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

[W. K. Lis]

I hadn't seen that proposal before. I like the idea of traffic calming, interesting road treatment, reduction of lanes and bike lanes, etc... but I would hate to see the large median removed and University Ave to become any other street. If anything I would take away the two middle most lanes and many of the turn around points and make the median even more grandiose.

Guess you'll be one of those who won't like the changes to Paris' Champs-Élysées. See link.

A rendering of what the Champs-Élysées could look like with added pedestrian walkways and sidewalks.

If the city will be rebuilding University Avenue, this would be a good time to construct the Ontario Line' "Osgoode" Station as well.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I hadn't seen that proposal before. I like the idea of traffic calming, interesting road treatment, reduction of lanes and bike lanes, etc... but I would hate to see the large median removed and University Ave to become any other street. If anything I would take away the two middle most lanes and many of the turn around points and make the median even more grandiose.

The issue with the median is that it's completely hostile to human enjoyment. You have to cross three lanes of traffic to reach it, which strongly discourages its usage in the first place, and then once you're in the middle you have to deal with loud traffic from all sides. It's not a place where anyone should want to spend any significant amount of time.

 

[officedweller]

University Ave. was laid out at a time when you had the luxury of space
- and you could afford to have space that was purely ornamental, for show, that was not used on a regular basis.
But that time has passed.

 

[Jonny5]

Interesting find by Steve.

Metrolinx Plans Major Grade Change on Lakeshore East Corridor

Metrolinx quietly slipped a major change in its joint Lakeshore East / Ontario Line corridor plans by way of a web page update with no accompanying announcement or explanation. Current version of w…

stevemunro.ca

That looks like an extraordinary amount of work they are adding out of the blue. Re-grading the entire corridor and raising the bridges is not some trivial task. That could add a lot of time to the project. I guess there will be a lot of weekend closures for the bridge work on Lakeshore East.

I wonder if it's some safety consideration over the possibility of a truck not making the bridge clearance on the road below, ramming the side of the bridge, and then causing some kind of damage that forces a shutdown of the Ontario Line, or even no damage, but shutdown for a few hours for inspections? That's the only thing that comes to mind, other than they simply want to take this as an opportunity to update the bridge clearances to contemporary norms.

 

[officedweller]

It may just be regrading at the bridge/underpass locations.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was at the request of the City.

 

[EnviroTO]

Guess you'll be one of those who won't like the changes to Paris' Champs-Élysées. See link.

Hmm, that has a median, a reduction in lanes, traffic calming, and interesting road treatment... all the things I support except that it is missing bike lanes. What I wouldn't support is removal of the median and having traffic drive on only one side of the ROW (i.e. passing only on the right of the right of the Arc de Triomphe on that picture).

 

[Northern Light]

The issue with the median is that it's completely hostile to human enjoyment. You have to cross three lanes of traffic to reach it, which strongly discourages its usage in the first place, and then once you're in the middle you have to deal with loud traffic from all sides. It's not a place where anyone should want to spend any significant amount of time.

Arguably, the full University Park Vision would cut University to 2 lanes each way (plus cycle tracks); that's not necessarily what's shown, but if you extend around Queen's Park, removing the lanes on the west side, it simply would not be reasonable to go beyond 2 lanes each way on the current eastern ROW, anything larger would cut vast numbers of trees.

In the event you cut to 2 lanes each way, with cycle tracks, north of College; you should probably do so south as far as Richmond.

At that point, you could probably add enough space to the median to make it functional as park space.

Both because of its size, but also because of the reduced car-moat around it.

That is not an argument for the median per se; merely one to point out that you can make the current median more hospitable.

 

[Northern Light]

Interesting find by Steve.

Metrolinx Plans Major Grade Change on Lakeshore East Corridor

Metrolinx quietly slipped a major change in its joint Lakeshore East / Ontario Line corridor plans by way of a web page update with no accompanying announcement or explanation. Current version of w…

stevemunro.ca

Big Change (increasing the height of the rail berm by 0.9 - 1.6M)

Not announced; but quietly shown.......

Suggests that it might not withstand scrutiny.

