Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[Northern Light]

What a silly conversation this is, you people are really protesting over the demo of a building on land that will be used for a very important transit project?

You're part of the problem, not the solution.

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.

 

[Northern Light]

Further, lets remember than this government is being judged for having issued dubious MZOs that allow for destruction of heritage elsewhere; and destruction of a significant wetland {for privately-owned warehouses no less)

This government has earned the right to be treated with suspicion.

As has Phil Verster at Metrolinx; whose reputation at his prior post in Scotland was not stellar when he left; and whose penchant for transparent communication or the lack thereof has drawn the ire of many here already.

 

[sureshot]

Really? The current routing alignment and station alignment is better compared to the previous iteration prior to the September/October updates.

I agree that the alignment has improved since the Ontario Line was initially proposed. What I meant was, I hate the alignment of the Ontario Line... period.

I think the "Ontario Line" alignment is somewhat limiting in terms of future downtown toronto subway lines, compared to the old DRL/Queen Alignment. It also reminds me of Sheppard (which should have been Eglinton) or the University line (which should have been Bathurst). More so political and not really based on sound transit planning rationale (i'm sure many will disagree). Different for the sake of being different.

In my opinion, if the Ford government wants to save money, the line should carry on south in the GO rail corridor to Union and westward to the Ex... (like the pink line below). Or, if money is no object, bury it under Queen. In either of these cases, you can protect for a second downtown subway/rapid transit line and establishment of a 'network'/grid of east-west/north-south lines. Something like this:

 

[Allandale25]

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

 

[KhalilHeron]

Honestly im lost is it not the demo of a building that sits where an important building used to be???

I agree that the alignment has improved since the Ontario Line was initially proposed. What I meant was, I hate the alignment of the Ontario Line... period.

I think the "Ontario Line" alignment is somewhat limiting in terms of future downtown toronto subway lines, compared to the old DRL/Queen Alignment. It also reminds me of Sheppard (which should have been Eglinton) or the University line (which should have been Bathurst). More so political and not really based on sound transit planning rationale (i'm sure many will disagree). Different for the sake of being different.

In my opinion, if the Ford government wants to save money, the line should carry on south in the GO rail corridor to Union and westward to the Ex... (like the pink line below). Or, if money is no object, bury it under Queen. In either of these cases, you can protect for a second downtown subway/rapid transit line and establishment of a 'network'/grid of east-west/north-south lines. Something like this:

View attachment 295633

This guy made some maps for a complementary line to the DRL and the Ontario line and I feel he does a pretty good job of showing how a downtown subway grid could still work

The province has released new proposals for the future of Ontario Line and a new so-called Trillium Line that will supplement the former. Map was created by Metrolinx and absolutely 100% not me. Totally was not made on an expensive exchange-rate subscription of Adobe Illustrator.

View attachment 213469

Metrolinx totes made this alternate reality if Doug did not exist and we still had DRL.

View attachment 213470

 

[ARG1]

I agree that the alignment has improved since the Ontario Line was initially proposed. What I meant was, I hate the alignment of the Ontario Line... period.

I think the "Ontario Line" alignment is somewhat limiting in terms of future downtown toronto subway lines, compared to the old DRL/Queen Alignment. It also reminds me of Sheppard (which should have been Eglinton) or the University line (which should have been Bathurst). More so political and not really based on sound transit planning rationale (i'm sure many will disagree). Different for the sake of being different.

How so? Toronto is one of the few cities that uses Grid based Metros. Somehow most other major cities do well without it. Even then, we could easily have a Dundas Line or King Line even with the existing OL allignment no problem.

 

[drum118]

When one looks at the east side of Toronto and compare it to the west, the east is underperforming city wide.

King, Queen, Bloor has more development taking place on them compare to King, Queen and Danforth in the east. The same can be said for Sheppard and Eglinton at this time, but the east side will out perform the west down the road especially Eglinton.

It still best to have the DRL/Ontario line as it will take the pressure off the Yonge Line and offer the east a faster route to the city core.

I looked back in 2006 at different routing of subways and its too costly to do non grid system as the pockets are too low density and have to go deep to get under creeks and rivers.

