The recently-formed Toronto Relief Line Alliance has just launched a campaign to showcase the benefits of a new subway line from downtown Toronto to Don Mills & Sheppard. Unlike the less-than-arms-length SmartTrack advocates, FAST, the Relief Line Alliance isn’t trying to make any politicians look good or prop up the remnants of an ill-considered election platform.
Of particular interest on their site is a map where readers can see travel time savings possible for various trips to downtown. All of the numbers they use are based on published reports notably Metrolinx’ own evaluation of such a route from June 2015.
Now that Toronto can finally discuss something other than John Tory’s signature project, the new Alliance can provide a voice and a forum for a much-needed part of our transit system.
City Hall and Queen’s Park must get their heads out of the sand and make the Relief Line an integral part of medium term, “see it in our lifetime” plans. The time for transit plans pandering to pet projects and political egos is over.
Steve Munro 
The preference is to have the end walls of the future station in place before the TBMs arrive, then bore right through them. Not only is simpler (and therefore cheaper) than building the walls later, apparently it tends to create a better joint between the wall and the tunnel.
I see this suggestion quite often but there is one potential problem that is ignored: the launch site. Unlike what the name suggests, this area is not needed only for the start of the tunneling; it must have unfettered access to tunnels for the ‘care and feeding’ of the TBMs, including removing the spoil and supplying the tunnel liners.
Once a portion of the line is in service, this access is no longer available; therefore, a new ‘launch site’ needs to be created. Since this will mean removing the tunnel walls, it would be best if it were done within the station box. Unfortunately, stations tend to be situated at major intersections, which tend to be developed on all four corners. If using the station is chosen as the way to proceed, then the break to allow part of the line to open can be made only at a future station that has a significant open area immediately adjacent to it.
LikeLike
With the impending planning recommendation of a Queen DRL alignment, in part due to costs, it seems like the city screwed itself by not protecting for a DRL bridge right of way across the Don and as a result we might end up with a less than optimal alignment for this mega project.
LikeLike
When people talk about tunneling a few kilometers every year, they should mean building a station every year. Tunnel the whole line in one shot (within reason) and then each year’s construction would be a new station plus track. No emergency exits are needed in the areas that are not in service yet. The extraction site would become a new launch site when the line is built out, and again, the tunneling would be ahead of the stations that open.
I imagined the subway yard being at the North Toronto Wastewater Treatment plant, just beyond the Millwood Bridge. This of course requires an additional 2 stations and maybe 2.5 kilometers to be built in phase 1. If the DRL was extended to Eglinton, the main route could be from Scarborough along Eglinton to the DRL. Making Eglinton/DRL a main transfer station is easy since both are constructed at the same time. This way, the Pape/DRL interchange would not have the demand, making its size and construction in the busy area much easier.
I have always figured the cut-and-cover is less disruptive than boring, especially downtown. Tunneling requires launch site which is open for a long time. It also requires deep stations (which take longer to build) which are cut-and-cover anyway. Stations are also typically at major intersections. Thus, the intersection are a construction zone for much longer with tunneling than if shallow cut-and-cover is used along the entire length. Also, if stations are close enough together, the 150m to 200m long station boxes mean that maybe over 25% of the route is a (deep) cut-and-cover excavation anyway. Cut-and-cover has shorter station construction times, shorter overall construction times and less ventilation and overall costs. It is also more appealing when construction is completed since less time is needed to access the trains. If properly explained, it could be acceptable. Just like LRT being viewed as inferior to subway, I think the reason cut-and-cover is not used is mostly a matter of perception.
LikeLike
DavidAH_Ca wrote about the need for “care and feeding” of the TBM’s in contiual operation. I admit it to glossing over that detail and to the dropping in of stations later, but these are smaller issues.
For the stations, the potential locations would be somewhat obvious (look at the original Younge extension proposed stations) and jet grouting the headers would be a small, but disruptive step. On the other hand, North York Center shows that “aftermarket” stations can be built. And I would guess that if this became a “standard prctice” technologic innovation would find a “better way”.
Steve: Actually, North York Station was provided for in the original build by leaving a level section in the structure (which was cut and cover, not bored) and later built around. This is comparatively simple with a shallow cut and cover tunnel, not so easy if the tunnel is a deep bore.
