afransen
Senior Member
Is anyone aware of a place on earth other than Toronto where a 7 km/6 station subway extension through suburbia is costed at $1.3B/km?
Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
aquateam
Active Member
Wouldn't cutting through a corner of Holy Cross Cemetery disturb the (Progressive) Conservative voters residing there?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Actually, this alignment was changed in the refined business case to make sure that none of it goes under Holy Cross Cemetery, which is part of the reason why the final Option #3 alignment is even curvier.
That's something that confuses me: why is it a requirement to not go underneath the cemetery if it is constructed with TBMs? It's not like any corpses will need to be reinterred or if there would be any property impacts. A better alignment would be to cross the cemetery diagonally and then have the curve/portal in the Langstaff lands. E.g. like this in pink:
This would reduce the total distance tunneled and improve speeds... but might take up some of the Langstaff lands for the portal and result in the "Bridge" station platform in a trench.
The whole concept of "heritage district" is ridiculous. This isn't Vieux Montréal or some UNESCO site, this is a mostly postwar suburb like any other in southern Ontario. "Heritage Conservation Districts" don't conserve individual buildings that might be of historical or architectural value, they just preserve the zoning (also a post-war construct) of neighbourhoods by saying "this is a single story detached neighbourhood in a booming megacity needs to be legally prevented from ever changing or densifying."
This is Yonge and John. I don't know what is more "historical", the Tim Hortons drive through/Scotiabank on the right or the strip mall on the left?
Maybe the station can be built and the whole "heritage district" thing revisited after shovels are in the ground.
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Isn't part of the high cost/km due to the recent increase in prices for construction material, and how deep they'll have to go to get under the Don River?
afransen
Senior Member
These are far from the most challenging conditions in the world to build a subway line. And construction materials are not unique to Toronto, yet we someone manage to make a subway along a suburban arterial as expensive as building the Second Ave subway in NYC.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
A lot of those "really historical" were torn down for parking lots and single-story single-use "venues" and widening of the streets of today.
See link.
ARG1
Senior Member
It probably has something to do with it being considered disrespectful to disturb the ground where the dead live. Its the same reason why Vancouver can't built a skytrain extension to Stanley Park in any capacity since its an indigenous burial ground. In other words its an attempt to avoid further nimbyism.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Any since on what could be driving up the cost compared to other cities? I know this has been discussed and debated on UT before, but I guess it's irrelevant topic again because of this recent updated number.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Logically, this is so. Practically, you are digging under land owned by the Catholic Church and they likely have different views than you or I of how those corpses should be regarded and what they want happening underground.
This is a whole other debate but I completely disagree. First of all, Thornhill dates to 1794 (so, older than Toronto) and the oldest buildings in the heritage district date to the mid-1850s. I'm sorry it isn't ancient Rome but we have done a piss poor job preserving our history and Thornhill has the honour of being the first designated HCD in the province. Frankly, I think the mentality that the very notion of preserving historic Ontario neighbourhoods is "ridiculous" is problematic and completely incorrect.
(also, I'm not a heritage planner but your description of what HCDs do is also incorrect.
As a very superficial example, the HCD is why the businesses in that Tom Hortons plaza don't have the typical style of interior-illuminated signs. Nothing to do with zoning but rather urban design.)
So, we can make jokes about Tim Hortons or try to make a point by showing one screenshot with little context or but your description of the area's history is inaccurate and I have great respect for the residents who have preserved the significant history that predates its suburban growth and believe strongly in preserving what's still there. If you don't know or see what's historical and worth having laws to preserve, you're not looking very hard.
EDIT to add this one example: an 1851 house, now a public library, just out of your screenshot, about a 45 second walk from Tim Hortons. The paint store next door ,on Yonge, dates to 1846.. But, hey, it's not a UNESCO site, so let's tear it down for a condo, right?
History of Thornhill
Official Website for The Society For The Preservation of Historic Thornhill
Attachments
Last edited:
EnviroTO
Senior Member
That's something that confuses me: why is it a requirement to not go underneath the cemetery if it is constructed with TBMs? It's not like any corpses will need to be reinterred or if there would be any property impacts. A better alignment would be to cross the cemetery diagonally and then have the curve/portal in the Langstaff lands. E.g. like this in pink:
Oh no, did you just try to use logic to point out that the massive S curve actually has a longer tunnel than the supposedly cheap at grade option? Next thing you know you are going to point out almost all the properties south of Langstaff road are empty so expropriation of land to build the station on the cheap south of the roadway is possible, and that Langstaff Road is going to need a bridge anyway so the subway could be in an open trench at that point. Why don't you just point out that the stations planned are closer together than King and Queen stations downtown but with a massive highway and hydro corridor guaranteeing no similar density of development while you are at it??
The number of high-rise buildings built or that can be built south of the bus terminal at High Tech and north of Bridge station is zero (i.e. its a hydro corridor). The number of current and future high-rise developments to the east or west of bridge is zero (i.e. you can't build buildings in the middle of highway 7 and the 407). The only place there will be high-rise buildings near Bridge is south of Langstaff Road so maybe, just maybe, it would be better to move the station south, but then it wouldn't be under the bridge and it would be so cool to have a subway station under a bridge at grade. We should definitely build things that are cool.
ferusian
Active Member
An independent study on the origins of Toronto's runaway transit construction costs and suggestions for how to reduce them was published last year.
Here were the author's key recommendations:
This article also offers an explanation as to why Toronto's construction costs are so high (While it was written as a critique of American transit building practices, it also references Toronto and our woes multiple times)
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
That Sanfrancisco Central estimate is 2012 USDs where the Yonge North line is 2020 CADs but I agree that all subway proposals in Toronto (except for the Eastern/Northern section of the Ontario Line) have a higher cost than the value they provide.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
My optimistic that there must be a better way Richmond Hill Centre map:
drum118
Superstar
Cost of building subway in Toronto is out of control to the point it killing off other transits projects needs for the more than the less with Yonge and SSE extension. One reason I don't support either extension. I support the Yonge extension to Steeles only.
I guess not building a straight line under the cemetery was rule out as it would wake the dead or having bodies falling into the tunnel while it been built. Logic said build the subway under the cemetery, but what does logic got to do with building white elephants??
The folks at the golf course were bitching years ago that the subway would interfere with players as well been seen on the course.
As for the Heritage area, I really saw nothing there to support it in the first place from my many visits to the area other than a few buildings. Even reading up on the area didn't support it. This is why a subway station is not needed for this area as there is no growth for it nor any real density in the first place.
York Region has been pushing the Yonge extension to help pay for all the other developments and its bottom line.
As I have stated in the past, unless the DRL/Ontario line goes all the way to Steeles, it will not help the current Yonge Line nor justify taking it to RHC.
I guess not building a straight line under the cemetery was rule out as it would wake the dead or having bodies falling into the tunnel while it been built. Logic said build the subway under the cemetery, but what does logic got to do with building white elephants??
The folks at the golf course were bitching years ago that the subway would interfere with players as well been seen on the course.
As for the Heritage area, I really saw nothing there to support it in the first place from my many visits to the area other than a few buildings. Even reading up on the area didn't support it. This is why a subway station is not needed for this area as there is no growth for it nor any real density in the first place.
York Region has been pushing the Yonge extension to help pay for all the other developments and its bottom line.
As I have stated in the past, unless the DRL/Ontario line goes all the way to Steeles, it will not help the current Yonge Line nor justify taking it to RHC.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
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).
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
And as I've said all along, this take totally ignores both how planning policy works in this Province and what the state of the York Region real estate market is.
There are 50-storey towers in VMC today, because the province said there had to be and because they provided the infrastructure to enable it and because there are people willing to buy the units they are building. Without those 3 things, it would be all Walmart and industrial parks.
The same goes for North York Centre. It looks completely different today than 1990 because of the same 3 things: policy, infrastructure, market.
Yonge is more centrally located and an easier sell. It will have taller, denser development than VMC notwithstanding the lack of density you (somewhat erroneously) see today.
I do agree the construction costs here have gotten insane. I'm sure there are many reasons but we're really putting ourselves behind the 8 ball
Last edited: