micheal_can
Senior Member
Transit Orientated Development
Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
Transit Orientated Development
Rainforest
Senior Member
Sure that's one of the concerns to be evaluated. However, the relevant section of the corridor, between Yonge and Bayview, looks pretty wide on Google Maps; it might be possible to fit both 2 subway tracks and 3-4 freight tracks.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
I'm more concerned about them cutting out the Subway Storage tracks in Richmond Hill, or cutting out bus terminals at Cummer, Steeles and RHC.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Perhaps. It might depend on current TC rules regarding residential setback for mainline freight as well as any freight-transit separation requirements. If such a bypass were come to pass, I can't imagine either carrier agreeing to less that 2 tracks each.
BurlOak
Senior Member
The logical way of reducing costs would be to build most of the line cut-and-cover. Doubling the length by taking the rail corridor does not seem like the proper solution. Ideally, I would built some 2-track segments for the Richmond Hill GO line to improve it's capacity, AND build the Ontario Line to at least Seneca. Then while Yonge is under construction, access is available at the Fairview Station, Ontario Line, Spadina Line, and GO Line.This article was posted in the Ontario Line thread but there's a reference to the Yonge North Subway:
"He admitted Metrolinx is rethinking the Yonge North subway extension route as currently configured, with the thinking there could be more “bang for the buck” with an alternate route."
Cory, Verster provide insights on huge GTA projects - constructconnect.com - Daily Commercial News
The next month will be critical in planning and procuring Toronto’s new Ontario Line as proponents hustle to undertake a market sounding of industry stakeholders ahead of a rapidly approaching deadline for issuance of an RFQ for the project. Infrastructucanada.constructconnect.com
Just as with the construction in the 50's and 60's, using cut-and-cover puts some small disruption on the current generation - but gives future generations a useful transit line.
Planning expensive TBM construction does nothing for current or future generations, since very little gets built - and the cost is so high it saddles future generations with immense debt.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Remember, it's not the tunnel boring that's the expensive part, it's building a giant 200 meter by 50 meter by 70 meter station complex every 1000 meters, relocating all the utilities, and filling it with concrete and steel. If the YNSE loses some stations, tunnelling might actually be the cheaper solution assuming disruption isn't factored into the equation.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Agreed. But I think 1000m station spacing is reasonable, and even some of these deep emergency exists using TBM are quite expensive and disruptive). The straight line is 6.8km, and stations at Cummer, Steeles, Clarke, Centre, Bay Thorn (between Royal Orchard and Langstaff, which is under a hydro line), and Richmond Hill Centre. (If you really want a 407 station, build a flyover ramp for eastbound 407 to directly access Richmond Hill Station). That's 6 stations, or 1.15 km between stations.
44 North
Senior Member
I'm thinking it'd be bringing back the original bridge, and re-planning the storage facility (so it's not so large and deep underground). And likely making the line longer since that's what York Region wants.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Not sure about the "longer" part. Not only will it bump the cost up, but will introduce a gap between the Yonge and the Hwy 7 transit corridors. If one is coming on Viva from Yonge North, and wants to transfer to Viva Hwy 7, it will become necessary to transfer to the subway first (say, at Major Mackenzie), and then transfer again at RHC.
Rainforest
Senior Member
It would be hard to cut out bus terminals at Steeles (where would the buses go then) or RHC (same reason, plus a sizeable bus terminal is already there).
Cummer terminal, on the other hand, is optional IMO. TTC can just through-route the 42 and 125, and let the riders transfer to subway on-street. There would be some demand mismatch (42 is longer and therefore more popular than 125), so it might cost a couple of extra buses in service west of Yonge, but that's not a big deal.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Maybe the routes could start at the Ontario Line Seneca station - with 125 going west from there and 42 going east.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
A quick glance at the Cummer/Yonge area shows buildings on four quadrants likely to be torn down for development.
That means 2 reasonable choices for cost-control exist here; the first is to have the City buy the land for a small 2-bay terminal now, and do the upzoning for a tower itself; saving a developer the time and trouble; then recover
the cost of the terminal through a sale with strata-rights for TTC retained.
OR
They could widen Cummer's ROW by 8m, and put in platforms inside the ROW, with canopy and back wall protection and have a direct connection from new stations' mezzaine coming up onto the platforms. Stairs and escalator at one end, elevator at the opposite end. The down side to this is that it may require up to 3 elevators to the surface depending on layout and likewise 3 up-path escalators. On the other hand, potentially, it would have a smaller footprint and allow for through-running.
Northern Light
Superstar
When looking strictly at cost-control.the biggest items missed by TTC/Metrolinx over the years can be enveloped under the heading "phasing".
Phasing can occur in 2 ways.
1) Build a line in shorter, useful segments as business cases merit. In the case of Yonge North, I would argue there is a small but real incremental value in going just to Cummer, a material value in going to Steeles, but after that, no point in going north unless you go to RHC/ Highway 7. So one option is to go only to Steeles for now, and do more later. That could be 2 discrete projects, but it could also mean just taking time on the southern segment and then moving on to continuous build when that segment is open.
2) The other is phasing the stations within the alignment. Obviously you need to do certain rough-ins, land acquisition and probably emergency exits, if you don't build a full station at the time of opening. But there is definitely still room to cut 50-100m per station by building an unfinished shell below ground, and deferring most of the surface build (bus terminal) to later. You could cut virtually all stations between Steeles and 7 on an interim basis, and saving 100m-300m if so desired. Not suggesting that's a great option, but its an option.
Phasing can occur in 2 ways.
1) Build a line in shorter, useful segments as business cases merit. In the case of Yonge North, I would argue there is a small but real incremental value in going just to Cummer, a material value in going to Steeles, but after that, no point in going north unless you go to RHC/ Highway 7. So one option is to go only to Steeles for now, and do more later. That could be 2 discrete projects, but it could also mean just taking time on the southern segment and then moving on to continuous build when that segment is open.
2) The other is phasing the stations within the alignment. Obviously you need to do certain rough-ins, land acquisition and probably emergency exits, if you don't build a full station at the time of opening. But there is definitely still room to cut 50-100m per station by building an unfinished shell below ground, and deferring most of the surface build (bus terminal) to later. You could cut virtually all stations between Steeles and 7 on an interim basis, and saving 100m-300m if so desired. Not suggesting that's a great option, but its an option.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Two afterthoughts.
1) Maybe Centre is not the best idea. Due to the Don River, it's catchment area, just like that of Royal Orchard, is half absent.
2) Connecting 407 to Richmond Hill doesn't eve require a flyover. Just build a new connector road under the end spans of the 407 and highway 7 bridges. You're saving a couple of hundred million on a station, so a couple of dozen in road improvements is still a good deal. (Do we know if the 407/Spadina station is getting good use?)
Rainforest
Senior Member
Maybe the routes could start at the Ontario Line Seneca station - with 125 going west from there and 42 going east.
Sure. Once the Ontario Line Seneca Stn comes into service, that's about 50 years from now, we can rearrange the 42 / 125 service again