daniel_kryz said:
sciencecentre.png
As you can see, it'll cross the roadway in a very important location, instead of sticking to one side. This will only worsen its impact on the public realm by making it less pedestrian-friendly.
Click to expand...
Remeber when the plan/idea was to put Eglinton on the south side (to keep it grade separated to Don Mills).
Remember when that would have put the Station on the SW corner, to reduce traffic disruption during construction and improve access to Science Centre.
Remember when people said that they should rough in the Relief Line (Ontario Line) station under the Eglinton Station because it would be foolish to construct a DRL station under the Eglinton station 5 years after Eglinton opens.

We are living those decisions from 5-10 years ago. This station had to be elevated. This station had to be on the NE side to match the bus bays.
 
aquateam said:
How does this make it less pedestrian-friendly? It's above the roadway, not at-grade. Depending on the detailed design, it looks like they might add station access on the South East corner too.

The Science World in Vancouver seems pretty pedestrian friendly despite the elevated transit line next to it. In some parts of Vancouver, they even run a bike lane below the Skytrain.

A midrise isn't really appropriate for the site. This is a transit hub at the intersection of $16 billion in new grade-separated transit lines, in an established high rise neighbourhood. And with Bill 108, it looks like whatever the city intended doesn't much matter anymore since the province is upzoning at all new transit stations.

The Block 1 office is north-west of Don Mills/Eglinton, so it is actually less impacted by the new alignment on the east side of Eglinton.

Do you have a reference about the square on each corner? The OL station is located directly over the planned bus terminal on the North-East side, so I don't see how a public space could have been planned for that corner as well.
Click to expand...
Usually, elevated guideways blend in well when they avoid switching sides across roads (especially around intersections), when they avoid sidewalks (in 'urbanized' areas), and generally in suburban areas. Don Mills is not wide, and only has space for a sidewalk. This means that the sidewalk will be fully covered, creating a worse public realm in an area where many people will live and work. Vancouver's Skytrain is actually set-back away from sidewalks and the roads are designed to create a pleasant experience under the rails, and this especially true around Science World. This plan is just going to squeeze it into a street that wasn't designed in tandem with this project, and will put trains meters away from condo units.

Regarding the mid-rise, I agree that the land should be put to better use. This will be a transit hub, after all. Also, there will be a square on each corner except the SE one, and the tracks will go over the NE corner. Idk if the square will happen as part of the project, but it will still be covered.
Go to this link and open Page 10 to see a map of the open spaces...
Honestly, this is the one place where we shouldn't value engineer.
 
Reecemartin said:
Its a hydro corridor? Its a perfect place . . .
Click to expand...
It's still green space...

And honestly, what better place to put an elevated guideway than down a road that's wide, and has space for it? Their rationale for changing the alignment is pretty weak. Overlea doesn't have a ton of traffic. Are we saying there's no way to keep access to the houses of worship during construction with all those lanes? Metrolinx is doing this because it's cheaper, and they figure: who gives a damn about a bunch of trees anyways. It's the same attitude they've exhibited by planning to build a GO train layover in the Don Valley

At any rate, I'm really curious how they're going to somehow fit two more tracks into the existing corridor without cutting down a large number of existing trees. Maybe the city should do a variation of what it does to developers: charge Metrolinx a CIL payment for each km of greenspace they build a bridge over. I'd bet you that alignment changes fast.
 
aquateam said:
And with Bill 108, it looks like whatever the city intended doesn't much matter anymore since the province is upzoning at all new transit stations.
Click to expand...
FWIW, this is not strictly true. Any municipality can ask for the zoning rules to be waived. IIRC, TO Planning has suggested that a lot of the Line 2 stations be excluded from this requirement.
 
allengeorge said:
It's still green space...

And honestly, what better place to put an elevated guideway than down a road that's wide, and has space for it? Their rationale for changing the alignment is pretty weak. Overlea doesn't have a ton of traffic. Are we saying there's no way to keep access to the houses of worship during construction with all those lanes? Metrolinx is doing this because it's cheaper, and they figure: who gives a damn about a bunch of trees anyways. It's the same attitude they've exhibited by planning to build a GO train layover in the Don Valley

At any rate, I'm really curious how they're going to somehow fit two more tracks into the existing corridor without cutting down a large number of existing trees. Maybe the city should do a variation of what it does to developers: charge Metrolinx a CIL payment for each km of greenspace they build a bridge over. I'd bet you that alignment changes fast.
Click to expand...

