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

Public Meeting Dates:

Get Involved/
Public Meeting Materials
Join us at a Public Meeting:
Wednesday April 18
George Vanier Secondary School 3000 Don Mills Rd E, North York
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Cafeteria

Thursday April 19
York Mills Collegiate Institute 490 York Mills Rd, North York
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Cafeteria

Saturday April 21Thorncliffe Banquet Hall 45 Overlea Blvd, Toronto
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Main Room

http://relief.eagle.ca/get-involved/public-meeting-materials/
 
Kitsune said:
Public Meeting Dates:

Get Involved/
Public Meeting Materials
Join us at a Public Meeting:
Wednesday April 18
George Vanier Secondary School 3000 Don Mills Rd E, North York
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Cafeteria

Thursday April 19
York Mills Collegiate Institute 490 York Mills Rd, North York
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Cafeteria

Saturday April 21Thorncliffe Banquet Hall 45 Overlea Blvd, Toronto
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Main Room

http://relief.eagle.ca/get-involved/public-meeting-materials/
Click to expand...

This is the first Relief Line North public meeting. Looks like work has finally begun on that project!
 
... when looking at the route map - Bayview seems to close to yonge, but does have the straightest run to Steeles and continues into York. Don Mills goes windy after Finch and stops at Steeles. Victoria Park also stops at steeles but also has a straight run.

For the Don Valley crossing, there seems to be 4 options - cross at Millwood and then turn towards Bayview, cross at Millwood, add Thorncliffe station and then cross again at Overlea. Option 3 is to follow Don mills across the valley and Option 4 is Victoria Park and skip it entirely.

And in the bridge vs tunnel debate across the Don Valley, consider these stats (according to google earth) the top of the valley is 127.1 m (417 ft). The bottom of the Don river is about 84.4m to 86.25 (277 to 283ft). The DVP is at 99m (323ft). I dont know if its feasible to tunnel that deep considering the grades involved - and also the insane depth that the Thorncliffe station would be at. On the flip side - having BD depth and replacing or build new bridges might upset the neighbours on the Cosburn side.
 
Oh, this hits close to home for me - I attended Georges Vanier x number of years ago.
 
^ I would hope that if Don Mills is the preferred corridor, they don't cheapen out on it and place stations at all the mid blocks ie. Mortimer, Gateway Blvd, Barber Greene, Bond, Graydon Hall and Van Horne if ending at Finch.
 
Hopkins123 said:
^ I would hope that if Don Mills is the preferred corridor, they don't cheapen out on it and place stations at all the mid blocks ie. Mortimer, Gateway Blvd, Barber Greene, Bond, Graydon Hall and Van Horne if ending at Finch.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that slow down the line too much?
 
Kitsune said:
... when looking at the route map - Bayview seems to close to yonge, but does have the straightest run to Steeles and continues into York. Don Mills goes windy after Finch and stops at Steeles. Victoria Park also stops at steeles but also has a straight run.
Click to expand...

I assume the goal would be still to connect to Don Mills station? If this was ever extended into York Region, it would make more sense to head northeast somehow through Markham's employment lands, which could be intensified, through to Downtown Markham. Agree that Bayview is so close to Yonge that it would be pointless.
 
I think Bayview is out of question; both too close to Yonge, and too little density.

Serving Thorncliffe, Flemmington, and Science Centre (Eglinton & Don Mills) is highly desirable and will bring lots of riders.

North of Eglinton, there are 3 major choices: Don Mills, Vic Park, or the DVP / 404 corridor.

Don Mills has density up to Lawrence, not too much between Lawrence and the 401. However, one advantage of the Don Mills route is the ease of serving Seneca College. After Seneca, the line could veer north-east and hit Steeles at Woodbine.

Swinging to Vic Park north of Eglinton would probably serve more local density, but it would be harder to hit Seneca College.

The DVP / 404 route would serve no local density, but might make the construction cheaper, while still providing interchanges will all major E-W routes: Lawrence, York Mills, Sheppard, Finch, Steeles. I wouldn't automatically dismiss that options on the local density grounds alone.

All the above choices are for subway technology, incompatible with mainline rail. In case we end up building a mainline-compatible Relief line, obviously the Bala Sub route (Richmond Hill GO line) north of Lawrence will be taken over by the Relief line.
 
Hopkins123 said:
How are stops every kilometre apart, in some instances greater, slowing down the line too much?
Click to expand...

