[M II A II R II K]

And have they made up whether the line will be south of the GO tracks or north of it or perhaps elevated above it.

 

[micheal_can]

Not to mention the flooding issues with open portals that low in the Don Valley. If the proposal is to deep tunnel both sides from the river, it would actually be far cheaper, easier, and performance-wise far superior to just stay in tunnel.

The claim that a bridge will be cheaper is indicative of how totally un-thought-out this whole proposal is. I'm still waiting for a grown-up to present an engineering analysis, but grown-ups are in abject absence at QP right now.

And absolutely no presentation of any plan with a Metrolinx stamp on it.

The DRL as proposed by the City was also an absurdity in many ways, with no hope of financing it. This latest iteration is no better.

Still waiting for a plan from someone (almost inevitably private) who does know what they're doing, how to finance it, and how to make it work while keeping politicos at a safe distance.

Abridge is cheaper than a tunnel to build.

 

[steveintoronto]

Abridge is cheaper than a tunnel to build.

Not when you already have a TBM(s) in situ and all support in place. It's *Way more complex and costly* to bring the tunnel to the surface to cross on a bridge.

I'll go further: It's fffing ridiculous. In cases where a shallow cut and cover needs to get over a ravine, as in the case of Keele Station, not to mention the massive aquifer flowing under there with at least a thirty foot height of pressure *, it makes sense to daylight it over, rather than under, and do it with a gradient closer to neutral relative to the adjacent stations which are underground.

I can't think of any of the many aspects on this back of a soiled napkin plan that are so ridiculous as to quite match this one for being absurd beyond belief.

If you're boring deep tunnel, you have to have good reason to surface, and this sure ain't one. With a northern extension further up the Don Valley, surfacing makes a lot of sense to get from one valley wall across to the other, and which would require only a few bridges to do it (over the river, over the DVP, the Bala Sub, and Bayview), and perhaps a service yard and depot accessed by doing so too. That all makes perfect sense, but not the river crossing at the south end.

* HIGH PARK’S HIDDEN RIVER (Laurentian Channel)
http://www.gordperks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/High-Parks-Hidden-Waters.pdf

 

[BurlOak]

Not when you already have a TBM(s) in situ and all support in place. It's *Way more complex and costly* to bring the tunnel to the surface to cross on a bridge.

I'll go further: It's fffing ridiculous. In cases where a shallow cut and cover needs to get over a ravine, as in the case of Keele Station, not to mention the massive aquifer flowing under there with at least a thirty foot height of pressure *, it makes sense to daylight it over, rather than under, and do it with a gradient closer to neutral relative to the adjacent stations which are underground.

I can't think of any of the many aspects on this back of a soiled napkin plan that are so ridiculous as to quite match this one for being absurd beyond belief.

If you're boring deep tunnel, you have to have good reason to surface, and this sure ain't one. With a northern extension further up the Don Valley, surfacing makes a lot of sense to get from one valley wall across to the other, and which would require only a few bridges to do it (over the river, over the DVP and the Bala Sub), and perhaps a service yard and depot accessed by doing so too. That all makes perfect sense, but not the river crossing at the south end.

* HIGH PARK’S HIDDEN RIVER
http://www.gordperks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/High-Parks-Hidden-Waters.pdf

Not when you already have a TBM(s) in situ and all support in place. It's *Way more complex and costly* to bring the tunnel to the surface to cross on a bridge.

I'll go further: It's fffing ridiculous. In cases where a shallow cut and cover needs to get over a ravine, as in the case of Keele Station, not to mention the massive aquifer flowing under there with at least a thirty foot height of pressure *, it makes sense to daylight it over, rather than under, and do it with a gradient closer to neutral relative to the adjacent stations which are underground.

I can't think of any of the many aspects on this back of a soiled napkin plan that are so ridiculous as to quite match this one for being absurd beyond belief.

If you're boring deep tunnel, you have to have good reason to surface, and this sure ain't one. With a northern extension further up the Don Valley, surfacing makes a lot of sense to get from one valley wall across to the other, and which would require only a few bridges to do it (over the river, over the DVP and the Bala Sub), and perhaps a service yard and depot accessed by doing so too. That all makes perfect sense, but not the river crossing at the south end.

