[syn]

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.

I believe the market will have something to say about that. So will the community.

Zoning changes don't make density magically appear. And the kind of density necessary to justify a subway won't just appear in 5-10 years.

Ford certainly has something to do with it - his rhetoric and nonsense has helped set transit expansion in Toronto back for decades. We can certainly hold Ford and his government accountable for dropping billions to bury these suburban subway extensions and not making the same investment into the one line (the OL) that actually needs the capacity.

 

[MrGoose]

I believe the market will have something to say about that. So will the community.

Zoning changes don't make density magically appear. And the kind of density necessary to justify a subway won't just appear in 5-10 years.

They sorta do. If you remove planning approval for midrises along arterials, market demand will ensure that contractors will begin buying up SFHs along arterials and turning them into midrises.

Furthermore, if you remove the need for setbacks, parking minimals and other cumbersome car oriented zoning regulations then more density will occur.

Also, these parcels are going to be zoned for high rises and there are probably already developers attached. With that in mind, these areas will be densified.

Ford certainly has something to do with it - his rhetoric and nonsense has helped set transit expansion in Toronto back for decades. We can certainly hold Ford and his government accountable for dropping billions to bury these suburban subway extensions and not making the same investment into the one line (the OL) that actually needs the capacity.

I agree with you on this point.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I believe the market will have something to say about that. So will the community.

Zoning changes don't make density magically appear. And the kind of density necessary to justify a subway won't just appear in 5-10 years.

a) There is no community, which is the beauty of these 2 sites on either side of the highways.

b) The Zoning isn't in place yet, but that's basically a technicality, since the policy is, so York Region doesn't need to "upzone." Markham and RH do the zoning and the only issues there will be the phasing of the infrastructure.

c) Markham has already approved the first 2 towers (37/48 storeys) and that's a decade out from the subway opening. That's with us still discussing where the tunnel should go.
There are only 3 landowners to deal with for almost the entirety of the Markham and RH Centres.
The market there will be just fine. Obviously the long-term build-out will take decades - even North York Centre is still going 25 years in - but density will magically appear, much of it before the subway even opens. Crikey, look at the density that's already present at VMC. That's at Jane and 7. This is on Yonge Street!
The policy and zoning have ALREADY made density "magically appear" basically everywhere from north of here straight up to Major Mac! 30-45 storey towers, just from the bus lanes and "upzoning."
And you think they'll have a HARDER time building it around a subway station and GO station and transit terminal, where there's already consolidated ownership and coordination between them and the municipality?
It'll sell and get built as fast as Council can approve it. You'll be seeing 60-storey towers before the subway opens, guaranteed.

But we all agree Doug Ford sucks.

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.

Everyone understands the contstaints of the site and the challenge isn't what to do if you were building from scratch but how to maximize with what you have. I understand the point you're making but disagree with the conclusions. Metrolinx's modelling (yes, it's modelling, not time travel) shows this configuration maximizes access to transit and ridership for the 2 halves of the growth centre. You were talking about the radii for walkability, well here they are:

Obviously some of that is in your red area but it's still capturing a lot of people and a lot of potential density and, given the existing constraints, that's why it's the best option. Langstaff Gateway alone is supposed to house 35,000 people and it looks like about 90% of them would be within a 10-minute walk of Bridge station. That's a win, right there. That's serving who you're supposed to be serving, especially when you take into account how easy that station location will make it to transfer between different modes/systems.

 

[aquateam]

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.

View attachment 309699

To be fair, the original (Option 1) location for Langstaff station was even more surrounded by red (cemetery to the east, park n ride to the west, SFH to the south, highway ramps to the north. So at least this is more central on an east-west axis to the Langstaff lands. You can see that in the station access time comparisons:

EDIT: I see @TJ O'Pootertoot beat me to posting this

I think you're mistaken in saying that the only/primary goal for this station is maximizing developable lands. You'll notice that Metrolinx basically whittled the project down to the "Primary" stations, which have heavy bus traffic, and the "Complementary Urban Core" stations, which are more about TOD. Bridge is one of those Primary stations since it has such strong bus transfer demand from the rapidways.

