raptor
Senior Member
could you provide an example of where exactly this line could go above ground?
Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Expropriation of business/industrial and school buildings.
drum118
Superstar
What planeted do you live on and have you every travel on the surface to really see what there in the first place????
The University was very concern about the underground section that they wanted the line to be some where else than it currently is.
Where do you see the new yard going to be???
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
This is a bit off topic, but is this a similar explanation for the University Line not going under UofT? But the more likely reason is probably planning for Bloor-Danforth Line and the wye at St George and Bay.
44 North
Senior Member
I can't say it'd be too possible south of Steeles, but agree with Streety that north of Steeles an open-air solution could've been beyond feasible. The roadway's ROW seems to be in the area of 40m. In other words you could put an el or open cut within the ROW and still expand the road for centuries to come. It's massive. No residents (nimbys) to complain, much of it is zoned parkway with some agricultural, then ultra-suburban commercial/employment. That right there is like the epitome of where open-air is optimal, where seemingly most cities would build open-air, just as Toronto used to do.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Of course it would never be aboveground through YU, but north of Steeles, there's plenty of room. Given that @syn was quoting HWY 407 station, I was referencing that part of the line.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Ok.....but if you are underground up to PV station at Steeles.......how much saving would there have been going above ground for the last 2 stations? (And it is not clear to me that the best route from PV to 407 is above ground).
lenaitch
Senior Member
North of Steeles along the general ROW, it is fairly dense commercial/industrial use, as well as crossings of 407, CN, Hwy, arterial roads, etc. I just don't see it as any kind of open ground. Granted, some of this infill could have been prevented by land acquisition back during planning phases.
Although it is for 'the public good', expropriation is a fairly heavy handed approach to land use that, if used on a large scale, might send a chill to industrial/commercial investment. You could use the same argument for the Scarborough extension or DRL, it becomes a matter of how many lives and businesses you are willing to disrupt.
Given that it has to be done by land parcel, I could see it getting it getting convoluted if done on a large scale. As we have recently seen, governments using heavy handed tactics to achieve its ends isn't always popular.
Although it is for 'the public good', expropriation is a fairly heavy handed approach to land use that, if used on a large scale, might send a chill to industrial/commercial investment. You could use the same argument for the Scarborough extension or DRL, it becomes a matter of how many lives and businesses you are willing to disrupt.
Given that it has to be done by land parcel, I could see it getting it getting convoluted if done on a large scale. As we have recently seen, governments using heavy handed tactics to achieve its ends isn't always popular.
44 North
Senior Member
That's the question though, how much. We don't know. Maybe a bit, maybe a lot. It's also a high water table, which apparently was a surprise late into construction (but shouldn't have been to anyone that has the sense of vision to see a creek). Perhaps it wasn't as conducive to tunneling vs an alternative.
Not sure if what's along Jane north of Steeles qualifies as fairly dense. Until a good bit north of 407 it's parkway, open space, or agricultural - i.e nothing there. Then a very wide arterial with commercial/industrial that have built structures well back from the road. Any expropriation should seemingly be minimal. These are large expansive properties, not exactly a built urban environment.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
I biked from VMC station to Pioneer Village station and I agree.
Next to Pioneer Village station is a UPS distribution centre.
intoronto1125
Active Member
I have used Pioneer Village station at various times during the day (both weekdays/weekends) going southbound and the train is always empty. Maybe 20-30 people inside. There was no reason (except political) to extend the line into Vaughan. What a waste of money.
johntauren
Active Member
This has been discussed before.
Really, the biggest obstacle to any elevation of the extension north of Steeles is the rail line. The subway would have to rise from Pioneer Village much too quickly to get over the CN main line, which is roughly at ground level.
Really, the biggest obstacle to any elevation of the extension north of Steeles is the rail line. The subway would have to rise from Pioneer Village much too quickly to get over the CN main line, which is roughly at ground level.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Perhaps I'm not understanding the routing - I'm just going from Google. Yes, there are large-tract commercial/industrial properties; manufacturing and distribution are often funny like that. They also tend to attract those nasty trucks and freight trains that get in the way of everybody's commute. If they are in a row, right next to each other with no fallow ground in between then, in my view, that is dense in an industrial/commercial sense. The tend to not lend themselves to 30 story buildings. Is it Yonge and Queen, no. I don't see any contiguous agricultural land south of Teston. I suppose if the TTC had thought is would be a good idea to run the line at grade they could have bought or requested protection on the corridor years ago.
I'm just not a fan of large-scale expropriation where there are other, albeit more costly, options. Bad planning sucks. It would seem counter-intuitive for governments, on one hand to set aside employment lands and encourage industrial/commercial development, then boot a bunch of them out.
44 North
Senior Member
The zoning I mentioned is based off Vaughan's zoning, and logical deduction. And not sure the need to be sarcastic re: trucks. Someone posted an opinion more or less based on fact, I agreed with it. Maybe you can show me one example of where TTC tunneled below anything even remotely similar to what we're talking about north of Steeles. You can't because they haven't, it's unprecedented.
Perhaps tunneling was hands-down the right option, perhaps it wasn't; perhaps it was pushed through with little study as an 11th hour ammendment or strongarmed by the area MPP and governing Prov party. Likely it was a combo of all of the above.
lenaitch
Senior Member
You may well be correct about the planning history. I recall years ago talking to a friend who was a surveyor for the MTO and he had done work well into York Region for a future 404 long before it was a gleam in the public eye. Perhaps today it is more 'dynamic'. You may well be correct that Vaughan tunneling is probably unique in TTC history but I'm not sure there is much difference between tunneling below factories vs. houses.
There may also be engineering/operational reasons for tunneling since there would be grade changes to accommodate the still necessary tunneling under the CN, 407 and Hwy 7.
Sorry, my comment regarding trucks had nothing to do with your post. It was a general comment regarding the apparent desire by many in the urban environment to seemingly acknowledge a mixture of residential, industrial and commercial land use as part of a healthy economy while at the same time wishing to banish trucks, trains, ships and, well, anything that isn't a highrise condo, from the urban landscape.