innsertnamehere
Superstar
I think that Corktown might be better off moving to Cherry and the rail corridor, but i'm not sure if the grades would allow that.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I’d much rather spend the $5 Billion to get this done right. Unless there is a magical smaller train that can move 30,000 pphpd, this design is going to end up handicapping transit in the north and east end of the city.
This is especially bad for people in Scarborough. The Relief Line North was supposed to provide them with extremely fast service to the Downtown core. With this design, Scarborough gets left out in the cold here
north-of-anything
Active Member
I want to hate this redesign... but I can't. I think that doing a large portion of the line at grade or elevated will be much better than digging through bedrock below Carlaw. I was also fearing that the western terminus would end up south of the Lakeshore line, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The most important thing is going to be having good connections to the GO lines at East Harbour, and to the Eglinton Crosstown. Having a Corktown station at Parliament and King is a little more intuitive to me than right under a couple of overpasses at Sumach, especially since it still connects to the 504.
With the right technology, this just might be what the city needs. Too bad nobody really knows what the technology is going to be, or if this is will be redesigned again and undo everything.
With the right technology, this just might be what the city needs. Too bad nobody really knows what the technology is going to be, or if this is will be redesigned again and undo everything.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
It seems like an elevated station at Cherry would be difficult with the transition point between tunneled and elevated/at grade.
I think Phil Verster's description of the walk across platform transfers at East Harbour might actually be possible with this design.
Steve X
Senior Member
It's beside the GO tracks or on top. Nothing bizarre about this. I expected a similar plan from the day PC announced their plans.
It seems like I have correctly predicted that Exhibition station would be elevated on top of the current GO station. There was a whole debate about curves and yet ML has presented a plan with such tight curves. I'm still betting ML is finding someone who can supply this technology.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'll side w/those who see the glass 1/2 empty here.
I remain deeply skeptical about the technical merits of certain choices which appear to require threading a camel through the eye of a needle.
Be that as it may..........
I am more concerned at this moment by the proposed maintenance facility location, which appears to be the current Tremco Plant in Leaside. (PS the slopes here are not particularly stable, and the one below the Tremco site was reconstructed by the TRCA and the river moved at considerable expense only a few years ago. )
Anyone notice that there is no indication as to how this facility will connect to the new line?
It will be surrounded on its south and east sides by very sensitive environmental lands and features the CP Main line through or to the north depending on layout.
The logical connection, directly across the valley would be very disruptive environmentally, very expensive and would run beside or through the Ontario Science Centre.
There are alternatives but none are particularly great.
I am also entirely prepared to question what the elevated choice does to impact development potential in intensifying areas; never mind potentially decimating trees along Overlea Blvd.
If this can be made to work, well, great! But I see this as questionably competent at best, or a rouse to delay spending.
I remain deeply skeptical about the technical merits of certain choices which appear to require threading a camel through the eye of a needle.
Be that as it may..........
I am more concerned at this moment by the proposed maintenance facility location, which appears to be the current Tremco Plant in Leaside. (PS the slopes here are not particularly stable, and the one below the Tremco site was reconstructed by the TRCA and the river moved at considerable expense only a few years ago. )
Anyone notice that there is no indication as to how this facility will connect to the new line?
It will be surrounded on its south and east sides by very sensitive environmental lands and features the CP Main line through or to the north depending on layout.
The logical connection, directly across the valley would be very disruptive environmentally, very expensive and would run beside or through the Ontario Science Centre.
There are alternatives but none are particularly great.
I am also entirely prepared to question what the elevated choice does to impact development potential in intensifying areas; never mind potentially decimating trees along Overlea Blvd.
If this can be made to work, well, great! But I see this as questionably competent at best, or a rouse to delay spending.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Are we actually expecting some new technology?
All this talk of technology sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. There’s no technology that’s going to magically solve the capacity issues at hand.
A LIM-based technology would allow for shorter train heights and therefore smaller tunnels. LIM seems like the obvious choice, although I don’t believe it would save that much money overall; tunnelling is only a small fraction of project costs. We might save $25 Million to $100 Million on tunnelling.
Again, the fatal flaw here is capacity. We can’t just hope for a magic technology to make that problem go away. The line as proposed is a 20k pphp line. 20k pphpd is not compatible with “smaller trains”
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Based on the desire to go elevated over the river, I expect they realized that they couldn't cross Corktown Common Park, except at the very southern fringe without massive political blowback, and this is the result.
If I'm correct in this assumption they get points for not being completely obtuse, but then lose them for a design that is not based on form follows function.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Crazy idea to reduce headways:
What if the terminal stations used a loop, rather than a crossover. ATO theoretically allows headways as little as 90 seconds, but in reality is impossible due to conflicting train movements at terminal stations. But a terminal loop would eliminate these conflicting movements. Could this be used to significantly lower headways?
What if the terminal stations used a loop, rather than a crossover. ATO theoretically allows headways as little as 90 seconds, but in reality is impossible due to conflicting train movements at terminal stations. But a terminal loop would eliminate these conflicting movements. Could this be used to significantly lower headways?
rbt
Senior Member
Extending beyond University won't increase peak-point ridership as 75% of riders will be exiting or transferring between Yonge/University. Anyone continuing beyond will be counter-peak.
The 90 second number is derived from the train length, train speed, and distance between tracks (width/length of the cross-over section). If you use a shorter train, a higher speed, or design techniques to reduce the size of the shared track distance; then that time period may be reduced.
Vancouver Expo line hits 60 seconds regularly, 45 second frequencies is possible but doesn't leave any recovery time for issues.
Chicago, in the heavily interlined loop section (not ATO AFAIK), achieves 30 second frequencies (not scheduled, but a result of congestion) on a regular basis.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
Meh. Silly beeline, moving stations that were analyzed, deduced, and decided upon years ago. A station at Queen/DeGrassi...is there room for that, and what's the merit vs previously-selected Carlaw? Is this elevated above the (already elevated) rail corridor? Is it 1985 again? They're arguing they don't want to go deep, but how complex is it and how many subsurface property rights are they obtaining for that Moss Park-Corktown-Broadview ess curve? Lots of underground parking and foundations now and planned.
The part north of Cosburn could be okay. The different technology thing I'm okay with provided it's 30kpphpd. But I have a hard time grasping the connection between using a different technology and what this map is showing. Keep the original route and use a diff technology.
The part north of Cosburn could be okay. The different technology thing I'm okay with provided it's 30kpphpd. But I have a hard time grasping the connection between using a different technology and what this map is showing. Keep the original route and use a diff technology.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Quick comparison attempt.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Where's that Leslieville station gonna go?
syn
Senior Member
It is when the previous plan seemed to be almost entirely underground.