muller877
Senior Member
when lines cross at 90 degrees how do you have same grade transfers?
When they run parallel to each other it makes complete sense.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
when lines cross at 90 degrees how do you have same grade transfers?
When they run parallel to each other it makes complete sense.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
He's not a hypocrite. The problem with the SRT has always been that it just arbitrary ends near Kennedy and Eglinton. An extension of the Bloor Danforth Line is not so much about the technology being used but rather the fact that it allows for transfer-free crosstown travel. I'd just as well support the Glenn Murray proposal from circa 2013 if it allowed for continuous travel from the West End all the way to Scarborough Centre (and Malvern).
muller877
Senior Member
Why is this a non-starter? is the public good of having a small strip of park removed (and likely a pedestrian/cycle bridge to a new employment district added) worth about $500,000,000? Is it worth more than eliminating 5+ minutes from a transfer for thousands of people a day? Where is your public good comparison (vs just saying it's so)?
steveintoronto
Superstar
Used to be. Not the extensions though:
https://www.greencaltrain.com/2018/...town-extension-on-hold-for-governance-review/
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/bart_extensions/
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's been discussed at length in this string and others, and Steve Munro also discussed it at length. A poster from today's Ontario’s Transit Plans: Details Emerge in City Report
[...]
AM | June 4, 2019 at 3:07 pm
Steve, thanks for this. You mentioned briefly the question of routing of the Ontario Line coming over west of the Don from East Harbour; I remain confused by the potential feasibility. If, as various provincial officials have seemed to intimate, the plan is to bridge over the Don (rather than tunnel under it), and to leverage the existing rail corridor in some way, it seems there are (at least!) two key questions:
1) Where in that general area west of the Don and adjacent-ish to the rail corridor is there room for the tunnel port to get the OL tracks under ground in time for the Sumach stop; and
2) Depending on that answer, is a Sumach stop even feasible anymore given how tight the turn would have to be?
I ask those two questions both out of general curiosity and, more importantly, because I am worried that the Province may propose a tunnel port that would infringe upon (or necessitate the partial tearing up of) Corktown Common, which I believe should be a total nonstarter. Thanks.
Steve: I too have exactly the same concerns. When one remembers that the Metrolinx consultant behind the Ontario line is the same person who thought that SmartTrack as a mainline rail operation could run along the Richview Expressway lands north of Eglinton that had already been sold and had buildings on them, one really has to wonder just how outdated the napkin he drew the route on might have been.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Deja Vu! You're the "AM" who posted the above comment at Steve Munro's blog! It raises a host more questions even than those you've posed. It's an absurdity as proposed.
Northern Light
Superstar
This would be the award-winning, highly popular park, that is artfully designed and integrated with a Flood Protection Landform that cannot be disturbed without comprising the entire West Donlands area, right?
This would the park we spent millions on, and actually got good value for money.
This would the only large public park in the immediate area.
That's the park you would so trivially shrink and/mess up?
I'll take a pass on that, thanks.
Not to mention the risks/costs of messing w/the FPL.
Or
The many other problems w/this idea, none of which have seen a satisfactory solution publicly provided.
steveintoronto
Superstar
One of which, surely, is the conundrum to meeting both provincial and federal flood protection for a portal unless it's behind the flood protection of the berm, which pushes it even further west from the Don if the latest plan to use the LSE track alignment is to be used. Napkins just don't seem to be up to the job of mapping what's necessary:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Co...6c0b9f6d49aacc!8m2!3d43.6541277!4d-79.3524027
Steve X
Senior Member
I think ML and IO will literally put out an RFP asking the industry to pick a technology that will work in Canadian winter, is the cheapest, meets the forecasted ridership and can handle tight curves.
I also think ML would propose an elevated or at grade section west of Bathurst to Exhibition Station. Of course they wouldn't give a crap about TTC's pet streetcar project to Dufferin Loop. They already passed a law that can prevent the city/TTC from extending the tracks to Dufferin loop.
I see this being a rather cheap way to get the line to Exhibition
I also think ML would propose an elevated or at grade section west of Bathurst to Exhibition Station. Of course they wouldn't give a crap about TTC's pet streetcar project to Dufferin Loop. They already passed a law that can prevent the city/TTC from extending the tracks to Dufferin loop.
I see this being a rather cheap way to get the line to Exhibition
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
But how do you get it to Ontario Place - which is almost a kilometre further south?
syn
Senior Member
If I recall the Ford brothers waterfront plan, flood protection has never been something they've been concerned with.
Steve X
Senior Member
It won't. That's the feeling i'm getting from the wording. There will be only one station at Exhibition/Ontario Place. They are planning it as an interchange station with the concept that it will relief GO Train riders. With one station, it'll have to make a convenient transfer with the LSW line. The Ontario Place name seems like a marketing strategy to sell the idea Ontario Place is getting rapid transit.
In the city report it reads:
And about East Harbour
To me it reads as ML is making the Ontario Line to relief both LSW and LSE. They could force people to transfer by charging a premium if anyone taps on/off at Union. Of course this works out very well for ML as their long term strategy to divert people from Union Station. This motivates ML to actually build the line but will there be enough capacity to relief the Yonge Line long term? It seems like Queen's Park has gotten their way in messing up future TO transit for the greater goods of the 905 region riders. TTC can also expect to lose all their revenue from the riders that normally take the subway to Union as I don't see why Queen's Park will let TTC handle the fare/revenue on this line.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Looks interesting, but is it possible to make such a quick transition from underground to elevated just west of Bathurst? Especially, after taking a sharp 90-degrees turn.
ADRM
Senior Member
Because I understand how large tunnel ports generally have to be and, ergo, that we’re not talking about “a small strip of park.”
steveintoronto
Superstar
A lot of commenters appear to be woefully unaware of the physical limitations of a system that "can handle more passengers than Line 1" in terms of the size of the carriages, length of carriages, and the minimum radius possible on a flat curve, let alone a compound one going into a tunnel. Even London's Dockland Light Rail has severe limitations, and those carriages are tiny compared to the Ontario Line need. Even if you can squeeze in a very tight curve, wear on wheels, rails and suspension goes up geometrically, let alone the squeal factor. And every curve slows a vehicle down, some tighter curves severely limit speed.
Perhaps many of the Public are gullible and naive on these things, but for some of us with an engineering background, listening to even Verster talk, you damn well know he's making it up.
Next: The elevator to the Moon. Dug Ford's jaw dropped and broke, what he saw was so amazing...and we should demand the Feds commit money to it!