Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[M II A II R II K]

Moving Forward Now with The Relief Subway Line: Curbing Gridlock and Connecting Toronto

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.MM41.19

.....

Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor John Parker, recommends that:

1. City Council rescind its previous direction in Item EX31.3 in referring motions respecting the Downtown Relief Line to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; specifically those motions which had the effect of delegating study of the construction and environmental assessment of a Relief Subway Line to the Chief Planner for consideration in the report scheduled for Planning and Growth Management Committee in November 2013.

2. City Council affirm the Relief Subway Line as Toronto’s next subway expansion priority.

3. City Council request the City Manager and appropriate City officials to seek the necessary approval under the Environmental Assessment Act using the Transit Project Approval Process as set out in Ontario Regulation 231/08, as amended, for the Relief Subway Line.

4. City Council authorize the City Manager to request funding, in full or in part, from Metrolinx to undertake the Environmental Assessment.

5. City Council refer the remaining Toronto Transit Commission and City costs associated with the Relief Subway Line Environmental Assessment to the Budget Committee to be addressed as part of its 2014 budget deliberations.

.....

- This Motion seeks to start the Environmental Assessment process on the Relief Subway Line now so that when funding becomes available the project will be “shovel ready.†City Council and the TTC have previously approved some preliminary work on the Relief Subway Line but this critical infrastructure project has never received the support and momentum of its own independent City Council directive with a commitment to secure the necessary funding to see it through to construction. The Relief Subway Line is too important and complex to carry out with ad hoc approvals and studies.

- There are a number of serious geotechnical and logistical challenges to building a subway through the busy city centre. Near the surface, where we would ideally build stations, there is a tangle of existing pedestrian passageways and utility tunnels. Density and soil conditions may require the construction of a deep tunnel with mined stations, something that has never been tried in Toronto. Simply preparing for this work will be highly complex and may take several years, and we will not know what is necessary or possible until it is complete.

.....

 

[W. K. Lis]

Moving Forward Now with The Relief Subway Line: Curbing Gridlock and Connecting Toronto

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.MM41.19

.....

Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor John Parker, recommends that:

1. City Council rescind its previous direction in Item EX31.3 in referring motions respecting the Downtown Relief Line to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; specifically those motions which had the effect of delegating study of the construction and environmental assessment of a Relief Subway Line to the Chief Planner for consideration in the report scheduled for Planning and Growth Management Committee in November 2013.

2. City Council affirm the Relief Subway Line as Toronto’s next subway expansion priority.

3. City Council request the City Manager and appropriate City officials to seek the necessary approval under the Environmental Assessment Act using the Transit Project Approval Process as set out in Ontario Regulation 231/08, as amended, for the Relief Subway Line.

4. City Council authorize the City Manager to request funding, in full or in part, from Metrolinx to undertake the Environmental Assessment.

5. City Council refer the remaining Toronto Transit Commission and City costs associated with the Relief Subway Line Environmental Assessment to the Budget Committee to be addressed as part of its 2014 budget deliberations.

.....

- This Motion seeks to start the Environmental Assessment process on the Relief Subway Line now so that when funding becomes available the project will be “shovel ready.” City Council and the TTC have previously approved some preliminary work on the Relief Subway Line but this critical infrastructure project has never received the support and momentum of its own independent City Council directive with a commitment to secure the necessary funding to see it through to construction. The Relief Subway Line is too important and complex to carry out with ad hoc approvals and studies.

- There are a number of serious geotechnical and logistical challenges to building a subway through the busy city centre. Near the surface, where we would ideally build stations, there is a tangle of existing pedestrian passageways and utility tunnels. Density and soil conditions may require the construction of a deep tunnel with mined stations, something that has never been tried in Toronto. Simply preparing for this work will be highly complex and may take several years, and we will not know what is necessary or possible until it is complete.

.....

Note the following:

This Motion is subject to a re-opening of Item EX31.3. A two-thirds vote is required to re-open that Item. If re-opened, the previous Council decision remains in force unless Council decides otherwise.

 

[GenerationW]

2. City Council affirm the Relief Subway Line as Toronto’s next subway expansion priority.

Didn't they already do this last year?

