[Sagaris88]

Whoops my bad, I took another look and the document from 2013 that I linked to compared options 1, 2, and 2a instead of 1, 2, and 3. So yes, it's new but I doubt it was any more involvement from him personally than a directive to "innovate" to stay within a project budget and avoid unnecessary blowback.



This is Metrolinx's curve

View attachment 309398

Eyeballing it looks like a ~430 meter curve, which is already not great.

View attachment 309404

This is your alignment, the curve seems to be a little over ~150 meters. The cemetery is only ~300 meters wide and you are turning more than ~110 degrees, so for you to do the turn entirely within the cemetery means that <300 meters is the maximum minimum turn radius. But at that point you would just be cutting across it, not staying to the one end.

View attachment 309397

So yes, the curve is tighter with your alignment, which is natural when you only have a strip of land to work with vs. an entire neighbourhood to tunnel under.

The the bigger question is: You've avoided the disruption of tunnelling 25 meters below some people's homes to instead:

1. Create an at-grade corridor running through those same people's backyards
2. Eliminate the potential "rumbling" of deep underground trains and replace it with the screech of trains navigating a tight curve above ground (curves are responsible for almost all the noise and wear-and-tear on tracks)
3. Carve up a good chunk of the cemetery for the TBM extraction point, portal, curve and at-grade corridor

I wasn't trying to do a reductio ad absurdum on your post, I was suggesting what I thought was a better option if the cemetery can be moved. The difference between option 3 and your alignment is that option 3 (the original, unrefined option 3 from the IBC) went under the cemetery and came at-grade in the CN corridor, so it doesn't involve moving bodies. It might be worth calculating what the cost savings are of having a trench through the cemetery vs. tunneling around it. If we save $400 million in construction costs and the Archdiocese is willing to accept $100 million in compensation for moving the cemetery across the street, it would be worth negotiating a settlement.



I'm suggesting moving it to Bantry, so it would be spaced evenly between Highway 7 and 16th Avenue. The two stations could have overlapping walksheds in the RHC area and "bookend" the development there. It would put it next to a bunch of highrises, not single family housing. But it would lose the direct link with High Tech road. High Tech road and Highway 7 are ~400 meters apart, so it's not really possible to have subway stops serve both without being close together.



I live near to this cemetery, and sometimes jog through it.

View attachment 309389

I'll admit that I would prefer if it had more water and mature trees as a park. And it has operating hours, which is a limitation that Toronto parks don't have. But I wouldn't consider it a landfill leaking toxic chemicals.

View attachment 309406


San Francisco, in its history, hastily relocated most of its cemeteries. A lot of the gravestones ended up as landfill and you can find tombstones wash up on the beach.

Actually a funny thing I've noticed about that black line curvy alignment map you showed. That's the map that Metrolinx gave to the media, that all the news websites used and is the main image for the Yonge North webpage on Metrolinx. That map does not exist in the Initial Business Case they released on the same day. That alignment is nowhere to be seen in it.

These are the three alignments indicated in the IBC:

I totally understand where you are coming from, that from that popular image that Metrolinx showed with the alignment veering westward to make a long curve to go diagonally under the middle of the neighbourhood to then make another sweeping curve along the rail tracks. From that, I would agree with you that sharper alignments aren't possible. But from Metrolinx's own IBC, they don't have that sweeping alignment. They have 1) the original undergound alignment 2) the original undergound alignment but with Bridge Station instead of Longbridge 3) an alignment that goes straight up Yonge and then makes a sharper 90 degree turn east on the north end of the neighbouhood just south of the cemetery and a larger radius but still acute angle, almost 70ish degree turn toward the rail tracks and come out of a portal at the north edge of the cemetary and at-grade to into RHC. So according to Metrolinx, sharper corners are available to use. Ofc, I absolutely agree that my map could show bigger radii and I believe there is enough room for bigger radii as well.

