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

DirectionNorth said:
This is the same mistake being made in the Montréal thread. It may be private influence pushing for certain alignments and/or mode choices, but it's the government that has the final word on what does and does not get built.

The solution is stronger politicians and better political culture. Politicians need to take responsibility for their decisions (hope springs eternal), and doing otherwise deflects from the people who "made it happen."
Click to expand...

I don't disagree about the need for political accountability; and a host of reforms to make that easier (Electoral Reform, reduced contribution limits, lower election spending, greater transparency, no carpetbagging) ...

But offering an inducement to a government official is a crime, just like receiving it is.

To be clear, I'm NOT accusing the De Gasperis of offering a bribe, at least in the strict sense of the law, I simply lack the evidence for that claim.

However, if there were campaign contributions from said family, and from executives in its business empire...........

Whether it meets the legal standard or not, it smells rotten.

1726926434692.png


Source: https://www.antibriberyguidance.org/qa-relation-bribery-offences-canada/guidance
 
A stretch of this line is suppose to run parallel with CN's Bala sub. Is this going to look similar to how East Harbour is setup with Lakeshore East? Could this remove space for MX to potentially law down their own ROW for GO trains running parallel with CN's tracks?
 
Bojaxs said:
A stretch of this line is suppose to run parallel with CN's Bala sub. Is this going to look similar to how East Harbour is setup with Lakeshore East? Could this remove space for MX to potentially law down their own ROW for GO trains running parallel with CN's tracks?
Click to expand...

I don't think Mx laying dedicated ROW track for full-day, frequent GO service on the Bala sub was ever in the offing.

That said, yes, the O/L project essentially precludes that choice where they overlap. With corridor adjustments it might be possible in sections to get to 5 tracks, but even that is a push.

This is what the ROW looks like in that section:

1726930598840.png


Note that while that certainly looks big enough for 5 tracks, there are asterisks. the first is topographic, that ground isn't level and would require embanking and support walls, which I assume its getting for the O/L anyways.....

But notice than Langstaff station, just to the south intrudes are in the ROW:

1726930703755.png


The consistent ROW here is about 30M wide. That nominally supports 6 tracks or 7 with zero wiggle room. But zero is unrealitistic because you need room for signal gantries and caternary here.

But the number inside the station is more revealing, the ROW west of the current platform is ~20M, that's 4 tracks max.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't think Mx laying dedicated ROW track for full-day, frequent GO service on the Bala sub was ever in the offing.
Click to expand...
I understand that. But if the YNSE is meant to extend at surface level to Langstaff GO, then this would ensure that any "potential" discussions with CN about adding another track or allowing GO to run there own tracks parallel would never happen.

No forethought is being considered here. Why is the subway extension not being built to go underground to Langstaff GO?

Richmond Hill Centre and the adjacent parking lots can be demolished and renovated to accommodate more tracks along this stretch of the Bala.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Paywall free: https://archive.is/E5ea2

What is with Ford’s ongoing links with the De Gasperis family?
Click to expand...
The real estate mob runs this province (and increasingly the whole country). It's well documented how the Libs did TYSSE and tried to do Kirby GO for their land owner buddies in Vaughan. A pox on both their houses.
 
That’s 100% right. The developers rule this country because they can make donations to political parties for favours. It’s called legalized corruption and that’s how it works in Western democracies. Always has and will continue to do so.
 
lead82 said:
That’s 100% right. The developers rule this country because they can make donations to political parties for favours. It’s called legalized corruption and that’s how it works in Western democracies. Always has and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
Only our country's enemies have corruption; we just have lobbying. Except where lobbying isn't allowed—then we just have consulting. Nothing to see here!

