Moving along..........

Preface: As noted above, with gratitude to unnamed parties, I now have further insight into this project.

I am not going to share all of that insight at once, and must, at all times remain respectful of those who were kind enough let me peak behind the curtain.
But I will try to clarify and correct some perceptions here, including, in some cases, my own.

******

The following are not opinions or taking sides, but merely a discussion of details of the project as conceived (Ontario Line/Osgoode Station interface) how that is currently intended to work; how we got here, and what other options, may be possible.

I will try to clarify anything posted below, if asked, but cannot commit to offering additional info.

First. The Project as-proposed:

1) Should the decision be taken to proceed with the project as currently proposed, the keyhole access does preclude the replanting of any large-growing shade trees on site, as its roof will be too close to the surface.

2) As noted, I need to correct my description of the interface between the O/L and Line 1 somewhat. The connection, as proposed, through the keyhole access/Osgoode site will be within the fare paid area.
The new extension of the Osgoode Concourse would line-up with the area now behind the fare gates on the north side.

The connection to Line 1, from the Simcoe entrance is, however, as convoluted as described, except for it being within the fare paid zone.

I will share additional info in separate posts so as to keep any quoting more simple.
 
Last edited:
Continuing the above...........

3) At the very early stages of the project, locating the Station Head House within the University Avenue ROW (University Park/TO Core) site was considered, and this was ruled out by the City, not Mx. That option remains possible, however, if the site remains mined, rather than cut and cover, the keyhole access issue remains; and to a near certainty, should that issue remain, that site will likely be situated on the Osgoode grounds. The difference, should the headhouse be shifted into the ROW is that the completed project wouldn't have any visible structure on the grounds and the fence could be restored.
 
Received this notice below. I was told that the start date for this work is now Monday, February 13, 2023.

1675871724810.png

1675871741255.png
 
In respect of where we go from here.

Maybe nowhere, of course, which is to say, the status quo may yet stand. However, I am given to understand Mx is taking the negative publicity seriously and 'options' are being bandied about.

One option is that one noted above, shifting the head house/station entrance onto the University ROW as noted. This is feasible. But shifting the keyhole access (should the station be mined, as currently planned) is not.
For this option to be pursued, the City would have to declare its support and move forward in some fashion with designing Osgoode Plaza/University Park here.

This option would result in some delay at this site, likely in the general range of six months, which may, or may not impact the critical path completion date, but certainly leans to pushing it back as well, slightly.

A second option is not to mine the station at all.

The intersection of Queen and University could be excavated, cut-and-cover style as is being done just to the east.
By opening up the road, the option would exist to extract the TBM within the road right-of-way, rather than on the Osgoode grounds.

However, doing this is a material change in the plans, and would certainly accrue a delay of at least several months, and possibly longer on the design side of things.
The overall timing impact, given a much different construction technique has not, to my understanding, been assessed as yet.

This option makes the most sense if the headhouse were shifted to the Queen Street ROW, and Queen, at least from York to University were made a Pedestrian/Transit Mall. Its not at all
clear that the City would embrace this idea.
 
Finally, for now.

The option of a platform to platform connection between the O/L and Line 1, (likely with an interceding concourse below the latter) was not given serious consideration in the early stages of the project.

The mandate was to avoid touching the TTC asset more than absolutely necessary and to certainly avoid the need for any complex new underpinning.
 
Save the trees, pedestrianize every street inside the U now
 
evandyk said:
Queen should, of course, be a pedestrian mall (with streetcars eventually) from Yonge to Bathurst, but there's no way the city is letting that happen any time in the next two decades.
Click to expand...

This might be a good opportunity for the City to dig deep and reconsider its position. As a negotiated solution to an impasse, a big change to Ontario Line in exchange for a big change in whatever in the City is preventing this strikes me as a great step forward.... a real win-win.

- Paul

PS - when you think about it, of all the smaller debates and skirmishes along the route of the Ontario Line, you would expect that a grand plan for the very most central stretch of the City that the route serves would be the one that attracted the most study, input, and forward thinking. Why that didn't happen, or if it did why it didn't produce a great step forward, is an embarassment to both City and ML.
 
officedweller said:
The reason is probably so that the passengers are counted when they go through turnstiles,
and the passenger counts are used for operator payments, evaluation of performance and the scheduling of service under the operating contract of the Ontario Line separately from Line 1.
Click to expand...
I think there's a point to explore here regarding the AFP model for Ontario Line - specifically the "OM" part of the RSSOM contract.

IIRC from visits to Seoul and Singapore, some of their metro lines were built through AFP/P3/Concession models, which resulted in longer than usual station transfers between lines, and additional fare barriers to allow those privately operated lines to act as - and collect revenue - as a closed system. I didn't think too much of it until now, as many a transfer station in Asia is built up into a vast underground mall space. But I'm wondering whether this user experience is considered for both cost and overall network productivity of a transit system (as opposed to transit line). I'm thinking time-distance of passenger transfer from one line to another being much longer, i.e. the impossibility to have a Line 1-2 connection like St George. Noting considerations such as surge spacing for fare barriers, vertical circulation, etc. it's no surprise that we end up with large underground spaces. I'm not against this, but it's interesting to think about the $/m cost of underground space now required for a transfer station. Perhaps this can be justified to the Owner (and/or taxpayer) if this underground space can be converted to additional revenue, i.e. the mall spaces, i.e. the Path. Larger discussion: is the MX model of transit building and TOD lacking in reaping the rewards to the taxpayer.

Much was discussed about the transfer at East Harbour between GO and OL, which is now completely separated, and I'm mulling over how much a station access design like we see at Osgoode might be driven by this simple fact of revenue separation and protection. Could this also be mitigated through a more high-tech payment system?
 
crs1026 said:
This might be a good opportunity for the City to dig deep and reconsider its position. As a negotiated solution to an impasse, a big change to Ontario Line in exchange for a big change in whatever in the City is preventing this strikes me as a great step forward.... a real win-win.

- Paul

PS - when you think about it, of all the smaller debates and skirmishes along the route of the Ontario Line, you would expect that a grand plan for the very most central stretch of the City that the route serves would be the one that attracted the most study, input, and forward thinking. Why that didn't happen, or if it did why it didn't produce a great step forward, is an embarassment to both City and ML.
Click to expand...
They've talked about it for Yonge literally for decades and couldn't manage to do it even with a planned total redesign. It would be great if they'd seize the chance now to do it with Queen, but it's not going to happen.
 
The station diagram on Steve Munro's blog provides much needed insight.
I can't call the design perfect, but it's doing the best with cards dealt.
The design avoids the mess we have at Eglinton/Yonge by steering clear of the existing station box as much as possible.

Line 1 - OL direct connection
Both lines have centre platforms at this station. The only way to put in a direct connection between the two is to build a concourse level between line 1 and OL platforms. Doing so means we may have a repeat of Eglinton because now we are touching the existing Osgoode platform.

Simcoe St entrance's connection to line 1
I can't see it happening unless they do a cut-and-cover pedestrian tunnel under Queen St. to connect with existing concourse.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top