As for keeping the launch pit open, I think stealing the 3P plan would do the trick. A public private partnership would allow a kickstart to redevelopment. Target several landowners along the proposed route (during ROW assesment phase) for thier land (site) to be a launch shaft during consruction phase and a station once the line is complete. Propose a trade – let the construction team use your land for the construction period (seen the TYSSE holes for a while – so cap it out at 10 years, or so) and the land owner gets his land back with a direct connection to the station integrated into his new development project and a compensatory grace period (20-25 years; to cover the construction period and to compensate for loss of revenue) on the property taxes.
This gets the public side the hole for “care and feeding”, kickstarted development, and eventually (once big bussiness sees the plan in action) a carrot.
The Private sector gets 5 to 8 years to plan a re-development at a point with locked in transit access, a tax free grace period to lure in tennants (or defray their own costs) and for a short time period the extra traffic and advertising of their location being the end of the line.
The only long term problem I see is (like the old CPR) line station land speculation. One way to kill this would be expropriation of the site and then auctioning off the location to developers with proceeds split between the original owner (cost of land) and the city (increase in value due to transit).
Perhaps, but I have a hard time seeing either one (cut & cover or tunnel) being less than disruptive on the Queen streetcar. Crossing the Don (above or below) will be fun. And any construction of a station location at Broadview will be nightmarish.
Steve: It is important to remember that years ago, when a Queen subway was proposed, that the idea of simply demolishing buildings one side of the street was considered a potential benefit to a run-down section of town. No more. The property is worth far too much.
LikeLike
Today’s Globe and Mail had a map, showing the stations on the DRL. Perhaps the Globe’s map is merely notional. But, if it is not, I thought it was remarkable that it did not show the DRL sharing a station that was actually on the Yonge line. The Globe’s map showed stations at Sherbourne and Queen, and at Nathan Phillips Square — with nothing in between.
How far can transit authorities expect a rider to walk, if they want to transfer from one route, to another? I don’t like the walk from Union Station to the Union Pearson Express platform. Would a walk from a station more or less at Yonge and Wellington, to Union Station, be as long as a walk from Nathan Phillips Square to Queen?
Steve: A station at City Hall is only very slightly more distant from Queen Station than a Bay/Wellington Station would be from Union, and that does not allow for traipsing through Union to actually reach a train.
Could we let commuters who want to transfer to a GO train, via, or the UPX, walk from a Wellington station on the DRL through the existing PATH system? Or should we worry that the existing PATH users would resent being bowled over by a waves of a couple of hundred passengers getting off the DRL, every couple of minutes?
But would the TTC have to provide dedicated pedestrian transfer corridors for commuters who get off at Nathan Phillips Square station, who want to transfer at Queen, and commuters who get off at Queen, who want to tranfer to the DRL? Making them use the PATH would not only bowl over PATH strollers, but might it make the turnstiles a bottleneck when they wanted to re-enter TTC property?
I am old enough to remember when there were a pair of conveyer belts that cut a minute or two off the time it took to get from the east-west platforms at Spadina, to the north-south platforms.
It was an interesting question — if you were arriving on an eastbound train, and wanted to go north, to, say, Yorkdale, would you save time if you got off at Spadina, and tried to get to the Northbound platform as quickly as possible? Similarly, if you were arriving on a southbound train, would you save time getting off at Spadina, and trying to get to the Westbound platform? It required less effort to travel one extra station to St George, before you made your transfer.
How long has it been since the TTC removed those conveyor belts? Fifteen years? I’d guess that about 80 percent of the people who walked from one platform to another, at Spadina, now opt to make their transfer at St George, without regard to their eventual destination.
Should this be regarded as a practical test of the limit to how far riders will walk between stations?
Steve: I think not. Have you been to New York and endured the treks between some stations? The idea that every transfer connection will be between adjacent platforms is rather quaint. Nice if it works, but not if physically building it would be impossible. The space under Queen Station is far too small for a subway with the demand projected for the DRL.
LikeLike
DRL proposed stations on Queen appear to be at Bay (City Hall), Sherbourne, Sumach and Broadview. These appear to be logical (fact based) choices for the most part.
