[EnviroTO]

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.

View attachment 309499

Why? People understand that high-capacity transit is supposed to serve people right? What person considers it convenient to be dumped in the middle of an undevelopable no-man's-land? I don't understand why people would look at this and say "hey, this is a prime location for a subway station".

 

[Undead]

Maybe it could get delayed until subway construction costs go down.

You, sir, are bold

Why? People understand that high-capacity transit is supposed to serve people right? What person considers it convenient to be dumped in the middle of an undevelopable no-man's-land? I don't understand why people would look at this and say "hey, this is a prime location for a subway station".

It's prime in the sense that there's a lot of developable land...

 

[EnviroTO]

It's prime in the sense that there's a lot of developable land...

That red zone is not developable! Putting a station in the middle of it means everyone needs to walk further to get to the developable parts not in the red zone. At the thin points of that red zone we are talking about a distance from King to Queen street... but with zero development. It like King and Queen station except you tear down Scotia Plaza, First Canadian, the Bay, Bay Adelaide Centre, the Cambridge Suites, etc. and say nothing can be built here and you will be exposed to the wind and winter.

 

[allengeorge]

It's almost like 'elevated' is not even a consideration for Metrolinx.

It’s because York voted OPC. Look at where tunneling is being done for lines and look at the 2018 provincial election results.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Why? People understand that high-capacity transit is supposed to serve people right? What person considers it convenient to be dumped in the middle of an undevelopable no-man's-land? I don't understand why people would look at this and say "hey, this is a prime location for a subway station".

a) It's in the Provincial right of way so it's free land. They don't have to pay someone to expropriate it, because it's no man's land. Between that and putting it at grade, they're saving hundreds of millions of (your!) tax dollars.
b) By putting the station there, they render it developable. They can likely squeeze something on top of it. Not much obviously, but a building or two that wouldn't be there otherwise. That will also be a net gain to Joe Taxpayer.
c) It partially solves a problem that was baked into the initial plans, when the stations were at High Tech and Yonge/Langstaff. There were various ideas put forward, including a "transit concourse" in that area, to ensure riders in the middle of Langstaff Gateway could easily get to the subway. Now, despite it being "no-man's land," it's a very short walk for them. So, tens of thousands of people will find it convenient, once there are towers directly to the north, south and above it.

 

[Rainforest]

Why? People understand that high-capacity transit is supposed to serve people right? What person considers it convenient to be dumped in the middle of an undevelopable no-man's-land? I don't understand why people would look at this and say "hey, this is a prime location for a subway station".

View attachment 309506

The "High Tech" station on my map is exactly in the same place as in Metrolinx Option 2 map.

The "Bridge" station on my map is not in the ideal place, but it isn't terribly bad either. From the southern end of the station, a 150m long tunnel would connect to the northern edge of the future dense Gateway community. People routinely walk much longer distances to a subway station. And the northern end of the station can be connected to the relocated Viva / YRT bus terminal, if that terminal is moved south. Metrolinx is considering moving the bus terminal anyway.

 

[EnviroTO]

a) It's in the Provincial right of way so it's free land. They don't have to pay someone to expropriate it, because it's no man's land. Between that and putting it at grade, they're saving hundreds of millions of (your!) tax dollars.

I would save even more by not building it. This is not the place to build two stations so close together. Downtown stations being close together makes sense because it is densely developed and there are many draws for pedestrian traffic. This is not "saving taxpayer money". Saving taxpayer money puts things where they provide maximum benefit and therefore lead to more revenues and taxation.

b) By putting the station there, they render it developable. They can likely squeeze something on top of it. Not much obviously, but a building or two that wouldn't be there otherwise. That will also be a net gain to Joe Taxpayer.

Sure, the picture of a house still standing in the middle of a freeway in China comes to mind.

c) It partially solves a problem that was baked into the initial plans, when the stations were at High Tech and Yonge/Langstaff. There were various ideas put forward, including a "transit concourse" in that area, to ensure riders in the middle of Langstaff Gateway could easily get to the subway. Now, despite it being "no-man's land," it's a very short walk for them. So, tens of thousands of people will find it convenient, once there are towers directly to the north, south and above it.

There isn't going to be towers directly to the north, south, and above it. There will only be things to the south. The other station will be a shorter distance to anything north, and above is just not going to happen.

 

[Rainforest]

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.

I am not opposed to tunnelling under the Royal Orchard; I have no stake there. Mildly sympathetic to the residents' concerns, but more interested in the transit expansion. So, if Metrolinx manages to defend its current plan and drill the tunnel, then good job.

My map is more of a Plan B attempt. If the residents have the ear of the Premier and Metrolinx can't proceed, then I am very interested in them quickly coming up with a workable alternative, rather than just letting the project stall.

The stormwater pond would not need to be filled completely, just moved west a bit to maintain the same total capacity. The needed road work will be messy for sure. But, which subway construction was ever accomplished without any messy road work?

