I wonder whether it would have been better to skip the western bit and use something closer to the original Relief Line route for the southeast portion. Weather issues aside, I think that elevated north of the river is a good idea, although it might have been better to put Science Centre underground to connect with Eglington line, although it's still possible with an elevated line.
 
I think that Jones Jog has more to do with getting elevated far enough ahead of Gerrard to build a station. If they do want to build on both sides of the corridor, that would be very hard to do from Pape. But all of these curves and a deep tunnel under houses are at risk of nullifying all of the advantages of the scheme.
 
White Pine said:
I wonder whether it would have been better to skip the western bit and use something closer to the original Relief Line route for the southeast portion.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of a longer line - but I also think some modifications to the original SE portion would have been the best.
btw, that is the gist of my anonymous Ontario Line question to Metrolinx.
White Pine said:
Weather issues aside, I think that elevated north of the river is a good idea, . .
Click to expand...
If weather was a huge detriment, I imagine they would have covered over the existing sections - expecially those in a trench (Yonge/Davisville, Danforth/Warden).
White Pine said:
. . . ., although it might have been better to put Science Centre underground to connect with Eglington line, although it's still possible with an elevated line.
Click to expand...
To put science centre station under existing one - it would likely mean that just when the ECLRT opens, the same intersection will be under construction again - but this time for twice as long due to the complexities of building under an active line. If Toronto was serious about the DRL - the line would have been thought about in the Transit City era, and the station would have been roughed in.
 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
The lack of a station for Distillery when the line veers south right by it always irked me.
Click to expand...
Looking at the document that Raptor sent, the Corktown Station would sit at the intersection of King and Parliament/Berkeley. This is approximately 400 meters away from the Distillery area. I would think that having the Corktown station align with the King Streetcar for quick transfers would provide greater economic benefits rather than serving the Distillery directly.
 
Northern Light said:
Hmm, no station on that easterly jaunt.........looking at the location.............the wonder if that is to facilitate use of Greenwood Yard after all.........there not quite that far east, but close enough for an easy spur, and no other reason I can discern for that side trek.
Click to expand...

It's highly unlikely that the push east is to allow access to Greenwood, since they seemed fixed on using a different "technology" for these trains than the existing Toronto subway design.

So no, the easterly jaunt along the corridor is almost certainly to give the trains enough room to climb or descend from their location outside and parallel to the rail corridor - particularly the south/eastbound track - and then cross over to continue northbound.

And conversely, I suspect that the reason why the Exhibition Station is sited slightly to the east of the current one is again to allow the tracks to climb or descend and then meet either above or below the existing mainline tracks to allow trains to turn back.

Dan
 
Nadnev said:
Looking at the document that Raptor sent, the Corktown Station would sit at the intersection of King and Parliament/Berkeley. This is approximately 400 meters away from the Distillery area. I would think that having the Corktown station align with the King Streetcar for quick transfers would provide greater economic benefits rather than serving the Distillery directly.
Click to expand...

There's room and opportunity for both. A station at Parliament and another at Cherry/River.
 
BurlOak said:
To put science centre station under existing one - it would likely mean that just when the ECLRT opens, the same intersection will be under construction again - but this time for twice as long due to the complexities of building under an active line. If Toronto was serious about the DRL - the line would have been thought about in the Transit City era, and the station would have been roughed in.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the whole idea of putting Science centre crosstown underground to make a transfer with the Relief Line? Of course as long as there's a above grade-below grade transition within a fare-paid zone, it would be much the same anyways.
 
The lack of a station in the Canary District area is curious. The old line's Sumach station was farther east and quite a bit closer to the Canary District (although slightly farther from the Distillery), and the stations were more evenly spaced overall. It really was a better, less circuitous route.

On the Ontario line the gap between the Corktown and Broadview stations is around 1.7 km - that's a huge distance for a downtown subway line. Another could easily be justified in the area of GO's Don Yard, which would put it right at the heart of the Canary District.
 