Broadview as a key relief point for the King and Queen streetcars (assuming the Queen car survives, Yonge and Bloor cars vanished with the opening of the new lines) and Bay (with direct City Hall) access is a no brainer. Big issue here is how to build the station and keep service.
Sumach does not have any north /south connection to make it a good location for a stop. I would think a stop closer to the Don (in the King Queen River parcel, with a link to a Go Don station) would amke for a vibrant transit hub. I am guessing that engineering a water tight station that close to the Don river would be too expensive, and space for a Go station there is tight. If this is the case I would forget a station in this location. Abandon a stop, no local service you say…why we just keep the Queen Streetcar. Running track south on Sumach (very tight) would allow a link to King (potential short turn/subway link) and the new Cherry Loop and maybe East Bayfront.
Steve: Having actually walked that piece of Sumach many times, the idea of a streetcar line on it is amusing, but highly unlikely.
Sherbourne has a good North/South connection to (75 Bus) transit. But other than that, why a stop here? Rough in for later, if demand/development warrant. Otherwise lets save a buck.
Steve: By the time the DRL is built, Queen and Sherbourne will be surrounded by condos. You have not been paying attention to construction creeping north from King, not to mention some of the development applications already in the works.
I would love to see Old City Hall used (the building it is a beatiful site) as the surface station and with the right station box position could allow easy transfer to Queen station. Loop tracks around Bay, Albert and James, or an alternate would be to run the tracks up Bay and loop around the Bus Terminal. This would allow a Queen Streetcar to loop the station and exit either way.
Steve: Loop? With subway trains? Not happening as the curves would be far too tight.
My biggest problem is the long term disruption the station building and tunnel boring will cause. To create more fexibility prior to the construction of the DRL, I think the streetcar tracks on Parliment should be extended to Castle Frank station. This mini DRL would allow the King cars a way to avoid the construction in the Queen/Don and Broadview areas. Track on Richmond, Adelaide and Church should be readied for the Queen car diversion during construction near City Hall and Sherbourne. I fear the loss of the Queen streetcars. Except for the direct access to City Hall (which the political types will see as a good thing) dropping south to Richmond would save the streetcar, move the disruption onto a one way street (simplyfying traffic re-routing) and make the mob with the torches and pitchforks walk further to City Hall.
Steve, it looks like we may need to Save Our Streetcars again!
Steve: The Parliament/Castle Frank link has been a pipedream for years, but Castle Frank was not built to take the load of streetcar track and vehicles. Also the station is far too small for use as a major transfer point. As for other diversions, who knows what we will see, but the project is over a decade away and I am not going to start drawing fantasy track maps of downtown in anticipation. There will be plenty of the streetcar systen left even with this version of the DRL (just think of King Street for starters).
LikeLike
Are you saying that if they were to build south from Don Mills, there would be no connection to the Sheppard line, no transfer trackage?
Steve: Yes.
LikeLike
The Globe & Mail article shows an arrow north from Pape, but cites no route or stations. You are saying they should push to Eglinton in one step, but it looks like they are not listening and have not started to plan.
So being the nice transit kibitzers lets get out our maps and high-lighters. Alrighty then, we know Point A is Pape station and Point B is Science (Eglinton and Don Mills) Center. How do the dots get connected? And I thought there needs to be two bridges?
Steve: A huge shortcoming in the current study is that it only looked at the section south from Danforth for the simple reason that when the terms of reference were set, the idea that the DRL needed to go any further north was not on anyone’s radar (except the long term advocates). Even the TTC didn’t believe in the need for a DRL when this started. It is a typical example of what passes for “planning” in Toronto.
North from Pape is fairly simple as there are not that many options. You talk of points A and B, but omit a vital intermediate node, Thorncliffe Park. A line up Pape would pop out of the hillside on a bridge over to the south end of Thorncliffe Park, then continue northeast. A second smaller bridge would be needed to reach Don Mills Road. No I have not done the detailed work on where exactly these would go, and it is NOT a debate I plan to host here.