Not sure the City really wants to engage Metrolinx in that way.

Mx expropriated part of Union Station from the City.

In the pecking order of the province, Mx can out peck the City.

I think there a a host of problems w/the O/L project, this bit of route among them..............

But I'm not sure what the real course of action is, IF this is a serious proposal.............which I'm not sure about.
 
robmausser said:
If they must have the MSF where they want it, then build a branch track to it and keep the main line on Overlea, with the 2nd station.

View attachment 274620
Click to expand...
I do like this proposal a lot; it's back to the original routing, adding back the station at Overlea, but with the new location for Flemingdon Park.
 
reteequa said:
It blows my mind that you all want to hate on this so much that your main point is the names of the stations! It is so early the actual names will not be decided for a while...holy shit!

Not a fan of Doug Ford and there are obviously problems with this plan like there would be with everything. This is moving faster then any project ive seen in my lifetime. But come on the name of the station....brutal
Click to expand...
I’m actually a fan of the overall plan. If built it will tunnel ~100m from my home, provide a nearby station and improve my commute. I believe the plan delivers a lot of benefits to many neighborhoods. but I had to comment on what to me was a glaring oversight and with a dose of levity intended.
 
Thinking about a northern extension, how about along Don Mills to the Richmond Hill GO corridor? Stops at Donway S, Lawrence, Donway N, York Mills, Sheppard/Leslie Subway, Finch, Steeles, John-Green, Richmond Hill Centre Subway, Bantry, Carrville, Major Mac, Elgin Mills.

Gormley and Bloomington could be served by a DMU shuttle.
 
Tcmetro said:
Thinking about a northern extension, how about along Don Mills to the Richmond Hill GO corridor? Stops at Donway S, Lawrence, Donway N, York Mills, Sheppard/Leslie Subway, Finch, Steeles, John-Green, Richmond Hill Centre Subway, Bantry, Carrville, Major Mac, Elgin Mills.

Gormley and Bloomington could be served by a DMU shuttle.
Click to expand...
Let's just focus on the immediate Ontario Line proposal on our hands. Any further northern extension from Don Mills is straying into fantasy land, and it wont happen in any of our lifetimes (including babies who are born today).
 
Tcmetro said:
Thinking about a northern extension, how about along Don Mills to the Richmond Hill GO corridor? Stops at Donway S, Lawrence, Donway N, York Mills, Sheppard/Leslie Subway, Finch, Steeles, John-Green, Richmond Hill Centre Subway, Bantry, Carrville, Major Mac, Elgin Mills.

Gormley and Bloomington could be served by a DMU shuttle.
Click to expand...

Your stops along Don Mills are way too close together.

The distance from the Donway (south) to Lawrence is just over 500M

While Lawrence to Donway (north) is under 500M;

The portion north thereof may be feasible.

But, as I see @Amare posted..........we're a very, very long way from getting any of that built.

I'm not sure sure I'm quite as pessimistic as he is..........LOL............but certainly, nothing much north of Eglinton is likely to see construction before the 2040s.....and that is rather optimistic.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm not sure sure I'm quite as pessimistic as he is..........LOL............but certainly, nothing much north of Eglinton is likely to see construction before the 2040s.....and that is rather optimistic.
Click to expand...

If Yonge street line overcrowding is still critical (which it is projected to be at some point regardless of the existence of OL phase 1), then I'd be a lot more optimistic for an extension to Sheppard. Possibly, construction on an OL extension to Sheppard could begin at or even before the opening of the Exhibition>>Eglinton section in the late 2020s/early 2030s. After all, Line 5's westward extension is to begin tunnelling some time next year, possibly even before the Kennedy>>Mt. Dennis section of Line 5 opens 🤭

With the current setup at Sci Centre, they could easily push a simple elevated extension with stops at Lawrence, York Mills, Graydon Hall and Sheppard. Beyond Sheppard, I don't think there is enough ridership to justify an extension before 2050.
 
Last edited:
What is the line heading off to the South-East. I thought both the Relief Line and previous Ontario Line would be coming straight up Pape

1602036357163.png
 
99Messier said:
What is the line heading off to the South-East. I thought both the Relief Line and previous Ontario Line would be coming straight up Pape

View attachment 274628
Click to expand...
That was a notion to swing to the east and back in order to get up onto the rail corridor sooner and have Gerrard diagonally across Pape and Gerrard. It would have been more expensive to build and operate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top