News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 28K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.7K     0 

sche

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
264
Reaction score
819
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.

View attachment 367936
How is that a more "logical" alignment? The only benefit seems to be saving maybe 1 minute in train travel time, at the cost of more underground construction (higher cost), stations located further away from most new development, and a much worse transfer to the RH GO line.

And how is whether or not Yonge is a 'people street' relevant? Nothing about shifting the line east to the rail corridor precludes a future extension, either continuing along the RH GO line (which is the better alignment IMO, much much cheaper) or going back underneath Yonge.

What exactly are the benefits of this 'more logical' alignment? Other than that it looks straighter on a map?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
19,467
Reaction score
45,381
@sche said: How is that a more "logical" alignment? The only benefit seems to be saving maybe 1 minute in train travel time, at the cost of more underground construction (higher cost), stations located further away from most new development, and a much worse transfer to the RH GO line.

And how is whether or not Yonge is a 'people street' relevant? Nothing about shifting the line east to the rail corridor precludes a future extension, either continuing along the RH GO line (which is the better alignment IMO, much much cheaper) or going back underneath Yonge.

What exactly are the benefits of this 'more logical' alignment? Other than that it looks straighter on a map?
Apologies in that case

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.

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.

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).

I apologize to both of you in advance if this response seems ornery.

However.........I have already answered all of these questions, more than once in this thread...........its all been explained before, by me and others, again and again, ad nauseum.

I appreciate that neither of you may have engaged with this ever so long thread at those points, and tracking down old arguments is at least as painful as having to re-type them all.

But I simply don't wish to re-litigate all of this one more time.

That was the point of my first post in this thread today, where I said I'm prepared to support this to avoid going back to the drawing board one more time.

My subsequent posts attempts to answer questions/arguments; but as has been the case throughout this thread's history, as with the SSE.......

People have their positions and which to engage in a full on trial of ideas.

You're welcome to disagree with my positions. I think I've articulated them well, in brief, today, and at length in the past.

But I have no desire to go there again; and will depart this thread accordingly.

With all that said, I will touch on just a couple of points, not to argue, but to answer.

****

at the cost of more underground construction (higher cost), stations located further away from most new development..........

The entire alignment under Bay Thorn is over 1.1km of underground alignment.

Shift that to Yonge from the same point and you end up at the 407.

The difference in underground is negligible at this point; and given the additional depth now proposed, I find it unlikely there are any cost savings being achieved by going 1.1km out of the way, in a tunnel, to gain a few hundred metres above ground thereafter.

and a much worse transfer to the RH GO line.

My diagram shows a full meet at RHC, that's hardly inconvenient.

And how is whether or not Yonge is a 'people street' relevant?

I was specifically answering another poster who suggested than an argument for the off-Yonge alignment was that Yonge was too car-centric.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,352
Reaction score
3,211
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.

But Peter Palframan, a member of the Keep the Subway on Yonge residents group, said while tunnelling under fewer homes is an improvement, “the fact is, it shouldn’t be under any homes.”



Markham Coun. Keith Irish agreed, saying in a statement that a subway on Yonge would serve more riders and be more effective at reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

“While it is the season of giving and I am pleased that Metrolinx has finally listened to the concerns of the Royal Orchard community…it’s still not quite the gift the residents of Thornhill were looking forward to,” said Irish (Ward 1 Thornhill).”



From The Star article:

 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
1,756
Isn't part of the relocation rationale that it provides better positioning at High Park and Bridge for all the new development happening?
Yes. There are 2 reasons: More development and getting the subway and its 2 final stations above ground to fit in the funding envelope. Travel time and all this other stuff is in the mix, but far lower down on the priority scale.

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.

A lot of people here (but not everyone) is really missing the forest for the trees. Firstly, you have no evidence this route costs more. Secondly, it hasn't delayed anything to do with the remaining stations and even if it did, you have no evidence of that either. Third ,this is a relatively minor refining of the existing route. Everyone's acting like it's some HUGE change that was made. No - the huge change was from Option 1 to Option 3. This is just tinkering.

While "staying on Yonge" seems to kinda make sense (if you take budget out of the equation), if you've ever actually been to the 407/Yonge intersection, you can appreciate what is actually being gained in terms of city building with the move to Option 3. You weren't getting a North York Centre-style streetwall along Yonge with Option 1. The major development was always going to be internal to the blocks, and now that's where the stations are.

The net gain, in budget and development $, from Option 1 to 3 is so huge that it's almost comic watching people fret over the notion that moving from Option 3 Refined to Option 3 More Refined is somehow equivalent to, say, replacing the Scarborough LRT with the SSE. I saw some guy on Twitter compare this to the Liberal gas plant scandal. Get some perspective, dude. In terms of taxpayer revenue, it's rather the opposite.

Now, it was done to appease residents and it probably won't work, which again, makes all the hysteria about how this is Doug Ford helping rich suburabanites even funnier. They want the subway on Yonge, not Baythorn. What it nonetheless proves, at least to me, is that Metrolinx did listen to residents. They did test alternatives. They did make changes to alleviate concerns as much as they felt they could. I can see The Star (because everything is about TORONTO TORONTO TORONTO) has already turned this into "how come Thornhill gets government concessions but not Leslieville!" but that narrative only makes sense if they went back to Option 1, even slightly modified. You can't have it both ways, IMHO.