LikeLike
Nope, I meant streetcars! If they build the DRL under Queen, history shows that the streetcars tracks on the surface get taken up. Do you think that the Queen streetcar will be the exception?
Steve: Sorry, I misread you. A lot will depend on just how the Queen subway is built. Obviously stations will be a big upheaval wherever they are. Then the question will be what demand remains on the streetcar system. King West won’t be affected by this at all, and I suspect there will be little change on King East. Some transfer traffic at Broadview, maybe, but someone who is already on a King car and going to that corridor would have no reason to change to a subway that drops them on Queen. As for Queen there is the growing west end of the line that would remain.
As I have said in a few other posts/replies, it is far too soon to start redrawing the map of the streetcar network considering that this project will not even begin construction until well into the 2020s. Meanwhile there are areas that desperately need better (or new) streetcar service and they take priority over figuring out the new special work layout at Queen and wherever.
LikeLike
Pape Station as the link is a poor choice. The link should be further east, the further the better, perhaps at Coxwell.
1. Present subway traffic always funnels to the centre creating an inherent bottleneck. Putting it further east might have travelers at Pape travel east before they travel south thus drawing traffic away from the core.
2. Pape is congested. One lane street traffic. An old neighbourhood that will resist being turned into condo land. The city will grow, putting it at Pape is shortsighted for where the city will be in 50 years.
3. Putting the station further east means the subway may run for longer under Queen Street and perhaps Dundas serving those areas better as well as the future development in the docklands (east) areas.
4. To my mind the Spadina subway was placed far too close to the Yonge line when it was built. We are doing the same now by putting the DRL too close the Yonge line. Putting it at Broadview for instance is even more of a bad choice for a host of reasons. Why can’t it be put east, Coxwell, Woodbine?
Steve: Coxwell is too far east for a line that will pick up Thorncliffe Park with a northerly extension. The important point for demand on the DRL is the riders it will pick up north of Danforth, not the transfer traffic off of the BD subway wherever it might cross. That’s particularly important if SmartTrack skims off riders in Scarborough who now board at Kennedy.
LikeLike
At the risk of drawing lines on a map, if the choice of a Queen alignment is due to the lower cost of crossing the Don at Queen vs Eastern (and slightly shorter route distance), dare I say it wouldn’t be impossible to snake the line back to Front/Wellington.
My idea would be to follow King at the crossing and duck down to Front Street via a cut and cover tunnel across the car dealer/Staples lot at Parliament. Might as well expropriate it and do something useful with it now as it’s only a matter of time before those two buildings disappear to redevelopment. From a quick look at Google maps I guesstimate the curves wouldn’t be any worse than those west of Union approaching the University line.
Having curves like that in the middle of the line isn’t ideal and I’m sure the TTC would object but I truly believe a more southerly alignment would be better for the city in the now (let alone long term) and disagree with planning’s recommendation. Their choice is what I would call a classic case of false economy.
Steve: Actually, that’s not as simple as it looks as you are skirting the site of Ontario’s first parliament buildings. This was involved in a complex land swap among many parties including the old TTC loop at King Street. There might also be curve radius problems with what you propose.
LikeLike
In this comment I wrote about the several hundred yard walk from a station at Nathan Phillips Square, to the Queen station. I voiced a concern over asking commuters to leave TTC property, and make their way past regular PATH strollers, to get from one station to another.
Pointing to how lightly used the passage between the east-west and north-south platforms of Spadina station became, after the conveyor belts were removed. Those conveyor belts cut a minute or so from the time to get from one platform to another, for fast strollers, and allowed the less athletic to get to the other platform with little effort. When they were removed usage of the passage dropped precipitously.
I have only ridden the NYC subway forty years ago, and then only a couple of times. My main recollection was how dirty and poorly lit it seemed, compared with the TTC — oh, and that it was patrolled by special transit police.
Surely, taking transit should not be a test of a commuter’s endurance?
I question whether the comparison with the NYC system is fair. NYC commuters, going to congested Manhattan, won’t find the idea of driving their cars instead as attractive as Toronto commuters.
So, if the walk between platforms, at Spadina, is not too long, how far is too far?