Most of the jobs and people in York region aren't located along Yonge, they are located further east in Markham. To get there, most riders will be transferring to a bus, not walking from the station. The "Bridge" station is the central hub of the entire shiny new overbuilt Viva BRT system (and future 407 transitway) that connects everywhere else in York region. It's also a very convenient connection to Langstaff GO.

Direct, seamless transfers through the new bus terminal in result in significant cumulative travel time savings, which was noted in the option comparison of the IBC (option 2 vs option 1.) Mind you, all that bus transfer travel time benefit was lost in option 3 by the slower subway alignment.

In a way, they did try to improve the amount of developable land by using the no-man's-land between highways for the bus terminal.

I suppose one could argue that they also tried to stitch together the Langstaff lands and RHC with this station, since the station provides pedestrian connectivity between the two areas. It reminds me of the original plan for the Relief Line, where despite being downtown they managed to find put a station under a tangle of ramps. The stated objective was to stitch the neighbourhood together with the station.

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

I think that, in general, you're absolutely right that this isn't a great location for walkable, urban development. I don't think we should plan to have high densities of people next to the noise, pollution, and general hostility of a highway anyway. The original (option 1) Langstaff location wasn't great either, since it was surrounded by a cemetery to the east, a future park n ride to the west, SFH to the south and highway access ramps to the north. At least the new bridge location is more centrally located in the Langstaff lands on an east-west context instead of just touching a far corner.

I think the fact that they decided to make RHC station only 400 meters away was an acknowledgement of the fact that Bridge is in a hostile location: Metrolinx needed to give York region the station for their "downtown" that they "deserve" which is centrally located for TOD, while still maintaining a convenient station link for all the bus transfer traffic.

 

[syn]

They sorta do. If you remove planning approval for midrises along arterials, market demand will ensure that contractors will begin buying up SFHs along arterials and turning them into midrises.

Furthermore, if you remove the need for setbacks, parking minimals and other cumbersome car oriented zoning regulations then more density will occur.

Also, these parcels are going to be zoned for high rises and there are probably already developers attached. With that in mind, these areas will be densified.

I'm not saying that zoning changes don't have an impact. I'm saying they're one of many factors.

Whether the area will see increased density is not the question - but how much, and in what timeframe. I think people are drastically underestimating the kind of commercial and residential density necessary to justify a subway.

c) Markham has already approved the first 2 towers (37/48 storeys) and that's a decade out from the subway opening. That's with us still discussing where the tunnel should go.
There are only 3 landowners to deal with for almost the entirety of the Markham and RH Centres.
The market there will be just fine. Obviously the long-term build-out will take decades - even North York Centre is still going 25 years in - but density will magically appear, much of it before the subway even opens. Crikey, look at the density that's already present at VMC. That's at Jane and 7. This is on Yonge Street!
The policy and zoning have ALREADY made density "magically appear" basically everywhere from north of here straight up to Major Mac! 30-45 storey towers, just from the bus lanes and "upzoning."
And you think they'll have a HARDER time building it around a subway station and GO station and transit terminal, where there's already consolidated ownership and coordination between them and the municipality?
It'll sell and get built as fast as Council can approve it. You'll be seeing 60-storey towers before the subway opens, guaranteed.

Two towers doesn't even scratch the surface when it comes to the kind of density I'm referring to.

The density 'already present' at the VMC is a long, long way off from what I'm talking about.

a) There is no community, which is the beauty of these 2 sites on either side of the highways.

Then why are we spending billions to bury this thing?!

As I mentioned originally, there is absolutely no reason there shouldn't be significant portions of this extension above ground (if not the majority).

 

[tsm1072]

Then why are we spending billions to bury this thing?!

