Transit City Plan

[rbt]

nfitz did bring up the possibility of gas stations. Aside from that, I think the likelihood of contamination here to be improbable and unlikely, but that's just a guess.

You would be wise to assume the opposite. A little bit of heavy metal fallout from leaded gasoline usage nearby several decades ago can be enough. 60+ years of frequent passenger aircraft flying low overhead would likely have left an impact as well.

It may not be deep but the surface layer will certainly qualify as requiring remediation.

 

[rbt]

Why do you keep repeating that it's an old industrial area? Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd be interesting in seeing it.

The trenching card frequently comes out as the cheaper option on this board. I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't and my comments were not related to Richview specifically which I have little knowledge of.

I still have doubts but would have the TTC study surface, trenched, and tunnelled for that area taking into consideration land sale value, maintenance, operations, property tax income, ridership income, and initial capital requirements.


The trench itself likely isn't cheaper than a tunnel but the stations for a trench certainly should be.

 

[gweed123]

You would be wise to assume the opposite. A little bit of heavy metal fallout from leaded gasoline usage nearby several decades ago can be enough. 60+ years of frequent passenger aircraft flying low overhead would likely have left an impact as well.

It may not be deep but the surface layer will certainly qualify as requiring remediation.

Seriously? Passenger planes flying overhead would have an impact on soil quality to the degree that it would require remediation?

It's parkland! The land is being changed from a more sensitive use to a less sensitive use. It's not like it's being changed from industrial to residential (the requirements for which are astronomical).

 

[gweed123]

The trenching card frequently comes out as the cheaper option on this board. I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't and my comments were not related to Richview specifically which I have little knowledge of.

I still have doubts but would have the TTC study surface, trenched, and tunnelled for that area taking into consideration land sale value, maintenance, operations, property tax income, ridership income, and initial capital requirements.


The trench itself likely isn't cheaper than a tunnel but the stations for a trench certainly should be.

I certainly would be in favour of the TTC studying those 3 options. But I still maintain that, speaking strictly of construction costs, that trenching would be by far the cheapest option. Trenching requires no need for decking, vertical support columns, etc, needed for propping up a tunnel. Heck, some of the trench along Scott St has the blasted rock face exposed. You could never get away with that if you were building a tunnel. The tunnel would also need to be dug at a greater depth, whereas you could dig a much shallower trench (someone earlier mentioned about 5m, which seems about right).

I just can't see how a construction method requiring TBMs, or extensive support structures to support up a tunnel roof could be just as expensive as digging an open trench with backhoes and some blasting. It just doesn't seem to even be on the same level of engineering requirements to me.

 

[nfitz]

Seriously? Passenger planes flying overhead would have an impact on soil quality to the degree that it would require remediation?

Agreed.

There are however many old landfill sites throughout Toronto. Were any along Richview?

 

[rbt]

Seriously? Passenger planes flying overhead would have an impact on soil quality to the degree that it would require remediation?

I don't know but wouldn't be surprised. My experience in this matter is related to gravel pits in farm country and some of those locations have required soil remediation without having been anything but forest and then pasture.

Scientists figured out how to measure parts per billion and the population via parliament has seen fit to outlaw parts per million. Our beaches run into the same issue. Toronto closes beaches at bacterial levels that parts of Europe considers very clean.

 

[gweed123]

I don't know but wouldn't be surprised. My experience in this matter is related to gravel pits in farm country and some of those locations have required soil remediation without having been anything but forest and then pasture.

Scientists figured out how to measure parts per billion and the population via parliament has seen fit to outlaw parts per million. Our beaches run into the same issue. Toronto closes beaches at bacterial levels that parts of Europe considers very clean.

But what were those gravel pits being turned into? Housing? If so, then the standards are much higher. We're talking about parkland being turned into a transit corridor. Not residential. Not commercial. Transportation.

The beach contaminant thing is also different. That has more to do with water quality than soil quality. It wasn't the sand that was dirty, it was the water.

 

[gweed123]

Agreed.

There are however many old landfill sites throughout Toronto. Were any along Richview?

If there were, you can bet that the records of site condition for the housing projects directly beside it would show some mention of it. Also, landfills are usually much wider than a ~30m strip of land. If there were any landfills, the houses to the north of the Richview corridor would be built on the landfill as well. Given that that area was initially developed in the 50s and 60s, that landfill would have to date back to the 1920s or earlier.