Will the DRL and the Yonge line remain in operation until 2065 or 2100? How many commuters will take that walk, per day, in order to transfer between lines? 10,000, 20,000? That walk will result in a loss of productivity of a substantial fraction of a billion person-years. Surely it is worth a few extra hundred million now to prevent a loss of a billion person-years of productivity over the next century? Even if the east-west platforms for Queen station have to be tunneled deep into bedrock, several storeys below the north-south platforms, to avoid sewers, electrical conduits, and other infrastructure, surely preventing that future loss of productivity makes the expense worthwhile?
LikeLike
If there ever was a “pet transit project” of mine, the Relief Line is it. I would have the “D” in “DRL” represent Don Mills, not Downtown. I’m happy that the DRL is finally getting some oomph; it has been the orphan major project after the SSE and SmartTrack. It has been hurt by the lack of support from the city mayors present and past.
Indeed, this is a more important major transit project than SSE and SmartTrack. An all-new much-needed line, not an extension.
Due to lack of political support, it is much behind the project timeline of the SSE. I am reading that there is no EA nor is one about to start. There have been some ridership statistics recently published which show the huge benefit in relieving the Yonge subway (especially if fully built to Sheppard), and more numbers are coming soon from UofT.
I am not happy with some of the parameters being imposed before the project’s scope can be fully developed. Biggest problem is that the terms of reference have been set that the project is only to be between the Bloor-Danforth subway and downtown. Who sets this TOR? How can we change it? Last year we had a chance to submit input from the public, yet this TOR was in place, so I assume that my comments were not taken at full value.
Second, the Toronto Planning Department has come out with a Queen Street alignment in the downtown segment, as a given. There could not be a worse choice! Two reasons given for Queen St. One, that there would be a stop in front of City Hall. Second, crossing the Don River will be least expensive if using a Queen St. alignment. I think that these are bogus reasons. Somebody’s pet project, a dream of the Queen subway resurrected.
In August 2014, a group called Urban Toronto did an analysis of the downtown alignments. Their recommendation was to avoid Queen or King Streets, due to the chaos of construction and permanent loss of transit options. Wellington came out the best choice, and Richmond or Adelaide was good, too. They recommended that the line follow Wellington-Front-Eastern. If you look at the map, Eastern crosses the Don River just below Queen. Can there be any real difference in a few meters, which can be jiggled anyway? So, false argument. Besides, how much money do they think it will save, versus the extra cost of building on Queen St.?
Steve will know what the underground infrastructure and soil/rock conditions are. Whether cut & cover or boring tunnels, let the engineers figure it out. If the subway were on Richmond Street, that is only a few steps from Queen. The mezzanine will connect with the underground PATH system, so you’re right there anyway.
Regarding crossing the Don River, I have not seen any formal studies on it but I have seen a few comments on this blog before about it. Latest comment was that the crossing ought to be above the river, not below it. And the development of the Lever Bros. lands would justify a more southern route to be considered. Plus, that gives a simpler route to connect to the CNR rail corridor.
I am still not sure about using the rail corridor. It is a diagonal & shorter route. It appears to be too narrow for sharing space for surface tracks, and the subway needs to cross the train tracks.
Further along the route, most will agree with connecting with the Gerrard Square redevelopment. Whether the line proceeds up Pape or Donlands, either is a good choice. Donlands allows a direct connection to the Greenwood subway yard. There is already a wye connection from Greenwood yard to the Bloor-Danforth subway.
But, proceeding to Eglinton is most crucial, yet this is excluded by the TOR. While there is still time, the DRL and Crosstown LRT connection at Don Mills Rd. & Eglinton needs to be planned. This is urgent. A connection here allows people heading downtown to avoid the Bloor-Yonge station.
At Sheppard, there is a problem with the alignment of Sheppard’s Don Mills station. Extending Sheppard subway to STC is also being reconsidered. Need further thinking this out. Maybe LRT instead of subway on both routes.
LikeLike
I asked google directions to tell me the pedestrian disance between Bay and Sherbourne (1.1 km), Bay and Sumach (2.0 km), Bay and Broadview (2.7 km).
