Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[rbt]

Metrolinx and other teams are working on an incredibly tight deadline for a project at this scale to be completed by 2027.

It's not 2027 anymore.

The North section tenders in 2022, closes ~2024, design through about mid-2025; that Pape Station interchange will take quite a bit more than 2 years to tunnel, excavate, and construct. 2030 is likely the earliest with 2032 seeming far more practical (based on Crosstown progress and probably 120+ subway outages for Ontario Line construction; 40 at each interchange station).

Also, you don't get trains on the south section (Exhibition to Don River) until Pape is mostly finished due to the yard connection.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's not 2027 anymore.

The North section tenders in 2022, closes ~2024, design through about mid-2025; that Pape Station interchange will take quite a bit more than 2 years to excavate and construct. 2030 is likely the earliest.

Also, you don't get trains on the south section (Exhibition to Don River) until Pape is mostly finished due to the yard connection.

Who says that? If the RFQ closes this fall, you could have the preferred bidder identified by early 2021. Issue the second package RFQ then, and have it close in 2022. Construction by 2023, if not earlier for tunnel works.'

I'm not saying that 2027 is going to happen, I agree that's too optimistic, but 2032 is probably too pessimistic. The talk is still to have TBMs in the ground by the end of next year.

 

[rbt]

Who says that?

Well, Metrolinx, just not loudly or with an official completion date adjustment.

"A third RFQ for the northern civil, stations and tunnel contract is scheduled for release in early 2022"​

IO and Metrolinx issue first RFQs for Ontario Line subway project - Canadian Consulting Engineer

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and crown agency Metrolinx have issued two requests for qualifications (RFQs) for their Ontario Line project, a 15.5-km downtown relief line (DRL) in Toronto. The RFQs represent the first step in selecting teams to construct the project, which will run from the...

www.canadianconsultingengineer.com

The talk is still to have TBMs in the ground by the end of next year.

Downtown. Also, new TBMs usually have an 18 month lead time from order to delivery (they're custom built). To hit end of 2021 for TBM launch they'll need to order them by August before the RFQ closes and a winning bidder is selected. TTC does that (buys the TBM, hires a contractor to operate them separately).

They only start construction on the North section prior to 2025 if you gift the contract to the south section bid winner. ~$4B sole source bid?

The Pape interchange isn't any easier to construct than Eglinton or Cedarvale. Unless they change to elevated, it's excavation under a ~60 year old section of Line 2. 2030 is practical if Pape doesn't require rehabilitation; wouldn't count on that though.

Wording implies the south contract doesn't go east of Don River, so the 2022 contract includes East Harbour too which won't be trivial either.

 

[Rainforest]

where did all the publicly available details for the original Relief Line brought us? I personally don't care if it all stayed behind closed curtains and they finished the project by 2027/8. Public consultations, for the most part, is a mechanism to slow down projects.

It is true that public consultations became overbearing lately, and can slow the progress. So, if they released all details and then didn't pause the project to wait for the public feedback, that would be understandable.

But if they don't even release initial details they already know, that makes the public reasonably concerned. Not just because they may be hiding something unpleasant, but - even worse - because they may be making an "honest mistake" assuming some parts are contsructable when in fact they aren't. With noone outside being able to analyse and alert them early enough, we might end up with massive cost overruns and / or delays.

Slow progress of the original Relief Line doesn't by itself guarantee that OL will fare better.

 

[Divas S.]

P

P3's can certainly be successful, but the auditor general found in her reports (I believe 2017, 2018) that government managed projects save money. It's essentially like the government taking out a loan for money they have for the convenience, but you pay interest (in this case profit for private sector involvement).

Not only as you said that they're more expensive, but the fact that our tax dollars, our money, is going to the pockets of shareholders and upper management of a company that bid to build OUR 'public' infrastructure.

 

[Allandale25]

Well, Metrolinx, just not loudly or with an official completion date adjustment.

