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

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I mean I'm not a construction expert but my understanding is tunnelling costs are less to do with physical depth and more to do with metres the TBM has to travel. Additional costs occur on deeper stations, but if a tunnel dips deep between stations it's not a massive cost difference.

And even there, it could depend on geotech; maybe going deeper under softer soil is faster etc. There's probably a bunch of variables.

And yea, It's stupid regardless. The original alignment was fine and wouldn't have caused any issues for the neighbours. I was more so explaining how The Star is framing it as "appeasing the suburban voters while ignoring the inner city voter", while in reality this whole alignment is the same thing as the OL alignment - trying to find a way to cut costs by bringing parts of the subway line to the surface.

Metrolinx has done the same thing with the OL and the Davenport Diamond in the face of local opposition, made tweaks at the margin to appease locals without really giving them what they truly want, as what they truly want has massive cost implications. For the OL they have increased parkland dedications and are spending money on high quality sound barriers, dampened tracks, etc., while here they are shoving the tunnel a bit deeper.

Remember that the neighbourhood here wants the alignment back on Yonge, just like Riverdale wants the alignment tunneled. Neither are getting what they want.

Yeah, this is really the crux of it. And, really, this is how consultation is supposed to work. The experts determine what makes sense given the budget, project needs, environmental considerations etc. Then they take it out to the public to hear their concerns including local concerns that people working at desks might not be aware of.

It's not the job of the residents to know all this stuff (geotech, budget, facilities construction etc.); they have a limited sphere of concern. They should be listened to and taken into account and it would be nice if they had enough humility to acknowledge that, yes, their concerns are legitimate but they are nonetheless far from the only concerns. They are a very small piece of a very big pie. These guys are TWENTY homeowners and this is a multi-billion-dollar project. What makes them honestly think their needs supersede the rest? The route was adjusted in response to their barely-legit concerns. Say thank you and move on.

 

[44 North]

I mean I'm not a construction expert but my understanding is tunnelling costs are less to do with physical depth and more to do with metres the TBM has to travel. Additional costs occur on deeper stations, but if a tunnel dips deep between stations it's not a massive cost difference.

The case here is that the stations on either end of this portion of the alignment remain unchanged, it's just the routing of the TBM being modified to be deeper. The new alignment does likely result in marginally longer tunnels required to reach those extra depths and to make those sharper corners, but I can't see it actually being that much additional cost. At most you are looking at an emergency exit shaft getting deeper.

It's likely not a zero cost addition, but it's almost certainly only a marginal cost difference.

And yea, It's stupid regardless. The original alignment was fine and wouldn't have caused any issues for the neighbours. I was more so explaining how The Star is framing it as "appeasing the suburban voters while ignoring the inner city voter", while in reality this whole alignment is the same thing as the OL alignment - trying to find a way to cut costs by bringing parts of the subway line to the surface.

Metrolinx has done the same thing with the OL and the Davenport Diamond in the face of local opposition, made tweaks at the margin to appease locals without really giving them what they truly want, as what they truly want has massive cost implications. For the OL they have increased parkland dedications and are spending money on high quality sound barriers, dampened tracks, etc., while here they are shoving the tunnel a bit deeper.

Remember that the neighbourhood here wants the alignment back on Yonge, just like Riverdale wants the alignment tunneled. Neither are getting what they want.

Just going on memory RL rejig from Pape to Carlaw was like $150-300M and 8mths. There is a cost to revisions, whether substantive or not is debatable. And again precedence of admitting to kowtowing to a handful of homeowners over 'peace and quiet'.

Station placement does appear changed in the update (Royal Orchard has moved south and aligned with Yonge). If we're making the tunnel deeper leading from Royal Orchard by default wouldn't it make the station deeper? Keep in mind they're already tunnelling under the Don to begin with. Something questionable considering a few cottages and caddy shack are seemingly the only real impediments to a bridge structure. So pre-update it was headscratchingly deep.

Mlinx did their homework when they presented an option that swooped under homes. It was ballsy, but with merit behind it. That they're making a revision to now keep things within public ROWs, and adding stations, it calls into question the merits of their original option. Certainly leaves me wondering if a single tunnel is smart. Why not extract south of the Don, build a bridge, then a combo of cut/cover and mine the 1500m to the CN line. Majority is within the roadway allowance, and it wouldn't be stupidly deep.

 

[ARG1]

Yeah it doesn't really make sense.

Putting the Leslieville portion of the Ontario Line underground will cost $1 billion, but this alignment change and the depth they have to dig will result in no additional costs?

You're comparing adding an extra 20m of tunnel vs building 2.25km of tunnel, burying 3 stations extremely deep.

A 9 storey depth would've been unacceptable for the Ontario Line, but deep stations are fine here?

The whole point of this new allignment is so that Bridge Center and High Tech stations will now be above ground, and not deep underground. The only consequence to this is that Royal Orchard station will now be extremely deep, but that's a station that might not even get built.

In the Crosstown thread it's been suggested that the above ground portion above or below grade would've been nearly the same cost as it is now.

Clarify?

