Adjei
Senior Member
The same people wanting elevated for this line are complaining about elevated for the Ontario Line and want the all underground Relief Line.
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
Nope. I am fine with OL being above ground, particularly at Science Centre, as it should be elevated if it is extended. I think Leaside is being melodramatic.
sixrings
Senior Member
Pretty sure it doesn’t make sense to have elevated downtown and underground to Richmond hill, Vaughan and Scarborough. But what do I know.
Coolstar
Senior Member
What are you talking about? The Ontario Line will not be elevated through downtown.
syn
Senior Member
I don't think elevated or not is the problem - it's the vehicle choices and capacity.
The Ontario Line is the only one being 'value engineered' even though it needs as much capacity as possible.
The suburban extensions are all getting full underground treatment even though it makes no sense.
Let's not even get into the fact that the OL is only going to Eglinton - at the very least it should be going to Don Mills if they're serious about providing relief, especially if they want this extension to move forward.
No reason this extension can't have above ground portions - kind of like how the Bloor Line does in Toronto.
syn
Senior Member
Nonsense. You've been drinking too much of your elitist lattes.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Inflammatory? Shrug. I'm perfectly aware that Toronto is the figurative centre of the Greater TORONTO Area, by definition. What I take umbrage at is Moore getting all haughty - to the point he has to look up the distance from downtown to RH - because a politician (I mean, the DEPUTY MAYOR!) had the nerve to talk up his own municipality instead of bending the knee. I don't think it's inflammatory (which makes it even more un-ironic that I'd be using the same inflammatory rhetoric I accuse him of) - I think it's petty. And I think it shows, more generally, that Moore doesn't know much about what goes on outside of downtown. I'm not basing that on this one post but rather a pattern. Some of the other daily reporters are better but there's also plenty of articles by him and Ben Spurr that show they don't know much about what goes on north of Finch unless Google Streetview is up and running; and their job is to do better than that.
This stuff is all, like, 200 pages of this thread ago. A) Downtown is getting a new subway now. B) It's largely because Toronto threw a hissy fit (fairly) over the Yonge extension so all's well that ends well there and C) I didn't say a bad thing about downtown. I love downtown. Downtown should have had the DRL 20 years ago. That has nothing to do with what Moore was on about. Meh, it's all a tempest in a teapot anyway. Something to talk about until they get shovels in the ground.
...and I said that. Multiple times. So, mostly we agree.
Whether there is a "refusal" to use cut and cover, I dunno. I have no personal issue with it, if it can be demonstrated it's the way to go. Given where costs are at, I would agree with anyone who said Metrolinx should be giving it a harder look rather than fixating on TBMs. Whatever the reason(s), we've waited too long to build these pieces and the costs have become ridiculous, clearly.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
Alternately, posters who purport to to be in favour of shallow stations and elevated structures are eerily mum on this thread. Ditto for Crosstown West. And SSE. You would be one of them.
Since we know a bridge works to cross the Don here considering it was in the original proposal, why haven't they brought it back? How unnecessarily deep will Royal Orchard be on account of tunneling below the river? The Prov is clearly speaking out both sides of their mouth.
To be fair it likely will be a problem to commandeer two tracks in a pivotal corridor in the heart of the GTA. Metrolinx knows this too which is why using the rail corridor was off the table. Until recently that is.
ARG1
Senior Member
A) OL won't be elevated downtown, it will be in an existing rail corridor JUST LIKE THIS EXTENSION
B) No it doesn't make sense to have it underground all the way to Richmond Hill Vaughan and Scarborough, but sometimes you have the options to go above ground, and sometimes you don't. Topography Matters.
C) Wow is it 2022 already? Time flies
You're telling me that a line that might have a 6km tunnel segment with most of the stations being cut isn't being value engineered? You're telling me a line that will do a weird S curve just to veer out of its way to have above ground stations is "fully underground"? Interesting.
