Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Allandale25]

Comment by @muller877 in the GO Construction thread re Ontario Line & East Harbour

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

For Kitchener - 162 sm x 2 cars x 62 mikes x 2 round trip x 5 days x 4 trains is a lot of pedalling faster to stand still. Yeah...my sixth sense and I have been having a long discussion, as the relevance of what Verster presents to the Empire Club wouldn't be put to the general public. And one...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[BurlOak]

Phil Verster gave a speech today. At the 32:52 mark he receives a question and mentions the Ontario Line as an example. He has a specific comment about the West Harbour Station and the crossing of the Don River by the Ontario Line and how this would allow the Ontario Line Station ("Broadview Station" on the Relief Line map) to more closely align with the GO platforms at the proposed East Harbour Station. (Fixed a typo in my original post).

I don't think this got the attention it deserves. Mr. Verster confirms that the Ontario line will be going above the Don River (at Eastern), not below.
Before the wisdom seemed to suggest that when the PC's referred to bridging over the Don, they were referring to the Throncliffe (Millwood) crossing. Now we know that they (also?) meant this lower crossing. We must dust off our discussions from a few weeks ago, to re-consider what is possible.
Although not mentioned, I suspect they really want the Gerard station to not be as deep - which may mean eliminating the Carlaw jog.

 

[steveintoronto]

Mr. Verster confirms that the Ontario line will be going above the Don River (at Eastern), not below.

It confirms nothing save for Verster dancing to someone else's script. Verster is a salesman, nothing more, nothing less, and he's at the point of having to make things up with the cameras rolling.

It's a ridiculous idea, for many reasons. All Verster has to do to make *some* sense of it is tout a track interconnection with the GO network at that point but that's something that would get him into even more trouble. (Even though I'd favour this, it would make him a liar on so many other claims. He's having trouble keeping track of them, pun fully intended.)

East Harbour is a SmartTrack station.

Now view that video footage above again, and think about that while doing so. Looks like Verster just anointed a SmartTrack station as "Union Station East". Best he tell that to his masters...

Here's some referential context:

Many details are still to come, including how many stations there will be, and where. Also to be determined is how far west the line will go before dipping down to Ontario Place, and what effect this project will have on ridership at the urban GO stations the city is building under Mr. Tory’s SmartTrack plan.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...oronto-subway-plan-between-ontario-place-and/

I'm unable to find any 'answers' since that announcement. Please share if you know of any...it seems the new legislation has put the kibosh on the City building Harbour East.

The bill prohibits the city from continuing development work on a number of transit projects unless authorized by the minister.

Yurek said the legislation was needed to push major projects like a downtown relief subway line ahead.

“Under the current system we have in the City of Toronto, I don’t think it would ever get built,” he said “The province is in the best position to build that relief line.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/5233360/ttc-subway-upload-ontario-transportation-legislation/

Whoops...

 

[Allandale25]

I don't think this got the attention it deserves. Mr. Verster confirms that the Ontario line will be going above the Don River (at Eastern), not below.
Before the wisdom seemed to suggest that when the PC's referred to bridging over the Don, they were referring to the Throncliffe (Millwood) crossing. Now we know that they (also?) meant this lower crossing. We must dust off our discussions from a few weeks ago, to re-consider what is possible.
Although not mentioned, I suspect they really want the Gerard station to not be as deep - which may mean eliminating the Carlaw jog.

I think the bridge part is new. I think it was referenced in the budget and some media reports but I agree this is that first time we've heard this level of detail.

 

[steveintoronto]

I think the bridge part is new. I think it was referenced in the budget and some media reports but I agree this is that first time we've heard this level of detail.

@BurlOak had discussed this on my raising the point some weeks back in this forum (IIRC, or another) and Burl at that time agreed the approaches to do so would be prohibitive in a number of ways. I'd tagged him to include him in a discussion on the newest Cut and Cover methods, as there's no way you can have a tunnel emerge in that tight space and dive back down again without raised portals against flooding. Those raised portals in themselves will take a huge swath of real-estate, and then the needed embankments to carry the line to/from the bridge itself.

Verster's Empire Club 'coming out' on it was actually just the latest discussion on the matter from Metrolinx (edit: QP to be exact). It makes official what was difficult to pin on Verster stating prior. The references prior were second-person. This is first person, and a vid, not just print.

