Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
allengeorge
Senior Member
Is not pretty reading. Basically, half the stations cut (most of which in Toronto). Routing changed, and will serve fewer riders. No positive business case.
EDIT: Got one station wrong, so 1 in Toronto, 2 in York Region. My bad
EDIT: Got one station wrong, so 1 in Toronto, 2 in York Region. My bad
Last edited:
Sky High Arch
New Member
Proposed Yonge North TTC subway extension to have fewer stations, change route due to rising costs - Toronto | Globalnews.ca
An initial business case for the project by Metrolinx outlines how the proposed Line 1 extension will need to shift routes and will need to partly run above ground.
globalnews.ca
kamira51
Active Member
This is very disappointing, why is the price so bloated?
allengeorge
Senior Member
I don’t know. I was shocked at the $500M/station. That’s partially why the stations at Cummer (T), Clark (YR) and Royal Orchard (YR) got cut. Also, the cost of tunneling was mentioned.
turini2
Active Member
A rough rough mockup by me. I wonder if Doug is angling for York Region to cough up the funds if they want more stations!
allengeorge
Senior Member
Sky High Arch
New Member
I think the Langstaff / hwy 7 station will be on the south side of the 407. If its on the north side then they should just move the high-tech station up to 16th.
Northern Light
Superstar
Globe and Mail article on this here:
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/HWRSSDVS7ZFCHBGMMFKANPLRAQ.JPG)
www.theglobeandmail.com
The business case for this line, in the near term is to Steeles, with a Cummer Station.
The cut, would be to slim down the bloat of the Steeles bus terminal.
Once you go north of Steeles, the business case is almost certainly better sticking to Yonge, and with more stations, predicated on the assumption that future density justifies the investment.
The diversion will not assist in that regard.
I would argue for a slow-build (going in order, one station at a time, through to Steeles or Clark), with an extension option on the contract to go further subject to budget.
Its the same argument I would make for the R/L (Ontario Line) which I would still prefer the original concept of, built from Osgoode to Danforth, with an extension option to go north to Don Mills/Eg if the project is on budget.
Continuous build is cheaper, but buy it in bite-sized chunks.
That's how large portion of Line 1 and 2 got done.
Ontario scales back on proposed Yonge subway extension
The scaling back is an attempt to rein in soaring cost projections, according to reports
www.theglobeandmail.com
The business case for this line, in the near term is to Steeles, with a Cummer Station.
The cut, would be to slim down the bloat of the Steeles bus terminal.
Once you go north of Steeles, the business case is almost certainly better sticking to Yonge, and with more stations, predicated on the assumption that future density justifies the investment.
The diversion will not assist in that regard.
I would argue for a slow-build (going in order, one station at a time, through to Steeles or Clark), with an extension option on the contract to go further subject to budget.
Its the same argument I would make for the R/L (Ontario Line) which I would still prefer the original concept of, built from Osgoode to Danforth, with an extension option to go north to Don Mills/Eg if the project is on budget.
Continuous build is cheaper, but buy it in bite-sized chunks.
That's how large portion of Line 1 and 2 got done.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
All very interesting. It says "3 or 4 stations in total," so you have to figure they'll still try to do one of the three smaller stations. I'd guess Clark, due to the transit connectivity and centrality but clearly that's still TBD. Maybe that one development sells them on Royal Orchard? [Cummer seems like the real stinker if you have to choose, but again, who knows?] What's clear is they were given a price envelope, told they had to build Steeles and the final 2 stations and avoid going under the cemetery and see what else you can do within the budget.
That alignment map above probably isn't too far off except it likely doesn't cut east that far south if Royal Orchard is even remotely still under consideration. They wouldn't veer off Yonge until they have to, if for no other reason than to preserve the possibility of future stations. Either way, it's going to cut under the residential area and one might expect that between that and the loss of stations, some Markham/York Region people won't be thrilled.
The two above-ground stations kind of make sense and it can actually be good for Langstaff to be shifted to the centre of the development instead of way out on the Yonge side. And since they talked about decking over the rail corridor, it would be "above ground" but still potentially "underground" for the development.They must be losing the parking or have some clever solution there but I guess big parking lots shouldn't be the selling point for any of these stations.
Despite the end of that article, I don't think it will substantially undermine development projects in York Region. Even if there's no station at Clark, development's going to come along the whole corridor, from Steeles up. Royal Orchard is the one station where that makes a difference and I haven't been convinced that one makes sense anyway.
I look forward to seeing the details on Tuesday.
I'm long on record saying this makes no sense and I think that's even clearer. The line ONLY makes sense if you get development at Highway 7. The economy of scale of digging to Steeles to build 2 stations, one of which is already walking distance of the terminal is just not there.
