TossYourJacket
Senior Member
But not in this colour scheme!
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
The above ground parts are in red while the underground parts are in blue. Partisan conspiracy!
OneCity
Senior Member
I agree most close by the line will always oppose when given the option, but don't thing there is an uprising here by any means.
The bulk of people holding those fancy signs outside the OL open house were the same bunch holding the signs with the opposite message in Scarborough a few months ago and for a couple decades now. These affiliated groups and their political media friends will surely try to make it seem like the elevated sections are show stoppers in an attempt to delay the line, but whether it's built or others can stop it i think the Cons have it set it up to look pretty good politically
The partisan activists have been a major problem in this Citys transit planning for decades, and given far too much influence on past decisions and credibility acting as regular residents. It is very political
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
Interesting if true. Are there comparative photos of both events with these sign holders so I can point out the same people myself? Seemed like the majority of the city supported upgrading/extending Line 3 since it's a pretty reasonable project, even Scarb did for decades until the Libs promised a Line 2 extension a few years ago. Seeming anachronism aside, if there is in fact a genuine conspiracy, one going back decades, with a select group of the same people showing up to rabble rouse meetings, it should be exposed. But is there...
MisterF
Senior Member
To repeat myself, new transit lines tend to be put underground in areas that are densely populated and have less room, while being above ground in more outlying areas with more room. There's no lack of consistency in that. A subway being underground in neighbourhood X doesn't automatically mean that it should be underground in neighbourhood Y. There's no one size fits all solution.
This constant pointing at the "other" and saying "I deserve that too" is incredibly childish and it's holding transit expansion back. And that's not even a comment about the Ontario Line specifically, it's been happening in Toronto for decades now and it's made the whole process toxic.
BurlOak
Senior Member
The major complaint about the SRT line (SRT) was the transfer. Some degree it was also the old train - which would be solved no matter what solution was chosen.
It wasn't until Rob Ford came around, and Dalton McGuinty acquiesced, that they cam up with a continuous line to the spine of Toronto. Finally, we had transit peace and everyone was on board with transit - even transit that was elevated.
Then Council and the Liberals worked to undermine the agreement and that lead us to this everything underground mentality.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
If you think Tory is going to play petty games on withholding $3 billion in funds you are mistaken. He'll whip up the council votes needed to counter a few upset local Councillors if needed.
Allandale25
Senior Member
I'm just a fan of maps an enjoy noting new versions and media interpretations.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,410
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your premise about above vs underground at all. I’m saying people like residents actively campaigning to keep the SRT or implementing the Scarborough LRT while decrying the Ontario Line (and not for the technicial reasons discussed here) is the problem.
jje1000
Senior Member
Produced the worst result in the end- the new Scarborough transit line should have reused the above-ground right-of-way, either as an extension of the Eglinton LRT, or as a subway extension from Kennedy.
We ultimately are spending big bucks to create a new ROW that provides no new coverage. I wonder what will happen to the old one?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The population of the Toronto area will hit 8 million in the next 10 years. It’s make or break time — are we ready?
Transit crunches. Housing shortages. Climate change. This is 2030.
See link.
Will the "Ontario Line" be able to handle a BIG increase in population? Is it being designed only for the current population levels, with no room for expansion?
The current terminal stations at Science Centre & Exhibition Place are only for the initial opening. It will be extended, which means a higher ridership. Can it handle it?
Transit crunches. Housing shortages. Climate change. This is 2030.
See link.
Will the "Ontario Line" be able to handle a BIG increase in population? Is it being designed only for the current population levels, with no room for expansion?
The current terminal stations at Science Centre & Exhibition Place are only for the initial opening. It will be extended, which means a higher ridership. Can it handle it?
Tommy521
New Member
As a bit of a follow up to my previous reply on the difficulties on using a TBM during rock-soil interface conditions, I thought I would examine in a bit more detail why going above ground for certain portions of the line might be a logical choice. In the last comment, I was focused on the northern interface, and here I'd like to focus on the south. Keep in mind this might not be why ML chose to do this, it is just an examination of some of the risks that could be associated with the underground alignment, particularly in the Lower Don crossing area. All of this is just my opinion and is a hypothetical risk assessment based on some readings I've done.
If we take a look at the current Don River, we can see it is channelized. It is also worth noting the concentration of highrise buildings on the left, the very high concentration of rail tracks in the area, and the proximity of the DVP to the the river. Also very much worth noting the old eastern ave bridge "[...] is used by Enbridge Gas to carry a major gas main." (Source: Wikipedia)
I'm pointing these out because these present some very high levels of risk to any underground project that would take place near them.