When the Bloor subway first replaced the Bloor streetcar, it replaced a 12.4 stretch. Two years later the Bloor subway was extended past the endpoints of the Bloor streetcar. Are you suggesting that the Queen streetcar route be split in two? Long Branch to Roncesvalles and Unilever Station to Victoria Park? Or Long Branch to Nathan Phillips Square Station?
On the other hand, would it really make sense to tear up the Queen car when the subway segment is only 2.7 kilometres long? With such a short segment a substantial portion of the streetcar riders’ destination would require two transfers — to the DRL, and then back to the streetcar. That would suck.
Currently, riders on the Queen streetcar get off at Yonge, if they want to take a Yonge subway. Every westbound passenger on a Queen streetcar, who wants to transfer to a Yonge subway has to walk from Bay to Yonge. That would suck. Every eastbound passenger would have to transfer to the DRL, for just three stops. That would suck. Ironic, when one of the arguments for the SSE was to eliminate the need for BD riders having to transfer, in order to get to STC.
Steve: But the transfer would give them the opportunity to buy a latte enroute and enjoy the true downtowner experience.
I agree that Queen and Sumach is a less than optimal choice of station. Perhaps they think riders who live in the Canary and Distillery districts, and riders who live in Regent Park, won’t mind walking 500, 600, 700 meters. If I were a transit rider, living in the Distillery District, or eastern two thirds of the Canary District it would be less walking for me, and might even be faster, to catch the Cherry Street streetcar, to King station, if I wanted to transfer to the Yonge line.
Faster? When a streetcar might take several minutes longer? Yes, because google directions estimates that a walk from Bay to Yonge takes three minutes, and I have to include the extra minutes to walk to Queen.
How many stops should the DRL have? It needs to have intermediate stops, as it goes south of Danforth, so suburban riders headed to a final destination north of Queen, King, or Wellington, won’t have to backtrack, and head north again. A stop somewhere on the Unilever campus, or in the dense Canary District, may make sense, no matter what. But could it be argued that other stops, nearer to Yonge, are already richly served enough by transit that they don’t provide enough benefit? According to google direction it takes seven minutes to get from Queen station to Bloor and Yonge station. Bloor to Queen is one concession, the same distance between Eglinton and Lawrence, which google direction says takes four minutes.
Is forgoing stations less likely to be used, on the portions of the DRL already well served by transit, worthwhile, if it cuts a couple more minutes from the duration of the Pape to Yonge trip? Mind you, it would make throwing away that advantage by imposing a three minute hike from Bay to Yonge, even more annoying.
LikeLike
I must stress the fact that if the DRL is to be successful the design must find ways to improve its net present value. I would strongly suggest looking into increasing the number of stations between Parliament and University Ave.
Steve: The NPV will be better helped by getting more riders, although this requires a longer line north to Eglinton and beyond. If we wanted to prove the DRL isn’t worth the cost we would only look at the south end of the line. Oh, wait a minute, that’s just what the city did.
LikeLike
Well, we can put it along Coxwell if you want the subway line to do double duty as a sewage trunk line. (Have people already forgotten about that sewage pipe line after the recent work to prevent a catastrophic failure?)
LikeLike
I thought the parliament site was on the south side of Front. I admit it may very well not be possible to do this. I certainly haven’t done any engineering studies. All I did was overlay a satellite image of the street grid west of Union where the University line runs and dropped it over an image of the Staples/Porsche lot and it looked like it might work. The presence of the storage track under Front/University makes a comparison tricky and of course the TTC doesn’t want to build small curves like this.
Steve: My concern was more with the owners of the land you propose to occupy who might not be too keen to be turfed off after going through a complex transaction. The car dealership vacated the parliament site which has yet to be developed for any “historic” purpose.
From an urban design standpoint I don’t think anyone would mourn the loss of the big box store or the dealership as both buildings are quite ugly and don’t fit in with the red brick neighbours. If need be I’m sure the (recent construction?) building on the southeast corner could be knocked over to make it fit. This would likely cost tens of millions for expropriation and this gets into Peter’s point.
We seemingly have no engineering studies and no real costing for any possible options and alternatives as a basis for comparison. We are simply told going 150m south would be too hard and too expensive and tada, a route is chosen by City Planning to be recommended! What makes their professional word better than any of our amateur ones if there’s no engineering to back it up? If I’m wrong and they do in fact have such work and numbers, we’d all like to see it.