* HIGH PARK’S HIDDEN RIVER (Laurentian Channel)
http://www.gordperks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/High-Parks-Hidden-Waters.pdf

I went to reply to this, and magically, the list of hidden rivers appeared. I thought you had some magic way of hiding it.
Then I realized it was an edit.

Agree with all - so either Metrolinx are idiots, or they are not planning on deep boring and surfacing to cross the lower Don.
It may be that they are planning on using cut-and-cover all the way along Eastern. If this was shallow, then it would likely be possible to switch from underground to go over the Don. On the other side, I imagine you would have to reconfigure the road network a bit (move Bayview to follow the Don a bit farther and then connect directly to Front or Mill Street) to allow the elevated line to descend below grade again before reaching Adelaide. (I don't think they would suggest going through the entire downtown as elevated). As for flooding, berm can be added under the bridge span to prevent flood waters from reaching the portals - without really affecting the hydraulic capacity of the channel as most of the water flows down the middle).

 

[steveintoronto]

so either Metrolinx are idiots, or they are not planning on deep boring and surfacing to cross the lower Don.

In all respect to Metrolinx, it's not their proposal as is. I suspect not even close. This is the Premier's proposal, and he hasn't a clue. Not even Lindsay has spoken on this. All those wearing big-boy pants are hiding.

And who can blame them? Ford saw a proposal they were working on, and is classic Ford, he completely missed all the crucial details. Verster briefly alluded to it at the Metrolinx meeting a few days back, and actually got his funding facts very wrong. In all respect to Verster, he has to be a 'yes-boy' to whatever the 'boss' says...and to not get the details right for someone who hasn't a clue to begin with, Verster can be cut some slack.

What's notable is not what Verster got wrong in detail (though a crucial one, he stated "funded fully" by Ford Regime) but what's clearly evident is no-one with an engineering or executive role is going on record for this.

So back to your point on 'cut and cover' for that section, something you're written about well for sometime, especially since techniques have improved dramatically in two generations: For that section, it would seem to make sense, although I know the substrate rises dramatically to the east of the Don. So portal arises in the east, and stays 'shallow' over a bridge and then cut and cover for a good section towards Yonge, where it would have to dive into bored tunnel again.

But here's why we're discussing this: There is no engineering comment on this proposal yet, other than referring to the TTC DRL studies for underlying strata. I believe the adage of 'if you tunnel, then tunnel deep' for that alignment still holds true, the upper strata are so fractured and a poor tunnelling medium.

But *everything* should be re-examined. I disagree with the "get the shovels in the ground right now" crowd. This is exactly where things go terribly wrong.

I suspect some excellent engineering studies have been done, beyond the conventional TTC subway ones, but no-one is stepping up to the plate in fear of being associated with this present hubbub. For the record, the original TTC one was like trying to keep the old Model T factory from closing. There are ways to do this so much better, but the Ford Fantasy Foible isn't it.

What *does* Metrolinx have to say on this? Officially, on paper? They will...well...*ostensibly* be the agency in charge...but that remains open too. My bets are still on majority private. As to whether Metrolinx would have executive oversight remains to be seen. Perhaps there's good reason they're standing in the wings at this time.

 

[robmausser]

Dunno bout a sigh of relief. We had a deal with the Prov/Metrolinx and things seemed to be working both smoothly and amicably. City studies the south portion, Metrolinx the northern section. Things would naturally tie in to the point it could potentially be all one shot construction.

This is a gross oversimplifcation. The "city" portion still heavily depended on Metrolinx studies, and was going to cost $7 billion, 1/3 of that cost coming from the Province.

 

[robmausser]

Liberty Village definately should get a proper station and I think it will. If one of the bid due propose it, they'd have an advantage.

As for Front & Bathurst, wouldn't that be redundant if the line does end at Exhibition GO Station?

Also agree with Liberty getting a station.

People here are saying Liberty has a station, with the Smarttrack/GO RER station, but go read the budget report from the province, that is DEAD. A ton of money was removed from GO captial costs, it aint happening. I don't care what the transportation minister said, electrification is off the table, theres no money for it anymore.

"GO Expansion" is exactly what it sounds like. Expanding service using the existing diesel rolling stock.

