[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Yeah. I agree with everyone above who sees this article as much ado about nothing. The route alignment info has been public forever and they selected the cheapest option, which made sense in the context of the directive being to get within the funding envelope. Two aboveground stations is a lot cheaper than doing underground. This is old hat and an obvious excuse for the re-alignment, if not the weird turns to get around the cemetery.

The developers were already there and already had a subway station at the west end. (The final station barely moved so no gain there for the DeGasperis folks.) I guess central location is better but it is also more logical and desirable for planning the site so I don't see anything nefarious there. We don't want more density at station sites?

Sure, the scale of the extra density is problematic on its own terms but that has to do with IO getting involved and not the subway route, per se. In theory, they could have made the same deal even with the station at Long bridge and, as I just said, the alignment shift didn't change anything at High Tech. So... Shrug.

 

[Amare]

Yeah. I agree with everyone above who sees this article as much ado about nothing. The route alignment info has been public forever and they selected the cheapest option, which made sense in the context of the directive being to get within the funding envelope. Two aboveground stations is a lot cheaper than doing underground. This is old hat and an obvious excuse for the re-alignment, if not the weird turns to get around the cemetery.

The developers were already there and already had a subway station at the west end. (The final station barely moved so no gain there for the DeGasperis folks.) I guess central location is better but it is also more logical and desirable for planning the site so I don't see anything nefarious there. We don't want more density at station sites?

Sure, the scale of the extra density is problematic on its own terms but that has to do with IO getting involved and not the subway route, per se. In theory, they could have made the same deal even with the station at Long bridge and, as I just said, the alignment shift didn't change anything at High Tech. So... Shrug.

The bolded section of your statement is questionable since the province is willing to spend upwards of ~50-$100 million extra just to deep bore the tunnel around Royal Orchard to appease ~50 wealthy homeowners who are complaining about "tunnel vibration".

Money that could've been allocated to build Cummer station which the province refused to pay for. So it's not like we're getting the most value for money here.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think we're mixing and matching and confusing the timeline here.

There was a funding envelope. They selected the cheapest option, which provided for 3 stations (Steeles, Bridge, High Tech) and one more, subject to further evaluation. That ended up being Clark.

Royal Orchard was later, on the basis of the TOC dollars being generated.

(the subsequently tweaking of the alignment to appease the locals cost more but after the fact and still at a fraction of a station cost)

Obviously there's politics in the mix and you can argue that's all a big shell game, if you like, but it still doesn't refute my point as to how the alignment was selected when it was. The IBC outlines the rationale and Clark and Royal Orchard weren't part of that calculus during that process , for better or worse, and neither was affected (unless you count Clark being "saved" by the alignment shift).

 

[Amare]

I think we're mixing and matching and confusing the timeline here.

There was a funding envelope. They selected the cheapest option, which provided for 3 stations (Steeles, Bridge, High Tech) and one more, subject to further evaluation. That ended up being Clark.

Royal Orchard was later, on the basis of the TOC dollars being generated.

(the subsequently tweaking of the alignment to appease the locals cost more but after the fact and still at a fraction of a station cost)

Obviously there's politics in the mix and you can argue that's all a big shell game, if you like, but it still doesn't refute my point as to how the alignment was selected when it was. The IBC outlines the rationale and Clark and Royal Orchard weren't part of that calculus during that process , for better or worse, and neither was affected (unless you count Clark being "saved" by the alignment shift).

Sure you can say that they selected the cheapest option, but all the province is doing this speculating that all these thousands of units of development will come online with their TOC scheme and that this would justify their rational for the alignment. Let's just say the market happens to cool off (like it is today with housing starts), where would all the ridership come from? All the big box stores? It's extremely risky, misguided, and hopping on that fantasy train of build it and they will come (just like we saw with Sheppard). We need to stop building transit this way, and build for what is solidly planned out. Now of course if the units are built, they will look smart, but all these thousands of units wont be fully built out for decades.

Metrolinx/IO havent even completed a single TOC development to date, and the Ontario Line will be the "first test" per se of their plan. Eglinton and Leslie would technically be the first one that should come online, but one would think they would actually test their model before relying on hope to justify choosing an alignment that's cheaper yes, but whose ridership on the extreme northern end wont be very high.

But nevertheless, I was more specifically referring to the millions of wasted money with the extra deep bore at Royal Orchard, that's the part that's extremely illogical and cant be justified no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Sure you can say that they selected the cheapest option, but all the province is doing this speculating that all these thousands of units of development will come online with their TOC scheme and that this would justify their rational for the alignment. Let's just say the market happens to cool off (like it is today with housing starts), where would all the ridership come from? All the big box stores? It's extremely risky, misguided, and hopping on that fantasy train of build it and they will come (just like we saw with Sheppard).

I think you're still mixing cause and effect.
The Bridge TOC area was already an urban growth centre and going to get huge density, no matter where the station was. (High Tech too)
The alignment shift didn't give them more density, the TOC deal did. What happens with the housing market etc is entirely beside the point. Maybe the province gets money up front? Maybe it's phased? I have no clue. Doesn't matter as it has nothing to do with the alignment shift/station selection, per se. If, for example, they were going to delay Royal Orchard if the TOC doesn't come online, that would be a direct, relevant connection. Without that, I don't see what difference any of this makes or what the "risk" is.

I can say they selected the cheapest option because that's what the IBC says. And I suspect ridership will be fine, even in the many years it will take the TOC to develop but time will tell.

But nevertheless, I was more specifically referring to the millions of wasted money with the extra deep bore at Royal Orchard, that's the part that's extremely illogical and cant be justified no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

Yes...I agree that's one darned deep station and it's hard to imagine there will be any ridership to justify it. The box shifted as part of the alignment shift, making it even deeper but that's a bit of a side issue as compared to what was in the Star story.