MisterF said:
The lack of a station in the Canary District area is curious. The old line's Sumach station was farther east and quite a bit closer to the Canary District (although slightly farther from the Distillery), and the stations were more evenly spaced overall. It really was a better, less circuitous route.

On the Ontario line the gap between the Corktown and Broadview stations is around 1.7 km - that's a huge distance for a downtown subway line. Another could easily be justified in the area of GO's Don Yard, which would put it right at the heart of the Canary District.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been alluding to all along. The correct downtown spacing is Jarvis, Parliament, River... not Sherbourne, Sumach.

It's sort of passable now if the Sherbourne stop actually winds up situated to the west of Queen and Sherbourne and finally Parliament gets the acknowledgment it deserves with the Corktown stop. But the alignment of the Ontario Line affords us the unique opportunity to place a third station right at the foot of River Street just east of the Distillery, where I'm sure with all those condos going up there'll be enough year-round trip generation to justify having a stop there. Maybe TPTB can be convinced.
 
MisterF said:
The lack of a station in the Canary District area is curious. The old line's Sumach station was farther east and quite a bit closer to the Canary District (although slightly farther from the Distillery), and the stations were more evenly spaced overall. It really was a better, less circuitous route.

On the Ontario line the gap between the Corktown and Broadview stations is around 1.7 km - that's a huge distance for a downtown subway line. Another could easily be justified in the area of GO's Don Yard, which would put it right at the heart of the Canary District.
Click to expand...
Hopkins123 said:
That's what I've been alluding to all along. The correct downtown spacing is Jarvis, Parliament, River... not Sherbourne, Sumach.

It's sort of passable now if the Sherbourne stop actually winds up situated to the west of Queen and Sherbourne and finally Parliament gets the acknowledgment it deserves with the Corktown stop. But the alignment of the Ontario Line affords us the unique opportunity to place a third station right at the foot of River Street just east of the Distillery, where I'm sure with all those condos going up there'll be enough year-round trip generation to justify having a stop there. Maybe TPTB can be convinced.
Click to expand...

As much as I would like to see a station here, it doesn't seem so simple when we consider that the line has to transition from elevated to underground somewhere between the Don River and Parliament Street.
 
Last edited:
White Pine said:
Wasn't the whole idea of putting Science centre crosstown underground to make a transfer with the Relief Line? Of course as long as there's a above grade-below grade transition within a fare-paid zone, it would be much the same anyways.
Click to expand...
The Eglinton Station was to be underground.
The Don Mills LRT station was to be on-street.
Yes - the geniuses that planned transit in the 2005 to 2010 period figured an on-street LRT would be adequate instead of a Relief Line subway.
(I still have my doubts that an on-street Eglinton LRT won't be a disaster at DVP and Vic Park).
 
smallspy said:
It's highly unlikely that the push east is to allow access to Greenwood, since they seemed fixed on using a different "technology" for these trains than the existing Toronto subway design.

So no, the easterly jaunt along the corridor is almost certainly to give the trains enough room to climb or descend from their location outside and parallel to the rail corridor - particularly the south/eastbound track - and then cross over to continue northbound.

And conversely, I suspect that the reason why the Exhibition Station is sited slightly to the east of the current one is again to allow the tracks to climb or descend and then meet either above or below the existing mainline tracks to allow trains to turn back.

Dan
Click to expand...

Certainly very plausible.

I suppose I am merely rather suspicious that the scheme as proposed (with much detail to be fleshed out) will never see the light of day, but your suggestion makes perfect sense if this dubious scheme goes through.
 
White Pine said:
Wasn't the whole idea of putting Science centre crosstown underground to make a transfer with the Relief Line? Of course as long as there's a above grade-below grade transition within a fare-paid zone, it would be much the same anyways.
Click to expand...
Basically a new and more complicated Kennedy station. Have to go up two floors to get to another line.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top