Very disruptive to the existing corridor, and adjacent areas.

Very expensive.

Doesn't just add costs for the work; changes the height of the sound barriers; changes the shadow impacts...........etc etc.

Also, how do you deal w/the fact some of the bridges are historical? Can the existing walls simply have height added in a similar style?

SMH.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Suggests that it might not withstand scrutiny.

Why would this be the case? Are you anticipating technical complications, public opposition, etc?

 

[Northern Light]

Why would this be the case? Are you anticipating technical complications, public opposition, etc?

The increase is certainly do-able, though complex in the context of a very active rail corridor.

I expect that yes, there is a material risk of increased opposition, in an area not exactly friendly to the proposal to begin with (above-grade O/L) , to say......whoops, we snuck in as much as an extra 4.5 ft (plus) on the ROW and the Sound Barrier; affecting shadows and visual impacts........

Problematic on its own, worse that it appears as though there may have been an attempt at deception. (quietly making significant changes w/o flagging them).

Added costs are also an issue...........remember the argument that burying this section is an extra 800M.

We could debate both the accuracy of that number; and whether or not 800M would be a reasonable sum in the circumstances......

But it would certainly appear as though cost just went up, materially on this, the 'preferred' option.

So what's the cost difference now? 700M....? 600?

We don't know..........but people will surely be asking.

 

[treplow]

Looking at the Front and Parliament intersection on Street View - is it known yet exactly where the station is planned to be constructed? I assume it'll be either the Budget car rental site or the vacant lot directly north of the data centre.

 

[smallspy]

Also, how do you deal w/the fact some of the bridges are historical? Can the existing walls simply have height added in a similar style?

Bridge jacking is a reasonably common occurrence, so that shouldn't be much of a concern. It would allow the continued use of the same bridges but with increased clearance underneath them. And as most of the retaining walls are concrete, increasing their height in a like manner isn't exactly a new science, either. (Of course, if they are in need of major repair due to age it makes that work even easier to plan for as well.)

Something that just occurred to me - the increase in height is not substantial (-ish), and in most cases could be accounted for by adding more ballast and then re-levelling the track after. The additional height at the bridges may not necessarily be to regrade the structures, but rather to allow the existing bridges to be rebuilt with ballasted decks. This would allow for alignment improvements and a lowering of noise to the surrounding neighbourhood, although it would not allow for an increase in clearance to the roadways underneath.

Dan

 

[Northern Light]

Bridge jacking is a reasonably common occurrence, so that shouldn't be much of a concern. It would allow the continued use of the same bridges but with increased clearance underneath them. And as most of the retaining walls are concrete, increasing their height in a like manner isn't exactly a new science, either. (Of course, if they are in need of major repair due to age it makes that work even easier to plan for as well.)

Something that just occurred to me - the increase in height is not substantial (-ish), and in most cases could be accounted for by adding more ballast and then re-levelling the track after. The additional height at the bridges may not necessarily be to regrade the structures, but rather to allow the existing bridges to be rebuilt with ballasted decks. This would allow for alignment improvements and a lowering of noise to the surrounding neighbourhood, although it would not allow for an increase in clearance to the roadways underneath.

Dan

Steve's Article begins with a notation that the work is intended to raise bridge clearances:

Also of note is a significant change in the profile of the embankment as seen here (original on top, new at the bottom)

The intent appears to be to remove much of the (presumably vegetated) soils that would have covered the retaining walls.

 

[Jonny5]

Looking at the Front and Parliament intersection on Street View - is it known yet exactly where the station is planned to be constructed? I assume it'll be either the Budget car rental site or the vacant lot directly north of the data centre.

Last I read it will be at Berkeley and King. The whole Staples and Porsche dealership are to be demolished anyway to stage a tunnel bore site

 

[DSC]

Looking at the Front and Parliament intersection on Street View - is it known yet exactly where the station is planned to be constructed? I assume it'll be either the Budget car rental site or the vacant lot directly north of the data centre.

The STATION is on/below the Staples lot NORTH of Front. Lots of details on Steve Munro's site.