Listen we know how much you hate the Ontario Line, but how about trying to make proper Apples to Apples comparisons rather than nitpicking a specific design element of one project and ignoring everything else just to try and prove a point. SSE and EW are great punching bags for this, the same can't be said for the YNSE.

 

[TossYourJacket]

"it is shameful that Metrolinx consulted people and didn't do exactly what about 200 of them, and their dogs, asked for. Is this democracy?! I demand Metrolinx keep talking with residents until the entire staff of the Agency is replaced with Royal Orchard residents. It's the only way to come up with the best solution for York Region. "

EDIT: That Liberal response is actually pretty fair and certainly suggests they're not trying to get votes by promising to move it back to Yonge. My snark was directed a bit more to MP Melissa Lantsman.

View attachment 368123

I'm slightly surprised Lantsman didn't somehow blame the Liberals or Trudeau for the subway alignment. Also "How can they proceed using noise levels from other projects as their reference?" is hilarious. Noise doesn't somehow work differently because it's in the magical sacred land of Thornhill. It works the same everywhere, you can use other projects as data, because that's how science works. Also kinda funny that she's making a big deal about how she wont support it, while having literally zero influence on this project. But I guess you gotta pander to those NIMBYs somehow.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

In addition to the Bridge Transit-Oriented Community coming up this week, looks like Metrolinx is also doing another consultation on the subway, presumably so Royal Orchard residents can yell at them about the alignment some more before the holidays...

Yonge North Subway Extension Open House - Dec 16 2021

A virtual open house to provide project updates

www.metrolinxengage.com

 

[toronto647]

In addition to the Bridge Transit-Oriented Community coming up this week, looks like Metrolinx is also doing another consultation on the subway, presumably so Royal Orchard residents can yell at them about the alignment some more before the holidays...

Yonge North Subway Extension Open House - Dec 16 2021

A virtual open house to provide project updates

www.metrolinxengage.com

Found this question to be very funny

Does Metrolinx pay for grief counselling and mental health issue​

Anonymous
Dec 11, 2021 - 15:21
Many people are actually traumatized by the letter deliveries. Many people are facing impossible decisions with very little detailed information. Do you offer counselling and mental health support?

 

[Undead]

Defs someone from this forum fed up with our transit delays LOL

 

[44 North]

You're comparing adding an extra 20m of tunnel vs building 2.25km of tunnel, burying 3 stations extremely deep.

The whole point of this new allignment is so that Bridge Center and High Tech stations will now be above ground, and not deep underground. The only consequence to this is that Royal Orchard station will now be extremely deep, but that's a station that might not even get built.

Clarify?

Listen we know how much you hate the Ontario Line, but how about trying to make proper Apples to Apples comparisons rather than nitpicking a specific design element of one project and ignoring everything else just to try and prove a point. SSE and EW are great punching bags for this, the same can't be said for the YNSE.

Coming off a bit a apologist on this one bro, more so than usual. The same def can be said about YNSE. Bowing to 20 homeowners to the tune of $xxx million over minute db level changes should be underscored better by YR subway pumpers. It's all very relatable to other projects, be it OL or future works. It runs roughshod over what Mlinx has stated in the past, has now opened the door to re-planning numerous other projects, and on the whole gives a glimpse to QP/mlinx's loss of teeth and inherent politicization.

Per km this is the most expensive project in the GTHA, and somewhere near the top on the planet. All while seeing something like a 75% ridership drop compared with previous modeling. Now it just got more expensive. You don't need to deflect on the matter.

And as for people getting hung up on nimbys. Sure it's funny, but every aspect of every project sees it. It's not anything at this point and is incidental to the news. When their complaints result in sizable changes like we saw this week, that's the news to focus on.

 

[Transportfan]

In addition to the Bridge Transit-Oriented Community coming up this week, looks like Metrolinx is also doing another consultation on the subway, presumably so Royal Orchard residents can yell at them about the alignment some more before the holidays...

I think all this consultation trend has only served to fuel NIMBYism. It's supposed to have facilitated relations between planners and the community, but it has done nothing more than give NIMBY's a platform to complain about everything. Talk about a public relations backfire.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Well, I don't think it's a trend. We live in a democracy and you have to consult people.

But I do think it's the loudest voices who get the most attention and they tend to be NIMBYs. So no reporter is going around Thornhill and Richmond Hill to interview the 10s of 1000s of people who are fine with the alignment when there's 100 loud people who aren't. QAnd I don't think less consultation is the answer but maybe the media shouldn't give them so much oxygen.

Come back in a couple of years when everyone is complaining about the terrible traffic from construction! At a certain point, you've got to do what you've got to do and hopefully trust the experts to do their jobs and take any constructive info from consultation into account.

 

[Rainforest]

There exists a good reason to place the two northmost stations at the surface level, and to achieve that by tunneling under several houses if necessary.

But, is it really necessary?

I am thinking of a route that stays under Yonge in a shallow tunnel till the northern corner of the Holy Cross cemetery. Then veers north-east gently, aiming to join the Bala Sub rail corridor half-way between Hwy 7 and High Tech Drive.