Over the Don and under Fort York — where experts say building the Ontario Line could get tricky
By Ben SpurrTransportation Reporter
Mon., April 15, 2019

Crossing the Don River, not once but twice. Tunnelling under dense downtown districts. Serving a growing number of transit riders using smaller trains.
Those are some of the challenges the provincial government will have to navigate to make its proposed Ontario Line a success.
[...]
Bridging the Don
Experts said one of the biggest advantages of the Ontario Line is that it would go as far north as Eglinton, where it would connect with the Ontario Science Centre station on the Crosstown LRT.
By contrast, the $7.2-billion first phase of the council-approved relief line would only go as far north as Pape station on Line 2 (Bloor-Danforth), with a northern extension planned for a subsequent phase.
Eric Miller, the director of the University of Toronto’s Transportation Research Institute, said pushing the route further north is critical to helping divert passengers off of Line 1.

“If this line, whatever we call it, is to have serious impact on Yonge St., it’s got to go north of Danforth at least as far as Eglinton,” he said.
The longer route means the Ontario Line would have to cross the Don River in two places: somewhere north of Pape Ave., and in the vicinity of Eastern Ave.
Unlike the previous plan to tunnel about 40 metres under the Don, the Ontario Line could cross over the river, which Metrolinx, the provincial transit agency, says would be “significantly cheaper.”
[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ilding-the-ontario-line-could-get-tricky.html

Apr 19, 2019
^ @BurlOak : Excellent points for discussion. No matter how outlandish some expressed ideas are, compared to the absolute vacuum of info from QP, and some of the wild ideas from "expert planners" (although it was Ford's concept, the bridge over the Don at Eastern in lieu of just tunnelling through with fully serviced and in-situ TBMs) these ideas are perfectly germane.[...]

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ontario-line-was-relief-line-south-in-design.6155/page-812

 

[steveintoronto]

Addendum to previous post:

LORINC: Doug Ford draws a subway map
APRIL 11, 2019 | BY JOHN LORINC
[...]
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.

Whoever conceived of this hare-brained idea evidently didn’t spend any time looking at the Google maps of the area where Queen and the Don River intersect. According to the latest Relief Line alignment plans (which have been subjected to a substantial amount of regulatory due diligence), the route will dip south of Queen Street as it heads towards the Don River. On the east side, it will head towards a new station serving the giant East Harbour redevelopment site, at Broadview and Eastern Avenue, just steps from the proposed SmartTrack/GO station within the Unilever/Great Gulf precinct. The line then proceeds east under Eastern Avenue before turning northwards at Logan.

What’s anything but clear is how, under Ford’s plan, this light-rail line will get out of the tunnel west of the Don; where it will cross the river; and how it will re-enter a tunnel heading east. One need only look at the streetcar tunnels at St. Clair West or along Queen’s Quay to realize that the entrances and exits gobble up an enormous amount of space, simply because the grades can’t be too steep.

Moreover, the city blocks on either side of the Don in that vicinity are packed with condos, construction sites, valuable historic buildings, narrow streets and public spaces, like Corktown Common. It’s by no means obvious where those lengthy tunnel entrance/exit ramps will fit. And even if the engineers tasked with finding a solution can figure out how to thread the needle, the daylighted portion of the Ontario Line will need to be shoe-horned between apartment blocks and parks, etc. Either that, or the Ford government’s got to get to work expropriating and demolishing property.

All the looming complexity raises difficult questions about the extent to which the city will be permitted to plan this line. Doug Ford’s subway bridge over the River Don introduces a deeply challenging planning dilemma in a congested space with little fallow land, a gnarly road network, lots of new residential development, and a relocated highway (i.e., the relocated Gardiner/DVP interchange). Left to its own devices, the city might opt to find ways to mitigate all the expense and disruption to local residents. The question is, will Queen’s Park allow the city to plan, or will it play the ever-present constitutional trump card and impose its own approach, local concerns be damned.
[...]

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2019/04/11/lorinc-doug-ford-draws-a-subway-map/

Phil didn't get the memo. Oh well, what's a zombied salesman to do but flog the wishes of the Glorious Masters?

 

[muller877]

....as there's no way you can have a tunnel emerge in that tight space and dive back down again without raised portals against flooding. Those raised portals in themselves will take a huge swath of real-estate, and then the needed embankments to carry the line to/from the bridge itself.

