Sunnyside
Active Member
...And now would be roughly be when we'd want to model such things to have something planned for. Which must be made harder by the fact that every single rapid transit project is in any state but complete.Well, I stated that in the context of the capacity the O/L removes from the rail corridor (two tracks worth) .
That decision is essentially made now.
It wouldn't be impossible to bury the O/L in the future, but it would cost than it would have originally, and it would be disruptive (the O/L would have to shut down at some point for new connections to be made, at the very least for a couple of weeks, but potentially for several months)
The projected cost for the Leslieville portion to be buried was 800M, I think a complex exercise to do that post-hoc would likely cost at least twice as much, if not triple.
To be clear, I do not see this happening and I'm not advocating for it. Its just a shame we did this wrong.
Aside from the above, the key opportunities would be removing storage tracks at the yards east and west of Union in favour of throughput capacity, and building a more robust than currently planned station at Spadina and Front to try and divert some riders.
This creates some hassles for GO, but is probably a sensible move in the medium term. There is sufficient capacity (or will be once O/L construction is done) for the near term. The real concern is the mid 2030s and beyond.
It seems like there was a reality that a lot of tunnel would be needed under Toronto at some point. There was the City's Relief Line, and GO's potential Lakeshore diversions under the corridor/King/Queen. They serve(d) completely different purposes- one to relieve the subway, and the other Union. I think the Ontario Line is a 'prudent' way to try to do both, but ultimately you will need to literally dig that corresponding amount of tunnel we had foregone when using the rail corridor for the inverse rail system (subway network). Instead, we'll soon need more throughput/bypass capacity for the GO Network anyway (edited- reworded for clarity)
By, say, pursuing just the RL and then something that directly targets the GO network., we'd avoid this (intermingling) mess. But, The Ontario Line does tackle both problems enough that the other doesn't go 'critical', which might have been a conventionally-wise business decision... In any case, I digress- the Ontario Line is simply doing two jobs that probably always needed to be handled by two things, not one.
Last edited: