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

Cutting one of the stations will not bring in the money needed to fund any of the other things being cut. The money you save cutting one of the stations is probably negligible, and considering that the purpose of High Tech is to serve some northern developments, I have a strong feeling that is going to be funded mostly by York Region. The province really doesn't have much interest in funding it since their only mandate is bringing the line north to connect it to the 3 main viva routes, their go bus routes, and that's it. The fact that High Tech is being built is more indicative of Regional pressure than anything.

You're making it sound like these peripheral stations will be built with 2x4s in a weekend lol. And the IBC says the stations will be 400m apart. Some of the closest station spacing in the entire subway system, but located in the outer suburbs. Next to a highway, industrial area, and big box.

I heard Verster on the radio last week claiming the Prov is being thrifty with this. But they're being selectively so. Want to save more cost: why tunnel under the West Don. How deep will that be? Months back the Prov was very clear they don't want to be tunnelling under rivers. What changed? There's clearly space to build a bridge, original YNSE had a bridge. Now...not.
 
The track curves would be too tight for a heavy rail, 29 m (95 ft). Streetcars maximum is 10.973 m (36 ft). Light rail 13.11 m (43.01 ft).
I just measured that I can fit two 200m radius curves, and have about 230m of straight track connecting them which is more than enough for a subway platform. What were you measuring that 29m can't fit???

LangstaffCurveRadiusMins.png
 
Last edited:
This image speaks for itself. The fact that a subway station is going to be wedged in between a freeway and a cemetery, while surrounded by a completely undeveloped plot of land is laughable. There are far more areas in Toronto that badly need transit infrastructure before this subway extension.
To be fair, Langstaff is targeted for intensification.
 
This image speaks for itself. The fact that a subway station is going to be wedged in between a freeway and a cemetery, while surrounded by a completely undeveloped plot of land is laughable. There are far more areas in Toronto that badly need transit infrastructure before this subway extension.
So the Metrolinx plan is to put the subway under the 407 where there can be no development. I'm suggesting it makes more sense to put it in the middle of this:
LangstaffStreetView.png

LangstaffSkyline.png
 
As someone who lives near one of the station's cachement area, let me say my piece for what it's worth.

If getting more affordable transit (and a station near me) means elevated/cut and cover, I support it in my neighbourhood. The increase to my property value will be worth it.

If increased density is needed for a viable BCR, I support that as well--as long as it's thoughtfully planned and executed. Think more First Capital Christie's site, less Golden Mile.

We really need to get off our asses and get in ship shape.

How do we expect to compete with the more nimble European countries, never mind Asia, if we can't build subways for under $1 billion per kilometre?

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Sh*t like this merits a bloody public inquiry.
 
So the Metrolinx plan is to put the subway under the 407 where there can be no development. I'm suggesting it makes more sense to put it in the middle of this:
View attachment 307242
View attachment 307243
The station under the bridges allows for the construction of the bus terminal to connect to Viva BRT and GO bus routes which is one of the many purposes of this project, building a brand new regional hub. We already have 3 BRT routes terminating there, 2 of them run on Highway 7. Better connections is always better since that's what brings the most ridership at the end of the day.
 
The station under the bridges allows for the construction of the bus terminal to connect to Viva BRT and GO bus routes which is one of the many purposes of this project, building a brand new regional hub. We already have 3 BRT routes terminating there, 2 of them run on Highway 7. Better connections is always better since that's what brings the most ridership at the end of the day.
The bus terminal is closer to High Tech Road than it is to the Bridges. They should move the GO platform north so it isn't such a long walk to get to the bus terminal, and put the subway terminal there too so it is a convenient transfer point. If you locate the GO platform so it starts at the station building in the hydro corridor and runs north it would almost reach High Tech Road. If you locate the subway platform so it starts at the pedestrian bridge next to the bus terminal and runs north, it almost reaches High Tech Road. There is no need to locate things under the bridges... there is no development opportunities under the bridges.

richmondhillcentre-png.307214
 
The bus terminal is closer to High Tech Road than it is to the Bridges. They should move the GO platform north so it isn't such a long walk to get to the bus terminal, and put the subway terminal there too so it is a convenient transfer point. If you locate the GO platform so it starts at the station building in the hydro corridor and runs north it would almost reach High Tech Road. If you locate the subway platform so it starts at the pedestrian bridge next to the bus terminal and runs north, it almost reaches High Tech Road. There is no need to locate things under the bridges... there is no development opportunities under the bridges.

richmondhillcentre-png.307214
I fail to see your logic. What is wrong with the platform under the bridge? As long as the southern entrance is located at Langstaff Rd, access from the area wouldn't be a problem. The bridge station is cheap and conveniently located beside Highway 7 with direct BRT access. Development can occur beside it instead of under it.

This curve is sharper than the ML alignment, the tunnel is longer and the station would be located underground. There will be barely any usage till development is completed. The cost would have left ML to just not build Langstaff Station at this time if they were forced to use your alignment. Also YRT won't serve this station as that's a good 5 minute detour in which they should just go for RHC.
 
