Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[steveintoronto]

This is more of an MTO resource - not much soil info in Toronto.

Terms and Conditions - Foundation Library - MTO

www.mto.gov.on.ca

You'll note that the TTC has supplied information from subway construction experience and geology studies for that chart.

Btw: I don't make any claims as to the *suitability* of the underlying shale in Thorncliffe Park for successful consistent tunnel boring, just that it appears to be of the same deposition and nature as that south of the valley there which has been deemed quite suitable for deep tunnel boring. In fact the overlay (which is what the map actually shows from an above view) is deemed unsuitable, and thus the decision to go deeper for much more predictable results. One of the problems with shale is the proclivity to fracturing both vertically and horizontally, and hosting aquifers as a result. There's considerable information on-line of the "Thorncliffe Aquifer" or "Formation". Whether that has bearing on Thorncliffe Park or not is another question that some more adept than myself could and should answer.

Some shale is far too fractured, even at depth, to make tunnelling a serious option. This was a real challenge for the tunnel to the Island Airport.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

That's the reason Vaughan didn't get the subway extension to VMC. Not being a part of the amalgamated city, Vaughan didn't have enough influence to advance their subway aspirations.

Oh wait ..

The main reason the province began "interfering" in the transit planning is the escalation of construction costs, that placed the cost of major transit projects outisde the city's capability to fund it from either transit fares or property tax revenues.

One can make a good argument that the taxation regime needs to be changed and the municipalities should be allowed to set their own income tax and / or sales tax, but until then, there is no way around the need to involve provincial funding.

Yes capital expenditures and network expansion ballooned in cost but the province could have also kicked in funding for operations. But paying for day to day operations is less glamorous than paying f9r new lines and stations.

Not saying Toront has been a model of transit planning but the province and feds havent exactly helped by focussing on news releases and ribbon cutting vs mundane day to day operations

 

[salsa]

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-sto...aughan-ranks-among-least-used-on-ttc-network/

We are probably looking at utilitarian, bare-bone stations on the Ontario Line.

I wonder if the same thinking will be applied to the Yonge line and Scarborough extensions.

 

[bobbob911]

The stations don't need to be as extravagant as the Spadina extension stations (those are insane), but the reality is that subway stations are a definite architectural feature of any city, and they leave a first and lasting impression on visitors. They should not be built on the cheap.

There's also a perceived safety issue - utilitarian bare-bone stations are more prone to graffiti, and more likely to feel unsafe.

 

[H4F33Z]

I don't know if you guys noticed or not but there are several rental buildings; a lot of them actually. It would be a pain in the butt to tunnel under central thorncliffe due to the utility and underground parking garages of the buildings. A station at R.V. Burgess park actually wouldn't be that bad considering there are plans to transform the central hub to a massive community centre but would have inadequate bus connection and no bus terminal. I Live here BTW if i didn't make it clear

 

[H4F33Z]

The stations don't need to be as extravagant as the Spadina extension stations (those are insane), but the reality is that subway stations are a definite architectural feature of any city, and they leave a first and lasting impression on visitors. They should not be built on the cheap.

There's also a perceived safety issue - utilitarian bare-bone stations are more prone to graffiti, and more likely to feel unsafe.

I think there should be a balance. For example the stations on the eglinton lrt is the perfect mix between style and function. And they're not mansions. I also like this style of a station at Fairbank for a secondary exit. It can work great with Thorncliffe Park Station and saves space too!

 

[Steve X]

I don't know if you guys noticed or not but there are several rental buildings; a lot of them actually. It would be a pain in the butt to tunnel under central thorncliffe due to the utility and underground parking garages of the buildings. A station at R.V. Burgess park actually wouldn't be that bad considering there are plans to transform the central hub to a massive community centre but would have inadequate bus connection and no bus terminal. I Live here BTW if i didn't make it clear

It either has to be very deep or elevated. Tunneling under Overlea will cause a huge headache for the community as it's the only major throughway in and out of the area.

 

[BurlOak]

I don't know if you guys noticed or not but there are several rental buildings; a lot of them actually. It would be a pain in the butt to tunnel under central thorncliffe due to the utility and underground parking garages of the buildings. A station at R.V. Burgess park actually wouldn't be that bad considering there are plans to transform the central hub to a massive community centre but would have inadequate bus connection and no bus terminal. I Live here BTW if i didn't make it clear

Maybe you could tell us where is central Throncliffe?
The two routes that seem the least disruptive are along Overlea, or just south of the East York Town Centre Mall.

Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Trust me, the relief line will be nowhere near construction by the time the scarborough line ("rt") is withdrawn due to the poor design, hard to maintain infrastructure. It's now just a 35 year old derelict. I think you meant to refer to is Laird Stn, not Leaside Stn (Bayview). I made a map...

urbantoronto.ca

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ign.6155/page-814#lg=attachment182351&slide=0

Would the latter choice work - the only conflict I could see is at the east end there may be a garage.
I actually assumed getting a transit line in to the north edge of Burgess park is the hardest route to achieve.

 

[Leo_Chan]

It’s a good thing to have broken the previous Toronto mindset of building stub lines and never coming back to finish then as something useful.

We can debate end points and alignments, but the Relief Line Phase 1 was a bandaid that did not deliver all the value and capacity that the city needed. There was a risk that our cost-averse City Coucil might have stopped there.

