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

[syn]

And that 'guaranteed' Royal Orchard station would be one of the deepest stations in the system. Spending money to save money doesn't sound like much of a compromise.

Alright. But back to your post. If we're saving money by going on the surface (which involves a further new station and extension over the previous plan), the compromise would be that we would build a Royal Orchard station to assuage nimbys upset about going on the surface? A bit contradictory. How much would that cost, or how much relative to the savings of the surface option. A station 150m long by maybe 50m deep isn't a drop in the bucket.

Sure ynse spacing could be closer, and dropping Drewy is ridiculous. But for Royal Orchard they're tunneling under a river valley at the lead-up to the station, which is bizzare since it's cottages and open space above. Unless York Region is advocating for a bridge, by default this "compromise" new station would cost well above average and severely eat into any savings of the surface option.

The reason I focused specifically on the “we should spend the money and build it anyways” position, is because I don’t hear the same argument (maybe I missed it?) for beefed-up OL service out of the gate. For example, buying the rolling stock that the various business cases say will be necessary anyways, or running expanded service, or…

Which leads me to ask: why should this specific line of reasoning be applied to the YNSE but not to the OL?

You brought up walking distance as a make or break. Odd that 5min is too close for a station, but 3-4min walk isn't. Claiming it's free doesn't add up. It's a cost. Clarke is a reasonable station.


And likely deeper than all those stations put together, and costlier than all of them put together. Per km this is the most expensive transit project in the GTHA, and one of the costliest in the world. How much you want to boost that number?

Sorry just a bit strange to see a nonchalant regard for adding a station like Royal Orchard when we know full well how extreme it would be. At the very least one would expect some degree of advocacy for lowering both that station's cost and the overall line's cost. Not unlike we see in other threads. Pretty silent on that front, despite it being quite early in the project for changes to be made.

What's become clear over the years is that there's a very different standard for suburban extensions and how we view the people there.

NIMBYs in these areas are looked at as people that need to be understood and accommodated, even if it involves far greater expense.

It's very different in other areas, where NIMBYs are viewed with a certain hostility. They're viewed as spoiled nuisances who should be grateful to live near any transit and suck it up instead of complaining, even if they have legitimate concerns.

So many of the talking points to justify the OL design (cost savings, deep stations bad, above ground better, etc.) are conspicuously muted (or absent) when it comes to these projects.

There's always talk of 'downtown elites', but I think when it comes to transit planning the suburbs are the ones being treated like elites.

I wish we could go back to building transit based on need and demand.

 

[ARG1]

What's become clear over the years is that there's a very different standard for suburban extensions and how we view the people there.

NIMBYs in these areas are looked at as people that need to be understood and accommodated, even if it involves far greater expense.

It's very different in other areas, where NIMBYs are viewed with a certain hostility. They're viewed as spoiled nuisances who should be grateful to live near any transit and suck it up instead of complaining, even if they have legitimate concerns.

So many of the talking points to justify the OL design (cost savings, deep stations bad, above ground better, etc.) are conspicuously muted (or absent) when it comes to these projects.

There's always talk of 'downtown elites', but I think when it comes to transit planning the suburbs are the ones being treated like elites.

I wish we could go back to building transit based on need and demand.

Its almost as if not all NIMBYs are created equal, and while some of them have valid points and criticism, other are just shaking their fists because they don't want trains in their backyard.

 

[Rainforest]

Each group of NIMBYs, in Leslieville, Overlea, and Thornhill, possibly have a point.

But I am not going to sign up or support either of them, for the fear of blocking the transit expansion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Its almost as if not all NIMBYs are created equal, and while some of them have valid points and criticism, other are just shaking their fists because they don't want trains in their backyard.

From link.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Here's a paradox I've discovered... If you listen to most NIMBY's long enough, you realize they're all saying variations of the exact same thing, which kind of boils down to, "I moved to Thornhill/Overlea/Forest Hill [insert whatever] because of the kind of community it was and I don't want it to change." And they generally lack awareness that someone else moved to that same community before they did and didn't like the traffic, new development etc. that THEY brought when they came. And so on and so on.

BUT these communities do also have people who genuinely know and care about and understand the community better than us will. No, it's not the lady yelling at Metrolinx that she's been living there 50 years and paying taxes and they owe her compensation, on principle. But they are the people who who hold the bureaucrats' feet to the fire when they come down from on high to introduce change without much sense of the context. People who make rational arguments should be (and most of the time will be) listened to. People who oppose any change, on principle. shouldn't (and won't) be listened to. In Thornhill, since that's where we're talking about, I'll say there are some very committed and knowledgeable local residents, particularly in the heritage area.

Tunnelling under a neighbourhood is a real concern, as is putting an above-grade train through a neighbourhood. Those arguments need to be heard and ultimately need to be weighed against "the greater good" of the project. That's what a TPAP/EA, and a consultation process, are supposed to do. In reality, things don't always work that way because people who don't pay much attention immediately conclude anyone who complains is a NIMBY and also because politicians will cave and do "the wrong thing" if it appeases loud voices.

I'm not going to say what's right or wrong in someone else's community. But I do think it's unfortunate that we don't do enough to educate and engage people, and so the level of discussion rarely gets to where it should be when it comes to "controversial" projects.

 

[MrGoose]

Tunnelling under a neighbourhood is a real concern, as is putting an above-grade train through a neighbourhood. Those arguments need to be heard and ultimately need to be weighed against "the greater good" of the project. That's what a TPAP/EA, and a consultation process, are supposed to do. In reality, things don't always work that way because people who don't pay much attention immediately conclude anyone who complains is a NIMBY and also because politicians will cave and do "the wrong thing" if it appeases loud voices.