So I have no idea why Metrolinx released that alignment map showing the sweeping curves to the media when it is not even in their IBC. Going to be confusing for community consultations. In a recent York Region news article, residents had an outcry because they saw that map all over the news that showed the alignment right through the neighbourhood. But that alignment isn't being studied. It is an outcry for nothing. At the most only a handful of houses will be dug underneath in Option 3. Which is why I proposed moving those curves northward a bit so the tunnels would be going under grave rather than houses.

So really, I just think Metrolinx is in a mess and they seem to not know what they are doing or at the very least don't know how to handle PR. Is it that map they released to the media showing large curves veering westward to east? Or is it one of those three alignments in the IBC?

 

[aquateam]

Actually a funny thing I've noticed about that black line curvy alignment map you showed. That's the map that Metrolinx gave to the media, that all the news websites used and is the main image for the Yonge North webpage on Metrolinx. That map does not exist in the Initial Business Case they released on the same day. That alignment is nowhere to be seen in it.

These are the three alignments indicated in the IBC:View attachment 309432

I totally understand where you are coming from, that from that popular image that Metrolinx showed with the alignment veering westward to make a long curve to go diagonally under the middle of the neighbourhood to then make another sweeping curve along the rail tracks. From that, I would agree with you that sharper alignments aren't possible. But from Metrolinx's own IBC, they don't have that sweeping alignment. They have 1) the original undergound alignment 2) the original undergound alignment but with Bridge Station instead of Longbridge 3) an alignment that goes straight up Yonge and then makes a sharper 90 degree turn east on the north end of the neighbouhood just south of the cemetery and a larger radius but still acute angle, almost 70ish degree turn toward the rail tracks and come out of a portal at the north edge of the cemetary and at-grade to into RHC. So according to Metrolinx, sharper corners are available to use. Ofc, I absolutely agree that my map could show bigger radii and I believe there is enough room for bigger radii as well.

So I have no idea why Metrolinx released that alignment map showing the sweeping curves to the media when it is not even in their IBC. Going to be confusing for community consultations. In a recent York Region news article, residents had an outcry because they saw that map all over the news that showed the alignment right through the neighbourhood. But that alignment isn't being studied. It is an outcry for nothing. At the most only a handful of houses will be dug underneath in Option 3. Which is why I proposed moving those curves northward a bit so the tunnels would be going under grave rather than houses.

So really, I just think Metrolinx is in a mess and they seem to not know what they are doing or at the very least don't know how to handle PR. Is it that map they released to the media showing large curves veering westward to east? Or is it one of those three alignments in the IBC?

There are two option 3's:

• There is the IBC Option 3 where part of the curve was tunneled under the cemetery. This is from 2020 but was only released this month.

• There is the Refined Option 3 where the subway enters the CN ROW south of Holy Cross cemetery. This is the most recent alignment from 2021.

The Option 3 alignment as presented in the IBC saved on the costs of building tunnels and underground
stations by leveraging an existing transportation corridor. The alignment is proposed to curve east of Yonge
Street in the northern segment of the extension to emerge at the surface north of Langstaff Road to run
parallel with CN/GO railway line. The proposed Bridge Station and the alignment and stations north of it
would have operated on the surface within the CN/GO rail corridor. The alignment would have passed
under a portion of the Royal Orchard community and a small section of Holy Cross Cemetery before
reaching the portal north of Langstaff Road.

Metrolinx recognizes there could be sensitivities associated with construction and operations on or near
cemetery lands. With those issues in mind, further analysis of the northern section of the Option 3 alignment
was advanced immediately after the findings of the IBC were considered by the Metrolinx Board of
Directors. The refined alignment proposal presented below, alongside the Initial Business Case will form
part of the analysis that is presented in the Preliminary Design Business Case, which will guide the next
phase of the project. It represents refinements to the Option 3 alignment to avoid tunneling under Holy
Cross Cemetery and any associated land requirements.

So the Option 3 with the sharper curves isn't currently on the table.

 

[Sagaris88]

Whoops my bad, I took another look and the document from 2013 that I linked to compared options 1, 2, and 2a instead of 1, 2, and 3. So yes, it's new but I doubt it was any more involvement from him personally than a directive to "innovate" to stay within a project budget and avoid unnecessary blowback.



