[W. K. Lis]

The question of the redesign should be answered as to the point of the accountants or the actual transit-users. Will redundant elevators be used in the centre platform for the "Ontario" line, in case one is out-of-service for maintenance, for example.

 

[Northern Light]

F in the chat for the cross platform interchange.

Seriously though, we should not be bowing to NIMBYs, especially when their argument is beyond idiotic. I guess we could get individual Stouffville and LSE East Harbour platforms out of this,

Putting aside that this change has nothing to do with NIMBYs..............

It still doesn't resolve several critical problems with this proposal.

Notably the LSE Corridor capacity for both GO and VIA; the capacity of the O/L itself; the requirement to essentially waste Greenwood Yard which can't host the next generation of trains in its current configuration (hence the need to build a yard
at Obico); but which could be used, once Obico was opened, reconfigured to hold Relief Line trains (but not when the O/L proposal seeks to use standard gauge.). (Its a question of timing since the existing yard can't be retracked until Obico opens.)

All the while displacing in-demand, tax-paying employment lands in Leaside.

On top of which, all Mx assertions to the contrary the current proposals not only offend the community but also many professional parks and forestry staff at the City and TRCA; while also locating sections of the line in such as a way as to cause substantial inconvenience to riders.

When one factors in, that shifting the tracks to the west creates slews of new problems, including property requirements; but also means the expense and disruption of shifting the existing GO tracks over to the east; unless you want to rebuild the entire embankment on the west side at considerable cost.

At this point, I not only support cancelling the O/L project...........

I strongly support firing Phil Verster whose role in all this ineptitude is unforgivable.

What a grotesque waste of time and money this has become.

Build the damned Relief Line as it was conceived and extend it north to Eglinton as soon as it reaches Danforth.

 

[kamira51]

Build the damned Relief Line as it was conceived and extend it north to Eglinton as soon as it reaches Danforth.

But what about gerrard station being like nine storys deep? that's kinda ridiculous.

 

[Allandale25]

Ontario Line Design Changes Again

Updated March 27, 2021: The reference to third rail power pickup for the Ontario Line was incorrect and has been changed. According to the December 2020 Preliminary Design Business Case the line wi…

stevemunro.ca

A rough interpretation of what I think is happening? Red = portals

[I've been corrected will fix]

 

[officedweller]

Isn't that the east side you've shown?

Shouldn't it be on the other west side of the GO tracks?

Comments were that there is no need to tunnel under the GO tracks, etc.

 

[Northern Light]

But what about gerrard station being like nine storys deep? that's kinda ridiculous.

In my ideal world, we'd go back to cut and cover, wherever practical, and that would be a non-issue, for the most part.

But unfortunately that's not what's being done.

 

[Northern Light]

Isn't that the east side you've shown?

Shouldn't it be on the other west side of the GO tracks?

Comments were that there is no need to tunnel under the GO tracks, etc.

Correct, the proposed revision is on the west side.

 

[officedweller]

I have another thought - if the line is wholly on the west side of the GO tracks, that will also allow them to diverge from the GO Corridor earlier, shift the Don River Bridge to the north and track a straighter line to Corktown Station with a tunnel portal somewhere in the West Don Lands (but Corktown Common gets in the way).
Maybe a bridge to the north of Corktown Common with a tunnel portal around Eastern Ave (north of River City 3?) or even farther north at Queen St. or elevated in the middle of eastern Ave with a portal between those viaducts (which is more like the Relief Line routing, but elevated over the river).

 

[Allandale25]

Correct, the proposed revision is on the west side.

Will fix and repost the map. Unless someone else posts a map.

