[officedweller]

You could do a trenched/cut and cover station here, you would then still be low enough to pass under the 2 tracks of the GO Richmond Hill line.
View attachment 308381

I saw that area on GoogleMaps and thought a portal could go there with an elevated station (or at the level of the GO embankment) a bit to the east at Distillery Loop, which also shows a big empty lot online but I don't know if anything is being built there. A portal might work in the area you marked with Parliament Square Park providing an area to dive down to get below area condo underground garages.

 

[Allandale25]

An Alternative Ontario Line for Riverside?

This post is a departure from my usual reportage and takes us into the realm of “what would you do” advocacy. The ongoing debate about Metrolinx’ proposed above ground route for t…

stevemunro.ca

Map included in this for what the group wants.

 

[MrGoose]

 

[KhalilHeron]

Isn’t the new proposal to have the tracks run on the northwest side of the go corridor... and thus not impact jimmy simpson park like the name of their group inplies on that map

 

[allengeorge]

Isn’t the new proposal to have the tracks run on the northwest side of the go corridor... and thus not impact jimmy simpson park like the name of their group inplies on that map

Apparently it now impacts other areas, which the group is not happy about. Not sure the group wants any solution that's not substantially tunneled to be honest.

I also really don't like the whataboutism that Steve brings to every conversation about the OL. I think a lot of people agree that:

1. The EWCE should not be tunneled (I think that most would want a dedicated ROW, whether elevated or not)
2. The SSE could do with some cost cutting
3. Metrolinx should be less "talking-point heavy"

But that doesn't mean that every criticism about the OL should bring up the expensive decisions made by Metrolinx on the other two lines and use that as a justification for expensive decisions on the OL.

 

[Undead]

Did they resurrect part of the original RL alignment? LOL

I have to say my views (not that they matter in the grand scheme of things, LOL) on the OL are turning. Originally, I was in the wait-and-see camp. I was willing to give Ford and Metrolinx a chance on this.

But I think it's increasingly clear this is becoming another Toronto/Ontario transit project with delays, cost overruns and poor planning.

My preference is veering back to the original RL with a northern extension to Eglinton and the western segment dropped. As others have pointed out in recent weeks, it's odd Ford didn't announce an RL North during/after the election. Looking like a major missed opportunity at this point.

View attachment 308482

 

[allengeorge]

Did they resurrect part of the original RL alignment? LOL

Yes.

I actually think it's a fine enough idea; the additional station at Queen is interesting. But I also know these same neighbours would be up-in-arms about increased density around the stations. They'd probably find a way to enlist TO Planning/Heritage to block declare large chunks of the area heritage to make it impossible to densify (as is infuriatingly being currently done along large swaths of the Bloor line and around other potential OL stations.)

 

[Northern Light]

Isn’t the new proposal to have the tracks run on the northwest side of the go corridor... and thus not impact jimmy simpson park like the name of their group inplies on that map

Subject to design drawings we don't yet have, the probability is that putting all the tracks on the west side, would eliminate all the parks along Degrassi from Queen to Dundas.

Part of the answer lies in station placement; and part lies in deciding how to get the new tracks in there.

The suggestion was made that shifting the O/L tracks to the west will require physically moving all of the existing GO tracks to the east, which is disruptive and costly.

But if the intent is also that there be no extra bridge space on the east and no embankment expansion on the east, then it will, needless to say, all be on the west side, as would any station.

Absent detailed design drawings a high level of speculation is involved as to impacts.

But I remain of the view we're better off tunnelling this section of any relief line.

There are compelling operational and capacity reasons to do so other than any 'nimby' arguments.

I also have great sympathy for some of those 'nimby' arguments, even though I don't live in the effected area.

Its a lot of destruction of park space in an area without that much of it relative to growth demands.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes.

I actually think it's a fine enough idea; the additional station at Queen is interesting. But I also know these same neighbours would be up-in-arms about increased density around the stations. They'd probably find a way to enlist TO Planning/Heritage to block declare large chunks of the area heritage to make it impossible to densify (as is infuriatingly being currently done along large swaths of the Bloor line and around other potential OL stations.)

I really think this is unfair.

Queen/Broadview has the Riverside development, the Lever Bros. site; and has had and will have more intensification.

The suggestion that opposing this proposal, as I do, someone who doesn't live in the area, has no vested interest in the outcome except good public policy, is automatically Nimby is wrong.

Doubtless there are some among the opponents whom that statement would accurately characterize.

But it doesn't justify a broad brush.

 

[allengeorge]

The suggestion that opposing this proposal, as I do, someone who doesn't live in the area, has no vested interest in the outcome except good public policy, is automatically Nimby is wrong.

Doubtless there are some among the opponents whom that statement would accurately characterize.

But it doesn't justify a broad brush.

I think that's fair. I can break my original statements into four points, which you may individually agree/disagree with:

1. I'm actually fine with the new proposal by the community group.
2. I'm not sure the group would accept a proposal that's above ground in the area.
3. I think some of the people pushing for this proposal and the additional station would fight against increased density.
4. I really, really, really dislike TO Planning and Heritage's block designation of buildings as heritage, especially along subway lines or potential stations. I think it's a way to make it cost-prohibitive to densify along subway lines, and also densify parts of the yellowbelt.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure the group would accept a proposal that's above ground in the area.

