Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[turini2]

- the old RLS had i think it was the gerrard station 70m underground to get under a large water main (is this true?)

Yes it would have to get underneath the water main, but also no - 70m below ground is a massive exaggeration by the looks of these technical drawings from Steve Munro's site. Looks more like 30m deep to me.
70m would be incredibly deep, as deep as the Édouard-Montpetit station on the REM in Montreal - which will use high speed elevators for access.

 

[bjrkz]

I believe the community is upset that the government has backtracked on what was worked out and approved with them (the DRL). You could certainly argue they should be more cooperative at this point. Unfortunately this is what happens when the government forces plans down your throat with no consultation, while projects in other areas are build however the community would like with no regard to cast.

It's easy to dismiss these people because they live in Leslieville, but their community is no less important than it is to people in Scarborough, Eglinton West, etc.

You really think the government has it out for the Leslieville community and is responsible for forcing the line above ground? Metrolinx backtracked because of informed decisions by transit engineers and planners doing the math, realizing they could get transit to more parts of the city by rerouting and moving segments above ground. The DRL wasn’t as comprehensive as the Ontario Line planning, drop it and move on.

 

[generalcanada]

Out of curiosity interested to hear folks view point:

In the event Ford loses the next election in June 2022. Will the Ontario Line be cancelled by NDPs or Liberals or do you think they will proceed with the project since it will only be a few months away from financial close and early works project would have already started and financially closed?

My only thinking is if they were to cancel it then it would delay the DRL-South until early 2030s and DRL-North until 2040. It will cause major crowding on Yonge as Line 5 will be in operation next year. Also people north of Pape till Eglinton will be pissed at broken promises.

Or perhaps the Liberals or NDP cancel Yonge North and allocate the funding to DRL-South+North to be built at the same time?

Sorry for the random thoughts.

My guess would be the Liberals are going to campaign on burying the Leslieville segment.. if they won they could go ahead and procure the north half of the line first while the design/costing for the lower half is re-re-designed.

So last winter when the Liberal leadership election happened, it was specifically asked whether current on-going plans would be cancelled. and the answer from all, including delduca was they "wouldnt cancel projects that are in progress."

No guarantees they wont bury leslievilles portion though

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You really think the government has it out for the Leslieville community and is responsible for forcing the line above ground? Metrolinx backtracked because of informed decisions by transit engineers and planners doing the math, realizing they could get transit to more parts of the city by rerouting and moving segments above ground. The DRL wasn’t as comprehensive as the Ontario Line planning, drop it and move on.

Not to belabour too much on this point - I think it is less the government willfully forcing the line above ground, and more the government couldn't care less if it goes above ground in Leslieville (or anywhere along the alignment, for that matter). The "get more transit to more parts of the city" argument is bunk as a universal planning goal because it posits the initial condition - the budget - as an invariable. That might be the case for Metrolinx, but it certainly isn't the case as an allocation decision by the government (nevermind tacit requirements by the government to be completely underground at other projects - as if the cost delta at those won't get more transit for the buck as well).

Anyways, from my perspective this above ground alignment should be fine given the information that have been presented so far (and really, it is no different from some of the DRL studies in the early 80s) - the sizing of the build (and community impact over the MSR in Thorncliffe) is still a more important issue. Having said so, it should not free Metrolinx as the proponent from scrutiny - the plans as presented are not detailed enough to really see what the impact will be at a local level (nice infographics is one thing, real plans are another, and we haven't really seen any detailed plans, only crude ones that are clearly meant for PR).

AoD

 

[tsm1072]

So I guess it's official that it's four mainline tracks. I thought it was to be five.



Bringing up other projects is fairly relevant imo, particularly with respect to "funding envelopes". SSE and YNSE will tunnel deep under rivers with exceptionally deep stations, Crosstown West tunneled below a set-aside transportation corridor. This one apparently tunneling under rivers is a no go, as is deep stations, and we must use transportation corridors if they're available. It's a double standard. I could care less, but if I was a NIMBY I'd use Metrolinx's own ammo against them. And plus the design already changed significantly by moving things to one side, so the notion that what they concocted was "best" can't be true. That was best. Now this one's best? Second best? It's a moving target.

Also Metrolinx already had a raft of affordable relief lines they offered years ago. Surface subways, elevated viaducts, you name it. Not one used the surface of this rail corridor. They're the biggest stakeholder, perhaps there was a reason to exclude it. Looks to be reduced to four tracks. Again I could care less. If they want to do it and attempt to save money, so be it.

Yes, you can compare the cost of other projects, but the other factors behind some of the decisions are vastly different. I'm not saying I agree with some of the decisions made on other projects, but I'd rather discuss the actual merits of the OL design choices rather than get into "whataboutism".

