News   Sep 17, 2021
 4.3K     8 
News   Sep 17, 2021
 849     1 
News   Sep 17, 2021
 1.4K     3 

TTC: Yonge North Subway Extension (Finch-Richmond Hill) (Funded/Planned)

aquateam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 26, 2014
Messages
887
Reaction score
828
A few comments:
  1. The new route seems excessively curvey, which is going to reduce train speeds. I'm not sure why they don't go diagonally towards the rail corridor/407 intersection from after Royal Orchard.
  2. It's almost as though the amount of tunneling they save by not going north on Yonge is replaced by distance spent tunneling east to the rail corridor
  3. There's less than 400 meters between "High Tech" and "Bridge", when they are planning a ~4000 m gap between "Bridge" and "Clark" (assuming Royal Orchard gets dropped.) Maybe moving "High Tech" north to Bantry (halfway between Highway 7 and 16th avenue) would even out the stop spacing and better bookend Richmond Hill Centre (with a side benefit of getting rid of the ridiculous "High Tech" station name.)
  4. I like the better integration between GO and TTC, but there is at most only ~150 meters difference in transfer distance between the different alignment options. I can think of other GO-TTC transfers that merit improved connections that don't require re-aligning subway line plans.
  5. Having done the hard work of getting at-grade, I think the cost benefit ratio would look better if they continued north to 16th avenue/Hillcrest mall. But I understand they are working within a budget envelope that has already resulted in stations being cut.
All in all I like that the province is looking outside the box to deliver transit more cost-effectively. The amount of money being put into these projects, by a PC government no less, is impressive. It's just a shame that every year the amount of transit we get per dollar of spending continues to shrink.
 
Last edited:

Coolstar

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
2,714
Location
Toronto
Tbh I never liked the name RHC. At least to me, the real RHC is Downtown Richmond Hill between Major Mack and Levendale. I'm glad they're giving these stations a different name, and considering how unique the names are relative to the rest of the system, I'm okay with that.
I always thought the idea of RHC was to be Richmond Hill's new Downtown. Similar to Downtown Markham. I find the new names strange and bizarre compared to the old names. Not to mention High Tech station is not consistent with other regional centre station names like Scarborough Centre, North York Centre and Vaughan Metropolitan Centre.
 

tsm1072

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Messages
131
Reaction score
388
The thing with RHC is that the plan for the Bridge Stations is to build a new Bus Terminal:
1616083969850.png
That bus terminal is pretty much a perfect location, allows for fast transfers and operation on both Highway 7 and the 407 transitway. As the terminus for the Young rapid way, the slight detour is no issue. Hopefully, they integrate bike and pedestrian access with pathways from langstaff all the way up to Hillcrest mall, it would be a much more pedestrian-friendly way to cross the 407.

I wonder if they'll have the track split across the rail corridor to allow cross-platform transfer from GO to subway?
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
2,927
Location
Condoland
Update from the Councillor. IMHO, Metrolinx should either move the High Tech station further north; or cut it and use the money to build one of the Royal Orchard or Clark. Cummer should not be cut in any scenario.
YNSE update.jpg
 
Last edited:

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
1,275
Overall, here are my general thoughts as someone who lives near the area and would hugely benefit from this project.

I think this is all well said.
The battle for the final station slot will be interesting.
Royal Orchard has basically 1 big development site and not much other potential.
Clark and Cummer each have pros and cons and Toronto may want another station, on principle, but I think Cummer's proximity to Steeles and Finch works against it and Clark has an advantage if Royal Orchard is gone and it's the only station between Steeles and 7. Metrolinx's data shows Clark as clearly superior but objective data is rarely the determining factor in our transit planning.

One thing I am digging is the idea of squeezing the Bridge station between the highways. That at least shows some innovation and creativity. It's dead space they're utilizing effectively, maybe they'll even having a couple of buildings there, which would end up being landmarks along the highways. It also solves the problem they had before resulting from the subway being way over at Yonge and then figuring out how to get people from the middle of Langstaff over to the High Tech Station.
Same with the above-grade run north of the cemetery. Why not run above grade where you can?

Another factor there is the 407 Transitway, which was supposed to head off of 407, up to what is now the High Tech station. The Bridge station is a much better interface for that. So, there are definitely gains in this adjustment.

This change is not as bad as what's gone in Scarborough with 7 stations! No, 3! No 1! No, 3! It's disappointing in some respects - the route may be cheaper but it's going to be longer and slower. Fewer stations... I'll wait to see how that shakes out.

