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

smallspy said:
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
Click to expand...
This issue was raised by Metrolinx, including the explanation about the overpass heights, in a community group meeting and later passed on to me. I expect a reply from Metrolinx to a series of questions about this change on Monday, and will update the article accordingly. I do not publish material invented out of thin air, especially when what I am told is confirmed by updated drawings online. Frankly I think this is a very last minute change in the project -- there is no mention of this in the GO expansion plans and the EPR states clearly that new spans added to the corridor would be at the same height as existing ones. Let us wait to see what Metrolinx' explanation is about this. Note that there will be online consultation for the Riverside segment this week.
 
Steve Munro said:
Frankly I think this is a very last minute change in the project -- there is no mention of this in the GO expansion plans and the EPR states clearly that new spans added to the corridor would be at the same height as existing ones. Let us wait to see what Metrolinx' explanation is about this. Note that there will be online consultation for the Riverside segment this week.
Click to expand...
Steve (or anyone else), any speculation on what might have motivated this last minute change?
 
Steve X said:
They could have easily rebuild Regent Park into that.
Click to expand...
The Port Lands are the city’s last and biggest clean slate. Turn The Hearn into Toronto’s Tate Modern and surround the restored mouth of the Don with squares, statues and fountains. Muskoka meets steel and glass. Tommy Thompson is in my opinion the most beautiful and interesting public space in the city. Could’ve done something like this in a “Rail Deck Park”, but instead it will be more Circles of Debt by Menkes, Oxford, etc.
 
officedweller said:
It may just be regrading at the bridge/underpass locations.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was at the request of the City.
Click to expand...
I don't think that aligns with the "Metrolinx is evil/trying to hide things" narrative
Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...
I say cancel the project, wouldn't want to give up the historic bridges
 
superelevation said:
I don't think that aligns with the "Metrolinx is evil/trying to hide things" narrative

I say cancel the project, wouldn't want to give up the historic bridges
Click to expand...

Why do you insist in engaging in disrespectful hyperbole?

Please don't.

Kindly, engage constructively and politely.
 
nfitz said:
I don't see how making sarcastic comments about Metrolinx is an issue.
Click to expand...

I didn't read it that way.

It was a post responding to a quote of my post, and the sarcasm seemed aimed, at least in part, at a point I raised; not one Mx raised.
 
bjrkz said:
Says the user who claims that raising the tracks by a 1.6 meters is VERY expensive and disruptive and casts big shadows!
Click to expand...

Excuse me? What's with the hostility.

I report facts.

A 1.6M increase in track elevation is a 1.6M boost in the height of the sound barrier.

The shadow impact IS statistically significant, depending on the time of year, and the object. A 1.6M increase is (potentially) over 30M (90ft of additional shadow).(well over, but I'm trying to omit brief points in time and look at a peak period, averaged)

Feel free to do the calculation yourself:

Online calculator: Shadow length

Gives a vertical object shadow length for given coordinates and time. Also calculates shadow growth during whole day.
planetcalc.com planetcalc.com

My argument is neither for, nor against.

It is to consider the facts; and to consider whether a proponent is being forthcoming about same.

****

Additionally, the shadow is not disruptive, the construction involved in raising a large railway berm by that height, when it is part of a busy rail corridor would be. I also reference a well known local expert in transit, Steve Munro in saying as much.

My record here speaks for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
bjrkz said:
Says the user who claims that raising the tracks by a 1.6 meters is VERY expensive and disruptive and casts big shadows!
Click to expand...

Wasn't RER supposed to be finished 2.5yrs from now (2024)? Adding in an elevation change of 5.5ft at the last minute seems pretty substantial. Whether it's designing stations, dealing with locals, all the plans for landscaping/hardscaping, added costs. IMO it's a pretty big change for this point in time, or at least it should be for a project that was a done deal years ago.
 
44 North said:
Wasn't RER supposed to be finished 2.5yrs from now (2024)? Adding in an elevation change of 5.5ft at the last minute seems pretty substantial. Whether it's designing stations, dealing with locals, all the plans for landscaping/hardscaping, added costs. IMO it's a pretty big change for this point in time, or at least it should be for a project that was a done deal years ago.
Click to expand...
RER Was never expected to be done that early even at project outset and even the original completion date (2025) hasn't been the goal for years now.
 
as for shadows from an additional 1.5m of height - it's pretty marginal at best. 30m of extra shadows may occur in December when shadows are so impossibly long already that most areas of the city are already in shadow from other objects (trees, etc) as shadows are just insanely long that time of year due to the low angle of the sun. Between the spring and fall equinoxes, the standard period to measure shadow impacts, 1.6m of additional height would be nearly imperceptible.
 
Northern Light said:
Excuse me? What's with the hostility.

I report facts.

A 1.6M increase in track elevation is a 1.6M boost in the height of the sound barrier.

The shadow impact IS statistically significant, depending on the time of year, and the object. A 1.6M increase is (potentially) over 30M (90ft of additional shadow).(well over, but I'm trying to omit brief points in time and look at a peak period, averaged)

Feel free to do the calculation yourself:

Online calculator: Shadow length

Gives a vertical object shadow length for given coordinates and time. Also calculates shadow growth during whole day.
planetcalc.com planetcalc.com

My argument is neither for, nor against.

It is to consider the facts; and to consider whether a proponent is being forthcoming about same.

****

Additionally, the shadow is not disruptive, the construction involved in raising a large railway berm by that height, when it is part of a busy rail corridor would be. I also reference a well known local expert in transit, Steve Munro in saying as much.

My record here speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
You're right. A 1.6M increase in the transparent sound barrier will create a shadow.

ekoglass_big.jpg
From link.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top