 

[ARG1]

I mean i think the money that this would hopefully save makes ist worth it. Cross-platform transfers are great and useful, though I'm not sure how many people would even transfer heading westbound from east harbour, and it would only be useful for half of the people transferring eastbound, so I think a bit of a jog under or over the tracks to your platform won't be a big problem

The idea is to add ways to avoid Union. Even though Union Station is being rebuilt to support more capacity, especially once GO RER comes online, we need a way to divert people away from Union and get people downtown some other way. This is where Exhibition and East Harbour Stations come in. The idea is that is if you're a Stouffville Line commuter travelling to downtown, instead of travelling all the way to Union then transferring to the subway or streetcar, you can just do a very simple cross platform connection to the Ontario Line which will drop you off at the Queen area. This effectively allows us to divert the entire northern downtown workforce away from Union to prevent dangerous levels of overcrowding.

Putting aside that this change has nothing to do with NIMBYs..............

It still doesn't resolve several critical problems with this proposal.

Notably the LSE Corridor capacity for both GO and VIA; the capacity of the O/L itself; the requirement to essentially waste Greenwood Yard which can't host the next generation of trains in its current configuration (hence the need to build a yard
at Obico); but which could be used, once Obico was opened, reconfigured to hold Relief Line trains (but not when the O/L proposal seeks to use standard gauge.). (Its a question of timing since the existing yard can't be retracked until Obico opens.)

A lot of these issues are sort of non-issues. First, 4 track corridors are still extremely wide corridors with tons of capacity. If we ignore Via for a second, a 6 track corridor means 2 LSE, 2 OL, and 2 Stouffville Line corridors. On its own this is enough to effectively have 5 minute headways on both LSE and Stouffville, 3 mins if Metrolinx gets a waver for more frequent train. Realistically, if we're worried about Via service, all that would practically be needed is a 7th track at East Harbour to serve express trains, and even then, whether or not its needed is a massive question. For Via HFR, it seems like Via is eyeing the midtown character and the abandoned CP Don Valley Bridge, so for the next 10-15 years, Via on LSE is sort of a non-issue.

As for the Greenwood Yard, why not just reconfigure it? If it cannot support future train models in its current state, that sounds like a Greenwood problem. When the TR2s get built and released to replace the T1s, will the TTC just abandon greenwood since it cannot house any of the new trains? If that's the case it seems like the Obico yard is needed with or without the DRL.

All the while displacing in-demand, tax-paying employment lands in Leaside.

Displacing tax-paying employment lands in Leaside? You mean the Costco Parking Lot?

On top of which, all Mx assertions to the contrary the current proposals not only offend the community but also many professional parks and forestry staff at the City and TRCA; while also locating section of the line in such as a way as to cause substantial inconvenience to riders.

When factors in, that shifting the tracks to the west creates slews of new problems, including property requirements; but also means the expense and disruption of shifting the existing GO tracks over to the east; unless you want to rebuild the entire embankment on the west side at considerable cost.

Offend NIMBYs that are losing 5m^2 of Park Space?

https://imgur.com/LEcSDhg

This isn't running over a park, this isn't running over anything, this is causing a huge fuss over literally nothing.

At this point, I not only support cancelling the O/L project...........

I strongly support firing Phil Verster whose roll in all this ineptitude is unforgivable.

What a grotesque waste of time and money this has become.

Build the damned Relief Line as it was conceived and extend it north to Eglinton as soon as it reaches Danforth.

Cancelling the Ontario Line at this point would be an even bigger waste of time and money. ATM the Ontario Line is on track to be completed at the same time as the DRL was, mainly because many sections are now above ground which means less time spent boring and building giant cavernous stations. Cancelling O/L at this point would give us an opening date of the DRL at like 2035.

 

[Tuck]

Putting aside that this change has nothing to do with NIMBYs..............

It still doesn't resolve several critical problems with this proposal.

Notably the LSE Corridor capacity for both GO and VIA; the capacity of the O/L itself; the requirement to essentially waste Greenwood Yard which can't host the next generation of trains in its current configuration (hence the need to build a yard
at Obico); but which could be used, once Obico was opened, reconfigured to hold Relief Line trains (but not when the O/L proposal seeks to use standard gauge.). (Its a question of timing since the existing yard can't be retracked until Obico opens.)