[And that Star article was posted as I was typing, proving the point. The residents said it was a "done deal" and took Metrolinx to task for making the decision without asking them; they were wrong, and that doesn't change just because you didn't get exactly what you want. They don't have to like it but I don't have time for this, "Well, it still runs under 20 houses..." stuff. Too bad.]
 
Last edited:

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,352
Reaction score
3,211
And that Star article was posted as I was typing, proving the point. The residents said it was a "done deal" and took Metrolinx to task for making the decision without asking them; they were wrong, and that doesn't change just because you didn't get exactly what you want. It's a compromise.]
I’m confused: was your original comment subtly sarcastic, or what? Because what I read was a statement that claimed that the ratepayers should be satisfied because Metrolinx listened. As per the article this is not the case.

What point were you trying to get across?
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
1,756
I’m confused: was your original comment subtly sarcastic, or what? Because what I read was a statement that claimed that the ratepayers should be satisfied because Metrolinx listened. As per the article this is not the case.

What point were you trying to get across?

I was making 2 points:
1. It was made to appease them but they would not be appeased. Ergo, the Star/social media narrative that this was Ford interfering and buying suburban votes rings a little hollow.
2. Nonetheless, the residents claimed, from day 1, the route was locked and no one wanted to hear from them and Metrolinx presented a fait accompli, the decision made with zero consultation. The reality, of course, is there was consultation and residents voiced concerns and the route was changed in direct response to the concerns raised by those same residents who said no such thing would ever happen. It raises questions, at least to me, of who here is working in good faith toward achieving a "greater good" vs selfish posturing.
They should, in my opinion, admit they were wrong, thank Metrolinx and (as Keith Irish almost/sorta does), say, "It's not perfect but we appreicate they heard our voices and made changes, even if it's not exactly what we wanted."
Maybe they can stop for just a moment and consider the argumentthat a $6B project should be radically changed based on 20 homeowners complaining, because those 20 people REALLY want it changed.

Now go back to #1 and read it again. Then #2, then #1, then #2...
 

MrGoose

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
240
Reaction score
741
The entire alignment under Bay Thorn is over 1.1km of underground alignment.

Shift that to Yonge from the same point and you end up at the 407.

The difference in underground is negligible at this point; and given the additional depth now proposed, I find it unlikely there are any cost savings being achieved by going 1.1km out of the way, in a tunnel, to gain a few hundred metres above ground thereafter.
Tunneling is (relatively) cheap, building stations is expensive.

So by building Richmond hill stations at grade the project is saving money.

Royal Orchard Station was always going to be incredibly deep and expensive, Option 3 (both old and new) don't meaningfully increase the depth of any possible Royal Orchard station as compared to the original plan.
 

MrGoose

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
240
Reaction score
741

But Peter Palframan, a member of the Keep the Subway on Yonge residents group, said while tunnelling under fewer homes is an improvement, “the fact is, it shouldn’t be under any homes.”



Markham Coun. Keith Irish agreed, saying in a statement that a subway on Yonge would serve more riders and be more effective at reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

“While it is the season of giving and I am pleased that Metrolinx has finally listened to the concerns of the Royal Orchard community…it’s still not quite the gift the residents of Thornhill were looking forward to,” said Irish (Ward 1 Thornhill).”



From The Star article:

The councillor is wrong, theres nothing on Yonge which would drive ridership, and there is very little opportunity for redevelopment like the Langstaff plan, its all SFH.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
24,863
Reaction score
5,450
City:
Toronto
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
Oops ... Toronto-Danforth (used to be Broadview-Greenwood). Used to be just about the safest NDP riding in the legislature, but it's slowly gentrifying further right. Liberals have a very strong chance in this election with Mary Fragedakis as their candidate. There's an opportunity for the Liberals to make some promises about the Ontario Line through here, that the NDP might not meet - though they probably aren't as opposed to it as they were, when the NDP opposed a relief line, as it would create growth.

I'm less sure how York politics work - but I'd think that Liberals might be able to sell a pure Yonge Street alignment to win some votes.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
1,756
I'm less sure how York politics work - but I'd think that Liberals might be able to sell a pure Yonge Street alignment to win some votes.

Everyone thinks they can paste the same "Ford messes with suburban transit" headline here.
The riding is big and the number of voters affected here is small. I think there is zero chance the Liberals change the alignment, even if it were still possible by then.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,950
Reaction score
15,609
City:
Toronto
an all yonge-st alignment is also just generally a worse alignment for dozens of reasons, the largest of which would be the requirement for deep-bore stations at Richmond Hill Centre.

One of the best parts of the new alignment is the lower-depth stations at the terminus, which will be some of the busiest stops on the line. It will make for faster and easier transfers for bus users heading deeper into York Region and for residents accessing all the new density surrounding the line, which will be a decent amount of new intensification in York Region over the coming decades.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
1,756
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 (with Option 1). The only "downside" to Option 3 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.
 
Last edited:

Top