Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

bbanner102097 said:
steveintoronto has brought up tunnelling and geotechnical challenges with having the line cross above the Don and DVP but I contend there are simpler geometry issues that make this essentially impossible (nothing is "impossible" but the scale of impacts do not make it feasible).

One just has to look at the plan views of the proposed station, focusing on where the platforms are located relative to the rail corridor:
View attachment 184551View attachment 184552

Scenario 1: At-grade (elevated) with the rail corridor
Not feasible, due to the obvious conflict with the existing rail corridor. Btw, I see absolutely no chance of this line being interlined with the LSE corridor, which is the only way this scenario could ever resemble something that is feasible. Raise it over the rail corridor? Non-starter, again for obvious reasons, plus the platforms would have to be on a serious gradient.

Scenario 2: Lower to Eastern Avenue grade east of the DVP
We're now in conflict with the Broadview Avenue extension, not to mention the rail embankment, and Eastern Avenue when the line turns northward. Remember, the platforms have to be at a zero gradient and their eastern ends are at the rail corridor.

Scenario 3: Lower below Broadview Avenue profile east of the DVP
To clear the DVP and then to be sufficiently lower than the roadways and subsurface utilities on Eastern and Broadview, that's one heck of a roller coaster and our platforms will not be at a zero gradient. Plus, if you're now diving below grade for the station, why not just tunnel the river and the DVP?

Bottom line: this is another example of wasted time and money with only the consultants on poorly scoped, cost-plus assignments benefitting from it.
Click to expand...
Scenario 2. First, the platform would likely be shorter in the Ontario Line plan - with the entire platform, and especially the west end of it, moving eastward maybe 100m or more. Second, Broadview could take a shift to the west, and be lowered marginally, to go under the OL and LSE-GO. Finally, I think stations can be at 0.5%, not 0%.
bayview.jpg
 
BurlOak said:
Scenario 2. First, the platform would likely be shorter in the Ontario Line plan - with the entire platform, and especially the west end of it, moving eastward maybe 100m or more. Second, Broadview could take a shift to the west, and be lowered marginally, to go under the OL and LSE-GO. Finally, I think stations can be at 0.5%, not 0%.
View attachment 184561
Click to expand...
Regarding lowering Broadview, you're now lowering the intersection with Eastern Avenue and all existing approaches on the north, east and west sides in a floodplain and in a way that will affect the DVP ramp alignments. It's also important to note that any alignment design for Broadview will be driven by streetcar/LRT parameters, as it will be extended south into the East Harbour development.

Even if the platforms can be on a 0.5% gradient, that's not very much rise/drop available to make the kind of elevation changes that would be needed in the relatively small space that's available here, given all the existing conflicts and fixed points that already exist.

Hopefully the platforms and trains aren't shortened too much...it would be a shame to restrict capacity on a brand new "relief line" and at a key interchange station with "Union Station East", as Verster refers to it.

Not to say there are not potential solutions, but this a very constrained site with lots of restrictions and fixed points.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I didn't say it, but from my crude sketch, if lowering of 2 or 3m is needed, it is clear that the only lowering will occur south of Eastern over about 150m distance that exists.
 
I have visions of VCC-Clark station in Vancouver, with Skytrain running along a heavy rail corridor.
 
In his announcement, "Ford claimed the new light-rail technology he wants to use can go over the Don River instead of tunneling underneath" – a configuration he contends will save megabucks.

How ironic. Doug Ford hates Light Rail so i guess the Ontario Line should be cancelled lol!
 
Coolstar said:
In his announcement, "Ford claimed the new light-rail technology he wants to use can go over the Don River instead of tunneling underneath" – a configuration he contends will save megabucks.

How ironic. Doug Ford hates Light Rail so i guess the Ontario Line should be cancelled lol!
Click to expand...

The Fords only hate light rail when its on the street interfering with cars.

You know, like the Scarborough LRT.
 