It would add up. And there likely wouldn't be much additional ridership. Maybe the Graydon Hall stop would be justified, although the people in that area could easily walk to York Mills. Not to mention the DRL, like Yonge, would likely get most of its ridership from feeder bus routes, as opposed to local density. I don't think these stops are really justified.
 
Last edited:
Rainforest said:
I think Bayview is out of question; both too close to Yonge, and too little density.

Serving Thorncliffe, Flemmington, and Science Centre (Eglinton & Don Mills) is highly desirable and will bring lots of riders.

North of Eglinton, there are 3 major choices: Don Mills, Vic Park, or the DVP / 404 corridor.

Don Mills has density up to Lawrence, not too much between Lawrence and the 401. However, one advantage of the Don Mills route is the ease of serving Seneca College. After Seneca, the line could veer north-east and hit Steeles at Woodbine.

Swinging to Vic Park north of Eglinton would probably serve more local density, but it would be harder to hit Seneca College.

The DVP / 404 route would serve no local density, but might make the construction cheaper, while still providing interchanges will all major E-W routes: Lawrence, York Mills, Sheppard, Finch, Steeles. I wouldn't automatically dismiss that options on the local density grounds alone.

All the above choices are for subway technology, incompatible with mainline rail. In case we end up building a mainline-compatible Relief line, obviously the Bala Sub route (Richmond Hill GO line) north of Lawrence will be taken over by the Relief line.
Click to expand...

While not much residential, I believe the employment area north of Lawrence and west of Don Mills has some 13000 jobs. It's a reasonable amount. Also, just north east of the 401 and Don Mills is a very densely populated area. Costs aside, Don Mills is a much better option when compared with Vic Park.
 
Kitsune said:
... when looking at the route map - Bayview seems to close to yonge, but does have the straightest run to Steeles and continues into York. Don Mills goes windy after Finch and stops at Steeles. Victoria Park also stops at steeles but also has a straight run.

For the Don Valley crossing, there seems to be 4 options - cross at Millwood and then turn towards Bayview, cross at Millwood, add Thorncliffe station and then cross again at Overlea. Option 3 is to follow Don mills across the valley and Option 4 is Victoria Park and skip it entirely.

And in the bridge vs tunnel debate across the Don Valley, consider these stats (according to google earth) the top of the valley is 127.1 m (417 ft). The bottom of the Don river is about 84.4m to 86.25 (277 to 283ft). The DVP is at 99m (323ft). I dont know if its feasible to tunnel that deep considering the grades involved - and also the insane depth that the Thorncliffe station would be at. On the flip side - having BD depth and replacing or build new bridges might upset the neighbours on the Cosburn side.
Click to expand...

Didn't know you could get elevation numbers like that from Google. But yeah the elevation changes are some of the largest in the city and I think it's safe to say that crossing with a tunnel is out of the question. Which I think is great because bridges are generally less expensive than tunneling, but most importantly they can be a fantastic feature. If we ever do get this thing to Eglinton or beyond - or built at all - we'll get some great views while riding. And bridges are usually well received by the public.

Want to post this bare bones 1m contour map since it brings it home how much of a chasm the Valley is here. And it's a great map from the fellows at MapTO. I edited in the RL Long which may not be accurate.

TorontoElevationFromMapsTOwebsite.png

Original map by Tom Weatherburn and William Davis, located at http://www.mapto.ca/maps/toronto-elevation-at-1m-countours
 

Attachments

  • TorontoElevationFromMapsTOwebsite.png
    TorontoElevationFromMapsTOwebsite.png
    804.6 KB · Views: 567
44 North said:
Didn't know you could get elevation numbers like that from Google. But yeah the elevation changes are some of the largest in the city and I think it's safe to say that crossing with a tunnel is out of the question. Which I think is great because bridges are generally less expensive than tunneling, but most importantly they can be a fantastic feature. If we ever do get this thing to Eglinton or beyond - or built at all - we'll get some great views while riding. And bridges are usually well received by the public.

Want to post this bare bones 1m contour map since it brings it home how much of a chasm the Valley is here. And it's a great map from the fellows at MapTO. I edited in the RL Long which may not be accurate.

View attachment 138478
Original map by Tom Weatherburn and William Davis, located at http://www.mapto.ca/maps/toronto-elevation-at-1m-countours
Click to expand...

From the subway, that would be a great view.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top