Always felt like there was something fishy about the weird, costly, and inefficient route change followed by two stops spaced more tightly than almost anywhere else in the subway system (when the GO station would have to have been overhauled/rebuilt anyway to such an extent that it might as well have been shifted north and consolidated into one transit hub south of High Tech Rd.). And sure enough, there was.
 
christiesplits said:

How developers will benefit from the Yonge subway route change – and why it’s raising the spectre of the Ford government’s Greenbelt scandal ​

Toronto Star
www.thestar.com

How developers will benefit from the Yonge subway route change – and why it’s raising the spectre of the Ford government’s Greenbelt scandal

The Premier’s office said the new route, chosen by Metrolinx, is “the best option” to serve the needs of the growing region.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...
To me this reads "The Subway will be closer to where people actually live". I don't really see a problem here. Not to mention surface alignments means a decently quick access to the subway platforms, unlike the deep monstrosities of the TYSSE.

... Royal Orchard Station notwithstanding of course, god I hate that station with every fiber of my being.
 
ARG1 said:
To me this reads "The Subway will be closer to where people actually live". I don't really see a problem here. Not to mention surface alignments means a decently quick access to the subway platforms, unlike the deep monstrosities of the TYSSE.

... Royal Orchard Station notwithstanding of course, god I hate that station with every fiber of my being.
Click to expand...
I would much rather see the extension remain underground into Langstaff. Unless the plan is to leave space for GO to have it's ROW for the RH line, then I'm okay with the subway extension being at surface level at Langstaff.
 
Bojaxs said:
I would much rather see the extension remain underground into Langstaff. Unless the plan is to leave space for GO to have it's ROW for the RH line, then I'm okay with the subway extension being at surface level at Langstaff.
Click to expand...
Honestly I doubt we're going to see a Richmond Hill RER anywhere during our lifetimes. I would honestly wager that a Line 1 extension to Major Mack or even Elgin Mills is more likely than a Richmond Hill RER.
 
Dan416 said:
Honestly just looking at a map tells you how dumb this alignment is. What good reason can there be to divert off Yonge like that?
Click to expand...
Better development opportunities.

Which will always lead to complaints about Ford favouring developers. Which in some cases I don't think is the case. And if influence is happening on this file, I'd think it's happening more at Verster's level, or one of his minions.
 
ARG1 said:
To me this reads "The Subway will be closer to where people actually live". I don't really see a problem here. Not to mention surface alignments means a decently quick access to the subway platforms, unlike the deep monstrosities of the TYSSE.

... Royal Orchard Station notwithstanding of course, god I hate that station with every fiber of my being.
Click to expand...
I'm not against option 3, but in this case, I do think that option 1 is preferable in the long-term.

I see three problems with the route as selected:
  1. The very tight curves increase maintenance and decrease speeds, and this will remain the case even if we fixed the slow order disaster.
  2. The option 3 chosen has 16,000 fewer daily riders. That's 15% of option 1 ridership (though the IBC assumption is that the Langstaff neighbourhood would have 1/3 the current projected population).
  3. This is more related to Metrolinx (and Anglo-American-Canadian practices) in general, but the analysis in the IBC are very vague. There's all sorts of numbers, many of which don't actually favour option 3, but very little accounting of how we got there.
At $50,000/rider (assuming that option 1/3 stay at the same "level" in their nebulous cost ranges), the extra money becomes worth it for Option 1. (and at lower costs - $5 billion is insanity - it becomes more worth it. Different thread though.)
1727043061147.png
1727046022168.png


I can believe that there was some influence going on at the Doug Ford level, but I find the evidence unconvincing, and even less so at a level lower than ML executives. But - IF such allegations are true, rewarding questionable behaviour will only encourage actors to do it again.
 
Unless one has been in area and seen in first hand, the diversion to the right does make some sense. This area is a hodge podge of conflicting land ownership that have very little appetite for giving up land thus even if the subway stayed on Yonge, the development opportunity is hemmed in by:

1) the Catholic Cemetery
2) the huge Hydro One corridor that shifts from the southwest to the northeast over the span of the 407 and Yonge St.
3) Hwy 407 & MTO’s reserved ROW
4) the Hindu Temple to the northwest


This is just my casual observation. Money of course can change a lot of things if there is enough thrown at it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top