[2xBlue]

CBC reporting on it (see link below). While this is an exciting major step, approved EAs can sit on a shelf for years, if not decades before projects are built (for various reasons including lack of funding or political will). As has already been stated, this isn't fully funded, the province IS uploading subways (special advisor and team have already been appointed to map out how this would happen) and it all depends on political priorities. IF Ford wants to pick up votes in four years he could be a hero by funding a subway right through the left-leaning heart of downtown Toronto that he hates so much.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...spJTcufjp61Wgmbik-ntov9iLqxh-RZZuNj7QAH2g2neo

 

[drum118]

We were all hoping the cost could be kept down to <$400M/km - then they could built it longer. Instead, the cost is $900M/km.
The design was chosen to deliberately delay the project, because it is not that feasible at only 7 km length.
They need to put some Value Engineering on this to reduce the costs.

I look at the cost a different way.

Regardless of the high cost, it does a number of things that been talked about over a 100 years and that is building it. It also will kick start the extension north, taking some pressure off Yonge and the current interchange, start numerous development project. Cost recovery comes in all forms. If we keep talking about cost and not building it because of cost, we a dead in the water and only making things worse over time.

 

[Rainforest]

How is this a meaningless thing? If the PC's were ambivalent about investing in the DRL then they wouldn't sign off on the TPAP prior to the election. Providing their approval in the middle of an election means additional coverage. They are making a higher profile commitment to the DRL. It will be harder for the PC's to retract or withhold the next phase of funding.

While I'm something of a transit neophyte, this sounds like good news to me.

A step in the right direction, but not a milestone by any means. Noone in the right mind will deny the need of the Relief Line.

The risk is that the funding will be delayed indefinitely. Elephant in the room is the huge cost of Phase 1, and the fact that Phase 1 (to Danforth) cannot be split into smaller phases. If, say, Phase 1a went from Yonge to Queen & Broadview only, then nearly all "Relief" effect would be lost.

Funding is the key. If / when the funding is announced, we will know it is actually happening.

 

[drum118]

We will know come next Budget Meeting (2019) where this project is going and when we may see shovels in the ground.

There is nothing stopping the City or the Province going P3, to build this line, with TTC running it at this time

 

[rbt]

There is nothing stopping the City or the Province going P3, to build this line, with TTC running it at this time

Could it be done any other way? IO will throw a fit if they're not in charge of the tender.

I'm hoping for the Eglinton model. TBMs tender over the winter, and tunnels as a separate contract from the stations.

 

[BurlOak]

CBC reporting on it (see link below). While this is an exciting major step, approved EAs can sit on a shelf for years, if not decades before projects are built (for various reasons including lack of funding or political will). As has already been stated, this isn't fully funded, the province IS uploading subways (special advisor and team have already been appointed to map out how this would happen) and it all depends on political priorities. IF Ford wants to pick up votes in four years he could be a hero by funding a subway right through the left-leaning heart of downtown Toronto that he hates so much.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...spJTcufjp61Wgmbik-ntov9iLqxh-RZZuNj7QAH2g2neo

I believe the EA was approved for the Sheppard subway to STC.

 

[pstogios]

Construction will likely occur much sooner.

But the earliest possible is around Q4 2020 and that is highly ambitious bordering on unrealistic.

Late 2021, is, however quite feasible if government wishes to make it happen.

Operation, at best, is probably late 2027, but more likely early 2029

Why does will it take so g-d long to progress to construction? At that “expedited” pace and with the ridiculous population growth in this city. we will need a relief line for the relief line.

 

[Northern Light]

Why does will it take so g-d long to progress to construction? At that “expedited” pace and with the ridiculous population growth in this city. we will need a relief line for the relief line.

They haven't yet finished detailed design, they won't reach 30% design (which is what's essentially needed to put a pkg out to tender) till mid-2019 at the earliest.

Then putting it out to tender needs to be approved, (funding has to be in place); then the tendering process on a project of this size will take at least 3 months (probably longer) and once you have an award, you're likely looking at 3 months or more for the GC to mobilize and hire any key subs etc.

Could you compress the design timeline?

Yes.

But the way to do that would be to design the line in smaller chunks and award the tender in chunks.

ie. Do detailed design only from University to Sherbourne and get that far enough along to begin, and because its a smaller project, tender/mobilization can also be tightened up a bit.

You're not going to shave years off, but you might shave a couple of quarters.

Any further reduction in time requires changing construction techniques as well as paying for larger crews, 2 or more shifts and weekend work.

If you want to do all that (construction technique shift would be to do more cut and cover) then you can shave another year or more.

But on balance it may not be worth it. You're going to trade for extra $$ and inconvenience.

The real issue is not how long it will take to build this thing, its that we didn't start work on it in 1988.

 

[TransitBart]

Construction won't happen, if it is happening, until 2025, and scheduled to open 2031. And we need the relief now. So it is insane and don't hold your breath.

The next step is to compress the whole thing into 6 years total. Would help if the funding were in place. NOW.