This is Metrolinx's curve

View attachment 309398

Eyeballing it looks like a ~430 meter curve, which is already not great.

View attachment 309404

This is your alignment, the curve seems to be a little over ~150 meters. The cemetery is only ~300 meters wide and you are turning more than ~110 degrees, so for you to do the turn entirely within the cemetery means that <300 meters is the maximum minimum turn radius. But at that point you would just be cutting across it, not staying to the one end.

View attachment 309397

So yes, the curve is tighter with your alignment, which is natural when you only have a strip of land to work with vs. an entire neighbourhood to tunnel under.

The the bigger question is: You've avoided the disruption of tunnelling 25 meters below some people's homes to instead:

1. Create an at-grade corridor running through those same people's backyards
2. Eliminate the potential "rumbling" of deep underground trains and replace it with the screech of trains navigating a tight curve above ground (curves are responsible for almost all the noise and wear-and-tear on tracks)
3. Carve up a good chunk of the cemetery for the TBM extraction point, portal, curve and at-grade corridor

I wasn't trying to do a reductio ad absurdum on your post, I was suggesting what I thought was a better option if the cemetery can be moved. The difference between option 3 and your alignment is that option 3 (the original, unrefined option 3 from the IBC) went under the cemetery and came at-grade in the CN corridor, so it doesn't involve moving bodies. It might be worth calculating what the cost savings are of having a trench through the cemetery vs. tunneling around it. If we save $400 million in construction costs and the Archdiocese is willing to accept $100 million in compensation for moving the cemetery across the street, it would be worth negotiating a settlement.



I'm suggesting moving it to Bantry, so it would be spaced evenly between Highway 7 and 16th Avenue. The two stations could have overlapping walksheds in the RHC area and "bookend" the development there. It would put it next to a bunch of highrises, not single family housing. But it would lose the direct link with High Tech road. High Tech road and Highway 7 are ~400 meters apart, so it's not really possible to have subway stops serve both without being close together.



I live near to this cemetery, and sometimes jog through it.

View attachment 309389

I'll admit that I would prefer if it had more water and mature trees as a park. And it has operating hours, which is a limitation that Toronto parks don't have. But I wouldn't consider it a landfill leaking toxic chemicals.

View attachment 309406


San Francisco, in its history, hastily relocated most of its cemeteries. A lot of the gravestones ended up as landfill and you can find tombstones wash up on the beach.

That is true about the screeching I did not think about that, thanks. Yeah, my map started as an exercise to see how Ford could save even more money, but I'm not really attached to it anymore.

Apologies for thinking you were ab asurduming my cemetary thoughts. But yes, I think the cemetery is full of opputunity and savings if it wasn't there. Even if construction savings weren't that high and negotiations with the church is high, the area of development for housing and park space would be worth a lot more.

Do you mean inbetween High Tech and Bantry? Or like right on Bantry? Because north of Bantry is all single family housing. I'll rather short spacing between High Tech and Bridge but with more proximity to dense development than the longer spacing of Bantry and Bridge but with less dense development. And i'm against further extending the subway northwards because it would compete and make mostly null the recently completed Yonge Viva rapidway, which has a station at Bantry.

 

[Sagaris88]

There are two option 3's:

• There is the IBC Option 3 where part of the curve was tunneled under the cemetery. This is from 2020 but was only released this month.

View attachment 309436

• There is the Refined Option 3 where the subway enters the CN ROW south of Holy Cross cemetery. This is the most recent alignment from 2021.

View attachment 309435



So the Option 3 with the sharper curves isn't currently on the table.

Ahhhh thank you for clearing that up. It's pretty confusing with all the separate documents and movement in plans. Again, apologies.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Yes, and cemeteries as less useful than a park or thousands of units of housing. So why put so much emphasis on them? A quiet green space is so such a minimal requirement for usage. The area of Holy Cross is even bigger than the Langstaff development area.

