[Steve X]

Trust me, the relief line will be nowhere near construction by the time the scarborough line ("rt") is withdrawn due to the poor design, hard to maintain infrastructure. It's now just a 35 year old derelict.


I think you meant to refer to is Laird Stn, not Leaside Stn (Bayview).

I made a map of what the optimal routing could be. Sorry the map is pretty pixelated.
The station is at the west corner because of the optimal connections and metrolinx recommended it for DRL North

-81 now runs mostly in the Thorncliffe loop connecting to the station and B branch goes to Pape stn (recommended by Hopkins123) and A branch goes to Flemingdon Park Stn.
-88 Stays the same but with street connection to Thorncliffe Stn
-100 starts at Thorncliffe Stn to flemingdon park so the route south of don river is eliminated
-51 (Leslie) will run from Donlands Station to Steeles via Laird Stn as proposed by the board shown here
View attachment 182293

Interesting routing but why not just give the two 81 branches separate route numbers? 81B retrains the current 81 designation and the 81A be called 181. They could also serve stops in oppose sides of the road. Then again why not just terminate the 25 here and the 925 won't go south of Eglinton. The 8 is going to be a busier route again to make up for the lost service on Broadview.

There is two questionable sections on Line 3 in this proposed map. (I'm not criticizing your map, just want to discuss about the alignment) The Millwood overpass cannot handle anymore weight so the alignment would have to be carried on a new crossing. I would place it to the west of the Millwood bridge. The second Don Valley crossing (over the west branch of Don River would likely be elevated to avoid the expensive cost of dropping 20m into the ground It would be expensive to build a launch shaft beside a high rise. I think Flemingdon Park Station should be at the intersection of Don Mills/Overlea Blvd. Spacing would be more balanced this way.

I propose the crossing be an elevated crossing matching up with Pape Ave and Overlea Blvd. They would have to but out a few houses to build the TBM launch shaft.

Continuing on with elevated transit, here's a more wild alignment I'll suggest. It's much cheaper to build the entire alignment north of the DVP on an elevated guideway. The line can fit between high rises over parking lots and behind East York Town Centre. The section above Don Mills could be underground but that would lead to an expensive Science Centre Station being built under the crosstown station box. Since, ML didn't even plan for the Relief Line to connect with the Crosstown, they could just elevated the station and use fast high capacity elevators to transfer people between the two lines.

 

[BurlOak]

Interesting routing but why not just give the two 81 branches separate route numbers? 81B retrains the current 81 designation and the 81A be called 181. They could also serve stops in oppose sides of the road. Then again why not just terminate the 25 here and the 925 won't go south of Eglinton. The 8 is going to be a busier route again to make up for the lost service on Broadview.

There is two questionable sections on Line 3 in this proposed map. (I'm not criticizing your map, just want to discuss about the alignment) The Millwood overpass cannot handle anymore weight so the alignment would have to be carried on a new crossing. I would place it to the west of the Millwood bridge. The second Don Valley crossing (over the west branch of Don River would likely be elevated to avoid the expensive cost of dropping 20m into the ground It would be expensive to build a launch shaft beside a high rise. I think Flemingdon Park Station should be at the intersection of Don Mills/Overlea Blvd. Spacing would be more balanced this way.
View attachment 182350
I propose the crossing be an elevated crossing matching up with Pape Ave and Overlea Blvd. They would have to but out a few houses to build the TBM launch shaft.

Continuing on with elevated transit, here's a more wild alignment I'll suggest. It's much cheaper to build the entire alignment north of the DVP on an elevated guideway. The line can fit between high rises over parking lots and behind East York Town Centre. The section above Don Mills could be underground but that would lead to an expensive Science Centre Station being built under the crosstown station box. Since, ML didn't even plan for the Relief Line to connect with the Crosstown, they could just elevated the station and use fast high capacity elevators to transfer people between the two lines.
View attachment 182351

I like elevated as much as the next guy.
I think elevated above Overlea is more likely than elevated through Thorncliffe. Despite this, I think cut-and-cover is the approach to take for both. In both cases, it would go over the West Don River, so that leaves only 1.1 to 1.5 km of underground, which is not worth launching a TBM for.