We will agree to disagree, but most east-west route only can justify BRT at best, but I would go with LRT as some routes will need it down the road. As for going to a subway in the end, Eglinton is the best option.

2006 saw on my Master Transit Plan a Sheppard Subway from the airport to Pickering Town Centre and was down graded years later to LRT/BRT.

Other than having the Ontario Line going to Ontario Place, I can live with the current alignment if it goes to Steeles down the road and able to carry 35,000/hr. Prefer to see the line going west of Ontario Place to Jane St and then north to Steeles. I had the U line on my 2006 plan with Queen being the bottom of the U. Not going to Steeles will not take the pressure off the Yonge Line.

 

[KhalilHeron]

When one looks at the east side of Toronto and compare it to the west, the east is underperforming city wide.

King, Queen, Bloor has more development taking place on them compare to King, Queen and Danforth in the east. The same can be said for Sheppard and Eglinton at this time, but the east side will out perform the west down the road especially Eglinton.

It still best to have the DRL/Ontario line as it will take the pressure off the Yonge Line and offer the east a faster route to the city core.

I looked back in 2006 at different routing of subways and its too costly to do non grid system as the pockets are too low density and have to go deep to get under creeks and rivers.

We will agree to disagree, but most east-west route only can justify BRT at best, but I would go with LRT as some routes will need it down the road. As for going to a subway in the end, Eglinton is the best option.

2006 saw on my Master Transit Plan a Sheppard Subway from the airport to Pickering Town Centre and was down graded years later to LRT/BRT.

Other than having the Ontario Line going to Ontario Place, I can live with the current alignment if it goes to Steeles down the road and able to carry 35,000/hr. Prefer to see the line going west of Ontario Place to Jane St and then north to Steeles. I had the U line on my 2006 plan with Queen being the bottom of the U. Not going to Steeles will not take the pressure off the Yonge Line.

I actually saw something about how the east ends of most major northern hemisphere cities tend to be less well off than their western sides because on average wind blows more to the east here which used to blow smog and pollutants over the east ends of cities. The pollutants made eastern neighborhoods less desirable and caused health issues that would drain from families resources. I honestly don’t remember where i read this but i thought it was pretty interesting. That was was unrelated woops

 

[sureshot]

How so? Toronto is one of the few cities that uses Grid based Metros. Somehow most other major cities do well without it. Even then, we could easily have a Dundas Line or King Line even with the existing OL allignment no problem.

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.

 

[gibsonm]

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

I wonder if Metrolinx and the city could create a replica of the first parliament on the original site. It's a simple structure. Maybe the one building could be a subway entrance and the other could be a small museum full of artifacts and paintings of York. It's basically two small buildings connected by a portico.

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

 

[Northern Light]

I wonder if Metrolinx and the city could create a replica of the first parliament on the original site. It's a simple structure. Maybe the one building could be a subway entrance and the other could be a small museum full of artifacts and paintings of York. It's basically two small buildings connected by a portico.

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

While that would surely fit; I don't see how the long-planned District Library Branch (relocation of St. Lawrence Branch) would fit in that...................or would it?

Hmmm, which way did the buildings face? Parliament?

I see each one was only 24ft by 40 ft.

So the foot print of the 2 might be 48ft plus an equally long space between.

Measurement from here: https://www.beachesliving.ca/pages/index.php?act=landmark&id=148

So 96ft? Add a bit of space either side, let's make 120ft. or about 37M

This block of land is 130M N-S

So, in fact, there is likely room for both!

80m x 80m is what would be leftover, give or take; that's large floor plate; if the Library were 2 storeys, ample space left for a public square/park expansion to boot.

 

[isaidso]

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.

Toronto isn't Manhattan but infrastructure as permanent as a subway line needs to gauge what the city will look like decades into the future NOT what it looks like now. 2041 projections (only 2 decades from now) put the downtown core population at 475,000. The core is one third the land area of Manhattan so 475,000 suggests population density equal to current Manhattan population density.