OK, I see you have some serious issues with cemeteries I can't resolve so I'll keep it simple: we put emphasis on it BECAUSE IT IS THERE.

If it wasn't, and we were talking about whether it made more sense to put towers or a cemetery beside the subway station, I'd agree it's not a good place for a cemetery.

In this country, we don't sieze privately owned land, no matter how perfect it would be for something else, just because we want to. There are laws that govern expropriation, of course but you can't take 200 acres of prime land, especially from powerful owners. The cost to taxpayers alone would be hundreds of millions.

So it's there and whatever plan you dream up will have to be accepting of that reality.

But if you think you can get the archbishop of Toronto on the phone and persuade him he'd be wise to sell that land to developers, it sure would be a big win for the subway. If nothing else, maybe you can get him to make the operation more environmentally friendly...

 

[Sagaris88]

OK, I see you have some serious issues with cemeteries I can't resolve so I'll keep it simple: we put emphasis on it BECAUSE IT IS THERE.

If it wasn't, and we were talking about whether it made more sense to put towers or a cemetery beside the subway station, I'd agree it's not a good place for a cemetery.

In this country, we don't sieze privately owned land, no matter how perfect it would be for something else, just because we want to. There are laws that govern expropriation, of course but you can't take 200 acres of prime land, especially from powerful owners. The cost to taxpayers alone would be hundreds of millions.

So it's there and whatever plan you dream up will have to be accepting of that reality.

But if you think you can get the archbishop of Toronto on the phone and persuade him he'd be wise to sell that land to developers, it sure would be a big win for the subway.

But just because it is there, does not mean it should still be there or that we cannot move it. Many cities have moved their cemeteries or else there would be cemetaries in the middle of Mahattan dotting every avenue.

We literally have seized privately owned land before. We do it many times. The city has done expropriation numerous times. And ofc that only happens when negotiations with the private owner go nowhere. It's a last resort but Canada does it, cities do it. I don't see how it's so easy to jump to conclusions that discussions to remove part of the cemetary for transit or development will end in expropriation. And I think you are putting too much thought into the Catholic Church being powerful enough to stop development that The Archdiocese of Toronto has much power in a diverse city like Toronto anymore. An interesting article from 2017, the Church of Wales wants to build 14 affordable houses on top of an old graveyard. The grand church themselves are willing to build over a resting place. So its not out of the question that the church could not be immovable in land discussions, especially if the angle of providing affordable housing units to the needy is used.

But let's say for sake of absolute example, the whole Holy Cross cemetary is being discussed for removal. Cost to taxpayers would be "hundreds of millions", heck, lets up that to 1 billion or even 2 billion. What you get in return is 200 acres of land that can build thousands and thousands of housing for living people to live, which is well worth the cost especially in a housing crisis. Holy Cross is bigger than the Langstaff redevelopment area and the redevelopment area proposes 32,000 residents in 15,000 units. 32,000 living residents is much better than a couple thousand dead people who won't be enjoying the land at all. So lets say the available units to build in the area of Holy Cross is 15,000 units, with extra land being parkland. 15,000 units multiply average condo price in York Region of $600,000, well my calculator doesn't comprehend that many digits, but you get the gist. The outcome is a worth worth well over the cost to take over the cemetery that the sticker shock is only temporary for the value you get in the future. That's why cities across the world for decades have been moving existing cemeteries. I refuse to believe that a graveyard or cemetery is simply off-limits for urban planning.

 

[allengeorge]

I refuse to believe that a graveyard or cemetery is simply off-limits for urban planning.

Single-detached houses are off-limits for urban planning in Toronto. I think you'd have even less luck with a cemetery.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

But just because it is there, does not mean it should still be there or that we cannot move it. Many cities have moved their cemeteries or else there would be cemetaries in the middle of Mahattan dotting every avenue.

As I said, I can see you have a bee in your bonnet about this cemetery and others. I mean, you've got some very passionate and lengthy thoughts.