But again, this is all completely hypothetical. The odds are that it's just a piece of land that was left undeveloped while all the farmland around it was converted to housing, because the City plans are far back as the mid 1940s show an expressway through those lands. The land was set aside as a transportation corridor, but ultimately was never used as one. Simple as that.

 

[nfitz]

I don't know but wouldn't be surprised. My experience in this matter is related to gravel pits in farm country and some of those locations have required soil remediation without having been anything but forest and then pasture.

Naturally occuring soil can be above soil remediation guidelines for some metals - particularly arsenic. But it's natural. All you have to do is demonstrate it's natural and not remediate it.

Also, landfills are usually much wider than a ~30m strip of land.

They are now, and have been for a while. But not back in the 1930s, etc. I've seen narrow than that. Many were just ravines that were in use for a year or so ...

 

[rbt]

But what were those gravel pits being turned into? Housing? If so, then the standards are much higher. We're talking about parkland being turned into a transit corridor. Not residential. Not commercial. Transportation.

No, we're taking rocky farmland and turning it into a gravel pit. Top layers of soil are removed and disposed of to get to the rock below.

Also, transportation goes where the land is. It has little to do with the dirt excavated and removed from the location; which is what requires the cleaning.


Anyway, this entire conversation is based on the rules in 10 years (central and eastern phases well underway) being the same as they are today, which won't be the case.

 

[Dan416]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Lord Ford decides.

 

[lafard]

They should design the trench so that the buildings can easily be built over. Or arrange for the development of the whole strip at one time and have the developers build the tunnel as they build their parking garages.

This system does work - it has been tried in other cities - but it's something best left for very long term thinking, like 20-30 years down the road. They do this in Alberta. However, the planning system in Ontario does not typically operate with that sort of time frame in mind, so it's not really that feasible. More likely than not they'd abandon the strategy halfway through and leave a stretch of buildings with tunnels in the basement sandwiched between other buildings without provisions. See the relatively short-lived plan to widen downtown roads by setting back new buildings from the road.

 

[gweed123]

Has anyone heard any rumblings or updates as to when Metrolinx's new plan for Toronto is going to be released? It's a little bit overdue

 

[nfitz]

Has anyone heard any rumblings or updates as to when Metrolinx's new plan for Toronto is going to be released? It's a little bit overdue

With Rob Ford's recent tantrum and attack on McGuinty because McGuinty refused to fund some city projects (the $ amount being roughly equal to Ford's tax cuts and freezes), and threat to publicly support Hudak ... I'd say that unless Ford rolls over on the Finch LRT issue, and backs down on the Eglinton East LRT being completely grade-separated, then I'd think a new Metrolinx plan release will be when Hell freezes over.

I'd expect the process will be that the mayor's office and Metrolinx will negotiate until they get something they agree on, that it will go to city council, and if it passes then Metrolinx will rubber stamp it. With the current silence, I'd assume that Metrolinx and the City have not come to an agreement.

 

[gweed123]

With Rob Ford's recent tantrum and attack on McGuinty because McGuinty refused to fund some city projects (the $ amount being roughly equal to Ford's tax cuts and freezes), and threat to publicly support Hudak ... I'd say that unless Ford rolls over on the Finch LRT issue, and backs down on the Eglinton East LRT being completely grade-separated, then I'd think a new Metrolinx plan release will be when Hell freezes over.

I'd expect the process will be that the mayor's office and Metrolinx will negotiate until they get something they agree on, that it will go to city council, and if it passes then Metrolinx will rubber stamp it. With the current silence, I'd assume that Metrolinx and the City have not come to an agreement.

Interesting analysis. I just figured that since nearly everyone involved has been speaking about Eglinton as a certainty rather than a "we'll see what happens". I figured that meant that they were somewhat close to reaching an agreement.

I do realize that the SELRT is probably done-for, but I just hope that the Eglinton-Scarborough line doesn't get delayed because they're squabbling over Finch West.

And Ford's recent antics are much like a child who spends his allowance on candy, and then threatens his parents with a tantrum if they don't give him more money because he needs to buy something else with that money.