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

[afransen]

I don’t get this line of reasoning at all to build Royal Orchard at all. It’s expensive to build and doesn’t have a strong ridership case. The stated points in favor are “we should do it as a compromise to convince the locals” and “it’s wide stop spacing” and “we should build it anyways”.

The last point seems especially unconvincing. If that’s the case we should spend the money to build the OL to the expected capacity ASAP by buying all the rolling stock we need now, etc. Instead this line of reasoning seems solely applied to the YNSE.

I tend to agree. If we are looking to spend extra billions, future-proofing OL by roughing in longer platforms at the underground stations seems like better use of funds than building a station in a low-opportunity neighbourhood like Royal Orchard.

 

[Rainforest]

I don’t get this line of reasoning at all to build Royal Orchard at all. It’s expensive to build and doesn’t have a strong ridership case. The stated points in favor are “we should do it as a compromise to convince the locals” and “it’s wide stop spacing” and “we should build it anyways”.

The last point seems especially unconvincing. If that’s the case we should spend the money to build the OL to the expected capacity ASAP by buying all the rolling stock we need now, etc. Instead this line of reasoning seems solely applied to the YNSE.

Ideally, Royal Orchard Stn should be built. "Convincing the locals" may be a weak reason, but "stop spacing too wide" is a valid reason. That station absent, the gap between the Clark and the "Bridge" stations will be about 3 km. That will mean a very significant cut in the area's transit service, compared to today's frequent VIVA Blue / Pink and a set of local buses.

If YNSE and OL are in the same package and a cut to one means a boost to the other, then for sure upsizing the OL is far more important than retaining Royal Orchard, or even than retaining Drewry/Cummer and Clark. But usually it doesn't work in that manner. Each project exists in its own silo and gets whatever funding the governments feel like giving to that particular project. If they cut in one place, they don't go looking for the next most similar project with the intent to stream the funds there.

 

[Haydenpoon]

Ideally, Royal Orchard Stn should be built. "Convincing the locals" may be a weak reason, but "stop spacing too wide" is a valid reason. That station absent, the gap between the Clark and the "Bridge" stations will be about 3 km. That will mean a very significant cut in the area's transit service, compared to today's frequent VIVA Blue / Pink and a set of local buses.

If YNSE and OL are in the same package and a cut to one means a boost to the other, then for sure upsizing the OL is far more important than retaining Royal Orchard, or even than retaining Drewry/Cummer and Clark. But usually it doesn't work in that manner. Each project exists in its own silo and gets whatever funding the governments feel like giving to that particular project. If they cut in one place, they don't go looking for the next most similar project with the intent to stream the funds there.

There is no maximum stop spacing. Stop spacing should be determined by the built form above it, not purely base on distance.

 

[allengeorge]

Each project exists in its own silo and gets whatever funding the governments feel like giving to that particular project. If they cut in one place, they don't go looking for the next most similar project with the intent to stream the funds there.

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?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

High Tech is being pushed by Richmond Hill and will be built because its ultra cheap, and because the tracks will be there regardless due to the MSF. High Tech basically adds nothing to the overall cost and at worst is a low hanging fruit station. Its completely harmless, don't bring that into this conversation.

Yes, and people keep missing the forest for the trees: this is a suburban line that people in Toronto seem to think is ending in a field. More accurately, it's ending in an LCBO parking lot The key to these stations is how much density they are unlocking (and therefore, ridership). High Tech, even underground, is a huge net gain by those standards. At grade, it's a no-brainer and anyone who opposes it, because of the station spacing, doesn't understand the actual logic underpinning the extension.

The Bridge Station also unlocks massive density (and, not incidentally, revenue for the province). This was also true at the Langstaff Station location but it's still true at Bridge, even in its between-the-highways location. Before Places to Grow and the subway plans, those lands were useless industrial lands where they were going to put a Viva bus garage. Now they are expected to house like 25,000 people. Anyone who wants to see more dense development built around transit (as opposed to "sprawl" etc.) has to see this as a massive net gain. It's a quirk of the site, yes, that it's divided by two highways and a municipal border but, even at 400m spacing, everyone is going to get their money's worth from these 2 stations, I assure you.

Back when the original alignment was being done, they described the 2 final stations as two halves of a whole, each serving different functions. You have to see it that way. Each unlocks density in their respective municipalities and Bridge's other, equally important job, is to provide transit connectivity for "Union Station North."

The only reason Royal Orchard is remotely under consideration is for this same reason: the plan to build up-to-60-storey towers on the plaza site there. But, as myself and many others have pointed out, beyond that single site there is relatively little room for intensification. Combine that with the lack of feeder bus routes and it really is a dog. I mean, I'd expect it to be worse than Bessarion. And if they don't build the station, it'll be impossible for Markham to approve the development at that scale, on that site, so the developers are really just creating a Catch-22. Without their development the station makes zero sense and vice versa. I say, no station and let them build 20-25 storeys and we can all move on.

I agree that Clark makes the most sense of the 3 neighbourhood stations and certainly the data in the IBC suggests this is true as well. It best breaks up the Steeles-7 spacing, it best serves bus routes and it has the best potential for adding density.

Most of the rest of this discussion is trying to keep the conversation going until we get the next round of updated info

 

[ARG1]

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?

The problem with bringing the Ontario Line into this is that we don't know much about the Ontario Line to begin with. Sure we can assume the worst but it still ends up being a circular argument because its an argument based off the lack of information. What we know: Trains will likely be 3m wide (which in the grand scheme of metros around the world is actually REALLY wide), and at first will have 80m platforms. Whether or not stations will have room to be lengthened or not, or initial service patterns being at 90 seconds or not is unknown. If platforms will be stuck at 80m and there will be no room to expand them, that would be incredibly concerning and I would be fighting with you to get those expanded. There are documents suggesting there won't be, however I have heard from some insiders that they are looking into it (they really don't want to give out that many details unfortunately).

