Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Reducing the number of lanes on University down to 2 in each direction, and shifting the northbound lanes to where the current median is a better solution to the area. The monuments and fountains can be moved to the east side of University Avenue later.

See https://universitypark.evergreen.ca/ for a better solution to University Avenue.
 
I am certain that Sir Adam Beck would not object to being relocated in the interest of a public transit project. Maybe the center island of University has enough room for at least a secondary entrance. Lots of pedestrian issues crossing University, perhaps....but that may happen anyways.

- Paul
 
CharmAlarm said:

Law Society will seek injunction to stop Metrolinx from removing Osgoode Hall trees as early as Saturday​


www.thestar.com

Law Society will seek injunction to stop Metrolinx from removing Osgoode Hall trees as early as Saturday

Metrolinx has indicated to the Law Society of Ontario that it plans to begin cutting down the trees for the multi-billion-dollar Ontario Line transit project
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...
Absolutely hilarious, a multi billion dollar project that's badly needed will be blocked because of... trees? Erm yeah it sucks that trees need to be cut down but you can easily compensate the loss by planting more trees or some other method.

Just get it built, this is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Kitsune said:
... the article is not just about trees. There is the blurb at the bottom of it:



.. the trees are just the beginning of this battle. The Relief line never had this big of a surface building .. or required to teardown the osgoode trees even though the station would be almost twice as long. Osgoode station is apparently already underpinned too ,, why is this not just being mined under Osgoode... which iirc was how it was planned for the relief line.
Click to expand...
Do they have a report from a Structural Engineer justifying their concerns? Or is it all just conjecture and posturing?
 
EddyMCD said:
Do they have a report from a Structural Engineer justifying their concerns? Or is it all just conjecture and posturing?
Click to expand...
NIMBYISM.

"foundation" concerns is a classic NIMBY issue for immediate neighbours of construction, and there are a lot of very reasonable ways to mitigate any issues on that front like active ground monitoring. The Osgoode Hall building is over 100 feet away from the station entrance location, any ground vibrations will significantly dissipate by the time they reach the building at that distance.

The Relief line didn't have this stuff because it cost twice as much per kilometre to build. Metrolinx is looking for ways to build things more economically, and this is part of it.

If you learned that the "solution" to save these trees likely involves costs to the tunes of 100+ million dollars - is that a reasonable ask? It's possible, sure, and indeed the city used to regularly spend that much to mitigate marginal project impacts, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. A big reason Toronto's infrastructure sucks so much is politicians have long become too afraid to break a few eggs in the process. Remember that the Relief line was delayed for over a year and saw costs increase by hundreds of millions of dollars to shift the Entirely underground alignment of the line off of a residential street and onto an arterial.

Losing the trees sucks. But when it comes to building major infrastructure like new transit lines through the middle of one of the largest cities on the continent, you aren't going to do it without any impacts.
 
innsertnamehere said:
NIMBYISM.

"foundation" concerns is a classic NIMBY issue for immediate neighbours of construction, and there are a lot of very reasonable ways to mitigate any issues on that front like active ground monitoring. The Osgoode Hall building is over 100 feet away from the station entrance location, any ground vibrations will significantly dissipate by the time they reach the building at that distance.

The Relief line didn't have this stuff because it cost twice as much per kilometre to build. Metrolinx is looking for ways to build things more economically, and this is part of it.

IF you learned that the "solution" to save these trees likely involves costs to the tunes of 100+ million dollars - is that a reasonable ask? It's possible, sure, and indeed the city used to regularly spend that much to mitigate marginal project impacts, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Losing the trees sucks. But when it comes to building major infrastructure like new transit lines through the middle of one of the largest cities on the continent, you aren't going to do it without any impacts.
Click to expand...

Overall, very bad take.

The University Park proposal is now an official City Plan with money allocated; but the timeline currently stretched beyond the O/L short term construction period.

This is easy enough to address and does not represent net added costs over what is currently contemplated.
 
Northern Light said:
Overall, very bad take.

The University Park proposal is now an official City Plan with money allocated; but the timeline currently stretched beyond the O/L short term construction period.

