Allandale25 said:
Anyone watching tonight's meeting?
Click to expand...
The meeting is tomorrow.

1618444625295.png
 
^ one of the speakers claims the feds have given "$5 billion" for the Ontario Line but it hasn't be allocated. I don't think that's the case. Earlier the person said that if the feds agree to an EA, they can't fund it until that EA is done.
 
^^
A speaker from group is claiming that due to a Metrolinx recent "business case" Metrolinx has found savings of "$2-3B". That's a rough quote but pretty close. This was said in the context that going underground is affordable and in the context of Steve Munro's idea noted above. (The event is being recorded).

The group also thinks Metrolinx is saying the $800 million estimate for going underground includes going under the Don River and an underground East Harbour Station.
 
Last edited:
The route proposed makes sense. Use the originally approved EA route, still have the hub at East Harbour, avoid the craziness that was going to happen at Gerrard. It seemed like a tight squeeze at Gerrard to have the station fit station platforms over the Gerrard - Carlaw intersection, plus 4-5 rail corridor tracks, plus try to save some amount of the parkettes, and then drive from being over the street to under the first houses on Pape north of Gerrard. I remember when it was first touted that the Ontario Line being in the rail corridor was a much better option there were diagrams of how crazy the transfer from the Ontario Line to the Gerrard Smarttrack would be, going from deep underground to over the street. Without no Smarttrack station at Gerrard to connect to, the cross platform transfer at East Harbour not in the picture, and with this proposal still avoiding going under the river, maybe this isn't a proposal Metrolinx would have a big issue with.
 
EnviroTO said:
The route proposed makes sense. Use the originally approved EA route, still have the hub at East Harbour, avoid the craziness that was going to happen at Gerrard. It seemed like a tight squeeze at Gerrard to have the station fit station platforms over the Gerrard - Carlaw intersection, plus 4-5 rail corridor tracks, plus try to save some amount of the parkettes, and then drive from being over the street to under the first houses on Pape north of Gerrard. I remember when it was first touted that the Ontario Line being in the rail corridor was a much better option there were diagrams of how crazy the transfer from the Ontario Line to the Gerrard Smarttrack would be, going from deep underground to over the street. Without no Smarttrack station at Gerrard to connect to, the cross platform transfer at East Harbour not in the picture, and with this proposal still avoiding going under the river, maybe this isn't a proposal Metrolinx would have a big issue with.
Click to expand...
If we're spending a billion dollars to save some parkettes, what about buying up some homes and making new parkettes? I'd wager it won't cost a billion dollars.
 
W. K. Lis said:
What we do need on the "Ontario" Line is BICYCLE parking lots, or preferably, BICYCLE GARAGES at EACH and every station on the line.
Click to expand...
...and bike repair tools and BikeShare stations!

Having a flat bike tire while being far from either home or a bike repair shop isn't fun and my bike had a flat tire a few times (even after replacing the inner tubing multiple times).
 
afransen said:
If we're spending a billion dollars to save some parkettes, what about buying up some homes and making new parkettes? I'd wager it won't cost a billion dollars.
Click to expand...
The intersection at Carlaw and Gerrard with 4-5 tracks in a rail corridor, plus two subway line tracks, plus two platforms, and diving into a tunnel quickly is part of the complexity, but really the corridor doesn't have the extra space needed to really fit this infrastructure. There is no way having the TBM run this extra distance is a billion dollars, and the station cost at Gerrard would be cut-cover in the middle of the No Frills property with no sewer and utility challenges, and the Carlaw station was going to be north of Queen allowing that segment of road to be easily closed because it isn't in the intersection.

Cost of the solution equals current Ontario Line Cost minus corridor works (widening the elevated berm, replacing overpasses) minus two above ground stations plus running the TBM another 1300m plus the cost of a cut and cover station on the No-Frills site plus the cost of a cut and cover station with only vehicle access needing to be maintained to the 201 Carlaw parking garage since other properties and back lane and side lane access. I'm not saying its cheaper than in the corridor, I'm saying that compared to other places this subway or other subways are being built in Toronto under ground, that this isn't the most expensive place to do it.
 
EnviroTO said:
The intersection at Carlaw and Gerrard with 4-5 tracks in a rail corridor, plus two subway line tracks, plus two platforms, and diving into a tunnel quickly is part of the complexity, but really the corridor doesn't have the extra space needed to really fit this infrastructure. There is no way having the TBM run this extra distance is a billion dollars, and the station cost at Gerrard would be cut-cover in the middle of the No Frills property with no sewer and utility challenges, and the Carlaw station was going to be north of Queen allowing that segment of road to be easily closed because it isn't in the intersection.

Cost of the solution equals current Ontario Line Cost minus corridor works (widening the elevated berm, replacing overpasses) minus two above ground stations plus running the TBM another 1300m plus the cost of a cut and cover station on the No-Frills site plus the cost of a cut and cover station with only vehicle access needing to be maintained to the 201 Carlaw parking garage since other properties and back lane and side lane access. I'm not saying its cheaper than in the corridor, I'm saying that compared to other places this subway or other subways are being built in Toronto under ground, that this isn't the most expensive place to do it.
Click to expand...
It may not be the most expensive place but that still doesn't mean we should do it here 🙂
 
As I stated early..................IF these people can propose an effective alternative to at-grade and IF these people can show it can be done with absolutely no new costs, and IF they they could guarantee the line won't take a single day longer to build, and IF the 2 above are not possible then they are willing to forgo their Gerrard/local station to make it come in on time and budget, and IF they can guarantee that the new underground route will not result in further delays by other people along the new underground alignment, then get tunnelling.

IF all of these things can not be guaranteed then Queen's Park should tell these overly traumatised NIMBYs to IF-off.
 
afransen said:
If we're spending a billion dollars to save some parkettes, what about buying up some homes and making new parkettes? I'd wager it won't cost a billion dollars.
Click to expand...

I'm always amazed these standards are not applied to the province's other underground subway projects.
 
ssiguy2 said:
As I stated early..................IF these people can propose an effective alternative to at-grade and IF these people can show it can be done with absolutely no new costs, and IF they they could guarantee the line won't take a single day longer to build, and IF the 2 above are not possible then they are willing to forgo their Gerrard/local station to make it come in on time and budget, and IF they can guarantee that the new underground route will not result in further delays by other people along the new underground alignment, then get tunnelling.

IF all of these things can not be guaranteed then Queen's Park should tell these overly traumatised NIMBYs to IF-off.
Click to expand...

This is absurd.

Why should they have to guarantee this when not even the government can?

I give them credit for proposing an alternate solution...one that seems well thought out and well within the realm of possibility.
 
syn said:
This is absurd.

Why should they have to guarantee this when not even the government can?

I give them credit for proposing an alternate solution...one that seems well thought out and well within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
Its both amazing and frustrating that people here who live in DT Toronto, expect both the convenience of large metro transit and the sanctuary of a distant suburb neighbourhood at the same time. Sorry you cant have both.
If you want to live in the city you need to expect to live like a metropolis. The 60s urban sprawl is long over and people need to adapt to the current reality
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top