[Euphoria]

Running the RL under Richmond and Adelaide is the least disruptive, easiest to build option. We wouldn't have to tear up Queen or King and could leave that precious streetcar infrastructure in place. If people could stop thinking the Gardiner has to remain south of the tracks with a lame hybrid temporary fix, we could bury the Gardiner at the same time we dig the RL. No, I'm not letting this go. Someone needs to rescue you. Glad I also recommended an ST spur from a new Ellesmere ST station to STC rather than throwing over two billion at a one stop subway extension from Kennedy to STC.

 

[LNahid2000]

Running the RL under Richmond and Adelaide is the least disruptive, easiest to build option. We wouldn't have to tear up Queen or King and could leave that precious streetcar infrastructure in place. If people could stop thinking the Gardiner had to remain south of the tracks with a lame hybrid temporary fix, we could bury the Gardiner at the same time we dig the RL.

Can you please stop saying the same thing using different words over and over and over?

 

[BurlOak]

There is actually a good argument to be made that a Richmond (or Adelaide) subway would be less disruptive and just as effective as a Queen one. The station entrances would be halfway to Queen anyway and major path links could be made up Bay to City Hall. Crossing the Don, these two streets are very close to Queen, so there is no real difference in the geology. It may even be possible to bridge over the Don River.
This construction on Eglinton should remind people that disruption during construction, although temporary, is still a significant factor lasting numerous years. And this won't be some remote street where downtowners don't venture, this will be in the heart of the City.

 

[Hopkins123]

There is actually a good argument to be made that a Richmond (or Adelaide) subway would be less disruptive and just as effective as a Queen one. The station entrances would be halfway to Queen anyway and major path links could be made up Bay to City Hall. Crossing the Don, these two streets are very close to Queen, so there is no real difference in the geology. It may even be possible to bridge over the Don River.
This construction on Eglinton should remind people that disruption during construction, although temporary, is still a significant factor lasting numerous years. And this won't be some remote street where downtowners don't venture, this will be in the heart of the City.

While the construction on Eglinton is disruptive, I would argue that the end result of having a subway directly underneath the corridor most people want to get to anyway is worth the disruption. West of Bathurst and east of Parliament you'd have to utilize Queen as the right-of-way regardless as Adelaide/Richmond comes to an end beyond those points so you may as well go in a straight line across the downtown.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Admiralteyskaya (Saint Petersburg Metro) is the deepest metro/subway station in the world at 86 meters or 282 feet, vertically. Two sets of escalators are needed, one set at 125 metres in length and a second set at 25 metres in length. That's diagonally in length. The distance between St. Andrew and Osgoode Stations is about 300 metres. FYI.

 

[BurlOak]

The Yonge subway is 50m to 100m east of Yonge and many people do not even realize it. If was done there to reduce disruption, reduce costs, and essentially get more subway for the money. These exact things should be goals today as well.

Put the subway on Richmond with City Hall platform between Yonge and Bay, with entrance at Bay and underground connection to City Hall and people wouldn't even realize that the subway is not under Queen. Same thing can be said for a station at Sherbourne and Cherry.

 

[BurlOak]

Instead of going deep, I wonder if we can go shallow. Can the DRL go over the Yonge line. Just by walking the stairs, I estimated that the distance from Yonge track to pavement level is about 7.0m to 7.5m at Queen. A subway height is about 3.7m and a Mark III metro (for the DRL) is about 3.3m. Probably the thinnest support slab between subway levels is 400mm, and between subway and street another 400mm. Thus, about 7.8m is required to achieve this. Was my crude measurement off enough that the actual height is more? Does this value increase as you go south and reach Richmond, or Adelaide? Of course under street utilities and storm sewers may be a problem and require a cost to relocate.

But the advantages of this would be huge. Construction would be much faster to excavate only 4m to 8m deep stations through downtown instead of 20+m - and much cheaper too. Platforms closer to the surface are more desirable since less time is lost from street to train. Ventilation costs, dewatering, emergency exits, etc. would all be lower cost. It may also be possible to bridge over the Don River just south of Eastern Ave instead of a deep tunnel under.

I also wonder if the "Mezzanine" could be built below the station. You would go down 1 level to access 1 platform, or down 2 levels to the "Mezzanine" and then cross over to the other side platform (or centre platform if 3 platforms are used) from below. This somewhat deeper excavation (still less deep than a station with TBM tunneling) would only be required for a single point (or two) at a station, and not the entire length of the station box. The key to this DRL is to keep the costs as low as possible and build (or at least announce) the full DRL long as being a priority. That would achieve the maximum support from all of Toronto.

 

[robmausser]

Running the RL under Richmond and Adelaide is the least disruptive, easiest to build option. We wouldn't have to tear up Queen or King and could leave that precious streetcar infrastructure in place. If people could stop thinking the Gardiner has to remain south of the tracks with a lame hybrid temporary fix, we could bury the Gardiner at the same time we dig the RL. No, I'm not letting this go. Someone needs to rescue you. Glad I also recommended an ST spur from a new Ellesmere ST station to STC rather than throwing over two billion at a one stop subway extension from Kennedy to STC.

The DRL will 99% have to be deep bored due to all of the infrastructure downtown. Enwave, PATH, condo foundations.

Most often, deep boring uses one big boring machine and stations are built into the bore hole.