You'll just have to accept it: no one is expropriating 200 acres filled with 1000s of dead bodies, at an active cemetery owned by the Catholic Church. No chance. None. Zip. Zilch. Just accept it and move on.

You're also very glib about the government power to take private property so I hope no one comes to take your house just because they think it's worth a lot of money.. It's not off limits to urban planning. It's off limits to the Expropriation Act, which requires that it be absolutely necessary for the government to take land. That power will be used dozens of times (hundreds, even!) to build this subway but it can't be used just because the land is valuable.

The good news is that there is nothing to stop someone, including you, if you have the resources, to make the church an offer, buy it and do what you want. Because we live in a democratic, capitalist country. But there is zero chance the government will do it and it's kind of appalling to consider one that would. Please, let it go.

 

[Transportfan]

I don't see the need to respect cemeteries for wasting valuable land in a major city and a scourge on the environment with bodies releasing water and chemicals, the coffins releasing the varnish chemicals...

The coffins are in sealed vaults.

 

[Undead]

We're all gonna be in coffins before anything is built

 

[44 North]

Still don't understand why ppl aren't talking about how they're going to extreme depths to tunnel under the Don. RL, where there's pretty well zero space to build a bridge, posters out of the wood work decrying how it's stupid to tunnel. And Metrolinx doing the rounds in the media saying it's stupid to tunnel under the Don. But out in the outer suburbs where there's ample space surrounded by low density? Where are those posters, where's Metrolinx saying we shouldn't tunnel? Doesn't add up.

 

[afransen]

Yup, there is abundant room to build a bridge here, instead. You could run elevated past the cemetary, but you still have the problem of the tight turns to get over to Langstaff GO, if so desired. Maybe cut diagonally across the Langstaff lands (sweeten it with a station at the NW corner of the site), over the 407 and put an elevated station at Langstaff GO. Should be possible to have a fairly gentle S-curve on the edge of the Langstaff site and over the 407 really, and aligned with the GO corridor past Langstaff GO. I guess we would have to see how aesthetically minimal we could make an elevated guideway for Line 1 rolling stock. Of course, Thornhill is too precious for an elevated guideway, let's spend several billion instead.

 

[afransen]

It's almost like 'elevated' is not even a consideration for Metrolinx. Shouldn't this have been one of the options, if not just to talk about the trade-off of cost vs minimizing above-ground impacts. Maybe we could have all the stations we want and not have to de-scope if they were above ground.

 

[Rainforest]

Just thinking: why do Metrolinx Options 1 and 2 have to be fully tunneled? Could they make something like in the picture below?

Looks like all conditions would be met: the cemetery is intact, the Royal Orchard houses are intact, both stations are on surface or in a shallow trench, the subway curves aren't too tight, and the subway line joins the rail corridor and can access the new yard in the north.

The price is: rebuilding a section of Hwy 7, the Yonge/ Hwy 7 connection road, two of the 407 ramps, and the Viva bus terminal. Maybe, filling up part of the little pond located between Yonge and the connection road. Compared to the hundreds of millions for tunneling and underground stations, or delays caused by the community opposition, maybe that's a reasonable price.

 

[north-of-anything]

The price is: rebuilding a section of Hwy 7, the Yonge/ Hwy 7 connection road, two of the 407 ramps, and the Viva bus terminal. Maybe, filling up part of the little pond located between Yonge and the connection road. Compared to the hundreds of millions for tunneling and underground stations, or delays caused by the community opposition, maybe that's a reasonable price.

The price is why it's not happening. The little pond between Yonge and the connection road is a stormwater management pond - without it, surface runoff would be draining right into Bridge Station. It's likely not going away until Richmond Hill has a grand vision for the area in place to compensate for removing the pond, unless they decide to keep it. That, combined with having to rebuild Highway 7 and the connection roads and ramps, would cause absolute chaos in the area and I seriously doubt York Region's cities would let that happen.

I think tunnelling under the Royal Orchard neighbourhood is the best solution. Maybe it could get delayed until subway construction costs go down.