“Go big or go home” is a lesson that this city needs to learn with respect to transit funding. It’s ironic that Ford Nation would lean this way (arguably they haven’t....... when one looks at all the other cuts they are making, we may well be selling a lot of furniture to build this house) but I see this as a real step forward.

The showstopper that remains is overall capacity - we mustn’t let this get built as an undersized line for long term demand.

- Paul

I would like to clarify that my point in not that extending the scope is a good thing or not, of course it’s a good thing. My question was more to do with the discussion here on UT. Is it a good thing that our discussions in the RLN thread are being done here on the Ontario Line Thread now and quicker?

 

[Leo_Chan]

This speaks to some of the missing, unbuilt roads that I included on my map a few pages ago. It would be helpful to connect Pat Moore Drive (formerly Thorncliffe Park Drive North) with Village Station Drive or Banigan Drive; and to connect Pat Moore Drive with William Morgan Drive. Not a 100% solution during construction, but it would create a reasonable bypass for thru-traffic that does not originate / terminate in Thorncliffe Park.

Why not connect Throncliffe Park Drive with Industrial Street? Would it be worth the few buildings and the rail corridor underpass to have this additional route?

 

[muller877]

The two routes that seem the least disruptive are along Overlea, or just south of the East York Town Centre Mall.

Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Trust me, the relief line will be nowhere near construction by the time the scarborough line ("rt") is withdrawn due to the poor design, hard to maintain infrastructure. It's now just a 35 year old derelict. I think you meant to refer to is Laird Stn, not Leaside Stn (Bayview). I made a map...

urbantoronto.ca

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ign.6155/page-814#lg=attachment182351&slide=0

South of East York Town Centre
- expropriation is required
- cut and cover to save money (without major traffic disruptions)
- can create large turn south of Overlea @ Don Mills (through playground of Marc Garneau CI) if underground

Overlea
- No expropriation
- wide enough ROW to either cut & cover or TBM (but major traffic disruptions) or elevated (median is wide enough to add the pillars)
- stop will be on Overlea (easier for bus transfers...closer to commercial/industrial but further from residential)
- how to get onto Don Mills? (TBM under Valley Park Middle School? Or go completely north of school?)

Both routes
- above West Don River?
- @ inception do you need tail tracks past Eglinton? Frequent enough to demand this at inception? (if not they are provisioned once there is demand but not constructed)


If it will be elevated on Don Mills then I would think Overlea is the way to go. Only way to have a high-speed corner and avoid the school playgrounds.

 

[muller877]

I think there should be a balance. For example the stations on the eglinton lrt is the perfect mix between style and function. And they're not mansions. I also like this style of a station at Fairbank for a secondary exit. It can work great with Thorncliffe Park Station and saves space too!

A better station design would be to work with Choices REIT (quite likely the owner of the land under Shoppers). Have the station integrated into a larger development of this prime location. Then the extra room can be used for street furniture (or bike parking)

Likewise the larger side of this station includes an above-ground substation. Again, why no development opportunities within this station envelope?

 

[M II A II R II K]

They should consider covering the outside sections of the tracks with a plastic are glass covering, to keep the sound in and the weather out.

 

[jaybe]

South of East York Town Centre
- expropriation is required
- cut and cover to save money (without major traffic disruptions)
- can create large turn south of Overlea @ Don Mills (through playground of Marc Garneau CI) if underground

Overlea
- No expropriation
- wide enough ROW to either cut & cover or TBM (but major traffic disruptions) or elevated (median is wide enough to add the pillars)
- stop will be on Overlea (easier for bus transfers...closer to commercial/industrial but further from residential)
- how to get onto Don Mills? (TBM under Valley Park Middle School? Or go completely north of school?)

Both routes
- above West Don River?
- @ inception do you need tail tracks past Eglinton? Frequent enough to demand this at inception? (if not they are provisioned once there is demand but not constructed)


If it will be elevated on Don Mills then I would think Overlea is the way to go. Only way to have a high-speed corner and avoid the school playgrounds.

Why not elevate the Ontario Line through Thorncliffe and Flemington Park? For the stretch along Overlea and Don Mills (south of Eglinton) there are few residences abutting the street, so it will not impact too many homes.

 

[muller877]

Why not elevate the Ontario Line through Thorncliffe and Flemington Park? For the stretch along Overlea and Don Mills (south of Eglinton) there are few residences abutting the street, so it will not impact too many homes.

I totally agree with you. My previous post was to give pro's and con's of each route. My view of the optimal route is:

Assumption - Millwood Bridge is NOT strong enough

Pape - Minton Pl. May need to expropriate the last couple of houses on Minton Pl for exit shaft
Bridge over DVP/Don River with slight curve at end. Directly onto center median of Overlea (elevated)
after Thorncliffe, bridge over West Don on angle to go north of Valley Park Middle School
At grade along the west side of Don Mills under power lines (reduce risk of Hydro One complaining). Or slightly elevated...whatever Hydro One permits
vehicle service entrance to Ontario Place closes (assuming at grade under power lines)
Elevated over main entrance of Ontario Place (St Dennis Drive) still on west side of Don Mills (opposite side is residential).
Tracks end just before Eglinton (station box north end is Eglinton, south end near Ontario Place).
engineered so that it can be extended if/when there is demand for tail tracks and/or $$ for extension