The proposed option surfaces as soon as reasonably possible. The goal is to get the subway north of the 407 is be able to effectively connect to the viva network and regional 407 buses. Unfortunately, because of poor prior planning, there is no surface ROW available so the choice is elevated over young or underground. Elevated would probably be cheaper but is, unfortunately, a political no-go given the areas it goes through. Whether you like the new design or not, I think Metrolinx deserves some praise for trying to push a design they believe is better for the long-term, despite the pain it'll cause in the short term.

I personally believe there are some smart engineers at Metrolinx who have figured out that they need to pick their battles for the long term. A couple of examples:

• No one is going to like a transit line tunnelled under housing until it is proven they can do it (in Toronto) without causing problems. For long-term development, this is a technique that will need to be used in the future, so they are using this as the trial project to prove it can be done (in Toronto).
• No one is going to like an elevated transit line until they see what one would look like in Toronto. They are going to try and use the Ontario line to force that on people and prove it is a good option.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm not saying that zoning changes don't have an impact. I'm saying they're one of many factors.

I've always said, it's 3 things: the market, the policy and the infrastructure. I believe they all converge here. We're still waiting for one of them, however.

Whether the area will see increased density is not the question - but how much, and in what timeframe. I think people are drastically underestimating the kind of commercial and residential density necessary to justify a subway.

There's some subjectivity but as I've also always said:
On opening day, there will be many riders who currently drive/bus to Finch, who will now have more efficient access to the subway. Certainly, they could have extended to Steeles years ago and had enough ridership to justify it, and that's without the insane level of development already proposed for that area, today.

There will be a lot of density in the growth centre - more than a lot of exisitng TTC stations, including on Line 1 - but yes, it will take some time to achieve a critical mass. And, yes, getting a decent mix of jobs will be crucial to long-term success.

I think it will be interesting to see what the post-COVID office landscape looks like. Maybe everyone goes back downtown and in a few years we're back to normal. But MAYBE we get more hotelling and more people who go in a few days a week and suburban nodes, closer to where most people live, become increasingly attractive. No way to answer that today but my gut tells me what we've gone through helps suburban nodes in the long run, more than if they're competing with downtown for 9-5, 5-days-a-week jobs.

Two towers doesn't even scratch the surface when it comes to the kind of density I'm referring to.

The density 'already present' at the VMC is a long, long way off from what I'm talking about.

Obviously, on both counts. The two towers merely indicate that today, 10 years before the subway is going to open, they're already approaching permission/market for 50-storey towers. 2 of the 3 factors I outlined as crucial - policy and market - are present already.
Maybe there will be another application or two shortly but the training wheels will come off once the subway is confirmed.
And when you fill the whole area with those over the next 15 years, you do get that density.
Without the Spadina subway, not one of those Vaughan towers would be there but now they are. And there will be more of them.

Then why are we spending billions to bury this thing?!

There's no NIMBY-type community around the growth centre, where it's surrounded by a cemetery etc. And it is running above ground there.
I don't know where you think it should run above-ground, like it should pop up and Steeles and run elevated through a heritage district etc.? You can argue otherwise but I personally don't think it makes sense on the stretch of Yonge we're talking about and, despite a clear directive to save money, Metrolinx didn't either. It's not going to be above ground no matter how many UT memberes feel otherwise. But I applaud Metrolinx for coming up with a fairly clever idea to get it above ground where it does make sense and I think that it's an improvement from the previous plan, though I understand why Royal Orchard residents may beg to differ.

 

[Allandale25]

Since there's been some discussion here on why subways in Toronto are so expensive to build, I wonder if this is going to be a contributing factor:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1377991900217622537

 

[aquateam]

Should they have renumbered it - maybe 3S (it makes its curve farther south) or 3A (an alternative to the 3 alignment with similar concept).?

I made a couple of assumptions.

• the NW corner of the cemetery property is not sacred. It appears to contain a scenic pond, and a storage building. I assume this can be dug up and covered over again.
• A tighter curve is not as bad in the proximity of a station than it is mid-way between them. Near a station, the train is still accelerating so it's speed is not as high and the discomfort to the passengers not as great. Mid-way between, the train has already reached speed after leaving the station - then it has to slow down - then speed up again to make it to the next station.