This is easy enough to address and does not represent net added costs over what is currently contemplated.
Click to expand...
how certain are we that it works though? Do we know exactly where the Osgoode platform is under University? If it's down the centreline of the street, that entrance location may just break right down into the existing subway platform.

And even if it did work, we are at the stage in the plan where a significant construction change like that would send delays through the construction process which would incur significant cost. Perhaps if it had been designed initially like that it wouldn't have been significantly more costly, but that is no longer the case.
 
innsertnamehere said:
how certain are we that it works though? Do we know exactly where the Osgoode platform is under University? If it's down the centreline of the street, that entrance location may just break right down into the existing subway platform.
Click to expand...

1675448455732.png

* taken from the original R/L line drawings

The shift of the entrance into what is now the curb lane of University Avenue would not be directly above the existing station platform, which sits directly (2 levels) below the median of University Avenue.

The tunnel (Trackside) wall for NB trains is under the innermost lane, adjacent to the median.

Either way, the stairs would connect to the existing concourse which is situated above both the platform and the tunnels/tracks for Line 1.

The only question is whether they connect from the north or from the east/north-east.

innsertnamehere said:
And even if it did work, we are at the stage in the plan where a significant construction change like that would send delays through the construction process which would incur significant cost. Perhaps if it had been designed initially like that it wouldn't have been significantly more costly, but that is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

The significant cost at this stage is less than Phil Verster's salary increase.

I know exactly where to find the money!
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
And even if it did work, we are at the stage in the plan where a significant construction change like that would send delays through the construction process which would incur significant cost. Perhaps if it had been designed initially like that it wouldn't have been significantly more costly, but that is no longer the case.
Click to expand...
Here's a question to ponder: what kind of precedent would we be setting if we gave Metrolinx carte blanche to mess up the public realm because they didn't design the project correctly the first time around? It would essentially be saying that it doesn't matter how sloppy their work is, and it would certainly open the door for them to try pulling stuff like this for the next design project, too.

Last I checked, the transit system is supposed to serve the city, not the other way around. If that means transit projects are delayed to protect the sanctity of the public realm, well, too bad. That's the price of living in a pre-developed city.
 
Northern Light said:
The national historic site designation covers the grounds, not just the building, so no.
Click to expand...
they seem to have their permits on that front, so the impact must have been deemed acceptable.

T3G said:
Here's a question to ponder: what kind of precedent would we be setting if we gave Metrolinx carte blanche to mess up the public realm because they didn't design the project correctly the first time around? It would essentially be saying that it doesn't matter how sloppy their work is, and it would certainly open the door for them to try pulling stuff like this for the next design project, too.

Last I checked, the transit system is supposed to serve the city, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

When we are building city defining infrastructure like this, yea, you are going to see changes.

Toronto is obsessed with this myth that we can build things that will magically appear and take up zero space and result in no changes.

Again - is it not ideal these trees are cut? sure. But they'll grow back, eventually. You know what will be there with us forever after? Great public transit resulting from the project.

The University line today clear cut a decent chunk of Queens Park to build it back in the 1960's, you'd never know today. Trees regrow.

We can debate whether that median entry would be better or not, but at the end of the day Metrolinx is tasked with building the OL, and building it quickly for minimal cost. And that is what they are doing.
 
innsertnamehere said:
We can debate whether that median entry would be better or not, but at the end of the day Metrolinx is tasked with building the OL, and building it quickly for minimal cost. And that is what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, speed is not an excuse for laziness - or arrogance - especially when you have alternatives and chose not to explore or implement them, and that the costs to doing so is not exorbitant or unreasonable. And please, don't give that sh*t about minimal cost - we know Metrolinx had overspent in other, more ahem, "electorally sensitive" areas for the sake of public realm (and I mean, FFS, they buried an entire line for that reason).

Oh and yes, University Avenue - I mean we *are* trying to restore it to some semblance of a decent public realm after the mistakes of the 50s...

AoD
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
they seem to have their permits on that front, so the impact must have been deemed acceptable.
Click to expand...

There is no statutory protection for National Historical Sites at the Federal level in Canada.

A law establishing such protection is currently before Parliament.

There are protections for said sites through the municipal system, which as a provincial agency Mx can over-ride.

***

The courts, however, can make new precedent on that subject.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top