Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[Midtown Urbanist]

I am a little dumbfounded by the concept of not building subway stations in residential areas.

Both Royal Orchard and Centre/John street should have stations. The stop-spacing is fine.

The money? This is the 905. The money will be coughed up by the Province/Feds.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I am a little dumbfounded by the concept of not building subway stations in residential areas.

Both Royal Orchard and Centre/John street should have stations. The stop-spacing is fine.

Not sure if you're being ironic but it's just a mathematical fact that residential areas in suburbs - especially heritage districts - don't have the density to justify a subway station. The extension and the Secondary Plans in place clearly intensify at certain nodes and those 2 intersections are not among them.

Stations are expensive and require a certain amount of density. It makes sense that station spacing is greater when the density is lower, which (as we all know) is why the station spacing on Line 1 starts bunching up south of Eglinton and then moreso after Bloor. Knowing that area, I think having stations at Clark AND Centre AND Royal Orchard is riddiculous. Centre and Royal Orchard are on either side of a heritage area AND a river valley, where the existing density is likely to rise very little, even with a new subway.

I think it was right to axe Centre and probably Royal Orchard too. The reports on the Vivanext website outline the projected ridership and I forget the numbers now but I think Royal Orchard was very close to Bessarion levels. Difference is, Bessarion is still seeing lots of intensification and Royal Orchard never will. Also, as I alluded to, adding those stops adds to travel times.

Suffice it to say, I'm curious to see that York Region report on Royal Orchard - there IS some intensification to be had between there and Langstaff, if only a lot deep on Yonge - but I think the ship has sailed on Centre/John where you will NEVER build anything taller than 4-6 storeys.

 

[BurlOak]

I am a little dumbfounded by the concept of not building subway stations in residential areas.

Both Royal Orchard and Centre/John street should have stations. The stop-spacing is fine.

The money? This is the 905. The money will be coughed up by the Province/Feds.

So spacing would be:

• 753 m: Finch to Cummer
• 1210 m: Cummer to Steeles
• 1068 m: Steeles to Clark
• 910 m: Clark to John/Centre
• 860 m: John/Centre to Royal Orchard
• 900 m: Royal Orchard to Langstaff
• 1120 m: Langstaff to Richmond Hill Centre.

Not that unreasonable. They are relatively simple stations so get developers to chip in and fund most. It maybe not a bad idea to convince riders to take RH GO instead of subway - these extra 2 stops would help with that a bit.

 

[Leo_Chan]

So spacing would be:

• 753 m: Finch to Cummer
• 1210 m: Cummer to Steeles
• 1068 m: Steeles to Clark
• 910 m: Clark to John/Centre
• 860 m: John/Centre to Royal Orchard
• 900 m: Royal Orchard to Langstaff
• 1120 m: Langstaff to Richmond Hill Centre.

Not that unreasonable. They are relatively simple stations so get developers to chip in and fund most. It maybe not a bad idea to convince riders to take RH GO instead of subway - these extra 2 stops would help with that a bit.

Or built the tunnels straightly in provision for two future stations with side platforms like NYCC.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

So spacing would be:

• 753 m: Finch to Cummer
• 1210 m: Cummer to Steeles
• 1068 m: Steeles to Clark
• 910 m: Clark to John/Centre
• 860 m: John/Centre to Royal Orchard
• 900 m: Royal Orchard to Langstaff
• 1120 m: Langstaff to Richmond Hill Centre.

Not that unreasonable. They are relatively simple stations so get developers to chip in and fund most. It maybe not a bad idea to convince riders to take RH GO instead of subway - these extra 2 stops would help with that a bit.

Precisely. There are other goals to building transit, such as coverage, accessibility, and economic development.

You can make the argument that these extra stops will slow down commutes from Richmond Hill/Langstaff to downtown, but I have a few thoughts on that.