On the first map, you can't get a station at Overlea and Don Mills due to the curve and it would have to be at Gateway (north).
For elevated on Don Mills, the question is whether it will fit under the hydro lines.

 

[W. K. Lis]

...
View attachment 182350
That large open green rectangle space, left (west) of the Ontario Line and south of Millwood Road, is the North Toronto Wastewater Treatment Plant. The sewage water is under the green grass. They could build a vehicle storage yard OVER the treatment plant.
...

 

[BurlOak]

I meant to use the space just north-east of the (north) driveway leading to the treatment plant. There is about 150m x 150m that could be freed up there. May need to cut a few trees and need some retaining walls to level the yard.

Going back to the above, if you cut through Thorncliffe, and then head to Overlea/Don Mills intersection. You would be approaching on an angle, which makes the curve to get onto Don Mills a bit smoother. (I'm not sure if it's better to go down the centre of Don Mills or the west side).

 

[steveintoronto]

I gave thumbs up to the last batch of posts not because I agree with the details necessarily, but because it's essential and well-considered discussion on a very meaningful level.

I had the following up from earlier in the day, didn't bother to post it as my attention got allayed, but on reconsideration, it is germane. Unfortunately I've dumped some of the other sources I was going to reference and quote.

^ Single bore has advantages and disadvantages, one of the latter being the radius of curves being considerably longer in practical terms than double bore tunnels. Also the underlying shale in Toronto is not as forgiving for a larger single bore tunnel.
(...this section now dumped...I'll find again later...)

Continues:

[...]
How Subway Construction Method Is Decided
The nature of a particular metropolitan area's rapid transit growth strategy can also suggest one or the other methods. Because the initial cost of constructing and lowering the tunnel boring machine into the ground is so great, it seems as though the "deep bore" method is conducive to the one-line-at-a-time-but-continual-expansion approach. Building several "deep bore" lines simultaneously requires several of the expensive machines, and a boring machine is a very expensive capital investment to leave idle. On the other hand, the "cut and cover" method seems like it would fit well with a major expansion plan involving several lines, as it is relatively easy to do and at least some of the political impacts may be ameliorated if the disruption can be limited in time but not in scope.

Because of the negative community sentiment that often accompanies "cut and cover" construction, almost all new subway construction is done using the "deep bore" method. One exception was Vancouver B.C.'s recently opened Canada Line and proves to be an excellent example of problems caused by the disruptive nature of the "cut and cover" method. One merchant has already won a lawsuit for C$600,000 - since overturned on appeal - due to damages caused by construction disruption, and 41 additional plaintiffs filed suit last year to recover damages. Interestingly, the amount of money they wish to receive is equal to the savings realized by building the line using the "cut and cover" method instead of the "deep bore".

It is likely that uproar over the temporary disruptions that accompany "cut and cover" construction will mean that almost all subway construction in the future, at least in the United States and Canada, will be of the "deep bore" variety, with the exception that soil conditions may mandate "cut and cover" construction. This result is too bad, as the cheaper nature of "cut and cover" construction could allow more proposed lines to be grade separated, which would allow for higher speeds and probably higher ridership. "Cut and cover" construction would also allow for more stations, which would make it easier to stop operating bus service along the rail corridor instead of operating duplicative bus service the hours could be redeployed to routes intersecting the rail line and make it easier for people who do not live within walking distance of a station to access the line.

The Two Methods of Subway Building - ThoughtCo

 

[Hopkins123]

I meant to use the space just north-east of the (north) driveway leading to the treatment plant. There is about 150m x 150m that could be freed up there. May need to cut a few trees and need some retaining walls to level the yard.

Going back to the above, if you cut through Thorncliffe, and then head to Overlea/Don Mills intersection. You would be approaching on an angle, which makes the curve to get onto Don Mills a bit smoother. (I'm not sure if it's better to go down the centre of Don Mills or the west side).

View attachment 182365

Wouldn't the curve make more sense like this?