2 subway lines a few blocks apart may sound absurd if Toronto is going to flat line but we all know that's not the case. Some cities like London have bus routes right on top of subway routes because they need BOTH to handle demand. Toronto will eventually need 3-4 completely new subway lines south of Bloor, not just the 1 being proposed.

Trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone is poor long term planning. Subway alignment should be made under the premise that eventually there will be multiple subway lines in the core. Unfortunately, those in decision making roles today don't seem to get that. It will end up biting us in the ass 20 years from now when they realize they need 2 separate lines instead of 1 awkwardly placed line.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Toronto isn't Manhattan but infrastructure as permanent as a subway line needs to gauge what the city will look like decades into the future NOT what it looks like now. 2041 projections (only 2 decades from now) put the downtown core population at 475,000. The core is one third the land area of Manhattan so 475,000 suggests population density equal to current Manhattan population density.

2 subway lines a few blocks apart may sound absurd if Toronto is going to flat line but we all know that's not the case. Some cities like London have bus routes right on top of subway routes because they need BOTH to handle demand. Toronto will eventually need the Ontario Line, a Queen Line, and probably a few more in the downtown alone.

Trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone is poor long term planning. Subway alignment should be made under the premise that eventually there will be multiple subway lines in the core. Unfortunately, those in decision making roles today don't seem to get that. It will end up biting us in the ass 20 years from now when they realize they need 2 separate lines instead of 1 awkwardly placed line.

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.

 

[gibsonm]

While that would surely fit; I don't see how the long-planned District Library Branch (relocation of St. Lawrence Branch) would fit in that...................or would it?

Hmmm, which way did the buildings face? Parliament?

I see each one was only 24ft by 40 ft.

So the foot print of the 2 might be 48ft plus an equally long space between.

Measurement from here: https://www.beachesliving.ca/pages/index.php?act=landmark&id=148

So 96ft? Add a bit of space either side, let's make 120ft. or about 37M

This block of land is 130M N-S

View attachment 295754

So, in fact, there is likely room for both!

80m x 80m is what would be leftover, give or take; that's large floor plate; if the Library were 2 storeys, ample space left for a public square/park expansion to boot.

I don't normally go for recreating the past artificially through architecture, but I actually think it would be perfectly suitable here. It's a nice rebuke to the Yanks' burning of our Parliament. Lol. Hey, their White House still stands! It would help reinforce the destination of the Distillery District. There's room for a library too, either incorporated within a replica parliament or as a separate building, but why not make that library a period piece as well? I remember reading that over 20.000 buildings have been demolished over the decades in Toronto. There used to be a landmark windmill too. Maybe this could be a historic precinct like Philadelphia and Boston have. We have a monoculture of condo towers taking over the city's physical identity. Yes they can be great too, but there's room for both.

Google Image Result for http://www.distilleryheritage.com/images/large/ART/1833.jpg

images.app.goo.gl

This Ontario Line could really be something special, as a portal to public destinations old and new.

 

[KhalilHeron]

Toronto isn't Manhattan but infrastructure as permanent as a subway line needs to gauge what the city will look like decades into the future NOT what it looks like now. 2041 projections (only 2 decades from now) put the downtown core population at 475,000. The core is one third the land area of Manhattan so 475,000 suggests population density equal to current Manhattan population density.

2 subway lines a few blocks apart may sound absurd if Toronto is going to flat line but we all know that's not the case. Some cities like London have bus routes right on top of subway routes because they need BOTH to handle demand. Toronto will eventually need 3-4 completely new subway lines south of Bloor, not just the 1 being proposed.

Trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone is poor long term planning. Subway alignment should be made under the premise that eventually there will be multiple subway lines in the core. Unfortunately, those in decision making roles today don't seem to get that. It will end up biting us in the ass 20 years from now when they realize they need 2 separate lines instead of 1 awkwardly placed line.

I still don't get what about the Ontario line makes future downtown lines hard to implement. Subways in straight lines along King, Dundas, or Front are still completely possible with great setups for future connections with the Ontario line. A mirrored version of the Ontario Lines core section along King or Front would also work great far In the future. I don't get how it's limiting but if I'm missing something pls let me know