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

[44 North]

They probably had their reasons, and its entirely possible that doing it that way wouldn't have been any cheaper. Portals are extremely expensive, especially when you're dealing with TBMs which prefer to dig in deeper environment due to the presence of harder rock, so its entirely possible that portals for a bridge running next to Yonge street would've been even more expensive.

Most importantly I fail to see what the motivations for lying are. What exactly is Metrolinx or Doug Ford going after that would have them lie about it being cheaper to dig under the river? I can understand the potential motivations for burying Eglinton West since that's Doug Ford's backyard. The same doesn't apply to Yonge North, not to mention that the old plan involved the viaduct so this is a case where Metrolinx is actively choosing to change the plans to do what, spend extra money on the extension for no reason? At least with Eglinton West, an argument could be made that the TTC already studied the underground allignment, meaning that an underground version would result in shovels hitting the dirt faster than an elevated alignment, (which is wierd considering what's being done with Ontario Line but that's a completely different story), but with Yonge North there's absolutely none of that. To believe that Metrolinx is obfuscating information to make a fully tunneled alignment seem cheaper implies that there's a hidden motive for those in power to spend more money on a tunnel which really doesn't make any sense especially considering how many corners they're cutting with the rest of this extension, which leaves us with the final conclusion of they did the math and it really is the cheapest solution to cross the valley.

Why a double decker bridge as the de facto option though? Obviously that's a nonstarter for several reasons. And you don't need to play coy on the matter of politicization. Parties don't want to ruffle feathers, esp in certain ridings. A bridge most def would ruffle feathers - as it has in the past, present, and future. Perhaps yes it is physically improbable or cost prohibitive to build one. I'm leaning on the side of no, and using Metrolinx's own reasoning elsewhere as to why.

 

[tsm1072]

They probably had their reasons, and its entirely possible that doing it that way wouldn't have been any cheaper. Portals are extremely expensive, especially when you're dealing with TBMs which prefer to dig in deeper environment due to the presence of harder rock, so its entirely possible that portals for a bridge running next to Yonge street would've been even more expensive.

Most importantly I fail to see what the motivations for lying are. What exactly is Metrolinx or Doug Ford going after that would have them lie about it being cheaper to dig under the river? I can understand the potential motivations for burying Eglinton West since that's Doug Ford's backyard. The same doesn't apply to Yonge North, not to mention that the old plan involved the viaduct so this is a case where Metrolinx is actively choosing to change the plans to do what, spend extra money on the extension for no reason? At least with Eglinton West, an argument could be made that the TTC already studied the underground allignment, meaning that an underground version would result in shovels hitting the dirt faster than an elevated alignment, (which is wierd considering what's being done with Ontario Line but that's a completely different story), but with Yonge North there's absolutely none of that. To believe that Metrolinx is obfuscating information to make a fully tunneled alignment seem cheaper implies that there's a hidden motive for those in power to spend more money on a tunnel which really doesn't make any sense especially considering how many corners they're cutting with the rest of this extension, which leaves us with the final conclusion of they did the math and it really is the cheapest solution to cross the valley.

I wonder if they've also increased the cost factor for traffic disruptions during construction. Metrolinx probably learned from crosstown that they underestimated the additional complications involved in that tunnelling process, as well as how long disruptions at street level would last. You can't afford to have the Young crossing of the East Don heavily affected by construction, there simply aren't any alternative road crossings for users.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If only they could put in a right-of-way for any kind of rail north maybe to Lake Simcoe. Actually, they did (1915). And it was removed and replaced with buses in mixed traffic (the last section was removed in 1948).

From link.

 

[Allandale25]

Project Update for the Yonge North Extension has been released today, and there is a lot to unpack.

https://www.metrolinxengage.com/sites/default/files/ynse_may_5_northern_municipalities_voh_final.pdf

View attachment 317485

First I want to address this slide solely because it reaffirms that a Steeles RT is happening and is still being worked on apparently. Nothing more to say about that.

Next we have these 3 slides outlining improved travel times which frankly I find a bit fascinating, but we'll go through them one by one.

View attachment 317486
So first we have the claim that travel time on the extension will be ~12 mins end to end. Now looking at GMaps, the current travel time on Viva Blue along the same corridor is ~19 mins off peak, however this image is claiming travel time to be 26 mins? Now we can give the benefit of the doubt and say that this is for rush hour journeys where the busses are likely to get stuck in traffic, but tbh that raises even more questions. For example why didn't they include RH Line travel times? However I decided to look up travel times for the RH Line, and according to GMaps the expected travel time from Langstaff to Queen is 48 mins, add a 4 minute walk at the start and its only slower than the Yonge Line by 4 minutes, however for now let's move on.
View attachment 317487
View attachment 317489
These last 2 images bring up something puzzling as well. While it does seem Line 1 will offer vasts amount of improvement, its important to consider where improvements could be made in the former, namely moving Oriole station north to Leslie which could cut down that 8 minute walking time to 1-2 minutes, which cuts the comparison down from 73 mins to 66 mins for North York Centre, and 80 mins to 73/74 mins for Eglinton. This means that while Line 1 will be quite a bit faster, it won't be impressively faster than the Richmond Hill line with much cheaper upgrades. Personally I believe the value of Line 1 will come from more dispersed trips that aren't highlighted here, especially off peak trips, the specific examples they highlight here are puzzling.

From here on out though things are looking a lot better.

View attachment 317490
This slide isn't all too interesting with the exception of the first paragraph which suggests that a major benefit to the above ground alignment is protecting the corridor for future northern extensions, which sort of validates my personal theory that Metrolinx does plan on doing even more northern extension to the line so that it becomes a quasi "Richmond Hill RER" which imo makes a bit of sense. For reasons I have mentioned several times in this forum, the Richmond Hill Line is extremely difficult to justify the conversion to full RER service, so turning a subway line that runs pretty close to the corridor to an alternate RER line actually does make quite a bit of financial and logistical sense - to the dismay of people on this forum xd.

View attachment 317491
View attachment 317492
Next we have these 2 images which is ultimately the main sales pitch to this entire project - Regional connectivity.

The YNSE will connect Line 1, the most important rapid transit line in the city of Toronto to a GO train line, 3 BRT routes, a major GO bus corridor, and the future 407 transitway, fulfilling a major link to a major transit intersection as shown in the first of these 2 slides. The entire purpose of this extension is to create a major regional hub at a valuable rapid transit intersection where lines can easily be built from, development can be spurred, and transit connections are easy to make. This is further compounded by the design of Bridge Station which is a massive Bus Terminal overlaid on top of the GO train and Line 1 platforms, meaning that getting from the subway to the regional, which tbh I wish this is what Metrolinx highlighted earlier with the travel time comparisons. Right now a lot of GO bus routes terminate at Finch Station, which being nice, sucks as a regional transit hub. The closest highway is 3km away, GO busses have to travel through the crowded North York Centre to reach there, and running busses through the station are basically impossible. What this extension allows for is trips like going from North York Centre to Waterloo. You take the subway north from NYC to RHC, then take a GO bus - transitway or non transitway to Kitchener, and if the 407 transitway gets built the bus will have direct rapid transit like service to Waterloo (well until around Lisgar) where frequent stops can be made that allows folks to transfer to services like the Hurontario LRT to get to Brampton or Mississauga, and in a way that is direct and fast. I really wish that Metrolinx highlighted that fact more.

A few more slides:

View attachment 317493
For the people on here like Syn who are complaining that the Richmond Hill line is underground for too long, well here's a brand new alignment just for you that runs away from Yonge Street - serving absolutely nobody at all and heads straight for the rail line, while also only spending only an extra 200m aboveground. What an amazing investment and alignment, wow. (/s)

On a more serious note, this map suggests the creation of a Gateway Station south of Bridge which... please no. Its kind of difficult to justify having both Bridge and High Tech so close together, having a gateway station even closer to bridge south of that seems even more extraneous, although again would probably be cheap since its already above ground.