Based on this, I have two options that will get you to the CN Corridor to go under the bridges.

1. First, a 300m radius curve from CN, that joins a 400m radius curve to Yonge. The station is where these 2 curves meet - which I know is not desirable to have a station (Langstaff) on a curve and a compound curve (a cork screw at that to honour the nearby Dragon Fyre roller coaster).
2. Next a 250m radius curve from CN, then a short tangent section for the Langstaff Station, then the 400m radius curve to Yonge.

My main goal is to build along Yonge using cut-and-cover and still make it to grade (or close to it) and utilize the existing 407 bridges. In terms of vertical elevation, I think it would only make it to grade at the Langstaff GO station. I think the cemetery would complain a lot more about a TMB launch site immediately on their doorstep than a relatively quick cut-and-cover operation that briefly occupies the corner of their property.

View attachment 309743



RE: Elevated. The most notable elevated transit in Toronto is the SRT in the STC vicinity. It is also the most built-up area of the entire line.
For Ontario Line, although some complain about the elevation - other complain about taking up valuable space in the GO corridor, not actually saving that much money with all the portals and TBM launches required.



The one thing Metrolinx has not considered is cut-and-cover. It seems fine to do it for stations - where the disruption is maybe 5 years. But for linear track where, with precast components, the disruption would be measured in months - they refuse to consider it.
If I lived in the area I would much rather have cut-and-cover for a few months, plus an extra station (with 3 years construction), than to have a subway roar through 100' below ground and no station within walking distance.
(I agree that elevated doesn't work here, and the only at-grade portion should be in the Rail corridor - if it makes it there).

Your alignment looks like it would be much cheaper (cut and cover) and slightly faster (shorter) than Option 3. It also puts the station right in the middle of the redevelopment area instead of straddling the corridor. So I think that's an improvement.

The only disadvantage I see is that you lose the direct bus connections. It looks like all the buses would be diverted north to High Tech road and RHC station instead of using Langstaff. So you've replaced a transfer station with an Urban Growth area.

If you're using cut-and-cover and approaching at-grade at that point, then you will definitely be digging up the cemetery. But from what I can tell on Google Streetview it looks like the part that you're slicing through is just landscaping, no graves. So maybe that would be acceptable with some compensation for the disruption. Given declining religiosity and church attendance, it's possible that Holy Cross would accept compensation for short-term construction impacts to their street-front landscaping.

Again, I'm not clear on what the actual constraints are with the cemetery, and Metrolinx doesn't make it sound like they explicitly know either. The option 3 refinement report just has the following passage:

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.

In my experience, 90% of good engineering project management is figuring out which constraints are real and which ones can be renegotiated or pushed back on.

Since there's been some discussion here on why subways in Toronto are so expensive to build, I wonder if this is going to be a contributing factor:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1377991900217622537

The RCCAO report suggested that cost of material inputs isn't a significant risk factor in the cost inflation of subway projects.

But I'm sure that will be a contributing factor, along with the runaway growth in land prices.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It's clear that Metrolinx does not favour cut-and-cover and many here do. Personally, I'm inclined to give them benift of the doubt but I'm open to being convinced it could make sense, at least for some portions. (Elevated, on the other hand, I think is completely out of place in this context, on Yonge Street. The GO corridor provides a perfect excuse to run the subway at grade and it's great they are taking it. But there's no where to put elevated where it makes sense in this context.)

But, hey, they're having a consultation next week. Nothing stopping anyone from asking why they're not doing C&C and to what extent, if any, it was given consideration. It should at least break up what's likely to be one Royal Orchard resident after another complaining about the same thing, over and over. (They'll probably also complain about the 60-storey towers that would come as a package deal with a neighbourhood subway station, but you can't win em all!)

 

[allengeorge]

But, hey, they're having a consultation next week. Nothing stopping anyone from asking why they're not doing C&C and to what extent, if any, it was given consideration

This has been asked a couple of times at consultations I've attended. The answers are generic: it's to avoid community impacts and disruption to traffic lanes was the answer given at the EWCE one, for example.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This has been asked a couple of times at consultations I've attended. The answers are generic: it's to avoid community impacts and disruption to traffic lanes was the answer given at the EWCE one, for example.

Clearly there are some advantages.
Also clearly, it's not how we build things here.
Luckily, this hasn't been an issue for a long time, because we stopped building subways!
I think, less than C&C being a specific issue, we just have an entrenched, old-fashioned mentality. In theory, shifting from TTC's way of doing things to Metrolinx and P3s should change some of this but maybe it's too little too late?
I understand some of why we do what we do and I understand why it costs more to build a subway here than in China but it's also clear that there's a lack of "outside-the-box" thinking up top, generally speaking. We've seen some baby steps - the P3 idea for station development could go either way and, as I said, I like how they thought to use the GO corridor here - but it's still been slow (and expensive) going.

But, hey, if they can actually build these 4 projects (YNSE, SSE, OL and ELCRT) relatively on time and on schedule, that sure will be something.
A big if, but still...

 

[EnviroTO]

In a way, they did try to improve the amount of developable land by using the no-man's-land between highways for the bus terminal.

I hadn't seen this before. This certainly makes a better transit hub than I was thinking with GO at Langstaff Bridge, and YRT/VIVA where it is currently located. Options that would improve service of developable land:

1. High Tech is the transit hub (subway, GO train, VIVA, YRT) and serves the lands along High Tech Road, Langstaff serves the lands south of 407. Use the hydro corridor to create better access roads and approaches to the bus terminal and re-orient the terminal to have more bus bays. Move the GO platform to High Tech. Maximized development potential and existing draw for the land north of 407. For Langstaff subway station move the subway station into the developable lands rather than tucking it into the undevelopable no-man's-lands.

2. Langstaff is the transit hub (subway, GO train, VIVA, YRT) and is shifted south from the proposed location, and High Tech station is not likely to be a big draw for any significant time and could be postponed until later because really Clark/Meadowview would have larger demand for a while. Bus bays on the site of the Langstaff parking lot with bus road under the 407 to the east of the tracks. Platforms centered south of the 407 better serve the Langstaff lands.

 

[mdu]

High Tech will barely cost anything compared to any of the mined stations, considering all you really need a roof, and stairs/elevator down from High Tech, so there's no point in comparing it to the Yonge stations.

And the Langstaff lands will be developed super quick. The few property owners own these lands for this exact purpose. The entire block is green(grey)field, and there are no neighbours to NIMBY around or complain about shadows. Free tax base for the municipal governments. High prices from developers for subway connectivity. The towers will probably be ready for move-in by the time the subway opens. I expect even higher density on this side of the Subway U than on the VMC side considering it's closer to the urban stretches of Yonge around NYCC and Midtown, plus the convenience of the GO station for downtown commuters.

 

[afransen]

The proposed option surfaces as soon as reasonably possible. The goal is to get the subway north of the 407 is be able to effectively connect to the viva network and regional 407 buses. Unfortunately, because of poor prior planning, there is no surface ROW available so the choice is elevated over young or underground. Elevated would probably be cheaper but is, unfortunately, a political no-go given the areas it goes through.

Not sure we tried very hard. How much would elevated north of the Don save? A billion dollars? What if we took a portion and compensated residents along the route? Even gave each of them an average $500k. Or a smaller amount and a guarantee that property values would not underperform a comparable sample over the next 20 years. You could do that for a thousand households and still come out ahead. Alternately, buy up the land on one side of the street for 30% above market and retain it for future redevelopment.

I think Toronto is just traumatized by the Gardiner to fear elevated infrastructure. I can only hope OL helps cure that trauma on its eastern end and open up more rational alternatives in future.