I personally don't know many of the details that go on behind the scenes in the Metrolinx design office, but assuming they are following a proper engineering design process, "best" is a moving target. As you collect more information and evaluate details of a design, the best design choices will change as they do with any large engineering project. At some point you have to lock in certain choices, as perfection is the enemy of good. Currently, Metrolinx is taking their best high-level concept and doing a detailed design. When they encounter potential problems, they are re-evaluating and making changes.

As far as stakeholders go, transit users in Toronto are likely the largest stakeholder, they have the most to gain or lose with this project. I'd hope Metrolinx also considers transit users as the largest stakeholder when evaluating design choices.

 

[bjrkz]

(nevermind tacit requirements by the government to be completely underground at other projects - as if the cost delta at those won't get more transit for the buck as well).

I mostly agree but do we really know all of the factors involved though?

We can keep hoping that the government drops a billion more for 2km of the line but the project has to progress with the given timeframe and budget. The fact that construction work for underground stations will be more destructive to parts of the community and will extend the completion date an extra year still stands.

 

[turini2]

The odd thing about tunnelling - from my chats with peeps here in the UK about tunnelling boring machines (TBM) on High Speed 2 and Crossrail 2 - the expensive bit is the machines themselves and the launch of said TBMs. Extending a tunnel length gets cheaper as you go on, as the sunk cost (the TBM and the launch shaft) is already built - the additional costs are wage costs, electricity and the concrete tunnel segments! Surely it would have been cheaper to have tunnelling end to end than having 4 separate tunnel portals...
(noting that you do need different TBMs for different ground conditions, or if you want to "dig from both ends" to speed the construction of the tunnel up)

The cost of the stations is also interesting - the Relief Line plans at places like East Harbour show full length, full height lower concourse/mezzanine levels - as is common in North America. From plans we've seen of Ontario Line stations so far (Pape) - this seems to be similar.
Other projects (Crossrail, Sydney Metro) are have mined stations at depth with no mezzanine levels, reducing construction costs, complexity while still having emergency egress - or you build the station inside a large tunnel bore like in Barcelona (or soon, San Diego).

Alon Levy criticises the construction of said mezzanines in this excellent piece on "why American construction costs are so high" - worth a read.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I mostly agree but do we really know all of the factors involved though?

We can keep hoping that the government drops a billion more for 2km of the line but the project has to progress with the given timeframe and budget. The fact that construction work for underground stations will be more destructive to parts of the community and will extend the completion date an extra year still stands.

I don't hope for government dropping a billion more to bury this line because I don't think it is worth the money (which would be better spent on upsizing the build) anyways; what I do hope is the government applies the same logic to their other builds - ones where they clearly didn't use this logic.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The odd thing about tunnelling - from my chats with peeps here in the UK about tunnelling boring machines (TBM) on High Speed 2 and Crossrail 2 - the expensive bit is the machines themselves and the launch of said TBMs. Extending a tunnel length gets cheaper as you go on, as the sunk cost (the TBM and the launch shaft) is already built - the additional costs are wage costs, electricity and the concrete tunnel segments! Surely it would have been cheaper to have tunnelling end to end than having 4 separate tunnel portals...
(noting that you do need different TBMs for different ground conditions, or if you want to "dig from both ends" to speed the construction of the tunnel up)

The cost of the stations is also interesting - the Relief Line plans at places like East Harbour show full length, full height lower concourse/mezzanine levels - as is common in North America. From plans we've seen of Ontario Line stations so far (Pape) - this seems to be similar.
Other projects (Crossrail, Sydney Metro) are have mined stations at depth with no mezzanine levels, reducing construction costs, complexity while still having emergency egress - or you build the station inside a large tunnel bore like in Barcelona (or soon, San Diego).

Alon Levy criticises the construction of said mezzanines in this excellent piece on "why American construction costs are so high" - worth a read.

There are *some* circumstances where these large mezzanines are useful - e.g. in Hong Kong, where it is used to link a very large number of exits; and there are also instances where our builds ended up with insufficient crush space down the road (College is a good example). It's context dependent - not a universal yes/no. But in suburban stations where you will never see that kind of foot traffic? Yeah, total waste of money.

I can also add that London Underground is a LOT better at reducing crossflow within stations than we are - one way circulation is pretty common; not so here.

AoD

 

[afransen]

The odd thing about tunnelling - from my chats with peeps here in the UK about tunnelling boring machines (TBM) on High Speed 2 and Crossrail 2 - the expensive bit is the machines themselves and the launch of said TBMs. Extending a tunnel length gets cheaper as you go on, as the sunk cost (the TBM and the launch shaft) is already built - the additional costs are wage costs, electricity and the concrete tunnel segments! Surely it would have been cheaper to have tunnelling end to end than having 4 separate tunnel portals...
(noting that you do need different TBMs for different ground conditions, or if you want to "dig from both ends" to speed the construction of the tunnel up)

The cost of the stations is also interesting - the Relief Line plans at places like East Harbour show full length, full height lower concourse/mezzanine levels - as is common in North America. From plans we've seen of Ontario Line stations so far (Pape) - this seems to be similar.
Other projects (Crossrail, Sydney Metro) are have mined stations at depth with no mezzanine levels, reducing construction costs, complexity while still having emergency egress - or you build the station inside a large tunnel bore like in Barcelona (or soon, San Diego).