 

[TFC]

Here's hoping that two thirds of council endorse this motion, as the clear winners would be residents from North York, East York, Scarborough and Downtown. It would be a real shame for this not to pass.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...rdMtg_Relief_Line_Network_Study_Update_EN.pdf

 

[JasonParis]

Wellington alignment through downtown and Front alignment through the St. Lawrence area looks good. Using Donlands station is also a plus. Very interesting alignment over the Don Valley though, and cutting through Thorncliffe Park in a much different way than most alignments I've seen. Makes a lot of sense though.

It's a very minor reason to pick Donlands over Pape for an interchange, but at least the new Pape renos wouldn't have to be messed with.

 

[christiesplits]

It is a shame that it would miss Pape and Cosburn though. That is a fairly dense neighbourhood with apartment blocks and a lot of working class and low income households. It could also spur investment along the Pape Village stretch. Of course, the important thing is that the DRL serves it purpose of relieving congestion along Yonge. However, it seems inevitable that a station would be built between O'Connor and Danforth, either on Donlands or Pape. Pape just seems like a more logical corridor in that regard.

 

[sixrings]

Why not go up coxwell... then it could use the rail line more and just have a huge bridge over the dvp.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is a shame that it would miss Pape and Cosburn though. That is a fairly dense neighbourhood with apartment blocks and a lot of working class and low income households. It could also spur investment along the Pape Village stretch. Of course, the important thing is that the DRL serves it purpose of relieving congestion along Yonge. However, it seems inevitable that a station would be built between O'Connor and Danforth, either on Donlands or Pape. Pape just seems like a more logical corridor in that regard.

It's not like the Subway will be miles away from Pape. It's only 600 meters. And I'm sure that higher density and businesses would pop up on Donlands if the subway is there.

If it weren't for the construction challenges, I'd agree that Pape was better. But being able to connect directly to Greenwood Yard and not having to build an interchange is a huge benefit.

 

[drum118]

Why not go up coxwell... then it could use the rail line more and just have a huge bridge over the dvp.

I have recommend this from day one as it ends up being almost a straight line with Don Mills a well being more east to serve the east better. The cost to build a longer bridge over the DVP is not going to at much higher and off set the higher cost of tunneling going the option route.

I still say the DRL needs to be a heavy rail and going north to Sheppard as Phase 1. Going north to Hwy 7 can be done as other Phases. If we build this line as an EMU system, interlining can take place with the RH line. It should be built to handle 10 DD car and the ability to run short trains in off peak.

Having this line able to run EMU DD trains, you could interlining with the rail system at Bathurst/Spadina area.

 

[M II A II R II K]

If it goes to Coxwell it could hit all the beaches as well on the way there.

 

[sixrings]

was thinking if it went from coxwell and queen to dufferin and queen you are essentially getting a drl and a queen line all in one..

 

[Neil]

People. There is a major sanitary sewer trunk beneath Coxwell. Also this alignment would bypass a highly valuable Thorncliffe Park station.

 

[BurlOak]

It's a very minor reason to pick Donlands over Pape for an interchange, but at least the new Pape renos wouldn't have to be messed with.

How much did that cost anyway. It is significant compared to the cost of the DRL.

Why not go up coxwell... then it could use the rail line more and just have a huge bridge over the dvp.

Would that not miss Throncliffe?

It's not like the Subway will be miles away from Pape. It's only 600 meters. And I'm sure that higher density and businesses would pop up on Donlands if the subway is there.

If it weren't for the construction challenges, I'd agree that Pape was better. But being able to connect directly to Greenwood Yard and not having to build an interchange is a huge benefit.

An advantage of Pape is that the bend to switch from Rail alignment to street alignment is better. It seems to be about a 50 degree turn to Pape, while Donlands to Coxwell are more like 80 degree turns. This mean more expropriation at this corner.

For any alignment, I think it will be tunnelled under the railway. Thus I would just have a single tunnel continuing from Pape to the Greenwood Yard. The main line could continue up Pape.

Could they have semi-permanent (i.e. a simple shed) train storage in the hydro corridor in Thorncliffe. Also, could a maintenance building be located near the water plant west of Millwood.

 

[WislaHD]

I still say the DRL needs to be a heavy rail and going north to Sheppard as Phase 1. Going north to Hwy 7 can be done as other Phases. If we build this line as an EMU system, interlining can take place with the RH line. It should be built to handle 10 DD car and the ability to run short trains in off peak.

Sheppard might be a bit too far for phase 1.

I think Lawrence would be the ideal north point of phase 1, it'll service one of the fastest growing retail and condo areas outside downtown at Lawrence/Don Mills and leave strong precedent for future expansion to Sheppard.