transportation need but, instead they must solve all social and city organization related ills. It's not enough to have a transit station to connect you to the city it has to also be one hundred other things. Do we need more libraries in Toronto? Maybe (though Downtown has several and getting to them on transit is a breeze), but it should not be the job of a transit project to do so many things which are not transit. Build the line which we have needed for 30-40 years now, build the library or whatever later.

This site was purchased by the City to be a Library and Heritage site.

It was not intended for a transit project, it was not purchased with transit money.

It is not owned by Metrolinx (yet).

No one is asking Metrolinx to do anything except leave what is not theirs alone, or work with with the City to accommodate both interests.

Further, your disinterest in Libraries notwithstanding, this is not for a net new branch.

Its to replace an existing branch that's tiny, and under-resourced and overcrowded with a branch several times larger that meets the needs of a community whose population has more than tripled since the original branch was built.

You are needlessly aggressive in your posts and derisive of those who frankly have more knowledge than you; kindly show more restraint.

 

[officedweller]

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

Probably sifting lots of soil for old pottery shards and nails from the old structures - a bit like Oak Island! Apparently they were brick but were burned down by the Americans in 1813.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Probably sifting lots of soil for old pottery shards and nails from the old structures - a bit like Oak Island! Apparently they were brick but were burned down by the Americans in 1813.

Maybe we should have the Americans pay for it?

 

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps they could build a replica of the original building and have it as the station entrance.

 

[afransen]

To be fair, it should be easier to find another suitable site for a library than a transit station. Why can't the library be built as part of the station?

 

[junctionist]

Perhaps they could build a replica of the original building and have it as the station entrance.

I like the idea of reconstruction, but it would have to be for historical interpretation reasons and not just for decorating a subway station entrance. That's not to say that subway stations shouldn't have attractive architecture, art, and finishes, but the site could be so much more than that.

It would be fascinating to be able to tour a reconstructed first parliament building and then walk over to Queen's Park to see how we grew and evolved.

 

[officedweller]

Perhaps they could build a replica of the original building and have it as the station entrance.

I could see a mural, fritted glass or perforated steel rendering of the first parliament buildings forming the art installation for the station.
That's a no brainer versus something "whimsical".