I also love how you constantly talk about how OL should be extended past Eglinton because otherwise it wouldn't do anything (which is completely false), yet constantly champion Transit City, a plan that would run the DRL only to Danforth, and past that would run as an LRT that would do absolutely nothing to relieve the Yonge Line
Its called looking at the corridor and seeing the options available. I constantly push for Eglinton West being elevated because its an extremely wide corridor with minimal development, and there is already a section that is elevated meaning that by elevating the whole line you save on portals (you don't have to worry about getting the line out of the ground). The same can't easily be said with Yonge North. Yonge Street while being somewhat wide is nowhere near as wide as Eglinton West (if you include the greenspace on the side of the road), meaning that the only place you can have tracks and stations is in the middle where it might cause significant shadowing on the street and local community. Granted this is based off personal observation and if I can be shown otherwise I'll gladly change my mind. The more important issue is where would you build a portal? Maybe South of Clark if you reduce some lanes but in general how this would be done is far more unclear. As for cut and cover, while I won't immediately call for it to be cut and covered, what I would call is for a study on cost analysis which shows how much cheaper the extension will be vs how much shutdowns and closure would have to happen during construction. If it shows that roads might be closed for ~2 years but for a MUCH cheaper price? I'd gladly advocate for it. Unfortunately there aren't that many good recent examples of cut and cover in Canada as of late so its difficult to judge it based off what other cities are doing, however I'm willing to concede that it is most likely worth doing.
44 North
Senior Member
Shadowing? Don't think anyone lives in the valley, it's a golf course. By using a bridge the tunnel won't be as deep, and ditto for the stations. As the Prov has stated itself re: elsewhere. Look at the original EA if you want to know about the bridge.
JSF-1
Active Member
Well it will help but it won't fix the problem. We've known since 2015 that any sort of DRL line MUST go to Sheppard to have any true impact on the crowding issues on Line 1. Yes the OL will help draw riders away from Line 1 south of Eglinton and help relieve the Bloor-Yonge issue. That said however anyone who has taken Line 1 at rush hour knows those trains are full before they even get to Eglinton; so the problem is obviously happening further north. The OL will help treat the symptom but it won't fix the problem until it goes to at least Sheppard, which as of right now there is no discussion over. The best thing we could do with the OL is cut the western segment and re-allocate the funding/resources to a northern extension to Sheppard. An OL running from Sheppard to Osgoode will be even more successful than an OL running from Eglinton to the Exhibition. Clearly though that's not the provinces priority and it seems they are valuing land development over logical transit planning in this regard. This is however a discussion for the OL thread.
anb
Active Member
The options for these proposals are so atrocious they might as well should’ve just sticked to the rapidway to finch instead. It’s just sad that this is the way how the government thinks, and no one can come through with a cost effective method, or find a way to include almost every station placement that makes sense between Steeles and RHC. Having 2 stations so close to each other at the proposed end of the line is also a disappointing way of thinking, and the funds that could be saved by just having 1 station could be used to include Cummer, Clark and Royal Orchard all in one, without having to worry about one of these stations getting cut from the project.
ARG1
Senior Member
Oh I absolutely agree (ye Ik wrong thread), but judging by the fact that Metrolinx is consistently insisting on the idea that the terminal stations will be preserved for future extensions, I think its pretty safe to assume that a northern extension is in the works, or at the very least is considered important.
Ye the bridge would probably be quite smart, again though my main concern is construction methods. If we build a bridge over the don river, yet stick with TBMs, that means we need to build 2 tbm launch shafts which would be more expensive than just running a under it, however if we use Cut and Cover, see what I wrote above. Ultimately the question of the bridge would probably just be whether we build using TBMs or C&C, nothing more.
44 North
Senior Member
Do you have evidence to support this statement?
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
While I disagree with the section between Steeles and Finch being a bus Rapidway, the section between Highway 7 and Steeles could have been a great showcase of the benefits of dedicated bus lanes and signal priority, which could have lead to more dedicated bus lane projects around the region. The loss of this potential showcase will probably never bring to light the benefits of buses as higher order transit.