What about Metrolinx and their YRNS which talk about taking the line north of Danforth and west to Union West? Planning says NOT INVENTED HERE SORRY!
Maybe the person who proposed Queen in 1968 moved on to Planning and has been hanging on all these years waiting for the moment to revive his/her baby for a retirement present? Much like the Bloor Yonge rebuild project which won’t die because it has a champion lurking in the deep dark depths of the TTC. Perhaps the fix was in from the very beginning.
I haven’t seen the analysis you are referring to but I do remember this interview with the TTC’s DRL PRO from almost 3 years ago. Quoting from Andrew King:
Wellington and Adelaide were given as options. He made sure to mention there were no engineering studies done. Does Planning speak for the TTC now? Do they have those engineering studies that inform the course change to the “most problematic” current choice?
If I’m not mistaken King+Wellington scored higher than Queen+Richmond in the city building, growth, and experience categories in the consultation studies. City Planning must know a lot more about hard dollar cost differences of this alternative than they’re letting on.
I’m hoping there’s actual meat in the report when it gets revealed but given what council has in its hands from Planning regarding the SSE, I’m very doubtful. The fact a planner would spout BS about a City Hall stop being great because it’s the psychological heart of the city does not make me hopeful.
(Not serious idea) We could tear down and rebuild the Eastern/Richmond/Adelaide interchange with a second lower deck for rail. However potential grade changes on the road might be too much. Replacing 500-1000m of bridges could be way too expensive. More expensive than digging under the river and maintaining that tunnel though? Who really knows? Nobody!
For all this talk I’ve heard over the last few years about coordinated work between the different agencies for the RL it still looks like Metrolinx, TTC, and City Planning are all very much off in their own separate little bubbles.
Steve: I agree that Planning has become rather glib about its work.
LikeLike
To be fair, the project does have some merit after a Relief line is built. Over time, the number of riders transferring through Bloor-Yonge will rise again and thus it’s best to get ahead of the problem once a viable alternate route is in place. It’s just that it’s nuts to think the work can be done without finishing a Relief Line first and it’s outright lunacy to think that it will replace the need to build a Relief Line.
LikeLike
I am rather concerned that this seems to have been set in stone so early, however there was a reason for this being the alignment suggested way back at the dawn of time.
Queen Street is not so far north as King and Bay is much of a walk, and this is the defacto centre of the financial district. It is a mere 1.3 KM from the water, less than a KM from the Gardiner and 2KM from Bloor, the natural boundaries that one would consider. It will mean effective, crosstown support from essentially Front to Dundas, if you consider 500-600 meters a reasonable walk added to the walk along the line to a station. It will however mean that another way of connecting a western approaches train station will need to be found {that may well be a moving walkway}. It is a fair distance from the CNE (1km), should it go that far, but well, a short section of high frequency streetcar, would close this well (and not that long a walk when you consider much of what happens there is outdoor anyway, and would not be great in poor weather, other than of course the boat show and like events), and it would support, as Steve noted growth to the North. One can hope that it would extend to the Queensway, and have a good linking station for an LRT. One of the primary goals of the DRL, should be in providing much improved linking access to much more transit across the city, north, east and west, as well as supporting a large area of future growth. I suspect that this was the thinking from city planning perspective. It also just may be, they know something we do not, like the other good routes may be effectively blocked with existing or already permitted structures.
LikeLike
Some tunnel boring machines mount cutterheads optimized for boring through rock. Others are optimized for boring through looser material — like clay. I think there may be other material too loose for boring, altogether.
So, where is bedrock?
A couple of recent google searches brought me a couple of pages with useful maps I thought I would share. This article on “Toronto’s swelling bedrock”, in Spacing magazine linked to this beautiful map
The map is on the third page of the pdf, and it may take 30 seconds or so to load.