bbanner102097 said:
steveintoronto has brought up tunnelling and geotechnical challenges with having the line cross above the Don and DVP but I contend there are simpler geometry issues that make this essentially impossible (nothing is "impossible" but the scale of impacts do not make it feasible).
Click to expand...
If Verster et al are right, then the place to do it is at Gerrard, not East Harbour.
bbanner102097 said:
Not to say there are not potential solutions, but this a very constrained site with lots of restrictions and fixed points.
Click to expand...
It's ridiculously complex and constricted. Be a great addition to Wonderland though.
jcam said:
I have visions of VCC-Clark station in Vancouver, with Skytrain running along a heavy rail corridor.
Click to expand...
And thus the Gerrard junction option. I think it should stay in deep tunnel, but if they insist melding with LSE, then do it at Gerrard. A quick glimpse of Google Satellite view shows how opportune the area is there, which is exactly why the original TTC concept was to build ramps from deep-tunnel up to the LSE to access the Greenwood Yards. And to do that would have required dedicated TTC gauge tracks. So standard gauge is not just do-able by their terms, but also allows interlining with GO. Once up on the embankment, *THEN* you run it to the Don and share a widened bridge with the GO one.
Transportfan said:
And how much more would an extra thousand feet or so of tunnel cost over a bridge?
Click to expand...
It would not only be cheaper, it would be far cheaper. Once you have a TBM in place, you maximize the cost of investment by keeping it going. The actual digging is the cheap and easy part.

The bridge is a totally bizarre talking point for talking heads with nothing in them. Not to mention the "Union East" should be Gerrard, not East Harbour, which is a SmartTrack project, you know, the one that QP won't budget for. But hey, those who love to talk about 'savings' love to spend it. And think we won't see through it...
 
Last edited:
Coolstar said:
In his announcement, "Ford claimed the new light-rail technology he wants to use can go over the Don River instead of tunneling underneath" – a configuration he contends will save megabucks.

How ironic. Doug Ford hates Light Rail so i guess the Ontario Line should be cancelled lol!
Click to expand...
They actually meant light metro meaning a medium capacity grade separated system. I'm not sure if Ford actually understands the difference. All we know is the term LRT means streetcars and this is a cheap subway in his brain.

steveintoronto said:
It would not only be cheaper, it would be far cheaper. Once you have a TBM in place, you maximize the cost of investment by keeping it going. The actual digging is the cheap and easy part.
Click to expand...
That is if they only use one set of TBM. To tunnel from Ontario Place to the DVP at Pape north to O'Connor is a long way. It'll take years to finish. Plus TBMs are rather cheap in comparison of the total cost of the project. There is no need to use a single TBM.

They would need around 4-5 TBMs to finish all the digging (single tunnel for both tracks), They could just start the launch shaft at both sides of Don River. One head towards Yonge while the other head to Danforth. They won't tunnel under any existing subway lines so they can't do it in one go. Tunneling from Yonge to Danforth is too long for one trip if they want to build this within a decade.

Ideally they could have the following TBM routes
1. Ontario Place to Osgoode
1a. Osgoode to Queen Stations (TBD if they would use a TBM or not)
2. Queen Stn to Don River (East Harbour area)
3. Don River to Pape Stn
4. Pape Stn to DVP/Don River (Millwood Bridge area)
5. Don River (Millwood Bridge) to Science Centre Stn (Tunneled or other option TBD)

Each section is about 3.5 km, the length from Yonge to Brantcliffe launch shaft and would take 1.5 to 2 years to tunnel. 9 months to a year of setup time is needed for TBMs and 3-4 years of excavation, construction and backfill for the stations. This gives a timeline of roughly 6-7 years (which is typical for any subway construction around the world). Of course ML could extend this to 8-9 years as they did with the Crosstown.

I made one assumption that each station has to be excavated and build with either cut and cover or mined (SEM method). If the tunnel is indeed large enough to build the entire station within the tunnel liners, excavation would just reduce to a few stairwells and the tunnel could be longer.
 
Might not be a need for a TBM in the CNE, just dig a trench in the pavement and cover it over when the CNE isn’t running. Assuming these stretches are underground in the first place.
 
Transportfan said:
What's wrong with tunnelling under the river? Lots of tunnels go under rivers around the world. And how much more would an extra thousand feet or so of tunnel cost over a bridge?
Click to expand...

If both the Don River and the Don Valley up to Thoncliffe are bridge instead of tunnel you will start to see some compound savings.
 
Steve X said:
They actually meant light metro meaning a medium capacity grade separated system. I'm not sure if Ford actually understands the difference. All we know is the term LRT means streetcars and this is a cheap subway in his brain.


That is if they only use one set of TBM. To tunnel from Ontario Place to the DVP at Pape north to O'Connor is a long way. It'll take years to finish. Plus TBMs are rather cheap in comparison of the total cost of the project. There is no need to use a single TBM.

They would need around 4-5 TBMs to finish all the digging (single tunnel for both tracks), They could just start the launch shaft at both sides of Don River. One head towards Yonge while the other head to Danforth. They won't tunnel under any existing subway lines so they can't do it in one go. Tunneling from Yonge to Danforth is too long for one trip if they want to build this within a decade.

