[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If York region coughs up the money for Royal Orchard Station, the speed difference between the two versions would be minimal. Otherwise, maybe 30s added.

I suspect the speed difference is minimal too. The turn is tighter but it's now making only one turn to the right, instead of doing that second thing to the left you do when you're turning into a tight parking spot.

 

[syn]

“While we already expected that noise and vibration levels would not be significantly different to what residents experience today, these refinements will make them even lower. In fact, early environmental studies based on the new route show that by using the proven technology available, noise and vibration levels from operations will be so faint in the Royal Orchard community that they’ll be practically imperceptible to human senses."

I'm curious what these changes and nearly imperceptible subways are going to add to the cost of this project. Interestingly that wasn't mentioned.

"The subway tunnels beneath the Royal Orchard neighbourhood will be between 21 and 50 metres below the surface, and on average will be deeper than under earlier plans."

50 meters?! I thought deep tunnels were awful (see: Line, Ontario).

 

[ARG1]

“While we already expected that noise and vibration levels would not be significantly different to what residents experience today, these refinements will make them even lower. In fact, early environmental studies based on the new route show that by using the proven technology available, noise and vibration levels from operations will be so faint in the Royal Orchard community that they’ll be practically imperceptible to human senses."

I'm curious what these changes and nearly imperceptible subways are going to add to the cost of this project. Interestingly that wasn't mentioned.

"The subway tunnels beneath the Royal Orchard neighbourhood will be between 21 and 50 metres below the surface, and on average will be deeper than under earlier plans."

50 meters?! I thought deep tunnels were awful (see: Line, Ontario).

They are. Any questions?

Now the good news is that its going to be deep here, and there will be a deep station at Royal Orchard, in favour of having a surface station at High Tech and Bridge, so in terms of system access, the only loser is a station that may not even get built, BUT this change is still ludicrous.

 

[Northern Light]

Doesn't work that way in Broadview-Danforth.

Perhaps the Liberals will promise to adjust the Ontario line in a hope of winning that seat.

The fact that the Conservatives stand slightly less chance of winning the Broadview-Danforth riding than Doug Ford has of getting his PhD in neurosurgery might have something to do with that

 

[Northern Light]

I must say, I'm really not sold on moving the line off of Yonge in the first place.

The savings are not that substantial; and it increases route length and travel time.

I'm prepared to support this nonsense, rather than go back to the drawing board yet again........

But I certainly feel that on virtually every major transit project touched by the Ford gov't they've found ways to delay it, increase its cost and make it less desirable to customers/riders and area residents alike.

True of the Ontario Line, Eglinton West, Yonge North, Hurontario LRT etc etc.

Just one big cluster @!$%

Sigh.

 

[Allandale25]

I must say, I'm really not sold on moving the line off of Yonge in the first place.

The savings are not that substantial; and it increases route length and travel time.

I'm prepared to support this nonsense, rather than go back to the drawing board yet again........

But I certainly feel that on virtually every major transit project touched by the Ford gov't they've found ways to delay it, increase its cost and make it less desirable to customers/riders and area residents alike.

True of the Ontario Line, Eglinton West, Yonge North, Hurontario LRT etc etc.

Just one big cluster @!$%

Sigh.

Isn't part of the relocation rationale that it provides better positioning at High Park and Bridge for all the new development happening?

 

[Northern Light]

Isn't part of the relocation rationale that it provides better positioning at High Park and Bridge for all the new development happening?

Let me flip it; is that development viable without the subway being routed in the manner proposed?

If not, should that development even be permitted there, as opposed to concentrating density along major arteries with rapid transit?

 

[ARG1]

Let me flip it; is that development viable without the subway being routed in the manner proposed?

If not, should that development even be permitted there, as opposed to concentrating density along major arteries with rapid transit?

The entire area is a massive field of parking lots, big box stores, and empty fields. While you could concentrate more of the development along Yonge Street, you have all of this open land just available right there, why not move the subway there where it will reduce the cost of the line, better serve the people living there, and thus making it more desirable for customers (Exactly the things you complained about in your last post). The people over in Royal Orchard are being NIMBYs for the sake of NIMBYism. York University has a subway going 20m under a bunch of lecture halls and there's barely a vibration - yet somehow these NIMBYs are still worried about their house. A lot can be said about this pointless change of plans but whatever. Thankfully if Royal Orchard gets built and is now more expensive, York Region will be paying the bulk of the cost since its an ignored neighbourhood station.

I should also bring up the fact that the plan was always to bring the Subway off of Yonge Street, Option 3 just does so in a more extreme way. Even back in the 2000s when the project was first being planned, the line would follow Yonge Street until Langstaff, then curve off east until Richmond Hill Centre. The current Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal is directly above where the initial plans had the station located, so this whole notion you have that its under Ford that they chose to move the line off of Yonge is wrong.

 

[ARG1]

The savings are not that substantial; and it increases route length and travel time.

Also keep in mind that in terms of savings, you're comparing Option 3 with 1 of the neighbourhood stations built, with Option 1 with absolutely no neighbourhood Stations. If we added the cost of Clark Station to Option 1, now it costs substantially more.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A comparison. Safe to assume slower speeds in the December version now that the curves are sharper?

View attachment 367898

The NIMBYs just increased the total budget cost of the North Yonge extension. At the same time, they delayed getting the Cummer/Drewry and Royal Orchard stations, to save on the project budget.

 

[Northern Light]

The entire area is a massive field of parking lots, big box stores, and empty fields. While you could concentrate more of the development along Yonge Street, you have all of this open land just available right there, why not move the subway there where it will reduce the cost of the line, better serve the people living there, and thus making it more desirable for customers (Exactly the things you complained about in your last post). The people over in Royal Orchard are being NIMBYs for the sake of NIMBYism. York University has a subway going 20m under a bunch of lecture halls and there's barely a vibration - yet somehow these NIMBYs are still worried about their house. A lot can be said about this pointless change of plans but whatever. Thankfully if Royal Orchard gets built and is now more expensive, York Region will be paying the bulk of the cost since its an ignored neighbourhood station.

I should also bring up the fact that the plan was always to bring the Subway off of Yonge Street, Option 3 just does so in a more extreme way. Even back in the 2000s when the project was first being planned, the line would follow Yonge Street until Langstaff, then curve off east until Richmond Hill Centre. The current Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal is directly above where the initial plans had the station located, so this whole notion you have that its under Ford that they chose to move the line off of Yonge is wrong.

I'm not wrong; I didn't suggest that the move to take some portion of Yonge North slightly east originated with Ford.

That's simply not in my post.

I lamented that every project Ford's government has touched has ended up worse off for it; and named multiple projects and I stand by that comment.

I also advocated for the alignment of Line 1 I prefer, not an alignment proposed now or ever, I don't object to small bump east for a good connection at RHC, but only a small one; even then, moving sidewalks would be fine if the TTC would maintain them.

The argument about whether the subway should serve a development that doesn't yet exist, and the proposal for which is sub-optimal, a matter that could easily be addressed by that most Fordian of tools, the MZO......
is simply not the way I would do things. You build the government infrastructure where it makes the most sense for the people and the government and you allow development that logically follows that alignment.

Its simply backwards to me to do it any other way.

 

[tsm1072]

If not, should that development even be permitted there, as opposed to concentrating density along major arteries with rapid transit?

Why put development along major arteries that are designed for cars when you could put better development adjacent to a transit station with 3 different modes and strong connections? We always complain that GO stations are in the middle of empty parking lots, but this design change enables strong transfers between GO-TTC-VIVA and the chance at a true high-density transit-oriented development.

 

[Amare]

So let me get this straight, we're going to spend potentially tens of millions of dollars more on this project, just to appease something like ~100 homeowners?

I say let's put those homeowners on the hook for it directly. Let's say this costs an extra ~$50 million (purely a guess), at $500K per house (assuming 100 homes) they can easily afford to pay up to get their "peace and quiet".

 

[Northern Light]

Why put development along major arteries that are designed for cars when you could put better development adjacent to a transit station with 3 different modes and strong connections? We always complain that GO stations are in the middle of empty parking lots, but this design change enables strong transfers between GO-TTC-VIVA and the chance at a true high-density transit-oriented development.

I didn't argue against connecting Line 1 at RHC.

I realize everyone doesn't remember everyone's posts on these subjects; its been a rather long thread! But its a bit frustrating to see people misreading what I'm saying in light of my record on the subject.

I'm suggesting Yonge Street should be a people street.

It should be narrowed, just as will happen in North York Centre.

To me, this is a more logical alignment.

Note, that I am not suggesting going to Major Mack at this point, but show that to illustrate where I think the line will end up.

The dots are not suggested stations, but merely distance points.

 

[ARG1]

I'm not wrong; I didn't suggest that the move to take some portion of Yonge North slightly east originated with Ford.

That's simply not in my post.

Apologies in that case

I lamented that every project Ford's government has touched has ended up worse off for it; and named multiple projects and I stand by that comment.

The problem is the perfect project does not and cannot exist, especially if you look at it at a glass half full mentality.

> every major transit project touched by the Ford gov't they've found ways to delay it, increase its cost and make it less desirable to customers/riders and area residents alike.

This is true, but at the same time, you could also argue that every major transit project touched by the Ford gov't they've found ways to decrease its cost, or made it more desirable to customers/riders and area residents alike, and both of these statements would be true if we reversed the timeline, if we went from the current Ford projects to the old Liberal projects, they would either substantially increase in cost, or upset locals with worse service or worse connectivity.

I also advocated for the alignment of Line 1 I prefer, not an alignment proposed now or ever, I don't object to small bump east for a good connection at RHC, but only a small one; even then, moving sidewalks would be fine if the TTC would maintain them.

My question to you is why? Why keep it on Yonge? Are you designing it assuming another extension north at some point? Option 3 doesn't preclude that in any way. If they wanted it to go under Yonge that's an option, or they can have it run alongside the Bala Sub all the way until who knows where to save money. This is how most countries would do this that aren't Toronto.

The argument about whether the subway should serve a development that doesn't yet exist, and the proposal for which is sub-optimal, a matter that could easily be addressed by that most Fordian of tools, the MZO......
is simply not the way I would do things. You build the government infrastructure where it makes the most sense for the people and the government and you allow development that logically follows that alignment.

Again I want you to clarify what exactly about the plan is suboptimal. Is it the longer travel time? Well if we go for the Original Option 3 (and not this 90deg curve plan), that's a time loss of at most a minute, even for riders for a hypothetical northward extension, which in the grand scheme of things is minuscule. This is especially true for those living in the new developments since the station will be far closer to many of the new buildings, and will also be true for many bus riders, especially for busses that travel along Highway 7 since the Bus terminal access will be far more direct than any option revolving Yonge Street (and even the old Option 1 idea).