Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[DonValleyRainbow]

I still don't understand all these community meetings. Will they (transit planners) really change anything? is it just to show they have consulted the public? Is it not just wasting time?

If you ask me, it's a veiled call to Ottawa, where they are looking to make infrastructure investments. If the public starts chattering about these projects again, it reaches the imagination of Toronto MPs, and offers of fed dollars come about, what's to stop Toronto from taking it and buildingt? Before, the answer was Rob Ford. Not sure the answer is so clear now.

 

[Translude15]

Agreed. The issue though is TBM extraction sites. They're few and far between in downtown, so the end of the first phase may be determined by where they can pull the thing out of the ground. 4 possible sites along central Queen come to mind: Moss Park, the Osgoode Hall front lawn, Trinity-Bellwoods Park, and the lawn of the CAMH. Two of those sites are significantly west of downtown, which would mean quite a bit of extra tunnelling, but not necessarily building any stations to go along with it. And yes Moss Park is east of downtown, but if they're looking to do a multi-phase dig, Moss Park may be a good place to launch heading both into and out of downtown.

This is one of the reasons why I preferred a Wellington alignment, since Clarence Square would have made a perfect extraction site, and would have allowed for a direct connection with the Spadina streetcar.

How valid is the whole limited TBM extraction sites excuse though? They're going to extract two TBMs at Yonge and Eglinton later this year which is arguably just as dense if not more so than Queen and Spadina. I understand the physical disruptions are an important factor to consider but in terms of implementing valuable RT within the core, I'd think some delays and road closures would be worthwhile.

 

[coopEng]

How valid is the whole limited TBM extraction sites excuse though? They're going to extract two TBMs at Yonge and Eglinton later this year which is arguably just as dense if not more so than Queen and Spadina. I understand the physical disruptions are an important factor to consider but in terms of implementing valuable RT within the core, I'd think some delays and road closures would be worthwhile.

Not that I fully think TBM is the way to go for the DRL - but let's not forget that they tunneled from Yonge and Bloor to Sherbourne Station which is below the Yonge line there. I think we all look at the massive excavations for Spadina extension and Eglinton and think this is the only way to go - its not.

 

[gweed123]

How valid is the whole limited TBM extraction sites excuse though? They're going to extract two TBMs at Yonge and Eglinton later this year which is arguably just as dense if not more so than Queen and Spadina. I understand the physical disruptions are an important factor to consider but in terms of implementing valuable RT within the core, I'd think some delays and road closures would be worthwhile.

Are they not using part of the old bus terminal area as the extraction site at Y&E though? That certainly made it a lot easier. At Eglinton West they also had a parking lot to use. I'm just saying that surface parking lots and vacant land are harder to come by in downtown.

Not that I fully think TBM is the way to go for the DRL - but let's not forget that they tunneled from Yonge and Bloor to Sherbourne Station which is below the Yonge line there. I think we all look at the massive excavations for Spadina extension and Eglinton and think this is the only way to go - its not.

That had the advantage of connecting to a cut-and-cover construction on one end and a valley on the other though. Also, was that actually done using TBM, or was it a different tunnelling method?

 

[Edward Skira]

Are they not using part of the old bus terminal area as the extraction site at Y&E though?

For the western ones yes. The eastern one have to come out east of Yonge don't they?

 

[ShonTron]

How valid is the whole limited TBM extraction sites excuse though? They're going to extract two TBMs at Yonge and Eglinton later this year which is arguably just as dense if not more so than Queen and Spadina. I understand the physical disruptions are an important factor to consider but in terms of implementing valuable RT within the core, I'd think some delays and road closures would be worthwhile.

Yonge and Eglinton has a huge abandoned bus terminal that was quite handy for the TBM extraction. The closest thing we have Downtown is Moss Park. Maybe we can move the armoury, and once the tunnelling is complete, expand the existing park over to Jarvis Street.

 

[coopEng]

Are they not using part of the old bus terminal area as the extraction site at Y&E though? That certainly made it a lot easier. At Eglinton West they also had a parking lot to use. I'm just saying that surface parking lots and vacant land are harder to come by in downtown.



That had the advantage of connecting to a cut-and-cover construction on one end and a valley on the other though. Also, was that actually done using TBM, or was it a different tunnelling method?

Cut cover on both ends really, but mainly located at a station box which for the DRL will be cut and cover anyway. It was definitely TBM (older style of tunnel with steel liners). The section tunneled is right at the eastern most part of the Yonge station box right to the western section of Sherbourne station box (its the reason why there is the large gap between the tracks at Sherbourne) which isn't typical for side platform stations.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Cut cover on both ends really, but mainly located at a station box which for the DRL will be cut and cover anyway. It was definitely TBM (older style of tunnel with steel liners). The section tunneled is right at the eastern most part of the Yonge station box right to the western section of Sherbourne station box (its the reason why there is the large gap between the tracks at Sherbourne) which isn't typical for side platform stations.

Would anything but TBM necessarily make sense in this case - given the need to deep down to bypass both the Don River and YUS?

AoD

 

[coopEng]

Would anything but TBM necessarily make sense in this case - given the need to deep down to bypass both the Don River and YUS?

AoD

Depth will be a challenge either way. Going under the Don may not be desirable anyway and really surprised they are not considering options to provide portals for the DRL to rise above the Don. As we have seen with Eglinton, tunneling is going to have problems as we get close to YUS. The reality is there will be no tunneling between Yonge and University. Given the shallow depth of Yonge and the somewhat deeper University lines cut and cover can still work, just dipping below. The total distance to get from Yonge to say River is only 2km and you will need at least 1 station box along that line. Cut and cover is still an option - especially if we can move the line to Adelaide or Richmond which would prevent ripping up King or Queen (not that Queen is a good route anyway).