The extra development uptake at Clark and Royal Orchard is obviously a factor but it's minimal compared to the mega-density at Highway 7 and that's why the business case is there, and has always been there, even if the only stops are Steeles and 7. Even if my opinion were wrong, that's what the Metrolinx report is going to say.
EDIT - per what I said above, this didn't take long!
(In fairness, if I lived in this neighbourhood, especially with the limited information these news reports, I'd also be wondering how the hell they're digging a subway under my neighbourhood.)
That alignment map above probably isn't too far off except it likely doesn't cut east that far south if Royal Orchard is even remotely still under consideration. They wouldn't veer off Yonge until they have to, if for no other reason than to preserve the possibility of future stations. Either way, it's going to cut under the residential area and one might expect that between that and the loss of stations, some Markham/York Region people won't be thrilled.
The two above-ground stations kind of make sense and it can actually be good for Langstaff to be shifted to the centre of the development instead of way out on the Yonge side. And since they talked about decking over the rail corridor, it would be "above ground" but still potentially "underground" for the development.They must be losing the parking or have some clever solution there but I guess big parking lots shouldn't be the selling point for any of these stations.
Despite the end of that article, I don't think it will substantially undermine development projects in York Region. Even if there's no station at Clark, development's going to come along the whole corridor, from Steeles up. Royal Orchard is the one station where that makes a difference and I haven't been convinced that one makes sense anyway.
I look forward to seeing the details on Tuesday.
I'm long on record saying this makes no sense and I think that's even clearer. The line ONLY makes sense if you get development at Highway 7. The economy of scale of digging to Steeles to build 2 stations, one of which is already walking distance of the terminal is just not there.
The extra development uptake at Clark and Royal Orchard is obviously a factor but it's minimal compared to the mega-density at Highway 7 and that's why the business case is there, and has always been there, even if the only stops are Steeles and 7. Even if my opinion were wrong, that's what the Metrolinx report is going to say.
EDIT - per what I said above, this didn't take long!
(In fairness, if I lived in this neighbourhood, especially with the limited information these news reports, I'd also be wondering how the hell they're digging a subway under my neighbourhood.)
Last edited:
turini2
Active Member
There's nothing south of the 407 other than industrial lands, the cemetery and a hydro corridor. North of the 407 @ Highway 7 would likely be an interchange with Langstaff GO.
Agreed that a station further north sounds like a better idea...
Sky High Arch
New Member
If you see above image , this is Markham's 2014 official plan and it will no longer be industrial. I still want them to move high tech to 16th like the old original plans /ideas for the Yonge subway.
Coolstar
Senior Member
Interestingly enough, I checked out his website and it appears he was shown the new plans by Metrolinx. He created this route map of how the line will reach the RH corridor. This possibly the route Metrolinx wants to take?EDIT - per what I said above, this didn't take long!
Yonge Subway Extension Alignment Concerns
On March 17, 2021, I received a confidential briefing by Metrolinx on their initial business case for the Yonge North Subway Extension. Most notable among the items presented was the proposed alignment of the subway as it travels north of Centre Street/Thornhill Summit Drive in Thornhill...
markhamward1.ca
Allandale25
Senior Member
I'm sure there was an article discussed here a few months ago that mentioned a bit more on how it would get form beneath Yonge to the CN Rail line. I'll try to find it.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
that's a hard right turn but, yes, that makes sense. It's an alignment that allows for the future addition of all stations, including Royal Orchard. Whether they're still deciding now (which is clearly what it sounds like) or in the future, you wouldn't have an alignment that leaves Yonge before Royal Orchard, unless you have to. Presumably it doesn't come above ground until north of the cemetery, since they wouldn't want a tunnel in the middle of it.Interestingly enough, I checked out his website and it appears he was shown the new plans by Metrolinx. He created this route map of how the line will reach the RH corridor. This possibly the route Metrolinx wants to take?
Yonge Subway Extension Alignment Concerns
On March 17, 2021, I received a confidential briefing by Metrolinx on their initial business case for the Yonge North Subway Extension. Most notable among the items presented was the proposed alignment of the subway as it travels north of Centre Street/Thornhill Summit Drive in Thornhill...
View attachment 306430
But, man... Is there anywhere else a subway in this City runs right under a neighbourhood like that? Line 2 is pretty much always right under the street and Line 1 obviously goes under downtown but also, as far as I can picture, steers clear of this kind of environment. Presumably clever engineers can make it work but if I lived in that neighbourhood, yeah, I'd be calling my local councillor today to ask WTF.