I can't speak for the group, of which I am not a part.

I oppose the above-ground proposal here; for reasons to do with line capacity and LSE corridor capacity primarily; and secondarily, I'm not unsympathetic on some of the community impacts.

The cost to go underground in the Leslieville section, according to Mx is 800M; whether their numbers deserve to be taken at face value is a separate discussion.

But that represents well less than 10% of project cost; and I think represents good value for money.

If the LSE corridor ends up requiring a 7th track later, that would almost certainly make the overground alignment more expensive than the underground one.

Should the O/L end up with inadequate capacity; addressing that would be enormously expensive. (I feel this is likely based on my review of Mx's own numbers)

I think some of the people pushing for this proposal and the additional station would fight against increased density.

A perfectly reasonable assumption.

I would disagree with such people.

I really, really, really dislike TO Planning and Heritage's block designation of buildings as heritage, especially along subway lines or potential stations. I think it's a way to make it cost-prohibitive to densify along subway lines, and also densify parts of the yellowbelt.

I'm a bit more nuanced on this.

First, I think we need to differentiate between the Heritage Conservation District designation, vs designating individual properties.

I disagree with some of the mass listing/designation we saw of buildings last year, which many of us would see as improper.

The challenge is, I expect, this is a response to heavy-handed moves by the province that push high-density/any form development; some of which really is quite awful.

Density good, sure; but its not wrong to ask for a thoughtful podium, granularity, preservation of main street retail character, transitions to SFH areas such that someone doesn't have a 10-storey streetwall directly overlooking their backyard.

TO Planning has been insufficiently ambitious on upzoning. Period. Full-stop. That is a big part of the problem. Though, I have sympathy for staff who don't want to propose something Council will shoot down.

But where the provincial response is a bit slap-dash, and doesn't provide a good tool-set to manage necessary growth...........

I understand (but disagree with) using the heritage listings as leverage to secure better development.

It shouldn't be done this way; many parties are to blame.

Overall, we still have many wonderful buildings in this City that merit historical designation, but lack it; even as we award it to properties that do not merit it.

HCDs have their own problems, but in general, don't imperil development on main streets if you can make it 'appear' to fit in.

I don't think that's a terrible goal; so long as it doesn't unduly impair density.

But the designation and the details as to how it is applied are both problematic.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I oppose the above-ground proposal here; for reasons to do with line capacity and LSE corridor capacity primarily

IMO the LSE corridor needs to be preserved as a strategic asset. I don't know what it could be used for in the future, but I'm sure future generations will find use for it. Perhaps for a HSR connection, future RER capacity enhancements or other services we've not yet conceived. We should be utilizing this corridor as a last resort, and not when there are feasible alternatives available.

 

[nfitz]

Subject to design drawings we don't yet have, the probability is that putting all the tracks on the west side, would eliminate all the parks along Degrassi from Queen to Dundas.

I'm not sure why putting the tracks on the north side would impact parks on the north any more than the current plan. Ultimately it should have less impact because you have a narrow cross-section, with only one extra-wide spacing between the transit and GO tracks, rather than two. Presumably it shifts the fourth GO track further south (east).

Now, it might have more impact right at Degrassi/Queen, as presumably it shifts the station buildings north of Queen. At the same time it should have less impact at Gerrard/Carlaw as it would presumably shift the Gerrard station north of Gerrard, with the south portal no longer a constraint.

At the same time though, I like the plan the community has proposed to put it on the South. For one thing, it actually puts the Leslieville station back in Leslieville, instead of being ridiculously close to East Harbour. Secondly it let's them build the Gerrard Smartrack station, which was cancelled because there was no space left for it with the south portal.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure why putting the tracks on the north side would impact parks on the north any more than the current plan. Ultimately it should have less impact because you have a narrow cross-section, with only one extra-wide spacing between the transit and GO tracks, rather than two. Presumably it shifts the fourth GO track further south (east).

Now, it might have more impact right at Degrassi/Queen, as presumably it shifts the station buildings north of Queen. At the same time it should have less impact at Gerrard/Carlaw as it would presumably shift the Gerrard station north of Gerrard, with the south portal no longer a constraint.

You answered the your own query there, its the Queen to Dundas section that would be at issue.

At the same time though, I like the plan the community has proposed to put it on the South. For one thing, it actually puts the Leslieville station back in Leslieville, instead of being ridiculously close to East Harbour. Secondly it let's them build the Gerrard Smartrack station, which was cancelled because there was no space left for it with the south portal.

This alignment does have some things to recommend it; its certainly better than the all above-grade proposal.

I'm slightly amused by the thought of them building a new above-grade alignment right through the middle of Parks, Forestry and Recreation's main yard and offices for South District.

The alignment would all retention of the on-site heritage buildings that front Eastern, but certainly require re-location of the Yard.

Not a lot of spaces to move a facility of that size.

Its a 10 acre facility, not including the heritage buildings.

I suppose you could city a 2-level parkade for the operations equipment, but the City hasn't done that before that I can recall.

You would also need a connection of the offices though.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I can see them shifting the GO railway tracks southeasterly a bit to make room for the "Ontario" Line tracks. Instead of berms (artificial ridge), they could raise them on short retaining walls within the space needed for all the tracks.

Berm...

From link.

Retaining wall...

From link.