Allandale25 said:
blog.metrolinx.com

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.
blog.metrolinx.com
Click to expand...
Great article, really highlights some of the issues often not considered by the layperson when thinking of tunneling.
For example, twin-bore tunneling can be greatly affected by the time dependent swelling of the rock. If there is a delay in one TBM, the stress redistribution after the first tunnel is bored may affect the boring of the second TBM considerably as it passes through the swelled region. This can lead to decreased strength around the tunnel and/or excessive volume loss leading to surface displacement.
It is also very important for caverns that use SEM, as the sequential excavation method (obviously) has different sections mined at different times, leading to stress redistribution. Delays or mining issues could lead to these stresses causing cavern wall blowout or other rock failures if this is not considered during design.
Considering the magnitudes of some of the swelling stresses and how they change over time, a design that will hold during the initial stages of construction may not be suitable for the later stages of construction as the horizontal stresses are increased. For some projects in expanding shales, sand has been packed outside a final tunnel liner as the increase in stress is taken up by the compression of the sand instead of being taken directly by the wall of the tunnel.
On top of the design implications, one may expect that the swelling rates are not uniform across a region of bedrock, or even within the same borehole. This could increase the number of tests that would need to be done to reach an acceptable level of confidence.
I would expect a considerable amount of drilling to take place in the transition zones between the soil/rock interface as these are the areas where the testing is most critical. I am excited to see how the OL plan will take these interfaces into account. My anticipation, from the article, is that the underground section along Pape will be entirely in the soil and could be dug similar to the crosstown if cut-and-cover is to be avoided.
However, I am not sure how they plan on transitioning between aboveground->soil->rock within the 500m or so present at the Don yards. I doubt they will be digging up any of Corktown Common, nor would they want to cause significant surface movement to the GO lines or heritage buildings in Distillery. Would not be surprised to see jet grouting occur along Cherry or Parliament st, or possibly extending the excavation along Distillery lane. You would not want to have any differential displacement causing tilt to 7+ lanes of rail traffic...
 
WislaHD said:
Ridership totals is also a misleading figure for rapid transit anyway, because the three lines mentioned would all have different commuter patterns. The Relief Line (when built to Sheppard) was projected to exceed both YUS and BD in ridership at morning and late afternoon peak hour. Meanwhile, both YUS and BD will have more mid-day, afternoon, and evening ridership during the non-peak periods, which when added together, increases their total ridership numbers to surpass that of the Relief Line.

For me, it's a moot conversation. The Relief Line/Ontario Line will serve its purpose by improving commutes for those who use it, and importantly, expands rapid transit coverage to larger parts of the city. The only real question is if the Ontario Line as proposed by Metrolinx will have the capacity to handle peak hour ridership on day 1 (and on day 10,001).
Click to expand...

Day 1 is even iffy. Since we are building LRT in the one place we should have built subway, the capacity may not even be enough on opening day, especially since this thing is not going to be open until 2028. The subway has 40000 PPHPD, and the OL has 30000. I think that's too optimistic.

The thing with LRT is that they are attempting to serve local areas as well of Scarborough - Downtown commutes. LRT does both of the inefficiently. I see streetcars east of the Don as a potential alternative to local service.

I also see a problem with transfers at Pape. While pressure on the Yonge Line would be alleviated, if this line goes to Sheppard or further a similar dilenma would occur. In total, I think that this line is insufficient.
 
p_xavier said:
Yes, many. But in the end the opposition came from a minority and the judge ruled that the opponents (google translate): "They accompany their factual allegations, which are few in number, with a hodgepodge of assertions, statements of principles, value judgments, innuendo of conspiracies, their own opinions,".

EAs were properly done for the REM, it's the public audiences (BAPE) that were reduced to a period of 60 days (hopefully it'll be 0 for the next projects). The main complaint was that not every detail was known before construction, and that conflicted with the design/build of the REM.
Click to expand...
About the Montreal REM, here is a critical view of it:
"the multi-billion dollar light rail project Montreal never asked for"

Projects Archive - City Monitor

www.citymetric.com www.citymetric.com
6lzq4Qp.png
 
They are moving really fast on building the REM:
https://rem.info/en/news/recap-2019

I was surprised that it was the first time a launching girder had ever been used in Quebec!
You will note that the REM trains are high floor trains (not low floor) so there are wide open spaces in each car (no wheelwells poking up) and they are quite wide
- so they would have a higher capacity than the Croostown trains, even though both are LRT:
2. Weight and size ?
Length: 76.20 m (250’) at peak hours
Width: 2.94 m (9’8’’) or 17% wider than Azur cars
Height: 3.90 m (12’10’’) excluding the pantograph
Maximum weight: 232 tonnes
Click to expand...
rem.info

Rolling stock

Learn about the REM light rail cars. First departures starting in 2022!
rem.info rem.info

So even if the Ontario Line cars are "LRT" - if they are high floor, they can have a pretty good capacity.
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
Oh, look at the monster Doug and his brother created

Locals push back against Ontario Line above-ground design at first open house
Click to expand...

Other residents said they believed Thorncliffe and Flemingdon, where family incomes are well below the city-wide average, were being treated worse than other more wealthy neighbourhoods along the route, where the plan is to build the line underground.

“It’s a cop-out. Through the Danforth it’s going to be buried. High income, high land value. But you come through Thorncliffe and Flemingdon and you want to put it above ground?” asked Sierra Constantinides, a mother who works in the film industry and lives on nearby Wynford Heights Cres.
Click to expand...

Yea, okay ?
 
I attended tonight's meeting, briefly.

I found the panels unenlightening (where accurate, nothing new or useful)

I found the staff/consultants to lack the requisite knowledge to engage me in any meaningful discussion of the projects technical assumptions, costing, timing or much of anything else.

To say the affair was a disappointment and a waste of my time is to over rate it by 1/2
 
Northern Light said:
I attended tonight's meeting, briefly.

I found the panels unenlightening (where accurate, nothing knew or useful)

I found the staff/consultants to lack the requisite knowledge to engage me in any meaningful discussion of the projects technical assumptions, costing, timing or much of anything else.

To say the affair was a disappointment and a waste of my time is to over rate it by 1/2
Click to expand...
I was expecting that we'll learn nothing and looks like that's true.
 
Northern Light said:
I found the staff/consultants to lack the requisite knowledge to engage me in any meaningful discussion of the projects technical assumptions, costing, timing or much of anything else.
Click to expand...

The rules say they have to conduct the consultations, therefore they conduct the consultations.

Nothing in the rules says those consultations have to be meaningful ..
 
Steve X said:
I was expecting that we'll learn nothing and looks like that's true.
Click to expand...

The real meaningful stuff is going to be behind the IO process - where propriety information is probably going to be the excuse.

Rainforest said:
The rules say they have to conduct the consultations, therefore they conduct the consultations.

Nothing in the rules says those consultations have to be meaningful ..
Click to expand...

And I quote Arnstein again:

1579839008839.png


AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top