On the west bank you have to below Bayview (@ Lauren Harris Square most likely) and then get above the dike & railroad tracks before the Don. If you can do that the portal is in a flood protected area (but there should be flood gates just in case). Most likely a SSW orientation of the portal to give enough room.

Which means the bridge will be right beside the railroad bridge and will follow the tracks through East Harbour.

Verster suggested a cross-platform interchange station on the East side (with GO). It will thus be above flood levels until after the East Harbour station and then go below grade. So no/low risk of flooding on the east side.

 

[steveintoronto]

So no/low risk of flooding on the east side.

And that is "cheaper" than remaining in deep tunnel even if possible in engineering terms? You can build an elevator to the Moon. But should you? And what all the brilliant proponents overlook is that there's already touted to be a large passenger interchange at Gerrard.

Why the need for a second one? "To save money"?

The government said in order to meet the projected $10.9-billion cost for the Ontario Line, officials said a bridge will be built above the Don River and Don Valley Parkway near Eastern Avenue instead of below. It’s projected the move would save approximately $1 billion.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5157545/ontario-budget-says-no-money-for-sheppard-subway-line/

'Arise Sir Bridge! I anoint thee Don Gate'....

 

[Allandale25]

I think the bridge part is new. I think it was referenced in the budget and some media reports but I agree this is that first time we've heard this level of detail.

Oops. Meant to write "isn't" new.

 

[M II A II R II K]

All the more reason to build more above ground, particularly since places like Fort York don’t need a station since it’s already served by the 509.

 

[MisterF]

All the more reason to build more above ground, particularly since places like Fort York don’t need a station since it’s already served by the 509.

The 509 is in no way a substitute for proper rapid transit. I do agree though that a subway stop isn't needed there, but not because of the 509. Being right on the rail corridor, an RER station would be more appropriate.

 

[BurlOak]

On the west bank you have to below Bayview (@ Lauren Harris Square most likely) and then get above the dike & railroad tracks before the Don. If you can do that the portal is in a flood protected area (but there should be flood gates just in case). Most likely a SSW orientation of the portal to give enough room.

Which means the bridge will be right beside the railroad bridge and will follow the tracks through East Harbour.

Verster suggested a cross-platform interchange station on the East side (with GO). It will thus be above flood levels until after the East Harbour station and then go below grade. So no/low risk of flooding on the east side.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6546519,-79.3520389,666m/data=!3m1!1e3

• The vertical clearance to the railway must be 7.2m (passenger rail may be about 0.3m less), while the clearance to the DVP must be 5.0m (or possibly 4.8m, depending on the structure type). Thus, the high point of the bridge would be above the Richmond Hill GO. Assume you also need 2.5m for the depth of the bridge strcuture, plus deck and rail. That is good for a span of 50 to 60m, which could span the Don with no in-river piers.
• Depending on the route you take, it's about 200m from the RH-GO to Bayview @ Lawren Harris Square. At 5% grade, this means the track level would be at grade at Bayview - which also means that Bayview would have to be shut down. It the Ontario Line (OL) crosses RH-GO as close to the LSE-GO bridge, that distance can be increased to maybe 240m. Then, you have to take the entire length of Lawren Harris Square to increase this length by another 90m. Now, at 5%, this means that the OL would be fully below grade, with the portal being somewhere near the east end of Lawren Harris Square.
• Bayview would have to be rerouted. One part of Bayview would likely go up Lawren Harris Square to Lower River Street. The other part of Bayview would continue following the RH-GO tracks.
• In the East, you have much more space an this is not critical. I suspect the station would be at-grade (at the level of Eastern Ave.), which is below the elevation of the LSE-GO. The tracks would go underground east of here.

No matter how I cut it, it seems to be a tight fit that will involve some surface reconfiguration. But by making the adjacent lines and stations shallower, I imagine there is money to be saved. Which I think was the big problem with the City plan - it was designed to minimize disruption of NIMBYs, with no regard for cost.

 

[ADRM]

• Bayview would have to be rerouted. One part of Bayview would likely go up Lawren Harris Square to Lower River Street. The other part of Bayview would continue following the RH-GO tracks.

I have to think touching Corktown Common in any fashion would (and certainly should) be a non-starter.

 

[rbt]

I have to think touching Corktown Common in any fashion would (and certainly should) be a non-starter.

Metrolinx sometimes discovers these things a few years late.

 

[bbanner102097]

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:


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.