A wider curve coming in from the south side of Marc Garneau Collegiate and heading directly up Don Mills Rd would be simpler and could allow for a station directly at Don Mills and Overlea. Gateway North and Don Mills is running into being too proximal to Eglinton for a separate station whereas at Overlea its geographically isolated from everywhere else and would command better walk-in usage.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Wastewater Treatment Plant may be more opportune than first meets the eye. Putting a yard above it may not be possible, due to methane emissions for a start, need for access another, but Googling on it appears to show it being superfluous to need. I'll dig further on this, but it's original intent of dumping into the Don is now greatly curtailed, and I suspect all of the flow rather than just some can be handled down at Ashbridge's:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/951a-2017-TNT-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

For any "trees that would be lost", green credentials could be balanced by eliminating the Treatment Plant. and using the space for a 'Green' cause. Excellent pics here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x89d4cce9e8865017:0x8376f629dd268a9f!2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipMKkTjIwimnkuUiD2bKUo3QSG_x-gqsyFqaiKrV=w173-h175-n-k-no!5sdon valley wastewater treatment plant - Google Search&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipMKkTjIwimnkuUiD2bKUo3QSG_x-gqsyFqaiKrV

A siding off of the RH line could also access the plant, as well as a wye arrangement from the Ontario Line, allowing the movement of rolling stock by diesel shunter to facilities at Mimico or Whitby for heavy servicing. There's already an access road for the Treatment Plant for normal needs, but too steep to bring in stock on flatbed. The RH line is perfect for that.

And what's just up the hill to the north-west of it?
Images for millwood road electric switching yard

Serendipity?

Wouldn't the curve make more sense like this?

Yes! I was going to comment on that. But the same alignment as posted by @BurlOak , but with a much softer curve. Remember, this is deep-tunnel, and able to go beneath even large buildings if need be for higher radius curves.

 

[BurlOak]

Wouldn't the curve make more sense like this?

Yes - by far. I guess my mind was already shutting down for the day, or distracted by the Sharks-Knights game.

Yes! I was going to comment on that. But the same alignment as posted by @BurlOak , but with a much softer curve. Remember, this is deep-tunnel, and able to go beneath even large buildings if need be for higher radius curves.

No, no, no. The deep tunneling ended (hopefully) at just south of the new Millwood bridge.

It's maybe 1200m through Thorncliffe - not worth launching the TBM's, especially considering that there will be 100m (platform only) to 200m (including some utility rooms) of open excavation anyway. A TBM launch site (and extraction to a lessor degree) is much more disruptive then simple construction of a portal - so add another 50m to 100m to the above. Also, by being shallow, you can bridge over the West Don River and actually have that station at Overlea and Don Mills. If you tunnel under the West Don, the depth becomes prohibitive and the Flemindon station would not be feasible.

I believe the original City plan was to tunnel from City Hall to Pape Station - that's about 6.5km, if you count the tail tracks. It also involved TBM curved track connections to the B-D Line. All in all, I would say the 8km tunnel to the edge of the Don Valley is easier than this City plan. (The converting the south Don River Crossing to a bridge still remains a mystery, whether it can be done, or whether it actually is being planned).
I imagine the City plan was to just cut-and-cover to connect with Osgoode Station. However, the same City Hall site could be used to launch TBM going westward. Here, it would be a 4.5km run (following Queen to White Squirrel Way) to the Ex (I still think I prefer the station beside BMO, on a north-south alignment (and curving westward immediately thereafter for future extension).

 

[Leo_Chan]

Is it a good thing that the Ontario Line extended the Relief Line South’s scope to include half of the Relief North’s scope, resulting in more discussion on how to implement this section? I guess if the plan had more details (released), there’d be much less proposals in this thread and more discussing the implementation or planned design.

 

[steveintoronto]

No, no, no. The deep tunneling ended (hopefully) at just south of the new Millwood bridge.

It's maybe 1200m through Thorncliffe - not worth launching the TBM's, especially considering that there will be 100m (platform only) to 200m (including some utility rooms) of open excavation anyway.

It will of course be up to the bid winner as to how they want to construct the line, but I digress on your presumption of cut and cover for that section, as Crosstown, TYSSE and other projects have set a precedent for tunnelling vs. cut and cover for Toronto.