If money is going to be spent on a transit hub for GO, VIVA, and the subway they should be putting all the platforms in a place to minimize the walking distance between them. If they are creating a stop to serve development the station should have developable sites in all directions to minimize the walks to those sites.

The current plan doesn't maximize ease of connections, doesn't maximize benefits to developable sites, but does maximize cheap stations and walking.

If relocating the GO platform to be centered near the pedestrian bridge at the bus terminal, and doing the same for the subway station means not affording a station at Langstaff so be it because there is no development there right now and we can get the developers to pay for it.

What do you mean YRT won't serve the site? Of course they will because the development plans at that this will be a major neighborhood and you can't have no local service. If you are saying it is 5 minutes for the bus to get there imagine trying to walk that distance!
 
Last edited:
If money is going to be spent on a transit hub for GO, VIVA, and the subway they should be putting all the platforms in a place to minimize the walking distance between them. If they are creating a stop to serve development the station should have developable sites in all directions to minimize the walks to those sites.

The current plan doesn't maximize ease of connections, doesn't maximize benefits to developable sites, but does maximize cheap stations and walking.

If relocating the GO platform to be centered near the pedestrian bridge at the bus terminal, and doing the same for the subway station means not affording a station at Langstaff so be it because there is no development there right now and we can get the developers to pay for it.
Development would happen anyways and people can expect to walk. It's not like people can't walk here. In east Asian, development is everywhere and yet nobody can build a station for all of them. Sometimes it'll take a good 20 min to walk to a station. I agree it is not the most convenient but life is life.

Being conveniently located don't drive up ridership in suburban GTA. The condos will sell but most of them might as well keep driving. I keep saying how all the condos went up along Sheppard and yet that subway still has the same ridership as it opened in 2002. Maybe it really doesn't matter. They just need a station nearby.
 
If the goal is inconvenience and life is life then why have High Tech station so close to Bridges station, just get rid of it and let people walk from the subway at Bridges the same way the Langstaff GO crowd does today. To save even more they could put in an aerial tramway from Finch to Langstaff south parking lot, then people could walk under the bridges and over the pedestrian bridge to get to the bus terminal. Super cheap, no buses, great exercise.
 
This image speaks for itself. The fact that a subway station is going to be wedged in between a freeway and a cemetery, while surrounded by a completely undeveloped plot of land is laughable. There are far more areas in Toronto that badly need transit infrastructure before this subway extension.

Putting aside that Toronto has a whole subway line that runs in the middle of a highway, completely cut off from potential development, my alternate take is that the Bridge station is very smart of use of land that is otherwise sterilized by the two highways. They can make use of it for crucial transit infrastructure without digging a $500M station underground, and probably even squeeze a building or two on top.

The fact that the Langstaff land is "completely undeveloped" is precisely what makes it so valuable. If you didn't build the subway there, you'd get a bunch of townhomes (or worse, the continued operation of a stone yard and a bunch of auto shops) and you know what? Those people would drive to Finch and take the subway downtown and you'd have solved precisely 0 problems the region is facing related to intensification, traffic, housing or the capacity issues on Line 1. Some of the biggest developers in the GTA spent years assembling those teeny, tiny industrial parcels to make it into the "completely undeveloped" patch (I saw Steve Munro call it a "blasted heath") that is sitting there today, waiting to take advantage of every ounce of intensification the subway allows for. They don't make that kind of effort for useless sites, wedged between a freeway and a cemetery.

So, you can think there are other areas that need transit more - that's a debate with a lot of factors involved - but the idea that this site having a subway is "laughable," is just plain wrong. As I've said previously, probably going back a decade now (but it apparently still needs saying) - this view is just a fundamental misunderstanding of Provincial policy and how it manifests itself in local planning.

So the Metrolinx plan is to put the subway under the 407 where there can be no development. I'm suggesting it makes more sense to put it in the middle of this:

The initial plan, of course, was to have the Langstaff station way over at Yonge. So, moving it to the rail corridor is clearly preferable if your goal is to have it in the centre of the development. I suspect there are engineering reasons they had to push it as far north as the 407 rather than smack in the middle of Langstaff Gateway. For one thing, it has to pop above ground north of the cemetery and there's not a lot of north-south area to cover there. Plus, sticking it under the bridges makes it connect well to the 407 Transitway (one day, hopefully) and I wouldn't be so sure there can be no development. They can probably get parking structures, maybe with development on top, in there; on land that would otherwise be totally useless.

Is it perfect? No. But neither was the previous alignment. As I said before, I like that it shows they're thinking creatively, at least. We'll see if it works.
 
Last edited:
Why is Metrolinx not even proposing cut-and-cover under Yonge? It should be an option they list, so that politicians can look at their choices, no? If Ford and YR want to spend more to get less they can (see EWCE) but it should be visible.

I guess I shouldn’t expect anything from Metrolinx: they didn’t cost out an elevated or separated at-grade ROW for the EWCE either.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top