Northern Light
Superstar
Not under a subdivision, for sure.
But the turns at the bottom of the 'U' on line 1, into/out of Union are very tight.
The turn out of Broadview towards Chester is likewise very tight.
Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
Not under a subdivision, for sure.
But the turns at the bottom of the 'U' on line 1, into/out of Union are very tight.
The turn out of Broadview towards Chester is likewise very tight.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
The official Provincial news release is here.
I believe this is the new business case.
And here's the official route map which matches what was posted above...
This also answers speculation about the Langstaff station; it's now called "Bridge" (?) and appears to be directly beneath the highway, which is where the existing GO station is anyway. Obviously I'm on record as a long-time booster of this project and this requires some absorbing and I'm sure some people north of Steeles will lose their stuff.... but I kinda like it? It solves some problems and clearly works around some constraints and transit planning in these parts is always interesting.
I believe this is the new business case.
And here's the official route map which matches what was posted above...
This also answers speculation about the Langstaff station; it's now called "Bridge" (?) and appears to be directly beneath the highway, which is where the existing GO station is anyway. Obviously I'm on record as a long-time booster of this project and this requires some absorbing and I'm sure some people north of Steeles will lose their stuff.... but I kinda like it? It solves some problems and clearly works around some constraints and transit planning in these parts is always interesting.
smallspy
Senior Member
Yes, but....
The TYSSE was tunnelled directly underneath a couple of existing neighbourhoods. The difference is that those neighbourhoods were industrial and institutional, not residential.
Dan
Northern Light
Superstar
Mostly under Cedarvale Ravine, but yes.
Under Coleman Avenue and Dentonia Park, but does angle under some houses in order to make that transition.
sacred
Active Member
It’s a little funky but if we can afford it, it’s great for the long term. I say this too much but sharing a station with GO is excellent as it allows for RH RER to serve as another “relief line” whenever that’s required.
I have to wonder, could this be elevated from north of Finch to south of Royal Orchard?
I have to wonder, could this be elevated from north of Finch to south of Royal Orchard?
smallspy
Senior Member
Again, yes but....
That line was built as a cut-and-cover, and whatever buildings were in the way during planning of the line were removed for the construction. All buildings currently over top of the tunnels were built after completion.
Dan
Northern Light
Superstar
Not for most of that length.
Unless you're intending to go directly over Yonge, and even then, its problematic.
This is what its the way of an elevated alignment.
The the massive M2M development:
Then this one:
A good chunk more of the land has already been upzoned for high density with approved plans.
****
Putting elevated tracks over the level'ish sections of Yonge would be feasible; but room for stations would be problematic without shadowing the entire roadway. Making it unlikely to receive support.
allengeorge
Senior Member
I wonder if at least part of the reason this is so expensive is because of tunneling depth (making each station more expensive). The IBC addendum points out that they’ll be at significant depth under the subdivision to avoid noise impacts, and mentions significant depth to go under the East Don.
allengeorge
Senior Member
From the Globe and Mail article by Oliver Moore:
“ There would also be an underground station at Steeles Avenue and surface-level ones at Highway 7 and about 400 metres north of the highway, near a street called High Tech Road.
The advantage of this approach, the report argues, is that a station at Highway 7, which it calls Bridge station, could serve both Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff Gateway, both targeted for development. The station at High Tech, meanwhile, is designed to offer additional access to Richmond Hill Centre.”
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Yes, without that station, High Tech is very far from Langstaff and severely undermines its ability to achieve any kind of major intensification. As it is, we'll see how Markham reacts to the possibility of losing Royal Orchard and/or Clark. Arguably having the station along the GO rail line is actually a gain for them there but they would really lose it if they completely lost the station at Langstaff (and rightly so).
micheal_can
Senior Member
Maybe this is Ford's way of kicking it down the line. Kinda like what he did with the replacement for the SRT.
Allandale25
Senior Member
And the associated blog post with today's news.
Tuck
Active Member
Fine with it veering away from Yonge for the final stretch but hate that they are dropping two stations. Build it right damn it
afransen
Senior Member
More importantly, GO can be the 'express' line. People riding toward union should be using GO, not subway.
turini2
Active Member
Many, many many subway lines are dig underneath residential areas across the world (not directly under streets) with no noise/disruption issues at all. Whether that's Crossrail in London, Metro Tunnel in Melbourne or soon - the Ontario Line!
Residents have nothing to worry about.