All the while displacing in-demand, tax-paying employment lands in Leaside.

On top of which, all Mx assertions to the contrary the current proposals not only offend the community but also many professional parks and forestry staff at the City and TRCA; while also locating sections of the line in such as a way as to cause substantial inconvenience to riders.

When one factors in, that shifting the tracks to the west creates slews of new problems, including property requirements; but also means the expense and disruption of shifting the existing GO tracks over to the east; unless you want to rebuild the entire embankment on the west side at considerable cost.

At this point, I not only support cancelling the O/L project...........

I strongly support firing Phil Verster whose roll in all this ineptitude is unforgivable.

What a grotesque waste of time and money this has become.

Build the damned Relief Line as it was conceived and extend it north to Eglinton as soon as it reaches Danforth.

The relief line had issues too. Depth, mainly. But it would also be more costly to extend - building elevated north of Bloor is great.

Unfortunately I hate the alignment. RL alignment + shallower station depth + smaller trains (i.e narrower/shorter) + elevated north of Bloor would be great I think. But the river crossing would make that a challenge.

 

[Northern Light]

A lot of these issues are sort of non-issues. First, 4 track corridors are still extremely wide corridors with tons of capacity. If we ignore Via for a second, a 6 track corridor means 2 LSE, 2 OL, and 2 Stouffville Line corridors. On its own this is enough to effectively have 5 minute headways on both LSE and Stouffville, 3 mins if Metrolinx gets a waver for more frequent train. Realistically, if we're worried about Via service, all that would practically be needed is a 7th track at East Harbour to serve express trains, and even then, whether or not its needed is a massive question. For Via HFR, it seems like Via is eyeing the midtown character and the abandoned CP Don Valley Bridge, so for the next 10-15 years, Via on LSE is sort of a non-issue.

VIA is eyeing no such thing, so far as I know; and GO's plans for a storage usage of the Don Valley Branch directly conflict with any VIA usage of same.

With respect, you appear to be making things up.

If I'm wrong, I will apologize, but I expect evidence in support of any position contradicting the facts as I know them.

As for the Greenwood Yard, why not just reconfigure it? If it cannot support future train models in its current state, that sounds like a Greenwood problem. When the TR2s get built and released to replace the T1s, will the TTC just abandon greenwood since it cannot house any of the new trains? If that's the case it seems like the Obico yard is needed with or without the DRL.

Greenwood can be reconfigured, the 1st issue is timing. It can't be done til Obico is ready (you have to store the existing trains, and maintain them, until the new ones arrive).

The O/L timing plan is inconsistent with this.

Also re-tracking the entire Greenwood Yard would add considerable expense and time.

Further, it would make it incompatible with Line 2 which has a different track gauge.

Displacing tax-paying employment lands in Leaside? You mean the Costco Parking Lot?

You're being obnoxious at this point. That is not where the maintenance and storage yard is proposed.

If you didn't know that, you have no business commenting on this thread.

Offend NIMBYs that are losing 5m^2 of Park Space?

I will accept what consequences follow for describing this statement as so completely asinine as to be beyond words.

If you really have no idea what's being talked about, be quiet and learn.

For the record. The ecological component being discussed is about the the impacts on both the Walmsley Brook ravine and the West Don Valley.

Nothing to do w/Leslieville. You would know that if you'd read the thread.

https://imgur.com/LEcSDhg

This isn't running over a park, this isn't running over anything, this is causing a huge fuss over literally nothing.

An ignorant and inaccurate statement.

Cancelling the Ontario Line at this point would be an even bigger waste of time and money. ATM the Ontario Line is on track to be completed at the same time as the DRL was, mainly because many sections are now above ground which means less time spent boring and building giant cavernous stations. Cancelling O/L at this point would give us an opening date of the DRL at like 2035.

The design of the O/L was almost build-ready, and much further along than the O/L design is at this point.

Yes, there would be more sunk costs; that is beyond unfortunate. It ought to be criminal.

But its time to stop the bleeding and cauterize the wound.

 

[Northern Light]

The relief line had issues too. Depth, mainly. But it would also be more costly to extend - building elevated north of Bloor is great.

Unfortunately I hate the alignment. RL alignment + shallower station depth + smaller trains (i.e narrower/shorter) + elevated north of Bloor would be great I think. But the river crossing would make that a challenge.

On depth we can agree; but at least its workable, if needlessly costly.

****

Elevated north of Bloor is worth discussing, but as proposed does not work.

****

Smaller trains hinder capacity.

I get the argument that we can build more lines...........but in the real world, we're not going to; so we'd better make sure this one can absorb a lot of growth.

 

[syn]

Putting aside that this change has nothing to do with NIMBYs..............

It still doesn't resolve several critical problems with this proposal.

Notably the LSE Corridor capacity for both GO and VIA; the capacity of the O/L itself; the requirement to essentially waste Greenwood Yard which can't host the next generation of trains in its current configuration (hence the need to build a yard
at Obico); but which could be used, once Obico was opened, reconfigured to hold Relief Line trains (but not when the O/L proposal seeks to use standard gauge.). (Its a question of timing since the existing yard can't be retracked until Obico opens.)

All the while displacing in-demand, tax-paying employment lands in Leaside.

On top of which, all Mx assertions to the contrary the current proposals not only offend the community but also many professional parks and forestry staff at the City and TRCA; while also locating sections of the line in such as a way as to cause substantial inconvenience to riders.

When one factors in, that shifting the tracks to the west creates slews of new problems, including property requirements; but also means the expense and disruption of shifting the existing GO tracks over to the east; unless you want to rebuild the entire embankment on the west side at considerable cost.

At this point, I not only support cancelling the O/L project...........

I strongly support firing Phil Verster whose roll in all this ineptitude is unforgivable.

What a grotesque waste of time and money this has become.

Build the damned Relief Line as it was conceived and extend it north to Eglinton as soon as it reaches Danforth.

Can't say I disagree. For all the credit some give this government for moving forward with transit, canceling the relatively-far-along DRL instead of fast tracking and extending it is starting to look like a massive blunder. It was a good plan built in cooperation with local stakeholders and had almost universal support.

While there are some potential benefits to the OL changes, there's one major drawback:

"The claimed benefit of across-the-platform transfer between GO and OL services at East Harbour is now reduced. All transfers will have to go down to a concourse level to switch between trains."

The ease of transfer has been cited by many supporters on this forum as a major advantage - that's now gone.

We're spending billions upon billions to eliminate a transfer in Scarborough, and now we're adding a transfer (a multi-level transfer, that is) here. Between that and the capacity reductions, it's hard to believe there aren't more 'efficiencies' coming.

The sad part is that this could've been such an easy win for Ford. One of the family mantras for over a decade has been "SUBWAYS SUBWAYS SUBWAYS". All this government had to do was throw their full support behind the existing plan/DRL North and that probably would've earned them quite a bit of support within the city.

 

[44 North]

It sounds like cost savings (via simplified construction - single tunnel, single platform/in/egress, single Don River bridge, consolidation of signal/electrical works) is the rationale. The whole cross-platform transfer case is questionable relative to benefit I think - especially when both lines are travelling inbround in approximately the same direction to the same main destinations.

AoD

One less flyunder and flyover, plus consolidated bridge structure would definitely equal savings. That might be it. Still though this is a pretty sizable change. Effectively the GO corridor and its plans for trackage will have to be modified, so it amplifies into that and RER or whatever it's called. Then the station designs. And this is added time to something that was promised as a complete plan. Mo' money. With the PCs Metrolinx said they'd operate like a business. This doesn't sound like a reliable business.