What is the turning radius of a TBM? It's a fairly long, rigid machine. I wonder if the TBM places a limit on curvature that is more restrictive than the turning radius of a subway train.

- Paul
 
44 North said:
CapitalSeven is correct that this, and many of the stations will most likely be "mined". So it won't be the typical open station box that we've seen with the majority of our underground stations. And this isn't so much 'encroachment' (or maybe it could be considered as such), but the City/TTC/Mlinx would have to obtain subsurface property rights from every property owner the line travels under. This finagling is not the most optimal, and was brought up in the shortlist/longlist phases, but if there's no other way it's an okay solution.

It used to be easy to find, but does anyone have a link to a City map that shows roadway ROW widths?
Click to expand...
Isn't there a limit to what are considered property rights, subsurface?
 
crs1026 said:
What is the turning radius of a TBM? It's a fairly long, rigid machine. I wonder if the TBM places a limit on curvature that is more restrictive than the turning radius of a subway train.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Not really, we could make some pretty tight turns. The limiting factor was always the planned transit rolling stock. Only thing that happens with a tighter curve are is more of an overcut between the machine an tunnel, meaning you spend a lot more money on grouting between the two (i.e. the annualus between the outside of the tunnel ring an the cut diameter of the ground. The sales design had to fit a contractor-specified curve.
 
jcam said:
Not really, we could make some pretty tight turns. The limiting factor was always the planned transit rolling stock. Only thing that happens with a tighter curve are is more of an overcut between the machine an tunnel, meaning you spend a lot more money on grouting between the two (i.e. the annualus between the outside of the tunnel ring an the cut diameter of the ground. The sales design had to fit a contractor-specified curve.
Click to expand...

Interesting - thanks!

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
What is the turning radius of a TBM? It's a fairly long, rigid machine. I wonder if the TBM places a limit on curvature that is more restrictive than the turning radius of a subway train.

- Paul
Click to expand...

As an example, they were perfectly willing and capable to build a curve with a restrictive speed of ~50km/h on the TYSSE using the TBMs. They then decided to realign the curve and have it end part of the way into the existing tailtrack structure north of Downsview Station rather than at the extreme north end of it, and thus open up the curve to eliminate that restriction.

The bigger issue, I suspect, is the fit of the tunnel liners. The cast concrete liners are designed to allow for curvature depending on the order in which they are placed (7 segments per ring, 4 positions per segment), but there is a minimum curve radius in which they can be assembled. And to be honest, I don't know what that minimum is.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
44 North said:
CapitalSeven is correct that this, and many of the stations will most likely be "mined". So it won't be the typical open station box that we've seen with the majority of our underground stations. And this isn't so much 'encroachment' (or maybe it could be considered as such), but the City/TTC/Mlinx would have to obtain subsurface property rights from every property owner the line travels under. This finagling is not the most optimal, and was brought up in the shortlist/longlist phases, but if there's no other way it's an okay solution.

It used to be easy to find, but does anyone have a link to a City map that shows roadway ROW widths?
Click to expand...

Have they ever built a station platform that is entirly mined in Toronto?
Would they need the permission of every homeowner to encroach into their property (by my count there are around 35 homes that would require a +/-1.5m encroachment to allow for a 21 meter wide platform, this doesn't take into account any additional width needed for acoustic and vibration mitigation (would that all be within the 21 m?)
Also why not move the platform to south of Queen? Pape south of Queen is wider with much less single family homes.
 
h2k said:
Also why not move the platform to south of Queen? Pape south of Queen is wider with much less single family homes.
Click to expand...

You might end up with a sharper turn to Eastern in that case given it starts immediately south of the proposed stop:

upload_2016-6-7_10-13-30.png


http://reliefline.ca/uploads/2016.06.02 Station Fit Studies for upload.pdf

Besides, it doesn't look like it is all that different immediately south of Queen either - you'd have to move a lot further south, which will definitely make for a very sharp turn.

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-6-7_10-13-30.png
    upload_2016-6-7_10-13-30.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 691
Last edited:
WislaHD said:
Isn't there a limit to what are considered property rights, subsurface?
Click to expand...

h2k said:
Have they ever built a station platform that is entirly mined in Toronto?
Would they need the permission of every homeowner to encroach into their property (by my count there are around 35 homes that would require a +/-1.5m encroachment to allow for a 21 meter wide platform, this doesn't take into account any additional width needed for acoustic and vibration mitigation (would that all be within the 21 m?)
Also why not move the platform to south of Queen? Pape south of Queen is wider with much less single family homes.
Click to expand...

I am by no means an expert in subsurface property rights, and cannot say how far they extend, but they certainly are not unlimited. There is a good chance that at this location and with the usage for which these homes are zoned the owners have no subsurface claim extending as deep as this tunnel will run.

However, if I am wrong about that, I expect that the compensation required for expropriating just a subsurface easement allowing construction of the station at Pape and Queen would be minimal.
 
WislaHD said:
Isn't there a limit to what are considered property rights, subsurface?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but would be interested to know. There must be a lot of issues with regards to the process. And that depending on the depth, usage of the subsurface space ensures that said property could write-off any future opportunity for redevelopment to a highrise.

h2k said:
Have they ever built a station platform that is entirly mined in Toronto?
Would they need the permission of every homeowner to encroach into their property (by my count there are around 35 homes that would require a +/-1.5m encroachment to allow for a 21 meter wide platform, this doesn't take into account any additional width needed for acoustic and vibration mitigation (would that all be within the 21 m?)
Also why not move the platform to south of Queen? Pape south of Queen is wider with much less single family homes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I believe they would have to get 'permission' (or whatever the legal process is).

I couldn't find the map that shows ROW widths, but I did manual calculations last night. Seems you're correct that Pape - basically all of it from Queen to Danforth - is 18m. Carlaw seems to be 20m, even north of Riverdale. This leads me to believe that perhaps some kind of N/S alignment along both Carlaw/Pape with a jog near the rail corridor could be considered in the future. Or perhaps not.
 
44 North said:
I couldn't find the map that shows ROW widths, but I did manual calculations last night. Seems you're correct that Pape - basically all of it from Queen to Danforth - is 18m. Carlaw seems to be 20m, even north of Riverdale. This leads me to believe that perhaps some kind of N/S alignment along both Carlaw/Pape with a jog near the rail corridor could be considered in the future. Or perhaps not.
Click to expand...

According to the OP ROW map - Pape is 20 all the way to Eastern:

https://www1.toronto.ca/planning/3-rightofway-widths.pdf

AoD
 
44 North said:
Ah, cool. That was the map I was looking for, but wanted more of an interactive version. Hm, it looks like it's showing Pape as 20m between Danforth and Riverdale Ave. But south of Riverdale Ave (where it jogs to the west) what's shown as 20m to Eastern is actually Carlaw.
Click to expand...

44 is spot on. But looking at the city's interactive map, this is what you get:

ZCLs9Ps.png


Using Google to measure the distance between those property lines, that's 17 or 18 m. But as you can see, that's the entire front yard for people on the east side of the street, almost right up to the structure.
 
I believe subsurface rights belong to the province. This is a very sticky situation in Sudbury as the city can't collect any taxes on the underground portion of the mines, only the province can.
 
Kitsune said:
I believe subsurface rights belong to the province. This is a very sticky situation in Sudbury as the city can't collect any taxes on the underground portion of the mines, only the province can.
Click to expand...

Mineral rights are different than subsurface rights. A property owner in Ontario normally does not buy the mineral rights (stays with Ontario until someone stakes it and purchases it separately).
 
I think that running the relief line under either King or Wellington would make sense. Queen is north of the vast majority of new development along the waterfront. Also, the King streetcar is busier than the Queen streetcar even though it is shorter. Running along King would result in a more logical streetcar network in the future since if the western end of the DRL is ever built, then most of the King streetcar would be eliminated while the Queen streetcar would remain unchanged. The Broadview section of the King streetcar, the Cherry streetcar and the short section on King east of Cherry would remain and would be consolidated into one streetcar line.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top