Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Euphoria said:
Look, removing the Gardiner altogether and not bothering with either a hybrid or tunneled Gardiner is a valid discussion to have. I just prefer a tunneled version to a hybrid if Joe Public says we have to have an express connection between the Gardiner and DVP. If we're tunneling anyway for a DRL, doesn't it stand to reason to direct the money we were going to spend on a lackluster hybrid toward putting the expressway in the same tunnel(s) as the DRL?
Click to expand...

The Relief Line is a $3.5 billion project. What you propose can easily add tens of billions of dollars onto the cost. Putting those tens of billions of dollars into public transit would be far more beneficial than spending it on a Gardiner tunnel. Your proposal isn't something that would have a small impact on project costs.

And of course, there are those pesky engineering challenges that are sure to render your proposal physically impossible. How will we get a 30 m diameter tunnel to navigate the very deep basements of downtown buildings? How will on and off ramps be built without tearing down half of downtown Toronto? How will this infrastructure get around the subway, dozens of utility tunnels and pedestrian paths?
 
Not even mentioning that for 10 billion dollars more we can build the Relief Line from Dundas West to Sheppard and Don Mills, a subway that would move more people in a couple peak hours than the Gardiner probably does all day, would greatly improve commute times for 3/5 of the city and greatly reduce Yonge line congestion, while opening up so much of the city to redevelopment, growth and future tax revenue.

Meanwhile, say we tunnel the Gardiner, I don't see what ostensible benefits that would even give us? Other than the massive expenditure cost, the reinforcement of urban sprawl across the GTA and all the costs associated with that lifestyle.
 
Euphoria said:
Look, removing the Gardiner altogether and not bothering with either a hybrid or tunneled Gardiner is a valid discussion to have. I just prefer a tunneled version to a hybrid if Joe Public says we have to have an express connection between the Gardiner and DVP. If we're tunneling anyway for a DRL, doesn't it stand to reason to direct the money we were going to spend on a lackluster hybrid toward putting the expressway in the same tunnel(s) as the DRL?
Click to expand...

Demolishing the foundations of half the buildings downtown for tunnels, ramps, ventilation as per your map is a valid discussion to have?
 
Hopkins123 said:
Demolishing the foundations of half the buildings downtown for tunnels, ramps, ventilation as per your map is a valid discussion to have?
Click to expand...

Just think of it as connecting all those underground parking garages into one long harmonious parking space (It will be pay per use, right?) ;-)

Seriously - the engineering challenges would put DRL back three years while it was all thought out. The debate on whether to, and why to, and what access points should be, would set it back another three. It would factionalise Council, even more than at present. And the EA would be horrendous. Let's leave all of that for now and just get the DRL done.

- Paul
 
TheTigerMaster said:
And of course, there are those pesky engineering challenges that are sure to render your proposal physically impossible. How will we get a 30 m diameter tunnel to navigate the very deep basements of downtown buildings? How will on and off ramps be built without tearing down half of downtown Toronto? How will this infrastructure get around the subway, dozens of utility tunnels and pedestrian paths?
Click to expand...

30m tunnel would probably be relatively easy if you didn't care about the foundations of the adjacent buildings. It's the buffer on both sides, thanks to our slop soil overtop of growing rock, that makes it really tricky.

A 30m tunnel needs something closer to a 90m unobstructed path, or a very very well funded insurance program for repairing foundations of adjacent buildings. Can't get away with damaging neighbouring properties like Yonge subway caused any more.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand. Won't we have those pesky engineering problems when we dig the DRL? My point is, rather than doing two digs, paying two engineering firms, having two sets of EA's, and various other forms of duplication and waste, do it once right. We can take our time with it, supplement as funding allows. Highway tolls and redirected hybrid funds are funding tools. Do I think any of this will happen? No. This is a city where we agonize over the expense of public washrooms. We haven't caught up with our city's significance. Just visit Chicago to see the difference in attitude. A far cry from Expo 67. Toronto the Good. Meh.
 
Euphoria said:
I don't understand. Won't we have those pesky engineering problems when we dig the DRL?
Click to expand...

Yes, but an underground highway amplified those challenges by an order of magnitude. It's significantly more challenging to build a 40m wide tunnel, than a 10m wide tunnel.

And the highway would also require on ramps, adding a new dimension of complexity to the project. I can't begin to imagine how they'd put an onramp at Yonge and Adelaide, as you propose, without very significant surface disruptions. You just can't drill a tunnel through the base of a skyscraper.
 
Also add in the need for emergency access, and more over ventilation for all the cars, we might as well remove all road surfaces downtown and replace it with metal ventilation grits. All sorts of issues.

When you put a lot of internal combustion engines in an enclosed space, there will be a lot more issues than if you're running electric trains.
 
You only need two lanes and a service lane/shoulder in the tunnel. The exits/entances are simple one-lane ramps to street level, which has traffic flowing in,the same direction as the traffic. As for your citing of complexities at Yonge and Adelaide, the ramps are just to the east of Yonge, straight onto Adelaide. I picked that location because the interesting pedestrian areas are further east from Toronto Street through the St. Lawrence area. Also, keep the area between Yonge and just east of Spadina free of all ramps. The location of ramps just east of Spadina on Richmond works because the sidewalk along the buildings there (east of the patio at 401 Richmond) has little pedestrian value. There are good reasons for every ramp's location.
 
Last edited:
There are good reasons to discuss all of this. The city is having consultations on the DRL and we're currently in the process of selecting one of the hybrids. This discussion is critical. How do you think decisions should be made about big budget projects with huge impacts?
 
Euphoria said:
The city is having consultations on the DRL and we're currently in the process of selecting one of the hybrids.
Click to expand...
We are? Apologies then, but my search of the media showed chatter about surface rail projects and smart track running separately from the subway, nothing about a downtown relief line connecting Union Station subway with the Bloor-Danforth Subway (AIUI, the original idea behind DRL).

20130305subwayssubwayssubways.jpg
 
If we really wanted a tunneled highway going through downtown, it would probably be cheaper to build the highway at grade and rebuild our surface streets on top of it!

The second floors of all the skyscrapers could become the groundfloors!!! :p
 
Euphoria said:
There are good reasons to discuss all of this. The city is having consultations on the DRL and we're currently in the process of selecting one of the hybrids. This discussion is critical. How do you think decisions should be made about big budget projects with huge impacts?
Click to expand...

Keep writing to your councillor. See how that goes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top