Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[dullturtle06]

I don't get it either.

The TTC and city have built plenty of above-ground sections of the subway that work very well.

I can't figure out how downtown elites in High Park, Old Mill and Rosedale are good with above-ground subway trains but it's unacceptable (along with streetcars, LRTs, etc.) for the suburbs.

okay so the in the last 30 years what projects has the ttc / city built?

Sheppard subway 100% underground (cover bridge over don) 25 meter depth

TYSSE 100% underground under industrial lands, and hydro corridors, plenty of room for elevated / at grade. 25 - 30 meters underground.

planned subway extensions

SSE 40 meter under highland creek 100% tunneled

DRL 9 stories deep at gerrard

ya seems like a pattern.

the 1950- 1970 TTC subway construction was done very well, at grade, trenched, tunneled using cut and cover where necessary. but the people that designed those most likely no longer are the design team of the last 30 years.

 

[allengeorge]

Okay so part of the study the city did was grade separate and on street. The city did choose the on street version but had studied the below grade option. So soil testing was done, an alignment was chosen and station placement.

Yes it does. I had no idea that Metrolinx’s underground alignment was exactly the same as the city’s. Do you have a link to docs about that by any chance?

 

[ssiguy2]

Where subways at grade or elevated make sense then that's how they should be built as they are vastly cheaper and faster to do so. This constant bickering from people along the rail corridor is really quite ridiculous. This land is right up against a rail corridor so who can possibly be surprised the province needs some small slice of it for more rail? They are not bulldozing dozens of homes or ripping apart High Park.

It is incumbent upon Metrolinx to listen and meaningfully respond to the area resident's concerns but when you get people like this, you kinda can't blame them for plugging their ears. Demanding a line be buried to accommodate their fine sensibilities is not reasonable. These people truly are putting in jeopardy a line that the City has been trying to get built for over half a century because it is not exactly, precisely what these people want. Compromise is the way forward but expecting an agency to magically come up with a billion dollars and delay a project for a few years is not reasonable.

If these people are so traumatised by this then perhaps they should put their money {and commutes} where their industrial size mouths are. This would mean that to offset the extra time and massive extra cost of tunnelling means they would be willing to forgo the stations in their area while simultaneously accepting the fact that there will be no new services {or perhaps a reduction in their current streetcar service} to reflect the probably lower demand..........................ya, I thought not. If they are willing to make that sacrifice then tunnel away but until such a time, they should just shut up as they are increasingly looking like a school brat who, when doesn't get their way, takes their marbles and goes home with a sob story for Mom..

 

[dullturtle06]

Yes it does. I had no idea that Metrolinx’s underground alignment was exactly the same as the city’s. Do you have a link to docs about that by any chance?

here steven munro has a brief of the city crosstown west extension options, along with a history of the project. like the city crosstown west website was taken down. anything else you can look up yourself if your interested in the history of the project.

Eglinton West: An LRT Subway for Etobicoke?

On February 28, 2020, Metrolinx release a Preliminary Business Case for the Scarborough Subway Extension, and an Initial Business Case for the western extension of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT from M…

stevemunro.ca

oh and fyi didnt even notice this, but the city actually wanted to bury the lrt under the humber river lol.

 

[Steve X]

They also purposely designed the elevated station to look as massive and overbearing as possible.

Elevated stations are just not designed that way over the middle of an intersection. They are put to the side with 1-2 sets of accesses, not 4 from each corner of the intersection.

I mean, compare the City's rendering to what a typical skytrain station looks like:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

It's not like the Eglinton ROW doesn't have space for a station like that either.

That's the flaw. They don't want to shift the LRT from the middle of the road between the at grade crossing at midblock interactions and grade separated structure at major intersection so they come up with this design with separate platform on each side. Of course that also means there must be 2 entrances/exit per platform as the fire code standard. Volia they solve the issue.

 

[ssiguy2]

^^^^ Guys that debate should be for the Eglinton LRT thread and not the OL one. Thanks.

 

[syn]

okay so the in the last 30 years what projects has the ttc / city built?

Sheppard subway 100% underground (cover bridge over don) 25 meter depth

TYSSE 100% underground under industrial lands, and hydro corridors, plenty of room for elevated / at grade. 25 - 30 meters underground.

planned subway extensions

SSE 40 meter under highland creek 100% tunneled

DRL 9 stories deep at gerrard

ya seems like a pattern.

the 1950- 1970 TTC subway construction was done very well, at grade, trenched, tunneled using cut and cover where necessary. but the people that designed those most likely no longer are the design team of the last 30 years.

I think you should ask yourself "What's the difference between 1950 - 1970 and the last 30 years?"

The answer is increasing provincial interference and politicization of transit.

When the TTC and City handled expansion, there was never an issue with putting the subway above ground.

The SSE replaced a fully funded, grade separated, above ground LRT.

Ford and his ilk have never been about sensible public transit - transit has been an election tool and part of their 'divide and conquer' brand politics. The Liberals also used transit as a vote getting tool.

As for the DRL, it makes sense underground.

There is nothing wrong with underground transit. It's about putting things underground where it makes actual sense to do so.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When the original Yonge subway originally opened for service, they thought that two-car Gloucester trains would operate during the non-rush weekends. Never happened.

I remember the four-car Hawker-Siddeley trains in the late evenings and Sundays. Today, they use six-car trains and are looking at expanding the six-car articulated to seven-car articulated (extending the ends into the tunnels).