So we can't put a train below-grade in a neighborhood. And we can't put one above-grade in a neighborhood either?????? Where's it supposed to go, on the streets?

I'm not going to say what's right or wrong in someone else's community. But I do think it's unfortunate that we don't do enough to educate and engage people, and so the level of discussion rarely gets to where it should be when it comes to "controversial" projects.

Considering that in Leslieville, these people already have trains running through their community and Toronto has tons of places where the subway is right next to or run under peoples homes with little or no problems I would say that these NIMBY's are being unreasonable.

Or does every home owner along Bloor Danforth need to be retroactively compensated for having the subway run underneath them

 

[Undead]

So we can't put a train below-grade in a neighborhood. And we can't put one above-grade in a neighborhood either?????? Where's it supposed to go, on the streets?

Um yes, that's why it's called a streetcar /s

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

So we can't put a train below-grade in a neighborhood. And we can't put one above-grade in a neighborhood either?????? Where's it supposed to go, on the streets?

I think the point went a bit over your head.
I didn't say we can't put a subway under homes!!!!!!!!
I said that it's understandable that if you found out tomorrow that they were tunnelling a subway your home, no one would call you crazy for wanting some proof it wouldn't destroy your house or that your house wouldn't be feeling vibrations every time a train went by underneath.

And as others have pointed out, um yeah, we do have subways and streetcars on the street.

I didn't say you can't build this stuff but rather that we have a process for determining the optimal route and PART of that (in fact and politically) is public input.

As for the Danforth, I think the whole point is that the subway runs mostly under, you know, The Danforth. Whereas this one will tunnel under a residential hood and not the main street ROW.

Are the residents being unreasonable? To answer that I'd need to have some actual data/information about the actual effects on their homes and I'd have to know the cost of mitigating those effects or moving the route. I am a fan of the current alignment but then it's not under my house, or yours, so we have that luxury. I don't think the route should be changed because they're complaining; it should be changed if they are correct that the route is going to have negative effects that have not been taken into account.

 

[MrGoose]

As for the Danforth, I think the whole point is that the subway runs mostly under, you know, The Danforth. Whereas this one will tunnel under a residential hood and not the main street ROW.

Are the residents being unreasonable? To answer that I'd need to have some actual data/information about the actual effects on their homes and I'd have to know the cost of mitigating those effects or moving the route. I am a fan of the current alignment but then it's not under my house, or yours, so we have that luxury. I don't think the route should be changed because they're complaining; it should be changed if they are correct that the route is going to have negative effects that have not been taken into account.

That is incorrect. The subway actually runs slightly to the north of Bloor/Danforth, meaning that it runs under the houses of plenty of people.

 

[W. K. Lis]

That is incorrect. The subway actually runs slightly to the north of Bloor/Danforth, meaning that it runs under the houses of plenty of people.

Bloor-Danforth (now Line 2) was mostly cut-and-cover. They did build structures OVER the subway in parts.

 

[afransen]

So we can't put a train below-grade in a neighborhood. And we can't put one above-grade in a neighborhood either?????? Where's it supposed to go, on the streets?

I think you're forgetting the preferred option of no train at all.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think the point went a bit over your head.
I didn't say we can't put a subway under homes!!!!!!!!
I said that it's understandable that if you found out tomorrow that they were tunnelling a subway your home, no one would call you crazy for wanting some proof it wouldn't destroy your house or that your house wouldn't be feeling vibrations every time a train went by underneath.

And as others have pointed out, um yeah, we do have subways and streetcars on the street.

I didn't say you can't build this stuff but rather that we have a process for determining the optimal route and PART of that (in fact and politically) is public input.

As for the Danforth, I think the whole point is that the subway runs mostly under, you know, The Danforth. Whereas this one will tunnel under a residential hood and not the main street ROW.

Are the residents being unreasonable? To answer that I'd need to have some actual data/information about the actual effects on their homes and I'd have to know the cost of mitigating those effects or moving the route. I am a fan of the current alignment but then it's not under my house, or yours, so we have that luxury. I don't think the route should be changed because they're complaining; it should be changed if they are correct that the route is going to have negative effects that have not been taken into account.

But the bloor subway line *doesn't* go under the danforth.

It runs to the north of the street, behind the commercial block. There are in fact lots of houses built over the line. Now it was built cut&cover, which means they expropriated all the houses, demolished, dug down, built the subway, then built new houses atop and sold them off again afterwards, but still.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

But the bloor subway line *doesn't* go under the danforth.

It runs to the north of the street, behind the commercial block. There are in fact lots of houses built over the line. Now it was built cut&cover, which means they expropriated all the houses, demolished, dug down, built the subway, then built new houses atop and sold them off again afterwards, but still.

Yes, mea culpa - this was pointed out above.
Of course, this would be both tunnelling AND operating a subway beneath Royal Orchard but still, point taken. If Metrolinx has data to show the vibrations are no big thing on the Danforth, they should show it to RO residents.
(And if the vibrations are bad, I guess let's not talk about that, then )

 

[CapitalSeven]

Most of the Bloor Danforth Subway was not rebuilt over. Just look at Google Earth. It's mostly streets, lanes, parking and parkettes, with some commercial buildings but few houses.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Most of the Bloor Danforth Subway was not rebuilt over. Just look at Google Earth. It's mostly streets, lanes, parking and parkettes, with some commercial buildings but few houses.

Maybe not houses, but in downtown, they are mostly stores or office buildings.