Alon Levy criticises the construction of said mezzanines in this excellent piece on "why American construction costs are so high" - worth a read.

I wonder if anything will come of Musk's Boring Company and their attempts to innovate in TBM design and tunnelling process. They are developing a TBM that can 'porpoise' on a ramp inclined down, not needing a launch shaft. Also some innovations in electric power/transportation for spoil removal and tunnel lining delivery.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Out of curiosity interested to hear folks view point:

In the event Ford loses the next election in June 2022. Will the Ontario Line be cancelled by NDPs or Liberals or do you think they will proceed with the project since it will only be a few months away from financial close and early works project would have already started and financially closed?

My only thinking is if they were to cancel it then it would delay the DRL-South until early 2030s and DRL-North until 2040. It will cause major crowding on Yonge as Line 5 will be in operation next year. Also people north of Pape till Eglinton will be pissed at broken promises.

Or perhaps the Liberals or NDP cancel Yonge North and allocate the funding to DRL-South+North to be built at the same time?

Sorry for the random thoughts.

My guess would be the Liberals are going to campaign on burying the Leslieville segment.. if they won they could go ahead and procure the north half of the line first while the design/costing for the lower half is re-re-designed.

At least two major changes I'd expect the Liberals to consider:

1. The Thorncliffe Park MSF will likely be moved in response to community criticism. Kathleen Wynne, Don Valley West MPP (where the MSF is located) and former Premier of Ontario has strongly criticized Metrolinx's handling of the facility.
2. As you said, the Lesliville segment will likely be modified.

 

[turini2]

I wonder if anything will come of Musk's Boring Company and their attempts to innovate in TBM design and tunnelling process. They are developing a TBM that can 'porpoise' on a ramp inclined down, not needing a launch shaft. Also some innovations in electric power/transportation for spoil removal and tunnel lining delivery.

IMO, listening to Musk isn't worth anyone's time. The Boring Company is focusing on the Tesla shuttles (the Las Vegas tunnel was ridiculed by transit professionals, and can carry around 800people an hour ) and Hyperloop (more vapourware).

 

[syn]

Yes, you can compare the cost of other projects, but the other factors behind some of the decisions are vastly different. I'm not saying I agree with some of the decisions made on other projects, but I'd rather discuss the actual merits of the OL design choices rather than get into "whataboutism".

I personally don't know many of the details that go on behind the scenes in the Metrolinx design office, but assuming they are following a proper engineering design process, "best" is a moving target. As you collect more information and evaluate details of a design, the best design choices will change as they do with any large engineering project. At some point you have to lock in certain choices, as perfection is the enemy of good. Currently, Metrolinx is taking their best high-level concept and doing a detailed design. When they encounter potential problems, they are re-evaluating and making changes.

As far as stakeholders go, transit users in Toronto are likely the largest stakeholder, they have the most to gain or lose with this project. I'd hope Metrolinx also considers transit users as the largest stakeholder when evaluating design choices.

What would those factors be?

Considering this line needs as much capacity as possible, it would seem that spending the extra money would be a given here.

That's the main flaw with the design choices being made. They're attempting to reduce costs by limiting capacity. We can't afford to do that on this line.

We could certainly afford it on Eglinton West, Scarborough, etc. but they're opting to spend billions extra.

 

[syn]

You really think the government has it out for the Leslieville community and is responsible for forcing the line above ground? Metrolinx backtracked because of informed decisions by transit engineers and planners doing the math, realizing they could get transit to more parts of the city by rerouting and moving segments above ground. The DRL wasn’t as comprehensive as the Ontario Line planning, drop it and move on.

It was more comprehensive in the the most important way - it had much greater capacity.

Coming up with a different plan does not absolve Metrolinx of the responsibility to properly work with the community in implementing these plans.

We can keep hoping that the government drops a billion more for 2km of the line but the project has to progress with the given timeframe and budget.

Budget does not seem to be much of a factor for other projects. It should be less of a factor with (by far) the most important project.

I'd also question the seriousness of the government when this project has already been delayed. It didn't have to be. They've chosen to make the EWLRT and SSE priorities.

 

[afransen]

IMO, listening to Musk isn't worth anyone's time. The Boring Company is focusing on the Tesla shuttles (the Las Vegas tunnel was ridiculed by transit professionals, and can carry around 800people an hour ) and Hyperloop (more vapourware).

Of course it was ridiculed by transit professionals. It is a challenge to the orthodoxy. They would have ridiculed it regardless of its performance. All of this is quite aside from the tunneling technology. TBC is not working on hyperloop at all.