(Source: Google Maps)
And of course, it should be noted that the Don River was not always channelized. The historic alignment of the Don River may have looked something more similar to this:
(Source: Bateman C., blogTO, That time the Don River was straightened)
I'm sure you can see the large sinuous curves. These sorts of curves would carve out bedrock over millions of years and several glacial periods, creating a subsurface profile that could conceivably look similar to the one shown below:
(Source: Andres A. et al., Impacts of Quaternary History on Critical Zone Structure and Processes: Examples and a Conceptual Model From the Intensively Managed Landscapes Critical Zone Observatory)
Note: This is not the Don River.
However, it is a river that formed through similar soils (glacial till) during similar glacial-interglacial periods. Thus we can extrapolate that the area of the Don we're looking at would have a similar profile. You can see in the river valleys that the soil is not flat or horizontal, but are quite undulous. This presents similar problems of volume loss, but there are more severe issues than slight surface settlement.
In this case, the transition zone could see a switch between soil and rock as bedrock maps show it being relatively shallow here. If this occurs back and forth, you'd essentially have a very rough transition zone across the entire stretch of river. And remember, the "river" is not just the 40m or so channelized one that exists today, but includes all the historic alignments and curves which leave an impression in the bedrock. These possible difficult geological conditions would exist under water pressure. We might expect to see similar issues to other TBM projects under rivers:
The Fraser River project included a specially design TBM and, while a much longer tunnel under a much wider river, shows some of the issues that can occur. Would you want to spend the extra money to specially design a TBM for what could amount to a 40m problem zone? What if it ends up being 100m? 200m? Are you going to spend the extra money drilling a borehole every 3m across the entire river, on the active DVP, and through the brand new Corktown Commons to ensure there's no risk?
Another example:
I think we can all agree that having sinkholes in a public park, beneath rail lines, under an active highway, or affecting a major gas main on a bridge are all very, very bad outcomes. (Additional readings on risk in urban areas: Kovari K. and Ramoni M., Urban Tunneling in soft ground using TBM's)
It also doesn't seem feasible to close any or all of these while the TBM's would be progressing beneath these areas. We can expect that the advance rate of a TBM would be around 1-4m/hr in the best conditions (Source: Mohammadzamani D. et al.,Evaluation of required thrust force based on advance rates in shielded TBMs under squeezing conditions) which would be considered very generous, it might take as long as 13 days to pass beneath an area from Broadview Ave to Bayview Ave if this is where the historic river channel lies. Imagine suggesting closing the DVP-Gardiner interchange both ways for 13+ days! Along with the GO lines, gas mains, nearby roads, and parks.
I don't want to say the choice to go above ground is politically motivated or not, taking a stab at those who didn't 'Vote Doug', but there are other things to consider in an engineering project. This isn't Sim City or Cities Skylines, where you can slap a tunnel under anything with no issue. These are incredibly complex issues with high amounts of risk associated with them, especially when in such a dense urban environment. It's entirely possible that the levels of risk associated with tunneling under the Don, which we haven't done very often, is considered too great this time. Especially for such a high profile project, in comparison to something like the Coxwell Bypass, which runs parallel to the river and is 50m deep (almost certainly in shale, judging by the large grey piles visible from the Bloor St bridge). It's also possible that Doug is just trying to F-over everyone who didn't vote for him.
If we take a look at the current Don River, we can see it is channelized. It is also worth noting the concentration of highrise buildings on the left, the very high concentration of rail tracks in the area, and the proximity of the DVP to the the river. Also very much worth noting the old eastern ave bridge "[...] is used by Enbridge Gas to carry a major gas main." (Source: Wikipedia)
I'm pointing these out because these present some very high levels of risk to any underground project that would take place near them.
(Source: Google Maps)
And of course, it should be noted that the Don River was not always channelized. The historic alignment of the Don River may have looked something more similar to this:
(Source: Bateman C., blogTO, That time the Don River was straightened)
I'm sure you can see the large sinuous curves. These sorts of curves would carve out bedrock over millions of years and several glacial periods, creating a subsurface profile that could conceivably look similar to the one shown below:
(Source: Andres A. et al., Impacts of Quaternary History on Critical Zone Structure and Processes: Examples and a Conceptual Model From the Intensively Managed Landscapes Critical Zone Observatory)
Note: This is not the Don River.
However, it is a river that formed through similar soils (glacial till) during similar glacial-interglacial periods. Thus we can extrapolate that the area of the Don we're looking at would have a similar profile. You can see in the river valleys that the soil is not flat or horizontal, but are quite undulous. This presents similar problems of volume loss, but there are more severe issues than slight surface settlement.
In this case, the transition zone could see a switch between soil and rock as bedrock maps show it being relatively shallow here. If this occurs back and forth, you'd essentially have a very rough transition zone across the entire stretch of river. And remember, the "river" is not just the 40m or so channelized one that exists today, but includes all the historic alignments and curves which leave an impression in the bedrock. These possible difficult geological conditions would exist under water pressure. We might expect to see similar issues to other TBM projects under rivers:
(Source: Fekete S. et al., Tunnelling under the Fraser River at 6 bar)
The Fraser River project included a specially design TBM and, while a much longer tunnel under a much wider river, shows some of the issues that can occur. Would you want to spend the extra money to specially design a TBM for what could amount to a 40m problem zone? What if it ends up being 100m? 200m? Are you going to spend the extra money drilling a borehole every 3m across the entire river, on the active DVP, and through the brand new Corktown Commons to ensure there's no risk?
Another example:
(Source: Shirlaw N. et al., Local settlements and sinkholes due to EPB tunnelling)
I think we can all agree that having sinkholes in a public park, beneath rail lines, under an active highway, or affecting a major gas main on a bridge are all very, very bad outcomes. (Additional readings on risk in urban areas: Kovari K. and Ramoni M., Urban Tunneling in soft ground using TBM's)
It also doesn't seem feasible to close any or all of these while the TBM's would be progressing beneath these areas. We can expect that the advance rate of a TBM would be around 1-4m/hr in the best conditions (Source: Mohammadzamani D. et al.,Evaluation of required thrust force based on advance rates in shielded TBMs under squeezing conditions) which would be considered very generous, it might take as long as 13 days to pass beneath an area from Broadview Ave to Bayview Ave if this is where the historic river channel lies. Imagine suggesting closing the DVP-Gardiner interchange both ways for 13+ days! Along with the GO lines, gas mains, nearby roads, and parks.
I don't want to say the choice to go above ground is politically motivated or not, taking a stab at those who didn't 'Vote Doug', but there are other things to consider in an engineering project. This isn't Sim City or Cities Skylines, where you can slap a tunnel under anything with no issue. These are incredibly complex issues with high amounts of risk associated with them, especially when in such a dense urban environment. It's entirely possible that the levels of risk associated with tunneling under the Don, which we haven't done very often, is considered too great this time. Especially for such a high profile project, in comparison to something like the Coxwell Bypass, which runs parallel to the river and is 50m deep (almost certainly in shale, judging by the large grey piles visible from the Bloor St bridge). It's also possible that Doug is just trying to F-over everyone who didn't vote for him.
Northern Light
Superstar
A fellow well known in transit activist circles, Stephen Wickens is loudly making known his issues w/OL capacity projections; and he's put his reasons why down for everyone to see.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Just a rehash of what we've discussed on this thread endlessly.
I would love to see Metrolinx and the City specify exactly how they plan to deal with Yonge Line crowding, when its capacity again becomes constrained in the years following the Ontario Line's opening. I mean, by 2030 we're going to again need to develop concrete plans to deal with Yonge Line's crowding. Might as well discuss it now, rather than pretending that the Ontario Line has the capability to fix Yonge Line's crowding for more than 10 years.
The natural option is an OL extension along Don Mills, but the OL likely will not have the capacity to accommodate that. So where do we move forward from there? A subway on Leslie or Victoria Park to Downtown? Extend the OL to Sheppard even though it that extension will quickly be overcapacity? Are we prepared to shut down the Ontario Line just years after opening to enhance its capacity? What exactly is the plan to deal with this. All we've heard from officials on this matter is... *crickets*. They don't even want to acknowledge the bind they're putting the city in.
And this is a genuine question. Because none of the options I can come up with to deal with Yonge Line crowding, following the opening of the Ontario Line, are particularly good. They're all either unreasonably disruptive, or unfathomably expensive
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I suppose the most prudent option would be to extend the Ontario Line north along Don Mills to Sheppard by the mid 2030s, to deal with the Yonge Line capacity crunch coming in the 2040s (this is also assuming that YNSE is delivered). That extension would immediately deliver long-term Yonge Line crowding relief, while leaving the OL with some spare capacity for a short period of time (~10 years). However OL capacity enhancements would be needed in the long term, to accommodate growth in ridership along the Ontario Line Don Mills extension.
The Yonge Relief Network Study predicted that a subway along that route (Don Mills to Downtown) would generate about 20,000 pphpd in the year 2031. By 2041, just 20 years from now, the ridership generated along that route would likely be substantially larger, especially given Toronto's increasing population growth (we'll be adding 1 Million people in just 20 years). That ridership level of ridership growth would probably saturate whatever available capacity the Ontario Line has by ~2040. At that point the original portions of the Ontario Line would likely need to be heavily modified to increase its capacity (note that the OL would barely be 10 years old at this point). Too early to say if those capacity retrofits are even possible, or how disruptive it would be.
If capacity retrofits aren't possible, we'll probably have to be looking at building another Relief Line (perhaps a metro or RER), spanning between North York and Downtown. It has to go to North York, as that is where the Ontario Line capacity problems will be originating. None of the potential routes are particularly desirable though, and all would be extremely expensive. Perhaps the Richmond Hill GO line could be converted to some kind of light metro or RER service, but the terrain and capacity constraints at Union make that far from being a silver bullet solution.
Last edited: