Still a long distance (vertically and horizontally) to reach the David Dunlap Observatory from the terminal at High Tech Station.

20180907-david-dunlap-observatory-12.jpg
From link.

1639059808496.png

From link.

 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
The first time I saw the new alignment, I kind of scratched my chin but quickly decided, yes, it's superior to Yonge. Because once you're north of Royal Orchard, you really gain nothing in terms of urbanity. The only "downside" is that the last 2 stations are close to each other and you lose the Longbridge parking lot (big deal), but you gain a more central node for the Markham growth centre, which is huge. And you get a more efficient bus transfer.

By allowing the final 2 stations to go above ground, it also made the entire project financially viable within the constraints presented by the Province. Not one Royal Orchard resident has asked, or seems to care, what the cost difference is to move the alignment back to Yonge, but the answer is clearly hundreds of millions of dollars. So when The Toronto Star writes the same old junk about how the PCs are appeasing suburban residents, with no one asking about the actual money and politics involved, it's pretty annoying.

My impression from social media is most people saw the headline and didn't read the article, or they otherwise think the line has been moved back to Yonge. There's no real point "Debating" the Yonge alignment at this point. Clearly they were not interested in going back to it because what they are gaining far exceeds the ramifications upsetting 40 - now 20 - homeowners. And clearly that was the right call.
Click to expand...
Yup. The star grumbles about moving the underground alignment here but not undergrounding the OL through Leslieville.. but the reality is that the cost implication of shifting the alignment here is probably almost nothing while undergrounding the OL has a cost to the tune of $1 billion..

Shifting the Langstaff Station to Bridge also gives much, much better walking shed coverage of the planned Langstaff Gateway which was only marginally served by the original station planned on Yonge. It's trading a commuter lot for thousands of additional units.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Still a long distance (vertically and horizontally) to reach the David Dunlap Observatory from the terminal at High Tech Station.
Click to expand...

Uh, not sure why this matters but it's probably gonna be like 15-minute bus ride and maybe even less to bike from the station to there. Not so bad, actually.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Yup. The star grumbles about moving the underground alignment here but not undergrounding the OL through Leslieville.. but the reality is that the cost implication of shifting the alignment here is probably almost nothing while undergrounding the OL has a cost to the tune of $1 billion..

Shifting the Langstaff Station to Bridge also gives much, much better walking shed coverage of the planned Langstaff Gateway which was only marginally served by the original station planned on Yonge. It's trading a commuter lot for thousands of additional units.
Click to expand...
When the Ontario line was announced I was highly sceptical about the above ground section through Leslieville, however as the project has been refined it has been shown to be far better value than the RL.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Well, this should finally put to rest all those concerns from the local ratepayers, right? I mean, Metrolinx wasn't listening - but they did listen. It was a done deal - but then it wasn't.
It was going under a lot of their homes, too close to the surface - now it's half the homes and deeper. I expect them to be thrilled!

Also, this seems to be oddly under the radar but it seems like it's kind of a big thing?
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this, I was able to attend. I think the plan is great overall, but the real decision makers (developers and city) were not available for comment. Unfortunately that leaves me with doubts that the development will be implemented as currently envisioned.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Yup. The star grumbles about moving the underground alignment here but not undergrounding the OL through Leslieville.. but the reality is that the cost implication of shifting the alignment here is probably almost nothing while undergrounding the OL has a cost to the tune of $1 billion..

Shifting the Langstaff Station to Bridge also gives much, much better walking shed coverage of the planned Langstaff Gateway which was only marginally served by the original station planned on Yonge. It's trading a commuter lot for thousands of additional units.
Click to expand...

I dunno man. Do we know to what extent this alignment shift and nimby appeasement added to the depth, or if new costs are 'almost nothing'? Sixteen storeys underground is pretty darn substantial. If there were genuine concerns that called for this, sure explore it, present it, discuss it. But to offer it last minute, then actually go on the record and say their reasons are to keep things "peaceful and quiet" for a handful of homes? That's a precedent right there. And it sort of runs afoul of their statements concerning other projects (lower costs, build things affordably, ease of movement).

But sure, the media. The tSar at it again.
 
44 North said:
I dunno man. Do we know to what extent this alignment shift and nimby appeasement added to the depth, or if new costs are 'almost nothing'? Sixteen storeys underground is pretty darn substantial. If there were genuine concerns that called for this, sure explore it, present it, discuss it. But to offer it last minute, then actually go on the record and say their reasons are to keep things "peaceful and quiet" for a handful of homes? That's a precedent right there. And it sort of runs afoul of their statements concerning other projects (lower costs, build things affordably, ease of movement).

But sure, the media. The tSar at it again.
Click to expand...

Yeah it doesn't really make sense.

Putting the Leslieville portion of the Ontario Line underground will cost $1 billion, but this alignment change and the depth they have to dig will result in no additional costs?

A 9 storey depth would've been unacceptable for the Ontario Line, but deep stations are fine here?

In the Crosstown thread it's been suggested that the above ground portion above or below grade would've been nearly the same cost as it is now.

Apparently increased costs and budgets aren't a thing for certain projects.
 
Why do I have the feeling that the name "High Tech" isn't going to age well?
 

"it is shameful that Metrolinx consulted people and didn't do exactly what about 200 of them, and their dogs, asked for. Is this democracy?! I demand Metrolinx keep talking with residents until the entire staff of the Agency is replaced with Royal Orchard residents. It's the only way to come up with the best solution for York Region. "

EDIT: That Liberal response is actually pretty fair and certainly suggests they're not trying to get votes by promising to move it back to Yonge. My snark was directed a bit more to MP Melissa Lantsman.

1639143962064.jpeg
 
Last edited:
44 North said:
I dunno man. Do we know to what extent this alignment shift and nimby appeasement added to the depth, or if new costs are 'almost nothing'? Sixteen storeys underground is pretty darn substantial. If there were genuine concerns that called for this, sure explore it, present it, discuss it. But to offer it last minute, then actually go on the record and say their reasons are to keep things "peaceful and quiet" for a handful of homes? That's a precedent right there. And it sort of runs afoul of their statements concerning other projects (lower costs, build things affordably, ease of movement).

But sure, the media. The tSar at it again.
Click to expand...
I mean I'm not a construction expert but my understanding is tunnelling costs are less to do with physical depth and more to do with metres the TBM has to travel. Additional costs occur on deeper stations, but if a tunnel dips deep between stations it's not a massive cost difference.

The case here is that the stations on either end of this portion of the alignment remain unchanged, it's just the routing of the TBM being modified to be deeper. The new alignment does likely result in marginally longer tunnels required to reach those extra depths and to make those sharper corners, but I can't see it actually being that much additional cost. At most you are looking at an emergency exit shaft getting deeper.

It's likely not a zero cost addition, but it's almost certainly only a marginal cost difference.

And yea, It's stupid regardless. The original alignment was fine and wouldn't have caused any issues for the neighbours. I was more so explaining how The Star is framing it as "appeasing the suburban voters while ignoring the inner city voter", while in reality this whole alignment is the same thing as the OL alignment - trying to find a way to cut costs by bringing parts of the subway line to the surface.

Metrolinx has done the same thing with the OL and the Davenport Diamond in the face of local opposition, made tweaks at the margin to appease locals without really giving them what they truly want, as what they truly want has massive cost implications. For the OL they have increased parkland dedications and are spending money on high quality sound barriers, dampened tracks, etc., while here they are shoving the tunnel a bit deeper.

Remember that the neighbourhood here wants the alignment back on Yonge, just like Riverdale wants the alignment tunneled. Neither are getting what they want.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top