View attachment 317497
Next we have this slide here that talks about parking without actually talking about parking. While its nice to hear what these new connections to Line 1 will be, on a slide labelled parking it would be nice to at least have some taste about what's being worked on rather than just saying we have a process. However given how much they're talking about connections to other lines and services, it seems like they're saying that they don't want to have parking on this terminus, which fair enough I guess.

View attachment 317498
Final Slide. This one talks about all of the changes they're making to the project in order to save money, and while most of this is stuff we already knew about, something interesting to note is that they are claiming that tunneling under the Don Valley is actually cheaper than rebuilding the bridge. While I sort of understand why that would be, I wonder if this factors in addition station costs this might incur since the tunnel has to be deeper at stations like Clark and Royal Orchard.

The rest of the presentation covers timelines for stuff like early works which feel pretty standard so I didn't feel like it was worth covering, however it is possible I missed something important so go and check through the slides yourselves.

So that image you included just shows the options they considered but not the final alignment they are going with, right?

 

[ARG1]

View attachment 317600
So that image you included just shows the options they considered but not the final alignment they are going with, right?

That is correct. Specifically its new alignments that Metrolinx is studying based off public feedback.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Good job going through all this.
A few comments/thoughts.

Personally I believe the value of Line 1 will come from more dispersed trips that aren't highlighted here, especially off peak trips, the specific examples they highlight here are puzzling.

I think this is entirely correct but I think what you're asking has to do with a mentality we've seen frequently, both on this board and elsewhere, which is the notion that the entire goal of rapid transit in this region is to funnel people in and out of Union Station. It's been a key point of the people who think this subway isn't needed because RH riders should be taking GO, which is a service that takes them to a single destination downtown instead of travelling straight down the city's spine. So, time-to-Union ends up being the baseline, whether it entirely makes sense or not. Showing the time to Eglinton, for example, might be a better metric (especially since, via GO, you'd have to to Union and then come north!).

This slide isn't all too interesting with the exception of the first paragraph which suggests that a major benefit to the above ground alignment is protecting the corridor for future northern extensions, which sort of validates my personal theory that Metrolinx does plan on doing even more northern extension to the line so that it becomes a quasi "Richmond Hill RER" which imo makes a bit of sense.

I completely agree on the RER thing. But I also think maaaaybe you're reading too much into this slide. I think they're mostly trying to appease the northern YR politicians who have publicly wondered why their tax $ should go to a project that "won't benefit" them.

On a more serious note, this map suggests the creation of a Gateway Station south of Bridge which... please no. Its kind of difficult to justify having both Bridge and High Tech so close together, having a gateway station even closer to bridge south of that seems even more extraneous, although again would probably be cheap since its already above ground.

I read that map as saying there's High Tech and then they were deciding between "Gateway" and "Bridge." There's no discussion of Gateway at all in the Initial Business Case, that I recall. I think you have to look at is as, the goal was to bring the line up to Royal Orchard and then get over to the GO corridor as easily as possible, and then figure out where stations go. So, for people who think High Tech and Bridge are too close, clearly they looked at doing something south of the highways but it looks to me like, proximity aside, Bridge makes far more sense for transit connectivity.

Next we have this slide here that talks about parking without actually talking about parking. While its nice to hear what these new connections to Line 1 will be, on a slide labelled parking it would be nice to at least have some taste about what's being worked on rather than just saying we have a process. However given how much they're talking about connections to other lines and services, it seems like they're saying that they don't want to have parking on this terminus, which fair enough I guess.

This will be interesting because the initial TPAP location for Langstaff station allowed for a huge parking lot under the hydro corridor. Plus they'd presumably be developing, at least in the long term, over the existing GO parking so they're going to have a find a happy medium between their transit-oriented utopia and the need for a reasonable amount of parking for all this transit.

Final Slide. This one talks about all of the changes they're making to the project in order to save money, and while most of this is stuff we already knew about, something interesting to note is that they are claiming that tunneling under the Don Valley is actually cheaper than rebuilding the bridge. While I sort of understand why that would be, I wonder if this factors in addition station costs this might incur since the tunnel has to be deeper at stations like Clark and Royal Orchard.