 

[Undead]

That red zone is not developable! Putting a station in the middle of it means everyone needs to walk further to get to the developable parts not in the red zone. At the thin points of that red zone we are talking about a distance from King to Queen street... but with zero development. It like King and Queen station except you tear down Scotia Plaza, First Canadian, the Bay, Bay Adelaide Centre, the Cambridge Suites, etc. and say nothing can be built here and you will be exposed to the wind and winter.

It's within walking distance of the lots and big box stores.

 

[syn]

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.

Why? People understand that high-capacity transit is supposed to serve people right? What person considers it convenient to be dumped in the middle of an undevelopable no-man's-land? I don't understand why people would look at this and say "hey, this is a prime location for a subway station".

View attachment 309506

Nope.

It's supposed to allow people to get to places without interfering with their drive.

This is what happens when you have over a decade of 'you deserve subways like the elites downtown' and 'WAR ON THE CAR'.

Putting all of these expensive, high capacity subway extensions underground in the suburbs makes no sense...but it falls in line with the MO of our illustrious Premier.

 

[Rainforest]

Honestly, the slogans about the war on the car and poor pedestrians suffering from drivers, or vice versa, are thorously irrelevant for the current discussion.

The current preferred plan of Metrolinx isn't perfect for pedestrian access, either. Their "Bridge" station will be under two highways, next to a rail line, and near the stormwater pond. Naturally, that limits the amount of highrises one can build very close to the station. And, it is not easy to come up with a much better plan, if you look at all constraints. Need to serve the proposed dense Gateway community squeezed between the 407 and the cemetery, need a terminal for Viva and GO buses serving Yonge North, Hwy 7, and the 407, and need to connect to the GO station.

If you can come up with a better plan for pedestrian access and density, then you are more than welcome to do so.

My map, and a few maps posted by other forumers recently, are trying to address another problem. If the Royal Orchard residents have the upper hand and manage to block Metrolinx from drilling under their houses, then how can we make sure the project is not stalled, but follows another route that's somewhat reasonable.

 

[MrGoose]

Nope.

It's supposed to allow people to get to places without interfering with their drive.

This is what happens when you have over a decade of 'you deserve subways like the elites downtown' and 'WAR ON THE CAR'.

Putting all of these expensive, high capacity subway extensions underground in the suburbs makes no sense...but it falls in line with the MO of our illustrious Premier.

It’s in the middle of a highway right now, but the plans are to develop the parcels immediately north and south of Hwy 7/407 fairly densely.

 

[syn]

It’s in the middle of a highway right now, but the plans are to develop the parcels immediately north and south of Hwy 7/407 fairly densely.

Those were the plans for the Sheppard corridor too.

It will take generations for those areas to develop the kind of density that will justify a subway.

I would've hoped we would've learned by now this approach doesn't work.

The Yonge and Bloor lines have plenty of above ground sections - this is in dense, urban environments. There's absolutely no reason these suburban extensions shouldn't have above-ground portions.

 

[EnviroTO]

It’s in the middle of a highway right now, but the plans are to develop the parcels immediately north and south of Hwy 7/407 fairly densely.

They aren't going to be moving the 407, highway 7, and the hydro corridor period and that space is the distance from King to Queen wide. No matter how dense the areas outside the red zone get, you significantly lower the value of the station by putting a station in the middle of undevelopable land.

You can find many materials on how to properly design urban transit successfully and walking distance and walking environment is always a key determination factor in how many people will use a station or stop. Ideally you put stations in the middle of developable land, not on the periphery of developable land to maximize the destinations that can be walked to in the distance that people would be willing to walk. I have seen that distance being a radius of 500m, 750m, and 1000m where the greatest value is walking with 500m, 750m you are starting to loose people, and beyond 1000m is needing a bus or not meeting the need. If you draw a 500m radius around a station and you don't have a good 2/3rds of that being developable land the station is in a really bad place.

Any transit planner that sees the sea of red and puts a station in the thick of it doesn't seem to know who they are serving. Goal #1, maximize the developable lands served by the station by filling up 500m radius circles with lands that have or will have a large number of people to serve. Anyone who sees a station in the middle of nowhere as a win was measuring public asset value in a similar way to the pyramids of Egypt.

 

[MrGoose]

Those were the plans for the Sheppard corridor too.

It will take generations for those areas to develop the kind of density that will justify a subway.

I would've hoped we would've learned by now this approach doesn't work.

The Yonge and Bloor lines have plenty of above ground sections - this is in dense, urban environments. There's absolutely no reason these suburban extensions shouldn't have above-ground portions.

It's about zoning. If york region decides to upzone that area, it will get built and within 5-10 years.

It's the City of torontos fault that the sheppard subway isn't dense. It is the City if torontos fault that the areas around subway stations isn't denser. Ford has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, around the world, countries routinely develop subway lines before the density goes in because it's cheaper.