TossYourJacket said:
They do realise that at some point, the existing bridges would need to be renovated or replaced anyway right? Do they just think bridges last as-is, in perpetuity? Also pretty sure Metrolinx was going to redo most of them anyway as part of GO Expansion due to the need to raise the entire rail corridor, but I'm sure that won't stop the nonsense coming out of SJS.

Also the speculative land development conspiracy theory they make here is hilarious. The station at Gerrard would have basically the same development potential, as does East Harbour. The only one that would be affected is the station in Leslieville, and it would be easier to develop around Queen and Carlaw (an area that has precedent for mid-rise redevelopments and a big parking lot right by where the station would be that could be a TOC site), than in a Heritage Conservation District like Riverside. There's no actual logic here, just an effort to scare people with the idea of condo towers. At first I had a lot of sympathy towards the idea of the hybrid alignment, but the sheer insanity these NIMBYs are using to justify their complaints is getting so ridiculous I'm now glad the government is ignoring them.
Click to expand...
...and oft represented by a fraction of a given community that can afford to own full homes in this city. And they always on about preserving something even if it's not in their best interests to do so. /sigh
 
This is reminiscent of the neighbourhood furor around the Davenport Diamond.

Are there downsides to the people living nearby during construction and afterwards? Definitely yes. Would the tunnelling option they propose be wildly more expensive and also disruptive? Also yes. We cannot afford the time or the money to tunnel everything everywhere even if in an ideal world it might be theoretically better.

People who buy houses near railway corridors in a city need to accept that those railway corridors will continue to be maximized in their usage into the future. We only have so many railway corridors, can't create new ones, and that's what they're for: for trains to go along. If you don't want trains and walls and infrastructure around you, best to live somewhere else than right next to a train corridor. We can't bury everything everywhere it would take longer and cost too much.

(The Eglinton West tunnelling is an absurd scandal and waste and shouldn't be happening but that doesn't mean tunnelling elsewhere is also right.)
 
Nearly bought a lovely house on Degrassi, just a bit above Queen, 20 years ago. Sure glad we didn't go there. Going to get a lot noisier with train traffic than it already is. I know very few on this board will see it my way and I'm fine with that. Still find myself wishing they had planned to tunnel this section.
 
Not here to argue about tunnel vs. rail corridor but just want to point out that the clearing that we've seen in the last few weeks is not for the Ontario line but for the expansion of GO RER. Ontario Line is to be on the west side of the rail corridor and as far as I can see those trees have not been removed yet.
 
downtownordinary said:
Not here to argue about tunnel vs. rail corridor but just want to point out that the clearing that we've seen in the last few weeks is not for the Ontario line but for the expansion of GO RER. Ontario Line is to be on the west side of the rail corridor and as far as I can see those trees have not been removed yet.
Click to expand...
is it though? the go tracks need to be shifted south to give room for both OL tracks above them.
which is why the shared corridor isnt being done by the actual bid package winners
 
Lenser said:
I for one am not contending that tunneling would be cheaper. Not by a long shot.

Anyway, it's a done deal, ain't it. The city needs this line badly and it's time to get it built, ASAP.
Click to expand...
I would wager we all need this line badly. No time in straining this project for the local Jones, IMO.
 
concrete_and_light said:
This is reminiscent of the neighbourhood furor around the Davenport Diamond.

Are there downsides to the people living nearby during construction and afterwards? Definitely yes. Would the tunnelling option they propose be wildly more expensive and also disruptive? Also yes. We cannot afford the time or the money to tunnel everything everywhere even if in an ideal world it might be theoretically better.

People who buy houses near railway corridors in a city need to accept that those railway corridors will continue to be maximized in their usage into the future. We only have so many railway corridors, can't create new ones, and that's what they're for: for trains to go along. If you don't want trains and walls and infrastructure around you, best to live somewhere else than right next to a train corridor. We can't bury everything everywhere it would take longer and cost too much.

(The Eglinton West tunnelling is an absurd scandal and waste and shouldn't be happening but that doesn't mean tunnelling elsewhere is also right.)
Click to expand...

I bought in Riverside a couple years ago....and Metrolinx released the vibration and noise map years ago. Needless to say, I did my research (Thanks UrbanToronto!) and found a place outside the impact area.
 
Is there any more detailed plans out for Riverside-Leslieville station? I have seen the TOD and city applications for almost all the other stations but this one for some reason seems to be behind the rest of them.
 
OL-RL-station-01.jpg


OL-RL-station-02.jpg


OL-RL-station-03.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top