Still haven't seen what sort of trains they would use on the "Ontario" line. Will they be able to expand the trains, whenever the capacity demands it. Or will the current penny-pinchers at Metrolinx decide that there will be no expanded demand when Greater Toronto reaches 5,946,000 by 2025, 7,038,547 by 2050, 7,812,436 by 2075, 8,331,657 by 2100? See link.

 

[kamira51]

As for the DRL, it makes sense underground.

There is nothing wrong with underground transit. It's about putting things underground where it makes actual sense to do so.

So by your logic, since leslieville is low density it's ok to spend millions on tunneling underneath it? so why not tunnel under Eglinton west? please explain this backwards thinking.

 

[syn]

So by your logic, since leslieville is low density it's ok to spend millions on tunneling underneath it? so why not tunnel under Eglinton west? please explain this backwards thinking.

No, by my logic it makes sense to tunnel underneath because it will allow for a higher capacity line using standard TTC subway rolling stock.

please explain this backwards thinking.

Classy.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

ticulated to seven-car articulated (extending the ends into the tunnels).

I'll believe that when that actually happens.

 

[KhalilHeron]

I've seen a lot of suggestions that the station at Queen and Spadina be named Chinatown station, and until know I just thought that was obvious, but I guess not being able to go downtown much made me (and many others) forget that Queen and Spadina is absolutely not Chinatown. You could make the argument that College and Spadina could be considered Chinatown, but certainly not Queen. I guess the name could be used as it's in close proximity to Chinatown, but the area has enough of an identity itself that I feel it would deserve its own name, not borrowing from a nearby neighbourhood. The problem is the only name I've ever heard used for that area is Queen west... which has its obvious flaws so I'm not sure what the answer could be

 

[Allandale25]

(emphasis added)

I could be completely wrong, but is it possible they may replace two GO* tracks on the west/north for OL, and add two GO tracks to the east/south? Just don't know if there has to be a certain clearances between the OL and GO tracks. Just wanted to visualize some options. Not a civil engineer and haven't measured this, and not aware of the requirements. So it's just for general discussion purposes. The below images also don't take into consideration the clearance requirements for the OCS poles for OL or GO, and any noise walls proposed. Speaking of noise walls, Metrolinx blog post on it today.

* and VIA, but for simplicity of the images below I'm just saying GO.

Given what appears to be the property lines from Toronto Maps v2, I wonder if this shows why Metrolinx is saying that they can generally accommodate the 2 OL tracks and the 4 GO tracks within their ROW. I believe they've been saying that but stand to be corrected. Using v2 is helpful because it shows property lines. I realize the images below don't perfectly align with the track location ideas but the property lines disappear on v2 if you Zoom out beyond this view.

OL - blue lines (surface OL in the Metrolinx maps is pink, but that's the same colour as the property lines)
GO - green lines
Relevant Metrolinx map here: https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/content/ontario-line-neighbourhood-updates-east

I haven't had time to do the West Don Lands Portal (west of Cherry) to the first image below, but maybe I'll post it later as part 2 of this.

As for the disruption/cost of shifting existing GO tracks, I know it was done for the Georgetown South Project and I believe some work on LSW, and around the Bayview Junction. Any thoughts on how those projects compare to the potential shifts to to the GO tracks in this stretch @crs1026 @smallspy ?

From south to north

South of Queen St E, north of Eastern - option 1:

View attachment 309346

Option 2 (in case more room is needed between OL and GO. I haven't carried this option all the way through):

View attachment 309339
South of Queen St E with the OL Leslieville Station Platform:

View attachment 309318

I realize the Metrolinx map has this station straddling Queen St E. But I wonder if they'll shift it further south so that they don't need to touch the DeGrassi Street ROW.

North of Queen St E:

View attachment 309352

Further north of Queen St E. There could be some generous space available here because of the former Riverdale platform. Mentioned in this UT article in September 2020 and this Metrolinx blog post.

View attachment 309307

Again, further north of Queen St E:

View attachment 309315

North of Dundas St E:
View attachment 309319

At Logan:

View attachment 309320

Carlaw:

View attachment 309326

Update: I realize I put Gerrard Station further south than the Metrolinx map so here's another version.

View attachment 309365

North of Gerrard:
View attachment 309338

OL heading north into the tunnel:

View attachment 309335

More detailed and official track plans just released.

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

 

[KhalilHeron]

Seems slightly less invasive for Jimmie Simpson Park (which is the one people seemed to be protesting about more), and slightly more for Bruce Makey, but the overall footprint of the corridor seemed to be smaller in general. Let's hope the community doesn't have too many complaints about this alignment as to not slow things down any further.

 

[desperateAmbassador]

I've seen a lot of suggestions that the station at Queen and Spadina be named Chinatown station, and until know I just thought that was obvious, but I guess not being able to go downtown much made me (and many others) forget that Queen and Spadina is absolutely not Chinatown. You could make the argument that College and Spadina could be considered Chinatown, but certainly not Queen. I guess the name could be used as it's in close proximity to Chinatown, but the area has enough of an identity itself that I feel it would deserve its own name, not borrowing from a nearby neighbourhood. The problem is the only name I've ever heard used for that area is Queen west... which has its obvious flaws so I'm not sure what the answer could be

I vote that it should be called McDonald's station after the intersection's most iconic landmark^