The "Bridge" station would be where the connector road meets Hwy 7 today, in a shallow trench. It would be necessary to shift the stormwater pond closer to Yonge, elevate Hwy 7 over the station, and rebuild the connector road intersection. Plus, the VIVA terminal would have to be rebuilt to make room for the rails. That's all surface construction, and should cost peanuts compared to the total cost of YNSE.

After the "Bridge" station, the rails would rise to the surface level and continue next to the Bala sub. The High Tech station would be in the exact same place as per the current plan.

Gains: not just appeasing the residents, but also avoiding tight curves on the route. And potentially, making the tunnel cheaper: no need to go deep, can bridge over West Don rather than burrowing under it. Finally, a greater chance of adding the Royal Orchard station if that's possible at all.

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ as the hub and transfer station - a station designed to move lots of people - having it at ground level saves even more money than relocating an average station.

Not that any of the line should be underground imo.

 

[ARG1]

Coming off a bit a apologist on this one bro, more so than usual. The same def can be said about YNSE. Bowing to 20 homeowners to the tune of $xxx million over minute db level changes should be underscored better by YR subway pumpers. It's all very relatable to other projects, be it OL or future works. It runs roughshod over what Mlinx has stated in the past, has now opened the door to re-planning numerous other projects, and on the whole gives a glimpse to QP/mlinx's loss of teeth and inherent politicization.

I'm not apologizing for anything. If you have read any of my last posts, I think I made it clear that this change is ludicrous. My point was that the comparison syn was making to the Ontario Line is foolish since the entire point of having this new alignment that goes under people's houses is so that we can have surface stations with easy transfers, exactly like the Ontario Line. While Royal Orchard will be extremely deep in contrast, for all we know that station will probably not even get built. The context of the Ontario Line being buried and this "slightly" deeper alternative are entirely different and should not be compared, when the end goals of the modifications are the exact same - make the station costs cheaper, and allow for transfers to other services be quicker and easier by placing the line in the rail corridor. As we have discussed several times, the most expensive part of a subway line are the stations. Boring is relatively cheap, building deep stations isn't. Adding 20m of extra tunnel as such is unlikely to be that much more expensive, however if doing so means we don't have to dig large pits for a new subway station, that is a huge amount of money. Compare this with burying the entirety of the Ontario Line. Now you have 2km worth of new tunnel, and 3 new stations that will have to be built underground. These 2 scenerios are completed different, with the only common thread being that they are, or would be direct response to silly and unjustified NIMBYism.

Per km this is the most expensive project in the GTHA, and somewhere near the top on the planet. All while seeing something like a 75% ridership drop compared with previous modeling. Now it just got more expensive. You don't need to deflect on the matter.

I'm not, although I'd like to see a source for that 75% ridership drop.

And as for people getting hung up on nimbys. Sure it's funny, but every aspect of every project sees it. It's not anything at this point and is incidental to the news. When their complaints result in sizable changes like we saw this week, that's the news to focus on.

I agree

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I am thinking of a route that stays under Yonge in a shallow tunnel till the northern corner of the Holy Cross cemetery. Then veers north-east gently, aiming to join the Bala Sub rail corridor half-way between Hwy 7 and High Tech Drive.

The "Bridge" station would be where the connector road meets Hwy 7 today, in a shallow trench. It would be necessary to shift the stormwater pond closer to Yonge, elevate Hwy 7 over the station, and rebuild the connector road intersection. Plus, the VIVA terminal would have to be rebuilt to make room for the rails. That's all surface construction, and should cost peanuts compared to the total cost of YNSE.

With due respect, I don't really see the point of any of this fantasy planning anymore. First - the route planning is done, obviously. I always liked the bridge over the valley myself, but then there are all sorts of factors we're not taking into account. Do you know the soil conditions if you do shallow tunnelling? Do you know where utilities along Yonge are located? You can't just say "let's do shallow tunnel" based on looking at Google Maps.

In a similar vein, you have no idea what the engineering around that stormwater pond (which is located directly in the hydro corridor) is. I watched the recording of that public meeting and someone asked about turning it into a park and they said don't even know if they can access it and make it part of the development that way. So I'm thinking that moving it is way out of the question. And, finally, it's debatable whether your Bridge station works for the convergence of transit modes (the 407 Transitway obviously being a prime consideration).

We had a good 10 years of imagining and kicking around ideas for how the route could be improved (including many fine folks who dreamed we would or should stop at Steeles) but I think we've just about arrived at the ultimate conclusion.

Anyway, I keep going back to these maps, posed a few pages back, and I don't see a major change that any non-Royal Orchard people should be upset about, and I certainly don't see any proof it costs more or taxpayer money is being wasted (though presumably there was time spent evaluating options etc). If they're expropriating fewer homes, for example, my math skills tell me that it costing less not more. A change back to Yonge would lkely have affected what can be developed at the 2 final stations, to say nothing of forcing underground stations, so staying with any version of Option 3 is saving money there too. It's almost literally the most minor change I can imagine.

No has actually asserted, with any facts, that this move is costing more; it's just an abstract assumption being treated as fact, based solely on the fact that it's a change (and one the media is spinning as an appeasement of suburban homeowners etc.) If you can prove otherwise, let's see it.

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ You don’t need to expropriate homes to go underneath.