"A third RFQ for the northern civil, stations and tunnel contract is scheduled for release in early 2022"​

IO and Metrolinx issue first RFQs for Ontario Line subway project - Canadian Consulting Engineer

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and crown agency Metrolinx have issued two requests for qualifications (RFQs) for their Ontario Line project, a 15.5-km downtown relief line (DRL) in Toronto. The RFQs represent the first step in selecting teams to construct the project, which will run from the...

www.canadianconsultingengineer.com

Downtown. Also, new TBMs usually have an 18 month lead time from order to delivery (they're custom built). To hit end of 2021 for TBM launch they'll need to order them by August before the RFQ closes and a winning bidder is selected. TTC does that (buys the TBM, hires a contractor to operate them separately).

They only start construction on the North section prior to 2025 if you gift the contract to the south section bid winner. ~$4B sole source bid?

The Pape interchange isn't any easier to construct than Eglinton or Cedarvale. Unless they change to elevated, it's excavation under a ~60 year old section of Line 2. 2030 is practical if Pape doesn't require rehabilitation; wouldn't count on that though.

Wording implies the south contract doesn't go east of Don River, so the 2022 contract includes East Harbour too which won't be trivial either.

Speaking of the TBMs, any sense yet for the tunneled sections if it'll be a single bore or the traditional twin bore? Any predictions?

 

[rbt]

Speaking of the TBMs, any sense yet for the tunneled sections if it'll be a single bore or the traditional twin bore? Any predictions?

I don't even know who would be in charge of making that decision.

The vehicle provider? Do they get to choose the vehicle dimensions, 3rd rail vs overhead power (overhead is common in modern metros due to evacuation, fire, and maintenance safety), etc. All of those dictate minimum tunnel dimensions and tunnel dimensions + clearance will eliminate single bore (or not) or demand stacked bores (or not).

Metrolinx? Do the tenders include maximum vehicle dimensions, power feed type, etc?

Tunnel/station tender? Oddly, they're the least likely to select the tunnel dimensions despite being the most likely to select single or twin bore. They'll probably prefer single bore, then twin bore on same level, then stacked twin bore.

 

[Tommy521]

Speaking of the TBMs, any sense yet for the tunneled sections if it'll be a single bore or the traditional twin bore? Any predictions?

Personally, I predict the southern section to use a different method than the northern subsurface section.

Given that the probable depth through the downtown portion (~30-40m) will be in shale I think a large diameter single-bore TBM would be viable as that is unlikely to cause much surface disruption. These are also much easier to design and model, as twin-bore tunnels have complex interactions between staging as a result of the shale swell and stress redistribution. It will also be easier to construct this option than it would have been for the RLS, as those twin-bore TBMs needed to pass beneath the Don through what was likely a complex bedrock valley with difficult soil-rock interface conditions that would rule out a large diameter single-bore TBM, which is partly why I do not believe it was considered for that project.

A larger bore could be a good cost-saving measure for the DT stations in bedrock, as the extra space within the tunnel will reduce the size of a required SEM cavern. These caverns would be some of the most expensive portions of the project, and it would be ideal to reduce the work required if possible. A large diameter single-bore tunnel may also help with ventilation/fire risk, reducing the required quantity of EEBs.

In contrast, the northern portion from Gerrard to the Don Valley may benefit from twin-bore TBMs. A single-bore through soil would require a much deeper depth to reduce surface disruption, so I can image a TBM setup similar to the Crosstown being used here. Starting the TBMs from Riverdale Shopping Centre and heading straight up Pape reduces the probability of hitting a soil-rock interface or any complex geological zones. This method would also make stations in soil easier to construct, as the tunnels could be shallower and vary the distance between the two bores depending on proximity to a station box.

Given that there are two separate contracts for these two very different geological settings, I am not ruling out the possibility of two different methods being used. However it is purely speculation, and may not be worth the added complexity. Using the same TBM methods for an entire project can make PCTL procurement much easier, allow for a single contractor and crew continuity, as well as simplifying the design methodology. It will be interesting to see what occurs.

