Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | Metrolinx

[A 6264]

We call them NIMBYs. There are some occasions where the NIMBYs might be in the right, and I think I'm on their side on this one.
First, I'm still trying to figure out where these homes are, that would be expropriated. As stated before, most of the extra curve in the picture shown, goes through a golf course. I think these 50 houses are near the bottom, where the curved orange line rejoins Yonge Street. If homeowners pointed out the route could be changed to follow Yonge Street instead, with minimal impact, and the city (of Richmond Hill, perhaps) agreed, why not change it. Aside from that, the location of the old route (in orange) had Royal Orchard station where a strip mall is now, and would have required completely removing the mall. I will assume the change will allow the strip mall to remain. The new route (in green) takes a partial chunk out of a much larger mall, and I presume the rest of it can remain. Therefore, less impact on properties.

 

[Amare]

We call them NIMBYs. There are some occasions where the NIMBYs might be in the right, and I think I'm on their side on this one.
First, I'm still trying to figure out where these homes are, that would be expropriated. As stated before, most of the extra curve in the picture shown, goes through a golf course. I think these 50 houses are near the bottom, where the curved orange line rejoins Yonge Street. If homeowners pointed out the route could be changed to follow Yonge Street instead, with minimal impact, and the city (of Richmond Hill, perhaps) agreed, why not change it. Aside from that, the location of the old route (in orange) had Royal Orchard station where a strip mall is now, and would have required completely removing the mall. I will assume the change will allow the strip mall to remain. The new route (in green) takes a partial chunk out of a much larger mall, and I presume the rest of it can remain. Therefore, less impact on properties.

The ~50 homes being affected arent being expropriated.

They are homeowners who are simply whining about the effects that vibration would have on their properties, and they werent going to be expropriated if the tunnel was built more shallow. Nothing more, nothing less.

Metrolinx chose to needlessly do an extra deep bore and spend tens of millions extra to listen to the pretentious homeowners.

 

[lastcommodore]

We call them NIMBYs. There are some occasions where the NIMBYs might be in the right, and I think I'm on their side on this one.
First, I'm still trying to figure out where these homes are, that would be expropriated. As stated before, most of the extra curve in the picture shown, goes through a golf course. I think these 50 houses are near the bottom, where the curved orange line rejoins Yonge Street. If homeowners pointed out the route could be changed to follow Yonge Street instead, with minimal impact, and the city (of Richmond Hill, perhaps) agreed, why not change it. Aside from that, the location of the old route (in orange) had Royal Orchard station where a strip mall is now, and would have required completely removing the mall. I will assume the change will allow the strip mall to remain. The new route (in green) takes a partial chunk out of a much larger mall, and I presume the rest of it can remain. Therefore, less impact on properties.

First of all, I am unsure of any source that indicates the strip mall was due to be demolished if the original alignment was chosen. The only concerns ever mentioned was vibration and noise, which then-CEO Phil Verster stated it would not. There was no impact on properties in the region other than noise and vibration- which again- were negligible.
Per August Street:

Metrolinx’s position is supported by a recent sound test conducted at a York University lecture hall, directly above the Line 1 extension to Vaughan (TYSSE). At this location, the track bed is approximately 20 metres below the surface. The test concluded that noise produced by the subway is “practically imperceptible”. An image from the article depicts a 28.7 decibel measurement. For comparison, a faint whisper averages 30 decibels!

You ask, "Why not". The answer is that it is more expensive.
Per AS again:

Per the initial business case from March, Royal Orchard was estimated to be constructed 40-45 metres below grade – the deepest station on the TTC network. By comparison, the existing TYSSE and Line 4 stations were generally built at a depth of 20-25 metres. Among in-development projects, Avenue Station on Line 5 will be 32 metres deep; Line 2’s Lawrence East Station will be around 40 metres deep. Unfortunately, due to the change in alignment in December, Royal Orchard Station is now up to 50 metres below grade.

The station will require a sequential excavation approach (mined, similar to Avenue Station on Line 5) whereas the better-performing Clark and Cummer stations can be constructed efficiently by the cut-and-cover method at depths less than 20 metres.

The depth and complexity of Royal Orchard Station does not bode well with the already poor benefit-cost ratio prior to the increased depth. It is expected that costs will be $400-$500 million per neighbourhood station, with Royal Orchard being the most expensive – recent changes could increase its cost beyond $500 million.

 

[Bordercollie]

An extension to 16th won't be happening, and you can see why in the picture - There are several million dollars worth of BRT infastructure and stations already between Richmond Hill centre and 16th avenue which would be rendered redundant if the line extended to 16th - They didn`t continue that BRT south towards finch because they knew an extension to RHC would be coming

However, when they built the VIVA BRT they made sure the station size and bus lanes were large enough to support a potential future conversion to LRT so you can look forward to that if it ever happens - You could have a nice PATH inspired walkway between the TTC terminus and the YRT LRT and riders would be able to make a smooth transfer and go north up to Newmarket

Would they ever build a bus tunnel underneath Richmond hill? That stretch is the most painful.

 

[ARG1]

Would they ever build a bus tunnel underneath Richmond hill? That stretch is the most painful.