I thought that bridge was a great idea but, yes, I suspect tunnelling is only "cheaper" in the context of how it affects the station which, who knows, may or may not even be in the cards. No doubt there will still be some refining of all this (including the mystery of which stations will make the cut) before the designs are finalized. Speaking of which...

That is correct. Specifically its new alignments that Metrolinx is studying based off public feedback.

I hope the Royal Orchard residents who have been vocal about how Metrolinx made its final decisions without consulting them appreciate that, in fact, it's not yet set in stone.

 

[tsm1072]

This will be interesting because the initial TPAP location for Langstaff station allowed for a huge parking lot under the hydro corridor. Plus they'd presumably be developing, at least in the long term, over the existing GO parking so they're going to have a find a happy medium between their transit-oriented utopia and the need for a reasonable amount of parking for all this transit.

It won't happen. But I'd love for them to put a 3-4 level multi-storey lot in the dead space between Hwy 7 and Hwy 407, spanning from the East end of the bus terminal to the extension of Cedar Ave. Access to parking would be from Cedar. The hydro corridor can be used as parkland to provide greenspace for RHC and Lansgtaff.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It won't happen. But I'd love for them to put a 3-4 level multi-storey lot in the dead space between Hwy 7 and Hwy 407, spanning from the East end of the bus terminal to the extension of Cedar Ave. Access to parking would be from Cedar. The hydro corridor can be used as parkland to provide greenspace for RHC and Lansgtaff.

It might happen, especially if they want to get a couple of buildings built ontop/beside the actual station. They'd have to have underground parking and some would be for transit. And, yes, I think the RH Centre Secondary Plan already assumes that the hydro corridor lands, which are all parking lot now, will be green space.

 

[smallspy]

Why a double decker bridge as the de facto option though? Obviously that's a nonstarter for several reasons. And you don't need to play coy on the matter of politicization. Parties don't want to ruffle feathers, esp in certain ridings. A bridge most def would ruffle feathers - as it has in the past, present, and future. Perhaps yes it is physically improbable or cost prohibitive to build one. I'm leaning on the side of no, and using Metrolinx's own reasoning elsewhere as to why.

As originally planned, the line was to be directly under Yonge St. Building a double-deck bridge over the East Don River would have resulted in the shortest possible path for both the road and the subway, as well as lifting the roadway out of the floodplain.

It may not have been the cheapest method from the outset, but it was likely the cheapest once lifetime maintenance costs were factored in.

Dan

 

[44 North]

As originally planned, the line was to be directly under Yonge St. Building a double-deck bridge over the East Don River would have resulted in the shortest possible path for both the road and the subway, as well as lifting the roadway out of the floodplain.

It may not have been the cheapest method from the outset, but it was likely the cheapest once lifetime maintenance costs were factored in.

Dan

It would certainly be a neat structure. But combining a major transit project into a pretty sizable road project ups the complexity. With the old TTC plan I'm inclined to think they kept within the roadway allowance because that's often the preferred option, likely a lot which has to do with legal reasons. No expropriations, no subsurface property rights, less court headache. But Metrolinx seems keen on not doing that elsewhere and rightfully so since it opens up further opportunity/flexibility.

And on the whole not like we're talking about a central part of the city full of utilities and whatnot. It's quintessential outer suburbs. A few cottages on one side, a country club parking lot on the other. A thicket. Seems like A1 for an affordable straight shot of popping out and back in again adjacent to the road ROW. Just surprised it wouldn't be shortlisted. But not actually surprised.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

As originally planned, the line was to be directly under Yonge St. Building a double-deck bridge over the East Don River would have resulted in the shortest possible path for both the road and the subway, as well as lifting the roadway out of the floodplain.

It may not have been the cheapest method from the outset, but it was likely the cheapest once lifetime maintenance costs were factored in.

Dan

Yeah, I think the bridge needs to be seen in a bit of a broader context too. That valley isn't quite Hogg's Hollow, say, but it's a fairly decent dip in Yonge Street. The bridge would have:
-levelled out the grade, making Yonge a pretty straight shot from Centre Street to Royal Orchard
-at the same time, allowed the subway to travel at level grade across the valley, below the road, instead of digging deep under the river
-would have taken Yonge Street away from the valley floor, allowing them to naturalize the creek below

I liked it for all those reasons. I remember, yeesh, back in like 2008/09, they even presented several designs for it, to show how it could complement the heritage district etc.