Very little disruption occurs ontop to the street.

Obviously the station entrances will need to have utility relocates and the such, but it would only disrupt that area around them on Queen.

 

[robmausser]

Instead of going deep, I wonder if we can go shallow. Can the DRL go over the Yonge line. Just by walking the stairs, I estimated that the distance from Yonge track to pavement level is about 7.0m to 7.5m at Queen. A subway height is about 3.7m and a Mark III metro (for the DRL) is about 3.3m. Probably the thinnest support slab between subway levels is 400mm, and between subway and street another 400mm. Thus, about 7.8m is required to achieve this. Was my crude measurement off enough that the actual height is more? Does this value increase as you go south and reach Richmond, or Adelaide? Of course under street utilities and storm sewers may be a problem and require a cost to relocate.

But the advantages of this would be huge. Construction would be much faster to excavate only 4m to 8m deep stations through downtown instead of 20+m - and much cheaper too. Platforms closer to the surface are more desirable since less time is lost from street to train. Ventilation costs, dewatering, emergency exits, etc. would all be lower cost. It may also be possible to bridge over the Don River just south of Eastern Ave instead of a deep tunnel under.

I also wonder if the "Mezzanine" could be built below the station. You would go down 1 level to access 1 platform, or down 2 levels to the "Mezzanine" and then cross over to the other side platform (or centre platform if 3 platforms are used) from below. This somewhat deeper excavation (still less deep than a station with TBM tunneling) would only be required for a single point (or two) at a station, and not the entire length of the station box. The key to this DRL is to keep the costs as low as possible and build (or at least announce) the full DRL long as being a priority. That would achieve the maximum support from all of Toronto.

Going shallow absolutely will not be possible.

There are huge Enwave pipes down there, PATH, condos, tons of old utilities.

Here is an Enwave tunnel. They exist all over under downtown.

 

[Euphoria]

An RL under Richmond is essentially a Queen Line, accessible from Queen, but built more cheaply without any disruptions to streetcar service along Queen throughout construction. The connection between a City Hall station and the Queen station is easy through PATH. Another benefit relates to traffic flow and congestion. By digging a little deeper we can combine the construction of an RL with a buried Gardiner Expressway in the same tunnel(s). The on/off ramps can rise straight up to street level and flow in the same direction as the surface traffic, west along Richmond and east along Adelaide.

If you think we shouldn’t consider burying the Gardiner because of expense, consider that the hybrid will cost upwards of a $billion. The congestion that will ensue during its construction, shutting down segments of the Gardiner, can be avoided by tunneling with RL, since the elevated Gardiner can remain in place until the new highway is buried. Think of reconnecting the city to the lake and creating the La Rambla/Michigan Ave./Champs Elysee along Lakeshore that we’ve always wanted.

My version of the RL curves north at Trinity Bellwoods, though it could continue west. I don’t think tolls would be necessary in a buried Gardiner, though there is the possibility of extending the expressway north-west (tunneled with the RL under the parks that follow the old Taddle Creek alignment) and connecting with the Allen Expressway. I would place heavy tolls on this portion, since it isn’t replacing an existing highway and its tolls could fund an extended RL. We need to plan in a cost effective way with our long-term goals in mind. Put the cars underground, reconnect the city to the lake, and complete the subway network.

 

[LNahid2000]

If you think we shouldn’t consider burying the Gardiner because of expense, consider that the hybrid will cost upwards of a $billion.

Boston's Big Dig was estimated to cost $6 billion in 2006 dollars, but ended up costing $14.6 billion in 2006 dollars. This was for only 5.6km of tunnel.

 

[Euphoria]

We're digging for DRL away from the water. The Big Dig costs related to having to keep water out of a tunnel by the water and building a highway underground WHILE keeping the elevated highway above it opened. It's a completely different set of circumstances. In this case we're doing mostly cut and cover under streets, but digging a story deeper than we would for a subway to provide a roadway.

 

[LNahid2000]

We're digging for DRL away from the water. The Big Dig costs related to having to keep water out of a tunnel by the water and building a highway underground WHILE keeping the elevated highway above it opened. It's a completely different set of circumstances. In this case we're doing mostly cut and cover under streets, but digging a story deeper to provide a roadway.

Either way, it's still not going to be cheap for many reasons explained earlier in this thread. But you seem to ignore all that and say it's going to be the simplest construction project ever. People have already explained why cut and cover likely won't be possible downtown.

 

[Euphoria]

No, I've been studying these options for over 20 years. I was corresponding with the Planning Dept. about the proposed Front St. extension that was canceled when TO lost the 2008 Olympic bid. Anyway, look at the technology used for Paris's A86, which provides two 3-lane wide levels within a single tunnel. They used a boring device not unlike the one used for Crosstown. A tunnel under Adelaide and a tunnel under Richmond would give you your east and westbound tunnels for both subway and expressway. Alternatively, you could do deep cut and cover and have RL under one street with one level of underground roadway. Look, you can have your half-baked compromised city with the Hybrid Expressway that we'll decide to tear down eventually, or you can find a clever solution that digs two important projects at once. It isn't only about subways. There's the matter of the waterfront. Anyway, stick to thinking about subway lines. It's easier.

 

[LNahid2000]

We already talked about how Paris' A86 is a completely different set of circumstances, yet you bring it up again. Nothing about your "plan" is clever.