That was the original plan until the 2008 recession had them scope that part out. The Major Mackenzie stop is plased where it is in order to allow for the construction of a bus tunnel in the future (although it will probably take until LRT conversion for that to happen).

 

[Bordercollie]

That was the original plan until the 2008 recession had them scope that part out. The Major Mackenzie stop is plased where it is in order to allow for the construction of a bus tunnel in the future (although it will probably take until LRT conversion for that to happen).

I don't foresee any more LRT's being built. It takes too long and the benefits dont outweigh BRT. Until you can show me one that really works I won't believe it .

 

[ARG1]

I don't foresee any more LRT's being built. It takes too long and the benefits dont outweigh BRT. Until you can show me one that really works I won't believe it .

You're probably right, however by that same token I don't foresee the downtown tunnel happening anytime soon either.

 

[Bordercollie]

You're probably right, however by that same token I don't foresee the downtown tunnel happening anytime soon either.

They should eliminate street parking at all times and make a BRT lane.

 

[Undead]

We call them NIMBYs. There are some occasions where the NIMBYs might be in the right, and I think I'm on their side on this one.
First, I'm still trying to figure out where these homes are, that would be expropriated. As stated before, most of the extra curve in the picture shown, goes through a golf course. I think these 50 houses are near the bottom, where the curved orange line rejoins Yonge Street. If homeowners pointed out the route could be changed to follow Yonge Street instead, with minimal impact, and the city (of Richmond Hill, perhaps) agreed, why not change it. Aside from that, the location of the old route (in orange) had Royal Orchard station where a strip mall is now, and would have required completely removing the mall. I will assume the change will allow the strip mall to remain. The new route (in green) takes a partial chunk out of a much larger mall, and I presume the rest of it can remain. Therefore, less impact on properties.

From the local councillor's newsletter, Metrolinx has expropriated the torched TD Bank branch at Royal Orchard, presumably for the new station location.

 

[A 6264]

From the local councillor's newsletter, Metrolinx has expropriated the torched TD Bank branch at Royal Orchard, presumably for the new station location.

Well that changes everything. This location is south of the big mall, and expropriation is minimal, as there is not much of anything at this location other than the bank. It makes me think the change in station location, rather than expropriation of housing, was the main reason for the change. It's also possible that putting the station on Bay Thorn Drive might have required expropriation of more businesses and houses surrounding it. I should also note there is a church a little further south on the west side of Yonge, which would have been in peril under the old plan.

There has been discussion on this thread about how making the tunnels deeper, are an unnecessary extra cost. I'm not one to take sides on the surface vs. underground debates, except to be against one-solution-fits-all claims. In this case, a deeper tunnel appears to be sensible, and if it's the right thing to do, then do it, even if it adds to the cost. It's not like the north part of the Yonge subway isn't already dug deeper than the rest of the Toronto subway system.

 

[lastcommodore]

It's also possible that putting the station on Bay Thorn Drive might have required expropriation of more businesses and houses surrounding it. ... In this case, a deeper tunnel appears to be sensible, and if it's the right thing to do, then do it, even if it adds to the cost.

You keep mentioning supposed expropriation of the fmr alignment as a justification on why it was a problem. I have yet to see anything that supports that. Can you cite any concern over excessive expropriation- or expropriation in general- that relates to the fmr alignment that would have been avoided with the newer alignment?

 

[A 6264]

You keep mentioning supposed expropriation of the fmr alignment as a justification on why it was a problem. I have yet to see anything that supports that. Can you cite any concern over excessive expropriation- or expropriation in general- that relates to the fmr alignment that would have been avoided with the newer alignment?

That was already in discussion before I came in. See earlier posts about 50+ additional homes being expropriated under the old plan. I don't know the details, and was basically asking about that myself, though I think others have already answered.
Also, virtually all posts I've made on this thread recently, were of me explaining my thinking. What more is to be said?

 

[Amare]

That was already in discussion before I came in. See earlier posts about 50+ additional homes being expropriated under the old plan. I don't know the details, and was basically asking about that myself, though I think others have already answered.
Also, virtually all posts I've made on this thread recently, were of me explaining my thinking. What more is to be said?

It's not that ~50 homes would be expropriated; expropriation for the homes we're discussing about was never going to be a thing.

We're discussing specifically how Metrolinx chose to extra-deep bore the tunnel around Royal Orchard to appease ~50 homeowners who were whining about the effects subway train vibrations would have. Their homes were never to be expropriated if the tunnel would be built at a standard more shallow level.

 

[lastcommodore]

That was already in discussion before I came in. See earlier posts about 50+ additional homes being expropriated under the old plan. I don't know the details, and was basically asking about that myself, though I think others have already answered.
Also, virtually all posts I've made on this thread recently, were of me explaining my thinking. What more is to be said?

I cannot find what post you are referencing. The closest I can find in recent discussion is Amare's post where he suggested to just expropriate the houses of the homeowners complaining about rumbling, not that it would be necessary or that MX would do it.

To correct the record, the only thing of note which caused MX to modify the original alignment to its current alignment is due to complaints from some 50 homeowners about potential rumble underneath their houses. It is possible you accidentally mixed the two together and figured those 50 homeowners were having their homes expropriated.