My assumption is there there's a ripple effect flowing out from the directive to get outside at the GO corridor, requiring them to go deeper across the valley and into Royal Orchard but one way or another, that bridge seems to be completely off the table even though, on balance, it superficially seems like it would have saved a few bucks (and been an aesthetic improvement).

 

[M II A II R II K]

If one wanted to go from Richmond Hill to Eglinton how much time would be saved if one remained on the GO train and transferred to Line 5 if there was a connection with it. That might get one to Eglinton station faster than riding Line 1 all the way there.

 

[Rainforest]

If one wanted to go from Richmond Hill to Eglinton how much time would be saved if one remained on the GO train and transferred to Line 5 if there was a connection with it. That might get one to Eglinton station faster than riding Line 1 all the way there.

That's unlikely, even if Richmond Hill GO trains were running much more frequently than they do today.

GO is faster than subway, but that advantage will start shrinking once you start adding stations. And the detour east would be pretty significant, the distance between Yonge&Eglinton and the provisional Richmond Hill GO station &Eglinton is about 7 km. That's like Eglinton to North York Centre.

 

[smallspy]

It would certainly be a neat structure. But combining a major transit project into a pretty sizable road project ups the complexity. With the old TTC plan I'm inclined to think they kept within the roadway allowance because that's often the preferred option, likely a lot which has to do with legal reasons. No expropriations, no subsurface property rights, less court headache. But Metrolinx seems keen on not doing that elsewhere and rightfully so since it opens up further opportunity/flexibility.

And on the whole not like we're talking about a central part of the city full of utilities and whatnot. It's quintessential outer suburbs. A few cottages on one side, a country club parking lot on the other. A thicket. Seems like A1 for an affordable straight shot of popping out and back in again adjacent to the road ROW. Just surprised it wouldn't be shortlisted. But not actually surprised.

There's no doubt that it would have greatly increased the complexity of the construction in that area.

But consider that, at that time, there was also planned to be a station at Royal Orchard, which is not far to the north. Tunnelling under the river would have made for an exceedingly deep station as there simply would not be enough distance from the river valley to where the station would be located, whereas the bridge would have allowed for a station that was much shallower in depth, and therefore should have (in theory) been easier and faster to build.

All of a sudden, that one project, which had been viewed in isolation without the whole, doesn't look so bad now, does it?

This is why it's never a bad idea to step back and look at the whole of the project from time-to-time, rather than focusing only singular portions of the whole in isolation. When dealing with these kinds of systems, knock-on effects from a single change can (and sometimes do) have wide-ranging and massive changes to the project as a whole.

Dan

 

[44 North]

There's no doubt that it would have greatly increased the complexity of the construction in that area.

But consider that, at that time, there was also planned to be a station at Royal Orchard, which is not far to the north. Tunnelling under the river would have made for an exceedingly deep station as there simply would not be enough distance from the river valley to where the station would be located, whereas the bridge would have allowed for a station that was much shallower in depth, and therefore should have (in theory) been easier and faster to build.

All of a sudden, that one project, which had been viewed in isolation without the whole, doesn't look so bad now, does it?

This is why it's never a bad idea to step back and look at the whole of the project from time-to-time, rather than focusing only singular portions of the whole in isolation. When dealing with these kinds of systems, knock-on effects from a single change can (and sometimes do) have wide-ranging and massive changes to the project as a whole.

Dan

Tell me about it. This is what I'm talking about. Royal orchard is still on the table, and as noted it in the report would be extremely deep. And even if dropped completely there's still knock on costs of going that kind of depth. Likely massive pumps at the bottom, taller emergency exits, deeper stations beyond the area, added energy of having trains ascend this hill.

My view is that if they can forward a complex concept of a portal below a brand new roadway bridge, I feel like a simpler concept of a standalone rail bridge immediately west of Yonge could be doable.