Like the Councillor, residents in Royal Orchard are going to be understandably peeved - no station AND it's going under their houses? - but hopefully Metrolinx can show them (and be correct!) that they won't be noticing any vibrations etc. I mean, "You wanted a subway!" is easy to throw at them but they fairly expected it to be under Yonge Street.

We can all complain about aspects of this process, which is messed up. The Province does what it does and right now they're prioritizing stations where they can make money and save on their own bottom line. Probably YR and Toronto will both have issues with this and it'll get tweaked a bit as things are finalized. But it certainly makes more sense than the Finch-Steeles extension for which many hear have lobbied and it's one of those compromises where everyone gets something and no one is really entirely happy :)
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,670
Reaction score
2,470
Tunneling under the houses, per se, may be acceptable if it is safe.

Still surprised that the curved alignment of Option 3 is considered more cost effective than the straight Option 1.

The tunnel in Option 3 is not much shorter than in 1, the total length is a bit greater, where is the huge cost saving. On the other hand, connection to the Gateway cluster will be less convenient in Option 3, possibly resulting in the development being scaled down.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,231
Reaction score
3,206
Location
North Toronto
Tunneling under the houses, per se, may be acceptable if it is safe.

Still surprised that the curved alignment of Option 3 is considered more cost effective than the straight Option 1.

The tunnel in Option 3 is not much shorter than in 1, the total length is a bit greater, where is the huge cost saving. On the other hand, connection to the Gateway cluster will be less convenient in Option 3, possibly resulting in the development being scaled down.
Stations. Pure and simple. Tunnel boring isn't expensive, building deep stations 30m underground is. If RHC and Langstaff/Longbridge no longer have to be underground and dug, here are your cost savings.
 
Last edited:

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
217
Reaction score
396
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.)
View attachment 306425
What do you mean by on Tuesday? Is there a meeting or something planning on being released?
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
1,275
What do you mean by on Tuesday? Is there a meeting or something planning on being released?

My typo - the Metrolinx board meeting where it will be discussed is next Thursday.
When the Globe initially posted the "scoop" I don't think it was clear the documents would actually be released as soon as today.

 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
2,927
Location
Condoland
Royal Orchard has basically 1 big development site and not much other potential.
Poking around on Google Maps, I see room for 8-12 towers between plaza redevelopment and tower in the park intensification. Might not be that bad. Is it viable to go elevated north of the CN corridor? Hopefully the Feds pitch in money to build Cummer, Clark and Royal Orchard on day 1.
 

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
217
Reaction score
396
My typo - the Metrolinx board meeting where it will be discussed is next Thursday.
When the Globe initially posted the "scoop" I don't think it was clear the documents would actually be released as soon as today.

no worries just was a tad confused. I like to attend all the meetings and have them on my calendar lol
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
1,275
Poking around on Google Maps, I see room for 8-12 towers between plaza redevelopment and tower in the park intensification. Might not be that bad. Is it viable to go elevated north of the CN corridor?

IMHO, no. For one thing, there's the Thornhill Heritage District and then there's the valley where the golf courses are.
There is SOME redevelopment potential around Royal Orchard but the valleylands to the south make it a bit more detached from the larger corridor than Clark and Cummer, especially on the west side of Yonge. If you look at how close the low-rise houses come to Yonge Street as you go north, as compared to further south, by Clark, you also see the challenges of going too high and deep there.

I don't doubt you can get MORE density but I don't think you can get enough to justify a subway station with nothing but walk-in business.
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
6,490
Reaction score
8,443
Poking around on Google Maps, I see room for 8-12 towers between plaza redevelopment and tower in the park intensification. Might not be that bad. Is it viable to go elevated north of the CN corridor? Hopefully the Feds pitch in money to build Cummer, Clark and Royal Orchard on day 1.

Able to post the Google Maps link for where the station would be located?
 

duffo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
103
Reaction score
264
Yes, without that station, High Tech is very far from Langstaff and severely undermines its ability to achieve any kind of major intensification. As it is, we'll see how Markham reacts to the possibility of losing Royal Orchard and/or Clark. Arguably having the station along the GO rail line is actually a gain for them there but they would really lose it if they completely lost the station at Langstaff (and rightly so).
Its 400 metres! That's like bus/LRT stop spacing. For reference, North York Centre to Sheppard is nearly double the length (800m) than High Tech to Bridge.
 

Top