• The argument is made moot by the choice of technology on the corridor and the constraints of our TTC system. In a hub+spoke model of rapid transit, you would ideally want shorter stop-spacing in the downtown area, express service through the middle portion of the line (with a parallel service servicing the middle portion), and then shorter stop-spacing towards the end of the line, to enable a proper catchment area for the transit service. Since the Yonge Line has to serve the role of both, the commuters at the end of the line are just going to have to live with the dwell times at each station. If they want a rapid commute downtown, Richmond Hill GO (or a Relief/Ontario Line that extends along the rail corridor) would be a better alternative with some upgrades.
• If you remove stations because of a worry of slowing commutes, you are then prioritizing one set of commuters (Richmond Hill people) over another set of commuters (Thornhill folk)
• As has been regularly stated in this thread, the destination of many of these commuters are not downtown but North York or Eglinton. Ergo, no tears are being shed on my part for a 30-ish minute commute.
• New employment nodes at Langstaff or Steeles may materialize in the future, possibly precisely due to the existence of the adjacent higher-order transit feeding them. The more residential development we can fit along the Yonge Corridor next to rapid transit, the better.

Stations are expensive and require a certain amount of density. It makes sense that station spacing is greater when the density is lower, which (as we all know) is why the station spacing on Line 1 starts bunching up south of Eglinton and then moreso after Bloor. Knowing that area, I think having stations at Clark AND Centre AND Royal Orchard is riddiculous. Centre and Royal Orchard are on either side of a heritage area AND a river valley, where the existing density is likely to rise very little, even with a new subway.

I think it was right to axe Centre and probably Royal Orchard too. The reports on the Vivanext website outline the projected ridership and I forget the numbers now but I think Royal Orchard was very close to Bessarion levels. Difference is, Bessarion is still seeing lots of intensification and Royal Orchard never will. Also, as I alluded to, adding those stops adds to travel times.

Suffice it to say, I'm curious to see that York Region report on Royal Orchard - there IS some intensification to be had between there and Langstaff, if only a lot deep on Yonge - but I think the ship has sailed on Centre/John where you will NEVER build anything taller than 4-6 storeys.

Sounds like Thornhill and York Region are going to have to have a conversation with themselves about priorities re: housing and economic development versus maintaining live-in heritage museum neighbourhoods. Especially given the preponderance of 1 and 2 storey houses and large parking lots fronting Yonge Street throughout Thornhill.

Best of luck to that. Can't say I have the answer, as in Toronto we are still dealing with the Annex Museum, a live-in heritage neighbourhood that comprises of 5 subway stops.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Precisely. There are other goals to building transit, such as coverage, accessibility, and economic development.

You can make the argument that these extra stops will slow down commutes from Richmond Hill/Langstaff to downtown, but I have a few thoughts on that.

• The argument is made moot by the choice of technology on the corridor and the constraints of our TTC system. In a hub+spoke model of rapid transit, you would ideally want shorter stop-spacing in the downtown area, express service through the middle portion of the line (with a parallel service servicing the middle portion), and then shorter stop-spacing towards the end of the line, to enable a proper catchment area for the transit service. Since the Yonge Line has to serve the role of both, the commuters at the end of the line are just going to have to live with the dwell times at each station. If they want a rapid commute downtown, Richmond Hill GO (or a Relief/Ontario Line that extends along the rail corridor) would be a better alternative with some upgrades.
• If you remove stations because of a worry of slowing commutes, you are then prioritizing one set of commuters (Richmond Hill people) over another set of commuters (Thornhill folk)
• As has been regularly stated in this thread, the destination of many of these commuters are not downtown but North York or Eglinton. Ergo, no tears are being shed on my part for a 30-ish minute commute.
• New employment nodes at Langstaff or Steeles may materialize in the future, possibly precisely due to the existence of the adjacent higher-order transit feeding them. The more residential development we can fit along the Yonge Corridor next to rapid transit, the better.

Sounds like Thornhill and York Region are going to have to have a conversation with themselves about priorities re: housing and economic development versus maintaining live-in heritage museum neighbourhoods. Especially given the preponderance of 1 and 2 storey houses and large parking lots fronting Yonge Street throughout Thornhill.

Best of luck to that. Can't say I have the answer, as in Toronto we are still dealing with the Annex Museum, a live-in heritage neighbourhood that comprises of 5 subway stops.

I mean, we're mostly in agreement on all this stuff. At the end of the day, they should look at the modelling and see what the trade-offs are for Centre and Royal Orchard. My sense is neither is worth it but they could be, when all is said and done.

But I don't really think it's about RH vs Thornhill commuters since the municipal boundaries and constituencies are so muddied anyway. But you have to look at a map (either a Secondary Plan or just google maps) to see how limited the redevelopment potential is at those two stops.