 

[Rainforest]

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?

Yes, it should apply to OL as well.

 

[Rainforest]

There is no maximum stop spacing. Stop spacing should be determined by the built form above it, not purely base on distance.

The route isn't going through a forest. The Roal Orchard station, if built, will probably overtake the likes of Old Mill, Glencair, Castle Frank in daily ridership.

The density around that area is generally low, although there is at least one (maybe more) multi-storey at Roal Orchard & Yonge. The catchment area will be pretty big, for both walk-in traffic and a bus from the east, resulting in a reasonable daily usage.

 

[dullturtle06]

The problem with bringing the Ontario Line into this is that we don't know much about the Ontario Line to begin with. Sure we can assume the worst but it still ends up being a circular argument because its an argument based off the lack of information. What we know: Trains will likely be 3m wide (which in the grand scheme of metros around the world is actually REALLY wide), and at first will have 80m platforms. Whether or not stations will have room to be lengthened or not, or initial service patterns being at 90 seconds or not is unknown. If platforms will be stuck at 80m and there will be no room to expand them, that would be incredibly concerning and I would be fighting with you to get those expanded. There are documents suggesting there won't be, however I have heard from some insiders that they are looking into it (they really don't want to give out that many details unfortunately).

so the most recent plan is start at 80 meters, but future proof for 100 meter platforms. Which is okay. I think if they future proof for 120 meter platforms for all underground stations that would be best. It would be almost the same capacity as current TR's on Yonge. Plus Platform screen doors, and 90 second headways. you would have ample capacity. the extra 20 meter length shouldn't add to much cost.

 

[ARG1]

so the most recent plan is start at 80 meters, but future proof for 100 meter platforms. Which is okay. I think if they future proof for 120 meter platforms for all underground stations that would be best. It would be almost the same capacity as current TR's on Yonge. Plus Platform screen doors, and 90 second headways. you would have ample capacity. the extra 20 meter length shouldn't add to much cost.

Yep. Honestly if they do that, any remaining complaints I have for the line will be completely crushed and I'll be completely on board.

 

[Ciarlandini]

Would option three still have a stop at Clark Av W?

 

[44 North]

High Tech is being pushed by Richmond Hill and will be built because its ultra cheap, and because the tracks will be there regardless due to the MSF. High Tech basically adds nothing to the overall cost and at worst is a low hanging fruit station. Its completely harmless, don't bring that into this conversation.

Right now the plan is to only build 1 community station, and as far as I'm concerned it should be built at Clark, not at Royal Orchard or Cummer. I said Royal Orchard being built to appease the NIMBYs as a pure hypothetical. In reality I doubt it would do much, nor should we try to quell there NIMBYism, and if we do build Royal Orchard, we might as well at this point try to find the money to build all the money because there is absolutely no reason to fully bury Eglinton West while cutting stations on Yonge North. The Federal Government is paying 40% of the project cost, and according to Doug he could've built all 4 subway projects without the Feds. He should be ready to pony up the extra cash, let's not repeat the same mistake as we did with the extension to Finch back in the 70s.

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.

The route isn't going through a forest. The Roal Orchard station, if built, will probably overtake the likes of Old Mill, Glencair, Castle Frank in daily ridership.

The density around that area is generally low, although there is at least one (maybe more) multi-storey at Roal Orchard & Yonge. The catchment area will be pretty big, for both walk-in traffic and a bus from the east, resulting in a reasonable daily usage.

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.

 

[dullturtle06]

Like royal orchard is a tricky situation. To implement the station for a reasonable cost they would need to bridge over the valley. This would make the station shallower and lower the cost. But for them to use option 3 which turns and goes under homes in royal orchard, they have to make the tunnel deep to limit vibrations and impacts of the subway tunnel. If they decide to build royal orchard with option 3, its going to cost a tonne of money, have low ridership demand, and be deep which will further drop the demand for the station. Like if option 3 is carried forward the only station possible in the area will be at john or center street. I feel like this is an either-or situation.

 

[ARG1]

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.

Why are you conflating two stations that have completely different contexts and reasons for existing? The argument for cutting Cummer isn't "its too close to Finch therefore it shouldn't be built", its "Building Cummer will come at the cost of building Royal Orchard or Clark, and so if we're comparing them to see which one will get built the proximity to Finch is a reason to slash Cummer."

High Tech is being built no matter. We're not building High Tech at the cost of another station, its just a cheap bonus to serve the developments in that area, and if the government was smart, could be funded directly by the developers similar to Capstan Station in Vancouver. This amount of Whataboutism doesn't work here.

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.

The 2nd Avenue Subway is going to be 2x more expensive per km.

 

[ARG1]

Like royal orchard is a tricky situation. To implement the station for a reasonable cost they would need to bridge over the valley. This would make the station shallower and lower the cost. But for them to use option 3 which turns and goes under homes in royal orchard, they have to make the tunnel deep to limit vibrations and impacts of the subway tunnel. If they decide to build royal orchard with option 3, its going to cost a tonne of money, have low ridership demand, and be deep which will further drop the demand for the station. Like if option 3 is carried forward the only station possible in the area will be at john or center street. I feel like this is an either-or situation.

Which brings up an interesting question. Something I noticed from listening to the town hall is that some of the locals claim that if Royal Orchard is built they're not too concerned with the noise (although this is pretty typically NIMBY tactics, propose an alternative and if that alternative is implemented then forget you proposed it and still complain) so the question is would going that route while making more potential noise be more worth it and satisfy the NIMBYs.