 

[BurlOak]

The next step is to compress the whole thing into 6 years total. Would help if the funding were in place. NOW.

If it was shallow and built cut-and-cover, then it would be a simpler design that could be handled by more contractors. By going deep, it requires specialty TBM contractors, followed by very complex and deep excavations at stations. For the past few years, it appears that expediency has not been a design consideration - likely politicians just wanted some minor progress to be shown, but there was no intent to actually proceed with any urgency.

 

[44 North]

The next step is to compress the whole thing into 6 years total. Would help if the funding were in place. NOW.

Exactly. Compress to 5-6yrs total, and have the west and north sections ready to proceed asap. It can be done, it should be done. As for funding, think we need to do it more locally. Prov and Feds are too weird and it it for themselves, or have some weird backroom stipulations. Put a chunk on the property tax like SSE, some TIF, some major deals with developers and air rights (esp in East York and North York with RLN).

If it was shallow and built cut-and-cover, then it would be a simpler design that could be handled by more contractors. By going deep, it requires specialty TBM contractors, followed by very complex and deep excavations at stations. For the past few years, it appears that expediency has not been a design consideration - likely politicians just wanted some minor progress to be shown, but there was no intent to actually proceed with any urgency.

Pretty open and shut that the south end needs to be deep. Too many things in the way nearer to the surface, groundwater issues, and that there are benefits to using the bedrock. Other areas north of Gerrard perhaps an unstudied option of cut->precast tunnel segments->cover could be beneficial. Not as a one-off long-term mammoth construction project, rather a military-like rolling thunder block-by-block approach.

And I would agree that expediency in recent years doesn't seem to be a huge deal. TYSSE was basically one 8km construction project seemingly with a 9-5 Mon-Fri work schedule. Not certain but think Tory has allowed longer work schedules, which is obviously needed. If there are few residents around like in industrial/commercial areas it should be 24h.

With your other post further up about value engineering, I feel like there are options. Perhaps going with narrower trains, and therefore narrower TBMs...possibly single bore. The sky wouldn't fall if we use unconventional rolling stock. If we want the same capacity as an automated 6-car TR we can simply have slightly longer stations; if we want to use existing yard facilities, allow for TTC gauge so we could nonrevenue on Line 2 to Greenwood or someplace. Shaving down a metre and having trains that can turn sharper, in a tight built environment like TO, I think offers wiggle room and VE opportunities.

 

[Jasmine18]

I think with a DRL then a case for expanding the subway to past Finch on the Yongle or past Kipling towards the 427 and Square one makes some sense.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I think with a DRL then a case for expanding the subway to past Finch on the Yongle or past Kipling towards the 427 and Square one makes some sense.

How ‘bout we build the DRL and see what Crosstown brings before catering to the GTA.

 

[dowlingm]

We were all hoping the cost could be kept down to <$400M/km - then they could built it longer. Instead, the cost is $900M/km.
The design was chosen to deliberately delay the project, because it is not that feasible at only 7 km length.
They need to put some Value Engineering on this to reduce the costs.

We saw what "Value Engineering" meant on the SSE. Fewer emergency exits, less ventilation, etc. Unlike the SSE these trains are gonna be full so we need the safety margins.

 

[robmausser]

we will need a relief line for the relief line.

That was the whole idea around Smarttrack, but it will only offer even limited relief if the fare is the same as TTC, its free to transfer from TTC to it and vice versa, and there are frequencies as good as every 5 minutes during rush hour.

Unfortunately I dont see GO RER/Electrification being done until 2025 at the earliest as well.

However I do think that the $3 GO flat fare for inside of Torontos borders would help even now. The problem is they will have to increase GO train frequency inside of the Toronto area to compensate and im not sure how many more trains they can squeeze on the existing service right now. The 16 new GO train engines they bought can carry 14 car trains, so maybe that will help.

The other things that will help relief in the meantime is Automatic Train Control on Line 1, due to be done at the end of next year. What this will do is allow for 33% more trains on line 1, running every 30 seconds! At rush hour.

I think some more express bus services will be needed as well in the interim, with large bendy buses offering nonstop rides between key stations.

Finally, and I know people hate this, but time based fares would help. If you offer people a discount for riding outside of rush hour, there are those who will definitely do it. I think politically this has to be massaged quite well. What they could do is after the next fare raise, lower fares outside of rush hour. Raising fares just for rush hour would be political suicide. Thats your voting demographic right there. So you make it look like an equal fare raise, and then after a year you advertise lower fares outside of rush hour.

These are all things that can be done before the Relief Line is ready, but they bring their own problem: political projects are usually in response to a bad situation. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Things dont get done until the problem has become so bad it becomes a voter issue. If you continue to remedy the problem with bandaid solutions, you delay when the problem becomes so bad that politicians MUST act. So by creating a "relief line for the relief line", you cause the issue to be deferred to a later and later date, and allow politicians to stretch out the date when the relief line is ready.