Tunneling under the houses, per se, may be acceptable if it is safe.

Still surprised that the curved alignment of Option 3 is considered more cost effective than the straight Option 1.

The tunnel in Option 3 is not much shorter than in 1, the total length is a bit greater, where is the huge cost saving. On the other hand, connection to the Gateway cluster will be less convenient in Option 3, possibly resulting in the development being scaled down.
 
Tunneling under the houses, per se, may be acceptable if it is safe.

Still surprised that the curved alignment of Option 3 is considered more cost effective than the straight Option 1.

The tunnel in Option 3 is not much shorter than in 1, the total length is a bit greater, where is the huge cost saving. On the other hand, connection to the Gateway cluster will be less convenient in Option 3, possibly resulting in the development being scaled down.
Stations. Pure and simple. Tunnel boring isn't expensive, building deep stations 30m underground is. If RHC and Langstaff/Longbridge no longer have to be underground and dug, here are your cost savings.
 
Last edited:
All very interesting. It says "3 or 4 stations in total," so you have to figure they'll still try to do one of the three smaller stations. I'd guess Clark, due to the transit connectivity and centrality but clearly that's still TBD. Maybe that one development sells them on Royal Orchard? [Cummer seems like the real stinker if you have to choose, but again, who knows?] What's clear is they were given a price envelope, told they had to build Steeles and the final 2 stations and avoid going under the cemetery and see what else you can do within the budget.

That alignment map above probably isn't too far off except it likely doesn't cut east that far south if Royal Orchard is even remotely still under consideration. They wouldn't veer off Yonge until they have to, if for no other reason than to preserve the possibility of future stations. Either way, it's going to cut under the residential area and one might expect that between that and the loss of stations, some Markham/York Region people won't be thrilled.

The two above-ground stations kind of make sense and it can actually be good for Langstaff to be shifted to the centre of the development instead of way out on the Yonge side. And since they talked about decking over the rail corridor, it would be "above ground" but still potentially "underground" for the development.They must be losing the parking or have some clever solution there but I guess big parking lots shouldn't be the selling point for any of these stations.

Despite the end of that article, I don't think it will substantially undermine development projects in York Region. Even if there's no station at Clark, development's going to come along the whole corridor, from Steeles up. Royal Orchard is the one station where that makes a difference and I haven't been convinced that one makes sense anyway.

I look forward to seeing the details on Tuesday.



I'm long on record saying this makes no sense and I think that's even clearer. The line ONLY makes sense if you get development at Highway 7. The economy of scale of digging to Steeles to build 2 stations, one of which is already walking distance of the terminal is just not there.

The extra development uptake at Clark and Royal Orchard is obviously a factor but it's minimal compared to the mega-density at Highway 7 and that's why the business case is there, and has always been there, even if the only stops are Steeles and 7. Even if my opinion were wrong, that's what the Metrolinx report is going to say.

EDIT - per what I said above, this didn't take long!
(In fairness, if I lived in this neighbourhood, especially with the limited information these news reports, I'd also be wondering how the hell they're digging a subway under my neighbourhood.)
View attachment 306425
What do you mean by on Tuesday? Is there a meeting or something planning on being released?
 
What do you mean by on Tuesday? Is there a meeting or something planning on being released?

My typo - the Metrolinx board meeting where it will be discussed is next Thursday.
When the Globe initially posted the "scoop" I don't think it was clear the documents would actually be released as soon as today.

 
Royal Orchard has basically 1 big development site and not much other potential.
Poking around on Google Maps, I see room for 8-12 towers between plaza redevelopment and tower in the park intensification. Might not be that bad. Is it viable to go elevated north of the CN corridor? Hopefully the Feds pitch in money to build Cummer, Clark and Royal Orchard on day 1.
 
My typo - the Metrolinx board meeting where it will be discussed is next Thursday.
When the Globe initially posted the "scoop" I don't think it was clear the documents would actually be released as soon as today.

no worries just was a tad confused. I like to attend all the meetings and have them on my calendar lol
 
Poking around on Google Maps, I see room for 8-12 towers between plaza redevelopment and tower in the park intensification. Might not be that bad. Is it viable to go elevated north of the CN corridor?

IMHO, no. For one thing, there's the Thornhill Heritage District and then there's the valley where the golf courses are.
There is SOME redevelopment potential around Royal Orchard but the valleylands to the south make it a bit more detached from the larger corridor than Clark and Cummer, especially on the west side of Yonge. If you look at how close the low-rise houses come to Yonge Street as you go north, as compared to further south, by Clark, you also see the challenges of going too high and deep there.

I don't doubt you can get MORE density but I don't think you can get enough to justify a subway station with nothing but walk-in business.
 
Poking around on Google Maps, I see room for 8-12 towers between plaza redevelopment and tower in the park intensification. Might not be that bad. Is it viable to go elevated north of the CN corridor? Hopefully the Feds pitch in money to build Cummer, Clark and Royal Orchard on day 1.

Able to post the Google Maps link for where the station would be located?
 
It's a shame we never bundle suburban subways with intensification. I'm sure the BCRs would improve substantially if everything within walking distance of the stations was upzoned thoughtfully.

IIRC, one or two towers were proposed for the golf course to the south west of that intersection.

Looking at the map again, it actually looks like Royal Orchard has at least as much redevelopment potential as Clark, maybe even more: 6-8 towers for Clark, 8-12 for RO.
Able to post the Google Maps link for where the station would be located?
 
Last edited:
Able to post the Google Maps link for where the station would be located?

Here's a link. It helps to see the topography if you don't know the area, as there's a big valley to the south.
1616090579501.png
 
Its 400 metres! That's like bus/LRT stop spacing. For reference, North York Centre to Sheppard is nearly double the length (800m) than High Tech to Bridge.

Yeah... Ain't nothing perfect.
Finch to Cummer would only be about 500m. I'm sure they've tried to push High Tech north and Bridge south but there's only so many possibilities.
It seems pointlessly close but I think if you understand the transit infrastructure and the master plans for north and south of Highway 7 you can appreciate what they've tried to do within the constraints.
 
If there's one benefit to this subway extension, it's that it puts developer pressure to make those golf courses disappear

The Ladies Golf Club has already sold off land for development over by Bayview Avenue. A Don River tributary runs through the bottom of that valley so I'm not sure how much of that land is even developable (both due to floodplain issues and simple topography). The country club sits atop the valley so I'm sure the part with their buildings could be redeveloped but once you drop off to the golf course, I think it's less clear.
 
Update from the Councillor. IMHO, Metrolinx should either move the High Tech station further north; or cut it and use the money to build one of the Royal Orchard or Clark. Cummer should not be cut in any scenario.
View attachment 306461
In computerize, "or" means either one or the other or both (all), the "exclusive or" means either one or the other but NOT both.

 
Last edited:
In computerize, "or" means either one or the other or both (all), the "exclusive or" means either one or the other but NOT both.

The IBC makes the case (I don't have it in front of me) that when you draw the radius around Steeles and around Finch, there aren't very many people around Cummer who won't be able to walk to one of the other stations. In a perfect world, i'd like to see it there but if we're cutting stations, Cummer and Royal Orchard (which, let's not forget, was already cut and then semi-revived) are the obvious targets, IMHO.

High Tech will likely shift as far north as it can... but I'm not sure how far that is because of the trail tracks and storage yard.
 

Back
Top