This is just a fast screengrab but for people who don't know the geography and topography:
-The golf course and river prevent you from building anything northeast of Centre. Similarly, it's a deep valley with old houses on the northwest corner, giving way to Bridle Path-level homes by the pond. You can also see the street network int he heritage district on the two south corners. You're getting ZERO infill on any of those corners. You would get some limtied redevelopment from Arnold to Centre, perhaps, but that would come even with nearby Clark.
-Royal Orchard has some substantial commercial lots right along Yonge, stretching north of Uplands, on the east side. There are some on the west side as well, but you're still probably looking at no better than midrise (6, maybe 8 storeys) and, again, the valley dives down to the south so literally no redevelopment there.

Will mixed-use development that is strictly limited to those Yonge properties be adequate? Maybe, but I remain doubtful.

As for the heritage districts, they have strict protections and even if they're not quite the Annex, particularly on the Markham side, you're going to get lots of NIMBY complaints even along Yonge. The interior is a total no-go zone.

I look forward to seeing where they're at on the next round of design info which, I gather, is coming late this year (or it was before yesterday).

 

[W. K. Lis]

I mean, we're mostly in agreement on all this stuff. At the end of the day, they should look at the modelling and see what the trade-offs are for Centre and Royal Orchard. My sense is neither is worth it but they could be, when all is said and done.

But I don't really think it's about RH vs Thornhill commuters since the municipal boundaries and constituencies are so muddied anyway. But you have to look at a map (either a Secondary Plan or just google maps) to see how limited the redevelopment potential is at those two stops.

This is just a fast screengrab but for people who don't know the geography and topography:
-The golf course and river prevent you from building anything northeast of Centre. Similarly, it's a deep valley with old houses on the northwest corner, giving way to Bridle Path-level homes by the pond. You can also see the street network int he heritage district on the two south corners. You're getting ZERO infill on any of those corners. You would get some limtied redevelopment from Arnold to Centre, perhaps, but that would come even with nearby Clark.
-Royal Orchard has some substantial commercial lots right along Yonge, stretching north of Uplands, on the east side. There are some on the west side as well, but you're still probably looking at no better than midrise (6, maybe 8 storeys) and, again, the valley dives down to the south so literally no redevelopment there.

Will mixed-use development that is strictly limited to those Yonge properties be adequate? Maybe, but I remain doubtful.

As for the heritage districts, they have strict protections and even if they're not quite the Annex, particularly on the Markham side, you're going to get lots of NIMBY complaints even along Yonge. The interior is a total no-go zone.

I look forward to seeing where they're at on the next round of design info which, I gather, is coming late this year (or it was before yesterday).
View attachment 180943

If they can get past the NIMBYs, they can bulldoze the low-density and golf courses (remember the Glen Abbey Golf Developments) and replace them with medium and high density.

 

[lenaitch]

If they can get past the NIMBYs, they can bulldoze the low-density and golf courses (remember the Glen Abbey Golf Developments) and replace them with medium and high density.

Is it 'Nimbyism' to argue against throwing entire communities out on the street? The golf course is part of the Don River and likely considered a floodplain. Do we just stick in a pipe?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The golf course is definitely in a floodplain (they are actually doing some redevelopment on the Bayview side of the course, but they can't by Yonge).

And you can't see topography on the map but it's also a relatively steep valley. It's not quite Hogg's Hollow but you're not putting any buildings between Centre and Royal Orchard. The apartment buildings you can see on either side of the golf course are basically perched on the high points of the valley. You can also see some townhomes east of Royal Orhcard, which makes for a nice transition but the west side is a country club and shallower Yonge-fronting lots backing onto single-family homes so, less potential there.

Anyway, I'm not one to defend NIMBYism but these are heritage districts and worthy of protection. There's enough places along this stretch of Yonge to put density without infringing on that. I'm just saying that what follows from that is that these might not therefore be the best places to spend a few hundred million on subway stations.

 

[lead82]

Having lived in the Yonge and Clark area for a decade I can say with certainty that the Royal Orchard station is not needed and absolutely nothing will be built in Thornhill heritage district. Thornhill folks are a strong NIMBY bunch. The Thornhill heritage area is dead and soulless. The NIMBYs have prevented any developments and there is barely any retail there nor any street life. Everyone is wealthy there and drives.

