tstormers
Senior Member
Bridge piers going in!!
Timeframe is about right to take the line north to Hwy 7 and it will help the Yonge line once it opens. Going west is questionably to RC, let alone to the airport,. A lot of us will be gone by then especially when the next phase opens.to worry about as a lot of things can change between now for the next phase, let alone going west.As plans stand today, and of course, these are are subject to change......I agree w/the timeline you have above.
The northern extension will proceed sometime after 2033, but likely before 2040, with a multi-year delivery window.
Its not the next large project; and there a couple of medium sized ones ahead of it too.
Render 2 is jarring.Some nice renderings for the Don Valley bridge!
That wouldn't be feasible but technically possible. Look at how much closer the piers are in comparison to the Ontario line renders. You'd have to somehow span across the DVP with those piers being much closer together. That would result in a pier placed between every few lanes (not sure how many exactly) of the DVP which would be a major disruption and reconfiguration of that section of the DVP. Also considerably more expensive.Man, it's too bad we as a society have accepted value engineering the aesthetics right out of our public works.
Imagine, instead of a non descript concrete bridge of zero consequence, an elegant stone viaduct spanning the valley.
Settle–Carlisle line - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I know there have been plans in the past to build the DRL out farther. The switch to the OL line with its smaller stations and surface sections allowed it to be built out farther, some kind of backroom lobbying and interests must have been behind the switch. There is also the issue of the private sector financing, operations and maintenance, someone is making money off that.False. Metrolinx has been eying a 'Lakeshore' relief line since at least 2011.
View attachment 565956
And a relief line going to Donmills and Eglinton has been envisioned since at least 1985.
View attachment 565957
I know why they did it the way they did, I just regret that we as a society are OK with accepting uglier designs to save money.That wouldn't be feasible but technically possible. Look at how much closer the piers are in comparison to the Ontario line renders. You'd have to somehow span across the DVP with those piers being much closer together. That would result in a pier placed between every few lanes (not sure how many exactly) of the DVP which would be a major disruption and reconfiguration of that section of the DVP. Also considerably more expensive.
Yes it is but in a way it is also a beauty of engineering that we can design and construct a bridge which spans across much fewer piers and for less construction materials.I know why they did it the way they did, I just regret that we as a society are OK with accepting uglier designs to save money.
We'd never build a station like the IRT City Hall ever again:
I thought the same about line 4 (taking it to STC vs going straight to McC/ShE).I think the Ontario Line would be a good spot to have our city's first *branched* subway line.
I for one like the OL render way more. That stone viaduct just gives off 1600s vibes.Man, it's too bad we as a society have accepted value engineering the aesthetics right out of our public works.
Imagine, instead of a non descript concrete bridge of zero consequence, an elegant stone viaduct spanning the valley.
Your point stands about value engineering. However the criteria for this Don Valley bridge valued an unobtrusive design with low visual impact more than a cheap design. Consider that the lower Don Valley bridge for this same project has a much more stand out design, because the setting is more appropriate.I know why they did it the way they did, I just regret that we as a society are OK with accepting uglier designs to save money.
We'd never build a station like the IRT City Hall ever again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/City_Hall_Station_(32200).jpg
It would limit the branches to each a headway double that (i.e., 180 s), as 90 second headways are the maximum at this point.How feasible is a branched line with 90s headways?