Of particular interest to us is that, at the bottom of the map there are two cross-sections, showing the underground geology under the Yonge subway line and the Bloor-Danforth subway line. On the Yonge line the cross-section shows that, above St Clair, the surface continues its gradual rise in elevation, while the underlying bedrock goes flat — meaning that, at Eglinton and Lawrence, bedrock is over 100 meters below the surface. However, downtown, the cross-section shows shallow bedrock — consistent with photo excursion I have taken to nearby excavations for new construction. I found bedrock at less than two stories at the corner of Parliament and King, where another reader suggested an expropriation for a cut and cover diversion of the DRL, from King to Front.
These cutter heads, they have super-hard rollers, on them, made of tungsten, or some other super-hard substance. As I understand it, when going through rock, they don’t drill through the naked rock. Rather, the borer presses horizontally, while the rollers roll circularly across the surface, putting great pressure on points on it, and breaking it up into pieces small enough to be swept away.
I think both the cutter heads optomized for rock, and those optomized for clay, have those superhard rollers on them, but the rock cutterheads have more, which on the clay cutterheads …
Even if the DRL’s tunnel goes under Queen, the TBMs may encounter both rock, and clay.
This rock swell implies the tunnel will need a liner, even if it is through rock.
LikeLike
Here is another map of the Toronto area with some interesting info regarding how deep bedrock is found, in general, and specifically how deep bedrock is found in the Don Valley.
I linked to this beautiful map, earlier today. This second map isn’t beautiful, is harder to read, and could be misleading.
I think it shows three spots, in Toronto, where high volume glacial rivers, that predated our current rivers, carved channels into the bedrock that underlies Toronto. I think it shows a channel a couple of kilometers east of the Humber River, near Grenadier Pond. I think it shows a near Coxwell. And finally it shows one that, (coincidentally ?) lies under the lower Don River.
The contour lines on this map are interpolations of sedimentary bedrock in our area.
One confusing element of the map is that some of the interpolated contour lines are only ten feet apart, while most of them are fifty feet apart. This misleading makes some areas look like they have a much steeper gradient than they actually do.
When the map is blown up, you can see individual dots, particularly downtown. Bedrock in most places from the Don River, to Bay Street? About 230 to 250 feet above sea level.
Bedrock’s lowest point, near Queen Street? 173.
Bedrock’s lowest point, near Eastern Avenue? 151.
Hopefully there are better, more detailed surveys.
LikeLike
Dear Steve Why agonize over a relief line that will be 30 years in the making when one is already in place! I’m referring to the former CP downtown connection from Leaside which GO owns. The track, though covered with brush and a few trees, is in fairly good shape. The bridge over the Don Valley appears to be well maintained. At a mere 50K per hour, a rail diesel car could be at Union Station in 20 minutes from the Superstore parking lot in Leaside. Better still, bring over the unneeded UPX cars, that would be all of them, and let her rip. The ultimate in low cost SMARTRACK.
Steve: Actually the bridge needs to be rebuilt. Running any service on the Don Sub requires access to the CPR corridor where it connects at Leaside, and to make a dent in subway traffic, it would have to be a substantial service, not an RDC or UPX train every now and then.
LikeLike
Do you know what GO had in mind, when they bought this?
Steve: In the original Big Move plan, there were services on the CPR corridors, and Metrolinx grabbed the Don Sub to ensure it was not abandoned (although it has not been fit for actual operation for years). The CPR corridor is their freight mainline and will continue to be so for a very long time, notwithstanding proposals to divert their traffic further north.
LikeLike
I was reading the finer points of the report justifying the choice by planning of a Queen Street alignment for RL. It felt to me that some of the reasoning injected into the report was invented to support the lesser of the options however that might only be my interpretation.
I know on this blog you’ve brought up the WWLRT as one of those projects that keeps popping up year after year unchanged without re-evaluation despite changing conditions and circumstances so that got me thinking if this is another case of the scourge of unchanging plans.
This (Queen RL) and the closely related B-Y reno, the King transit mall, and the Jane LRT are ones that come to mind immediately. At this point I’d almost expect them to copy and paste the old King transit mall proposals into the new study/report due next year and call it a day.
Any thoughts?
Steve: Yes, I can’t help feeling that the justification for the Queen alignment is a bit forced, especially when you look at the scorings in the comparison of the two alignments. My gut feeling is that the dominant consideration is ease of construction and cost.
LikeLike