 

[TrickyRicky]

The three rules in Civil Engineering are:

1) F=ma
2) You can’t push on a rope
3) In order to find the answer you need to know the solution

1) Tells us that the world is governed by fundamental physical principles
2) Warns us against ignoring these principles, although I would extend this to encompass all principles
3) Is particularly relevant to this topic. There is a lot of discussion here about finding an ideal technical solution but the reality is that design is a servant to human interests. Politics is a system of hashing out which human interests prevail. Design serves and is bound by the parameters and goals of the political interests that have gained ascendancy at the moment. There is no other way and will never be another way.

The fundamental problem with transit in Toronto is an incongruity between political jurisdictions and responsibility’s. Making the Province responsible for this transit line solves some problems in my mind while creating others. Even better than a subway upload would be a breakup of the Province or making Municipalities actual political entities with the power to levy income and sales tax and the Province gets out of the public transit business all together.

 

[steveintoronto]

"GO Expansion" is exactly what it sounds like. Expanding service using the existing diesel rolling stock.

It's sure looking that way.

 

[W. K. Lis]

With work already being done for Science Centre Station for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, most likely with knockout sections for a Don Mills/Relief Line North now Ontario Line, will they actually do work on for the Ontario Line now not later? The ground has already been dug up. Why fill in the top only to dig it down again for the Science Centre Station of the Ontario Line? Target date of 2027 for the Ontario Line versus 2021 for the Crosstown LRT (Mt. Dennis to Kennedy).

From link. Will need to be updated.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's sure looking that way.

how so? The budget explicitly mentioned electrification literally 3 days ago. Could you explain how things have changed since?

 

[aquateam]

We lose if a) land that ought to be kept as public domain is sold off for development and/or b) legitimate planning processes are bypassed or eliminated in the interests of 'cutting red tape'.

I don't mind development, if it's good. But if Ford cuts the city out of subway building, will he retain their role in the planning process? The risk with Ford is, we will get an unattractive built form because he can't say no to developer friends, and he cuts the city off at the knees when they challenge what the developer wants to build.

These "legitimate" processes are responsible for the featureless glass boxes everywhere that Torontonians know and love. Meanwhile, almost every single building that Torontonians appreciate predates the establishment of these "legitimate processes", which we can thank for our lovely affordable housing crisis and famous urban sprawl.

Cutting red tape and removing the city from the development process (by zoning on a provincial or federal level) would be the best thing that Ford could possibly do during his tenure.

This is basically more or less what the DRL as proposed over the years is - nothing jaw dropping at all. Cosburn, Thorncliffe, Flemingdon are all proposed as station locations previously. At least they didn't mess with that (but this is the early days and conceptual alignment in and on itself is just that)

Nothing against the notion of building infrastructure to assist intensification - but I don't think leveraging public - and as you have mentioned - somewhat rare land assets that could be put to more targeted uses is the solution.

The most successful transit systems in the world are more real-estate development initiatives than transport initiatives (though they combine both.) In Japan and Hong Kong, the agency planning the transit owns the station lands and gets developers to build apartment/mall/office complexes on top of where the stations will go. The transit agency reaps both the ridership and the rents.

I support taking a very different approach to housing than in the past. (why do we have single family monster homes going up within walking distance of subway stations, when severing the lot, and/or building a triplex on the same lot would provide multiple family homes at a different price point?)

We have single family monster homes going up because it is illegal to build anything else, and because subdividing the lot is also illegal, as is building multi-family dwellings. A consequence of city planning.

The big u-turn that will lead to stabilising housing supply will come from encouraging something other than condo's. I'm not hearing any suggestions for the CNE/Ontario Place except more condo's .

My comments were with regard to the excellent work that City planners do to point out the pitfalls and excesses of development proposals, which generally have more stories, too little sidewalk, and mediocre to lackluster streets. I just can't believe that the development community won't take the opportunity to point out to their pal Douggie that all this "impediment" is preventing them from getting shovels in the ground. Considering the emasculated, milktoast positioning that seems to be all Tory is capable of, I suspect their job will become harder now that "getting subways completed" will be the provincial mantra.