I see this as the opposite to you: Why *wouldn't you* tunnel through Thorncliffe with the opportunity for such relatively easy access from two portals and the opportunity to keep the tunnel gradient so close to neutral and the ability to route much more directly instead of jogging around obstacles? Perhaps there's a difference in seeing this as light or heavy rail as that applies to acceptable gradients? I see this as being heavier than typical metros for a much greater capacity and speed of travel. I foresee building this to also host VIA HFR and GO RER emu as is being done in London, Paris and many other cities. That of course, is based on this being funded majority private, and a consortium looking at a larger picture, as opposed to the Ford-Fedeli fellatio of being penny-wise and pound stupid. It would actually be far more worthwhile for a consortium with deep enough pockets to entertain such an outlook. Again, world cities prove this.

A lot will hinge on the shale substrate depth of Thorncliffe relative to the geology on the eastern side of the valley. I suspect it's very similar, or the river valley (ancient spillway) would have eroded Thorncliffe instead of going around it. Pure speculation, but I'll dig on that.

Addendum:

http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/P2204/p2204.pdf

Geology of Thorncliffe Park is similar or same as the area directly to the south of the Don River.

 

[christiesplits]

At a speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade last month, Ontario Transportation Minister Jeff Yurek depicted [Line 1 extension] stations as an example of government waste, saying they looked like they had been built to resemble “Taj Mahals, as opposed to being functional as they were required.”

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-sto...aughan-ranks-among-least-used-on-ttc-network/

We are probably looking at utilitarian, bare-bone stations on the Ontario Line.

 

[crs1026]

Is it a good thing that the Ontario Line extended the Relief Line South’s scope to include half of the Relief North’s scope, resulting in more discussion on how to implement this section? I guess if the plan had more details (released), there’d be much less proposals in this thread and more discussing the implementation or planned design.

It’s a good thing to have broken the previous Toronto mindset of building stub lines and never coming back to finish then as something useful.

We can debate end points and alignments, but the Relief Line Phase 1 was a bandaid that did not deliver all the value and capacity that the city needed. There was a risk that our cost-averse City Coucil might have stopped there.

“Go big or go home” is a lesson that this city needs to learn with respect to transit funding. It’s ironic that Ford Nation would lean this way (arguably they haven’t....... when one looks at all the other cuts they are making, we may well be selling a lot of furniture to build this house) but I see this as a real step forward.

The showstopper that remains is overall capacity - we mustn’t let this get built as an undersized line for long term demand.

- Paul

 

[BurlOak]

This is more of an MTO resource - not much soil info in Toronto.

Terms and Conditions - Foundation Library - MTO

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-sto...aughan-ranks-among-least-used-on-ttc-network/

We are probably looking at utilitarian, bare-bone stations on the Ontario Line.

There is no room for extravagant standalone entrances in the core anyways - and frankly it would be a waste of land even if there are. Having said that - there is useless extravagance - and then there is not looking cheap and dowdy.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

We are probably looking at utilitarian, bare-bone stations on the Ontario Line.

I agree! As well we should. And fewer of them, but their being bus and streetcar/LRT hubs. Painting visually stunning fantasies on a box van doesn't make it go any faster or perform any better. The object is to deliver passengers as effectively as possible. Many utilitarian stations can actually look stunning in their simplicity. That is an art in itself.

“Go big or go home” is a lesson that this city needs to learn with respect to transit funding.

That phrase was on the tip of my finger's tongue. It's absolutely true. This line has the opportunity to not only ferry about the Pape Entitlement, it has the potential to radically change the way intra and inter city transit will work. Sure it will cost more to 'go big'...let's guess twice the cost. And by doing so, it will vastly reduce the cost of many other needed projects if done alone.

The showstopper that remains is overall capacity - we mustn’t let this get built as an undersized line for long term demand.

Rumour on some Twitter sites is that the Feds have been having discussions with QP on this. One can only guess what the details are, but it would seem to me that the Feds are getting behind this, but to do as you say: Effectively: "If we put massive funding into this, via the InfraBank and other direct infrastructure funding, then the *Nation* as well as the Province and City must see benefit." And that's to "Do it Big". In the big scheme of federal costing and projects, it's not really that large.

Which brings me back to the Missing Link...but that remains a bridge too far, but for the Relief Line, it's coming into grasp.