While there are some apartments and condos near Royal Orchard and near Clark, there are very few pedestrians around and even fewer bus routes to feed the stations. I would easily argue that even Clark station can be removed. It would make Bessarion station look busy. There is only the Clark bus to feed it, which comes every 15mins in rush hour or 30-60 minutes at other times.

This subway is really for Toronto to shorten commutes for those bus riders coming down Drewry/Cummer and Steele’s. After that, Clark station is more than sufficient to serve all of Thornhill centre (May even call it that). Then onto Langstaff and Richmond Hill where there are huge parcels of land up for redevelopment.

 

[Hopkins123]

Having lived in the Yonge and Clark area for a decade I can say with certainty that the Royal Orchard station is not needed and absolutely nothing will be built in Thornhill heritage district. Thornhill folks are a strong NIMBY bunch. The Thornhill heritage area is dead and soulless. The NIMBYs have prevented any developments and there is barely any retail there nor any street life. Everyone is wealthy there and drives.

While there are some apartments and condos near Royal Orchard and near Clark, there are very few pedestrians around and even fewer bus routes to feed the stations. I would easily argue that even Clark station can be removed. It would make Bessarion station look busy. There is only the Clark bus to feed it, which comes every 15mins in rush hour or 30-60 minutes at other times.

This subway is really for Toronto to shorten commutes for those bus riders coming down Drewry/Cummer and Steele’s. After that, Clark station is more than sufficient to serve all of Thornhill centre (May even call it that). Then onto Langstaff and Richmond Hill where there are huge parcels of land up for redevelopment.

Oh dear Lord, the same dumb thinking mentality that cost all future generations that'll live near Willowdale and Sheppard direct subway access is rearing its ugly head in Thornhill too?

 

[lead82]

Nothing dumb about it. This is the reality of the current folks who live there and the current geography. This subway will be mostly used for commuting to NYCC/Midtown and Downtown.

Willowdale is different because it’s on a growth node and not a heritage district.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This subway is really for Toronto to shorten commutes for those bus riders coming down Drewry/Cummer and Steele’s. After that, Clark station is more than sufficient to serve all of Thornhill centre (May even call it that). Then onto Langstaff and Richmond Hill where there are huge parcels of land up for redevelopment.

I think a lot of this is true but it's also a worst case scenario. There is more redevelopment potential around Clark than Royal Orchard. A discussion of the pros and cons of heritage districts that front onto main streets is a can of worms but as someone who values the heritage in the area, I don't think it's entirely a bad thing.

It's true the district is kind of sterile - there's more small business than retail - but then a new restaurant there is one of the hottest in the city, making Toronto Life's best new resto list. Things do change.

And the district is not that big and there already mid and high rise buildings by Clark. The NIMBY crowd can fight it but solid condos from Arnold to Steeles is inevitable. There are also plans to run a Viva route along Clark so today's bus service is a red herring.

So there will by challenges there but if the UGC develops as hoped, it will make anything else north of Finch a pure bonus.

 

[robmausser]

Oh dear Lord, the same dumb thinking mentality that cost all future generations that'll live near Willowdale and Sheppard direct subway access is rearing its ugly head in Thornhill too?

Dont forget the two stops on the Yonge Line extension north of Eglinton in the 70's.

Two stations were planned, one between Eglinton and Lawerence and one between Lawerence and York Mills (around Yonge Blvd), and were canned for this very same reason.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Went digging through the Conceptual Design Report which, as far as I know, is the most up-to-date planning document. Not hard to find the ridership projections...
Re: Royal Orchard:
"As shown in Table 2-1, the MADITUC model projected 340 passengers boarding and alighting at Royal Orchard Station during the morning peak hour in 2031, making it the least busy of the six proposed stations on the YSE. In comparison, current morning peak hour ridership at Bessarion Station – the least used station on the entire TTC subway system – is approximately 540....
Approximately 55% of the developable land located within 500m of the proposed Royal Orchard station is situated within the Vaughan Thornhill Heritage Conservation District (VTHCD)... In addition, the relatively shallow lots on the Vaughan side with the well-established Uplands community behind it and the existing high density on the Markham side, further limit the redevelopment opportunities surrounding the Royal Orchard station. Within the 500m surrounding the proposed station, approximately 70% of the 2031 projected development is already present.
The projected ridership volumes are too low to justify the capital and operating expenses associated with a subway station."


I'm curious what they think has changed here...