Ideally they could have the following TBM routes
1. Ontario Place to Osgoode
1a. Osgoode to Queen Stations (TBD if they would use a TBM or not)
2. Queen Stn to Don River (East Harbour area)
3. Don River to Pape Stn
4. Pape Stn to DVP/Don River (Millwood Bridge area)
5. Don River (Millwood Bridge) to Science Centre Stn (Tunneled or other option TBD)

Each section is about 3.5 km, the length from Yonge to Brantcliffe launch shaft and would take 1.5 to 2 years to tunnel. 9 months to a year of setup time is needed for TBMs and 3-4 years of excavation, construction and backfill for the stations. This gives a timeline of roughly 6-7 years (which is typical for any subway construction around the world). Of course ML could extend this to 8-9 years as they did with the Crosstown.

I made one assumption that each station has to be excavated and build with either cut and cover or mined (SEM method). If the tunnel is indeed large enough to build the entire station within the tunnel liners, excavation would just reduce to a few stairwells and the tunnel could be longer.
Click to expand...

A single bore is still cheaper than double due to less complexity.

But you could have several single bore TBMs going on at the same time of course.
 
bbanner102097 said:
steveintoronto has brought up tunnelling and geotechnical challenges with having the line cross above the Don and DVP but I contend there are simpler geometry issues that make this essentially impossible (nothing is "impossible" but the scale of impacts do not make it feasible).

One just has to look at the plan views of the proposed station, focusing on where the platforms are located relative to the rail corridor:
View attachment 184551View attachment 184552

Scenario 1: At-grade (elevated) with the rail corridor
Not feasible, due to the obvious conflict with the existing rail corridor. Btw, I see absolutely no chance of this line being interlined with the LSE corridor, which is the only way this scenario could ever resemble something that is feasible. Raise it over the rail corridor? Non-starter, again for obvious reasons, plus the platforms would have to be on a serious gradient.

Scenario 2: Lower to Eastern Avenue grade east of the DVP
We're now in conflict with the Broadview Avenue extension, not to mention the rail embankment, and Eastern Avenue when the line turns northward. Remember, the platforms have to be at a zero gradient and their eastern ends are at the rail corridor.

Scenario 3: Lower below Broadview Avenue profile east of the DVP
To clear the DVP and then to be sufficiently lower than the roadways and subsurface utilities on Eastern and Broadview, that's one heck of a roller coaster and our platforms will not be at a zero gradient. Plus, if you're now diving below grade for the station, why not just tunnel the river and the DVP?

Bottom line: this is another example of wasted time and money with only the consultants on poorly scoped, cost-plus assignments benefitting from it.
Click to expand...

Aquarium Station in Boston has a platform that is not level.
 
Steve X said:
They actually meant light metro meaning a medium capacity grade separated system. I'm not sure if Ford actually understands the difference. All we know is the term LRT means streetcars and this is a cheap subway in his brain.


That is if they only use one set of TBM. To tunnel from Ontario Place to the DVP at Pape north to O'Connor is a long way. It'll take years to finish. Plus TBMs are rather cheap in comparison of the total cost of the project. There is no need to use a single TBM.

They would need around 4-5 TBMs to finish all the digging (single tunnel for both tracks), They could just start the launch shaft at both sides of Don River. One head towards Yonge while the other head to Danforth. They won't tunnel under any existing subway lines so they can't do it in one go. Tunneling from Yonge to Danforth is too long for one trip if they want to build this within a decade.

Ideally they could have the following TBM routes
1. Ontario Place to Osgoode
1a. Osgoode to Queen Stations (TBD if they would use a TBM or not)
2. Queen Stn to Don River (East Harbour area)
3. Don River to Pape Stn
4. Pape Stn to DVP/Don River (Millwood Bridge area)
5. Don River (Millwood Bridge) to Science Centre Stn (Tunneled or other option TBD)

Each section is about 3.5 km, the length from Yonge to Brantcliffe launch shaft and would take 1.5 to 2 years to tunnel. 9 months to a year of setup time is needed for TBMs and 3-4 years of excavation, construction and backfill for the stations. This gives a timeline of roughly 6-7 years (which is typical for any subway construction around the world). Of course ML could extend this to 8-9 years as they did with the Crosstown.

I made one assumption that each station has to be excavated and build with either cut and cover or mined (SEM method). If the tunnel is indeed large enough to build the entire station within the tunnel liners, excavation would just reduce to a few stairwells and the tunnel could be longer.
Click to expand...
Lol ik the difference it's just a joke?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top