[Northern Light]

Wait is this correct? The trains/stations will be on the same grade? I thought it was going to be on its own viaduct...frees up room below, but also acts as safety buffer.

For clarity, the proposal, as described in today's releases, is that the existing corridor will be widened (embankment) as needed, to support one additional GO track and the 2 O/L tracks.

Making for a six-track corridor all on the same level.

Needless to say, the platforms will be at the same level as the track.

Which is to say this is a shared corridor with no tracks at different levels.

 

[Johnny Au]

No Taj Mahal stations. Okay, murals are acceptable.

Pictured is a mural at Exit C of Dayan Pagoda metro station in Xi'an, Northwest China's Shaanxi Province depicting the Buddhist monk Xuanzang's anachronistic visit to the Taj Mahal of India.

From link.

I don't know what would look better on the mural. Sun Wukong (Monkey King) flying on a cloud or the Taj Mahal?

 

[44 North]

For clarity, the proposal, as described in today's releases, is that the existing corridor will be widened (embankment) as needed, to support one additional GO track and the 2 O/L tracks.

Making for a six-track corridor all on the same level.

Needless to say, the platforms will be at the same level as the track.

Which is to say this is a shared corridor with no tracks at different levels.

Ok but that's still not adding up for me, maybe I'm missing something since I have looked at Metrolinx's blog. But the corridor was going to be widened and squared off/hardscaped regardless with RER or whatever we're calling it. And looking at Line 2 around Kipling or Line 3 parallel to Uxbridge Sub, there's a sizable gap between mainline and subway. Which is obviously some kind of mandated requirement. So with 6m between subway and mainline, is there room for all those tracks. Even 35yrs ago going above the corridor was the solution (of a rejected option).

 

[Northern Light]

Ok but that's still not adding up for me, maybe I'm missing something since I have looked at Metrolinx's blog. But the corridor was going to be widened and squared off/hardscaped regardless with RER or whatever we're calling it. And looking at Line 2 around Kipling or Line 3 parallel to Uxbridge Sub, there's a sizable gap between mainline and subway. Which is obviously some kind of mandated requirement. So with 6m between subway and mainline, is there room for all those tracks. Even 35yrs ago going above the corridor was the solution (of a rejected option).

I'm uncertain if any 'additional' separation distance is mandated; @crs1026 and @smallspy would be the people to know that.

I examined the corridor width, assuming 3.5M for each track; on that basis, the current embankment is clearly insufficient in most places.

With hardening and using the additional space from the outer limits, yes, it appears feasible, just, with bridges having to be widened for additional track.

Though there are some very tight spots, even then.

What I cannot reconcile is the platforms and egress options.

If, in fact, additional separation distance is required, all bets are off, particularly since the side alignment of O/L would mean 2 points of separation.

 

[officedweller]

^ Doesn't there need to be a fourth track for GO in that image you've marked up? I only see the two orange lines for the Ontario Line.

Probably, I'm not following things that closely..

 

[ARG1]

Not sure about this insinuative "they" wanted to tunnel under the Don. The prov looked at routes too and concluded that a tunnel under the river was necessary. Likely because there's nowhere to bridge, and using the rail corridor came at the expense of track expansion in a pivotal corridor. A notion that seemingly went out the window after the last election, which is ok because any relief line is just as important as GO or VIA.

Regardless seems silly to be dismissive of the RLS route. It was good, had the right curves in the right spots. No question it could've been made shallower, something that undoubtedly could've come about with vehicles that can make steeper grades had that been pursued. The stations on either side of the river weren't even that crazy deep (Gerrard is another story).

It was passable. The biggest problem is still the lack of connections. Its fine to have a relief line, but when building subways there's the aspect of getting people directly where they want to go. You should be able to point to a location, say I want to go there, and be able to easily get there. The more popular a location is, the more benefit there is for it to be connected by subway. This is where the Relief Line fails, because other than being a rapid route under two streets, it doesn't do much more than that. With the Ontario Line, on top of being more convenient in terms of transfers, simply has more connections to places of interest. Places like Exhibition Place, Distillery District, and to some extend Ontario Science Center (I get that Line 5 will go there, but having a direct subway from Downtown is a big benefit), are all benefits to the Ontario Line scale and alignment, and really takes advantage of the fact that its a subway, and not just an underground streetcar.

 

[officedweller]

Also of note..........some fuzzy slippage on the impossible opening date:

Early works for the line are expected to begin in 2021, but Metrolinx and the provincial government are
no longer committing to the Ontario Line’s initial projected opening date of 2027. Aikins said the winning
bidders on the construction contracts will determine when the line will open.

Hmm ... that doesn't bode well for a penalty clause (or I should say "liquidated damages" clause) in the contract.

 

[Steve X]

Oops, for some reason I thought it fed into Eglinton. Good grief, so they make them change for one stop? Why not just run it down Midland to Kennedy station?

Still, William, I think it's false to soley attribute Lawrence East ridership to the bus, especially given the ridership and share of the line at Lawrence East station has grown a lot in the last decade, while Lawrence East bus ridership has been static.

Eventually when the Crosstown opens, the 954 would be extended to Science Centre Station.

I believe the 54 is one of those routes with a consider amount if people staying on the bus while at Lawrence East. It's always been an inconvenience for those people to wait while operators take their washroom break cause the route is so damn long. The day the 954 operates west of the SRT would be a great day.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311040730790539264

 

[nfitz]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311040730790539264

That tweet is 2-days old, and we already discussed this to death about 5 pages ago, when it came out.

 

[syn]

Good Lord that Metrolinx blog post was borderline propaganda. Only in their world is an increase of $2-4 Billion "a slightly higher cost". Aside from that, it's good to see they're able to fit so much into the existing corridor, but at the same time, they're definitely trying to avoid talking about what is going to have to be demolished. Also they really should have shown all 4 GO tracks on the map, because right now it's confusing to imagine how it's all going to fit together. The blog post says an additional track is being added for GO, so why not show that in the diagrams?

All that said, I am happy to see they're adding pedestrian crossings with the Lower Don bridge, I kinda expected them to cheap out on that.

No question it's hard to take these blogs seriously. They aren't created to inform, but promote.

I'd love to believe everything is as great as they're making it sound, but there are some serious questions to address that are always glossed over in these posts.

This is why I'd love to see the actual plans, and exactly how much space the new track, platform, etc. will take up.

 

[Coolstar]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311785208644022277

 

[Darwinkgo]

Lol. I guess sometimes have to go through the motions for your constituents even if you know the answer is that underground is far more costly.

 

[syn]

Lol. I guess sometimes have to go through the motions for your constituents even if you know the answer is that underground is far more costly.

I don't think it's a question of cost, but value.

 

[Rainforest]

Lol. I guess sometimes have to go through the motions for your constituents even if you know the answer is that underground is far more costly.

Many people are rightfully concerned that the % reduction in cost will be smaller than the % reduction in capacity.

Say, we save 15% off the cost, but lose 35% of the potential capacity by using smaller and narrower trains. No problem on the opening day; if the line is designed for 34,000 or even just 29,000 pphpd, it will easily handle the opening-day demand of 15,000-20,000.

But 15 years later, the ridership of OL will hit the capacity limit, and we will be back to today's situation of not being able to serve all peak-hour demand into downtown.

While if we had that extra 35% of capacity, OL would remain sufficient for 25-30 years after opening, instead of just 15 years.