In the early 19th century, people who were sick and visited hospitals were more likely to die than people who were sick and stayed home. The reason? Doctors, despite many years of pretentious learning about naming anatomy and humors and other various theories, would poke around open wounds and not wash their hands and spread them to other patients, because they didn't know what germs were.

City Planners are much like 19th century doctors: they do more harm than good to cities but believe their work is essential.

Something is greatly dysfunctional in our planning process when every unbuilt unit is celebrated as a victory while housing prices soar out of reach of all but the richest or most overleveraged. Those condos that you dislike so much are being built because our zoning rules make it uneconomical to build anything other than condos in the thin slivers of land that we deign to permit mixed-use development on. It might be fun to see developers brought to heel by city planners through years of shadow studies, wind impact studies, etc., but there is a real cost that flows to renters and homebuyers when it takes longer to get a permit to construct a beneficial good than it does to actually build it.

If you really wanted to punish big scary developers, you could reduce the barriers to entry for competitors by "cutting red tape", so developing a lot doesn't require big companies with the resources to navigate the multi-year byzantine planning and appeals process. Missing middle housing is lower risk and easier construction than those tall concrete condos, but expensive development charges and the long lead time pushes the economics against it, which is why the Avenues policy has been such a failure.

The only u-turn that will lead to a stabilized housing supply will be either 1) a sharp reduction in our disproportionate immigration targets to allow housing growth to eventually catch up to the past decades of population growth or; 2) wide-scale elimination of zoning restrictions such as the yellowbelt, like the Minneapolis 2040 plan or something like SB-50.

 

[hw621]

With work already being done for Science Centre Station for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, most likely with knockout sections for a Don Mills/Relief Line North now Ontario Line, will they actually do work on for the Ontario Line now not later? The ground has already been dug up. Why fill in the top only to dig it down again for the Science Centre Station of the Ontario Line? Target date of 2027 for the Ontario Line versus 2021 for the Crosstown LRT (Mt. Dennis to Kennedy).

From link. Will need to be updated.

So the contractor friends can have more work?

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the budget, at this link, I found this:

...
The government could achieve this by fundamentally redesigning the Downtown Relief Line project. A non-exhaustive list of opportunities to optimize design and delivery could include the following:

• The original proposal planned to tunnel approximately 40 metres under the Don River — the equivalent of inverting the Bloor Viaduct bridge and burying it underground. Instead, the Province could build a bridge over the Don River, which could be considerably cheaper;
• The Province would deploy lighter, more cost-effective and modern trains that have fewer signalling problems and are cheaper to operate than the existing TTC subway trains;
• The Province could create a freestanding Ontario Line that would not share track or resources with the existing Bloor-Danforth Line. This could enable the government to construct a truly unique transit system, potentially through public-private partnership, that would not be dependent on the requirements of the technologically outdated Bloor-Danforth Line; and
• An aggressive early works program, leveraging the Province’s unique ability to expedite approvals and enabling works, with a target to have shovels in the ground by the end of next year.

Are they talking about the going over the Don River near Eastern Avenue or near Millwood Road? The budget is unclear about where this "bridge" is located. We need much more documentation about the "more cost-effective and modern trains". Sounds like someone sold Doug Ford and Victor Fedeli a sales pitch, without any knowledge on public transit, nor did they do any research. What glossy brochure were they given?

 

[BurlOak]

With work already being done for Science Centre Station for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, most likely with knockout sections for a Don Mills/Relief Line North now Ontario Line, will they actually do work on for the Ontario Line now not later? The ground has already been dug up. Why fill in the top only to dig it down again for the Science Centre Station of the Ontario Line? Target date of 2027 for the Ontario Line versus 2021 for the Crosstown LRT (Mt. Dennis to Kennedy).

From link. Will need to be updated.

This shoring is designed for the depth of the Eglinton line station. The Ontario line station is deeper, so this shoring is not adequate.
Also, the shoring that is placed now is to construction a station along Eglinton. To construct the Science Centre station, this shoring has to be removed and shoring added in a north-south direction.

If somebody was on the ball, they should have realized the need for the DRL Science Centre station 5 years ago, and tendered the 2 stations together. That could have actually saved some money. Now that Eglinton is half way finished, there are no saving to ask the Contractor to do a completely different operation that they had started.