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.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Amare said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.

Amare said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amare said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are already tons of condos that have gone up in the last 5 or so years, especially the stuff around Oneida Crescent, and there is little reason to believe that that will suddenly stop.

But my main question with your logic is, are you arguing against the realignment, or are you arguing against the existence of this project in general, because it seems more like you're arguing against the latter.

Let's take a look at the original alignment on Satellite View, with the rough station locations circled in Yellow:
1728585912548.png

Assuming that the TOC doesn't get built and we went with the original alignment, we still have: Royal Orchard Station (exact same place as now pretty much), Langstaff Station (Under a hydro corridor, next to a cemetary and industrial wastelands - the goal of the TOC is to redevelop this remember), and RHC: Located under a bus terminal in the middle of a parking lot next to a movie theatre. Like I'm sorry, but its not like the original alignment was any better at connecting to existing developments - this isn't a choice between "Serving Existing Destinations" vs "Serving New Destinations", both plans relied on New Destinations and developments being the major hook of catching ridership, as well as better connections to the surrounding bus services. The only thing that can be said about the realignment is that it is more centrally located and does a better job at serving the new developments.
 
ARG1 said:
There are already tons of condos that have gone up in the last 5 or so years, especially the stuff around Oneida Crescent, and there is little reason to believe that that will suddenly stop.

But my main question with your logic is, are you arguing against the realignment, or are you arguing against the existence of this project in general, because it seems more like you're arguing against the latter.

Let's take a look at the original alignment on Satellite View, with the rough station locations circled in Yellow:View attachment 603146
Assuming that the TOC doesn't get built and we went with the original alignment, we still have: Royal Orchard Station (exact same place as now pretty much), Langstaff Station (Under a hydro corridor, next to a cemetary and industrial wastelands - the goal of the TOC is to redevelop this remember), and RHC: Located under a bus terminal in the middle of a parking lot next to a movie theatre. Like I'm sorry, but its not like the original alignment was any better at connecting to existing developments - this isn't a choice between "Serving Existing Destinations" vs "Serving New Destinations", both plans relied on New Destinations and developments being the major hook of catching ridership, as well as better connections to the surrounding bus services. The only thing that can be said about the realignment is that it is more centrally located and does a better job at serving the new developments.
Click to expand...
Frankly i've always been against the Yonge extension to Richmond Hill Centre to begin with, no matter the alignment. I'm fine with extending it to Clark Ave, but past that and i've never understood the point.
 
The new alignment provides the simplest route of ascent to grade while not conflicting with existing buildings and infrastructure. There’s otherwise no space for the train to reach grade.

The time saved by a more direct route would then be lost by adding the escalator journey to street level.

Now aligned with Langstaff, maybe we’ll get a grand interchange station here… hopefully with grand levels of service.
 
ARG1 said:
Let's take a look at the original alignment on Satellite View, with the rough station locations circled in Yellow:he only thing that can be said about the realignment is that it is more centrally located and does a better job at serving the new developments.
Click to expand...

I think this may be the key point. I mean - let's be honest. If you were building this community from scratch, you would have stuck the subway stationi n the middle all along. It was a flaw of the original alignment that it stayed along Yonge and it always presented something of a challenge for residents in the middle of the development (to say nothing of the east end, by Bayview) to get to the subway. The original Langstaff plan proposed a PRT or a shuttle system to the two subway stations. Now it's basically walking distance to the whole community and it's above grade.

I'm not sure you've really lost anything - except the commuter parking lot that was planned to be under the hydro corridor, west of Yonge. And do we think that's really a huge loss?

(Oh, and look - this thing is going to take 20 years to build out. But in addition to the condos already going on to the north, the first towers in the TOC are already close to approval and there will also be condos all along Yonge. I don't think that aspect should be a major concern.)
 
reinventingthewheel said:
The new alignment provides the simplest route of ascent to grade while not conflicting with existing buildings and infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. It will impact some infrastructure. Lack of foresight with this alignment. I would prefer they just tunneled to Langstaff.

If I'm looking at these renderings, diagrams correctly, the northern part of the alignment will run "at grade", parallel with the CN Bala sub/ GO RH line. This would take up valuable real estate for any future third track on the sub, or for GO to run it's own parallel running ROW.

There doesn't seem to be any room for two subway tracks and a third track on the Bala sub under the 407 bridge.
www.google.ca

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.ca www.google.ca
 
Last edited:
Bojaxs said:
.There doesn't seem to be any room for two subway tracks and a third track on the Bala sub under the 407 bridge.
Click to expand...
The clear solution is to align the GO and subway platform together, north of the 407. Pier to pier that underpass fits 4 tracks with no platforms, and there’s an additional few metres for passage on the outsides of those piers. Could include a bypass track on the east side.
 
CN has a lot of juice. If they wanted to leave room for a 3rd track, I doubt they'd let Metrolinx take the ROW.

Maybe one day they'll regret it but that seems like a pretty long-term issue, if at all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top