 

[salsa]

In contrast, the northern portion from Gerrard to the Don Valley may benefit from twin-bore TBMs. A single-bore through soil would require a much deeper depth to reduce surface disruption, so I can image a TBM setup similar to the Crosstown being used here. Starting the TBMs from Riverdale Shopping Centre and heading straight up Pape reduces the probability of hitting a soil-rock interface or any complex geological zones. This method would also make stations in soil easier to construct, as the tunnels could be shallower and vary the distance between the two bores depending on proximity to a station box.

Is cut and cover a viable option for this segment?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It is true that public consultations became overbearing lately, and can slow the progress. So, if they released all details and then didn't pause the project to wait for the public feedback, that would be understandable.

But if they don't even release initial details they already know, that makes the public reasonably concerned. Not just because they may be hiding something unpleasant, but - even worse - because they may be making an "honest mistake" assuming some parts are contsructable when in fact they aren't. With noone outside being able to analyse and alert them early enough, we might end up with massive cost overruns and / or delays.

Slow progress of the original Relief Line doesn't by itself guarantee that OL will fare better.

No, it's the lack of publicly available details, and some concerns about the constructibility.

If the thing gets built at the end, great. Most of people here will appreciate the added transit capacity into downtown, regardless of Doug Ford's involvement.

Wish I could give your posts twice, Rainforest. I completely agree.

 

[Haydenpoon]

Given that the probable depth through the downtown portion (~30-40m) will be in shale I think a large diameter single-bore TBM would be viable as that is unlikely to cause much surface disruption. These are also much easier to design and model, as twin-bore tunnels have complex interactions between staging as a result of the shale swell and stress redistribution. It will also be easier to construct this option than it would have been for the RLS, as those twin-bore TBMs needed to pass beneath the Don through what was likely a complex bedrock valley with difficult soil-rock interface conditions that would rule out a large diameter single-bore TBM, which is partly why I do not believe it was considered for that project.

A larger bore could be a good cost-saving measure for the DT stations in bedrock, as the extra space within the tunnel will reduce the size of a required SEM cavern. These caverns would be some of the most expensive portions of the project, and it would be ideal to reduce the work required if possible. A large diameter single-bore tunnel may also help with ventilation/fire risk, reducing the required quantity of EEBs.

How about stacking two tracks at different levels like the Expo line in Downtown Vancouver?

 

[rbt]

Is cut and cover a viable option for this segment?

North section still ducks underneath Line 2, so that would be a very deep cut.

 

[Tommy521]

Is cut and cover a viable option for this segment?

Honestly, I doubt any group would take the risk of cut-and-cover along Pape. The last few times I did surveying near Pape, there was a watermain replacement ongoing, as I am sure anyone living in the area is aware of:

(Source: Google Maps, iamge taken June 2019)
Of course, there's plenty of evidence for other buried utilities in the area:

(Source: Google Maps, image taken June 2019)
I would expect these to include sanitary sewer, stormwater, electric, communications, and gas. Anyone who has seen the utility maps of Toronto or similar avenues might expect the subsurface here to be an absolute mess. Plus, as mentioned by rbt, there is the issue of Line 2.
I don't think there is a strong enough case for cut and cover given the amount of utility relocation required. Geotechnically, it is a great option. The issues stem from the built environment surrounding it rather than from a technical standpoint.

 

[officedweller]

TBMs should be able to bore below Line 2 no problem. Don't assume that the new Pape station will be directly under the Line 2 Pape Station. I would expect an offset configuration to simplify construction and speed completion. Twin bores usually have centre platforms, so a passage (not platforms) extending from one end of the new Pape platform under Line 2 to the old Pape Station platforms would work.
Remember that transit designers like inserting a bit of walking distance in stations to mitigate crush loads and help prevent platform crowding (ie Bloor-Yonge would be considered poor design these days).

 

[Allandale25]

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com