 

[crs1026]

How valid is the whole limited TBM extraction sites excuse though? They're going to extract two TBMs at Yonge and Eglinton later this year which is arguably just as dense if not more so than Queen and Spadina. I understand the physical disruptions are an important factor to consider but in terms of implementing valuable RT within the core, I'd think some delays and road closures would be worthwhile.

Well, it would be smarter to put these where there is more space than where there is less.....

The insertion site is the most sensitive, because that's where the tailings are removed. Extra space is needed for the earth handling apparatus. That site is disruptive to the neighbourhood for the full term of the boring work, because dump trucks will be moving dirt 24/7. The extraction point is only disruptive at the end, when the TBM arrives and has to be removed.

Terminating Phase I at University or Bay means there will have to be a second insertion/extraction effort when the next phase is executed. This is why I'd urge them to tunnel the whole stretch west to Liberty in one project. Otherwise, the extraction shaft will have to be left open until Phase II arrives. That could be 5 years or more. You won't make Nathan Phillips the city's emotional center if it has a big hole in it for that long.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Depth will be a challenge either way. Going under the Don may not be desirable anyway and really surprised they are not considering options to provide portals for the DRL to rise above the Don. As we have seen with Eglinton, tunneling is going to have problems as we get close to YUS. The reality is there will be no tunneling between Yonge and University. Given the shallow depth of Yonge and the somewhat deeper University lines cut and cover can still work, just dipping below. The total distance to get from Yonge to say River is only 2km and you will need at least 1 station box along that line. Cut and cover is still an option - especially if we can move the line to Adelaide or Richmond which would prevent ripping up King or Queen (not that Queen is a good route anyway).

The issue of the Don is likely a lot more complicated than any of us can imagine.

The reason Corktown Common exists and the Canary District lands took so long to develop was that the Don posed flooding risks, and a lot of effort was put into floodplain protection. Trying to come up with a portal/bridge solution would have its own grade and flood protection challenges.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

I really don't see the City Hall station (or two interchange stations at Yonge and University) as being significant transfer points. Downtown is the destination for most trips. We don't need to design a Bloor-Yonge here, where the vast majority of movements are inter-platform transfers. Most people will be heading for the exits, not Line 1.

While I would agree that downtown is the destination for most trips, I wouldn't discount the appeal of transfers, particularly after sections north of Pape station are completed.

For the person who lives at Lawrence and Don Mills (or in Thorncliffe for that matter) who wants to go to the University of Toronto, a transfer at Osgoode would be their logical route, and they would resent having a more difficult transfer than necessary from a single City Hall station located near Bay. What about the person who lives near Downsview station and who works at the new Globe & Mail headquarters? They will want that transfer for their daily commute.

As someone who does not own a car and relies exclusively on the TTC for every trip (not just a commute), I believe downtown transfers to the Relief Line will also be surprisingly well used in off-peak hours. From where I live in the Annex, I can easily see myself heading down the University line, transferring at Osgoode (or Queen if necessary) to head to a bar in Leslieville. Similarly, transferring at Pape to head for dinner in Little India. Whole neighbourhoods will be open to me that are presently a headache to get to.

 

[coopEng]

Well, it would be smarter to put these where there is more space than where there is less.....

The insertion site is the most sensitive, because that's where the tailings are removed. Extra space is needed for the earth handling apparatus. That site is disruptive to the neighbourhood for the full term of the boring work, because dump trucks will be moving dirt 24/7. The extraction point is only disruptive at the end, when the TBM arrives and has to be removed.

Terminating Phase I at University or Bay means there will have to be a second insertion/extraction effort when the next phase is executed. This is why I'd urge them to tunnel the whole stretch west to Liberty in one project. Otherwise, the extraction shaft will have to be left open until Phase II arrives. That could be 5 years or more. You won't make Nathan Phillips the city's emotional center if it has a big hole in it for that long.

- Paul

Its a great point about trucking out the removed material - which is why if they tunneled all or portions of the line the TBMs would definitely drive towards downtown. The only exception on Eglinton is at Eglinton West, but they have access directly to Allen Road, so less of an issue.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Agreed. The issue though is TBM extraction sites.

What about this Green P site just west of Queen and Spadina?

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Gr...0x0000000000000000:0xa577494993a0d183!6m1!1e1

I'm no engineer, but to this layperson, it seems almost a perfect distance west for some tailing tracks after a Spadina station.

Personally I think the first phase should come as far as Spadina, despite that option not being part of the City's EA. It would dovetail well with Planning's 15-year vision maps that indicate the Spadina streetcar is considered quasi-RT.

 

[crs1026]

I had (for no good reason) assumed that the tunnels would be directly under Queen Street, to dodge foundations of buildings mostly. So the shaft would be middle of street.

Where you suggest makes good sense, even so. The Green P lot would be useful as a laydown area, at least. Wolseley makes a potential diversion street for westbound traffic. Eastbound traffic diversion is going to be problemmatic given that Richmond is one way in the wrong direction.

I wonder what the upper limit of the conveyor belt system for a TBM is. If you put the extraction shaft that far west, where is the insertion shaft?

I guess we could have a debate over which bar on Queen West is the biggest hole already. That might give us some options.

- Paul