crs1026
Superstar
I get that you are being flip, but the irony of your suggestion is, the entire Union Station lands were built on what was once lake.
Be careful what you wish for....
- Paul
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
I get that you are being flip, but the irony of your suggestion is, the entire Union Station lands were built on what was once lake.
Be careful what you wish for....
- Paul
TwoWheelPoli
Active Member
I attended last night and wrote about the project on my blog. Called out a couple of bike related concerns including ensuring rail trail access is preserved whatever the final alignment ends up being. I included a map showing the corridor studies (in orange) and the existing rail trails crossing the corridors (in blue).
www.twowheeledpolitics.ca
All Aboard the Alto High-Speed Train!
A blog about cycling and political advocacy based in Toronto, Canada. (#BikeTO)
crs1026
Superstar
I'm going to make myself unpopular by pointing out that, while bike trails are a good thing, in this context the trails that are at risk are primarily recreational in nature and not essential to the transportation network or growth in active transportation.... which in a hierarchy of needs says they can reasonably be relocated given there is a greater need.
The very squiggly nature of the lines on that map says to me that Alto's encroachment would be a here and there proposition, and not end to end appropriation. That might compromise the continuity of major trails, but that can be mitigated. And since only one route is to be chosen, it's reassuring to recognize that both routes have a significant east-west trail - meaning it's certain that one will be untouched, we just don't know which one yet. Do we need both?
I know that those trails are the result of a great deal of hard work, and investment not only of dollars but also sweat and pain of volunteer labour....but I wonder what the numbers of actual users who ride end to end might be. So if Alto represents a setback, or forces a couple more decades of trailbuilding to reconnect stranded segments, while that is unfortunate it's not a gamechanger. Nor would it move the needle on community benefit, tourism, etc. I can't rate this concern as a showstopper, nor need there be an assumption of km for km replacement.
- Paul
The very squiggly nature of the lines on that map says to me that Alto's encroachment would be a here and there proposition, and not end to end appropriation. That might compromise the continuity of major trails, but that can be mitigated. And since only one route is to be chosen, it's reassuring to recognize that both routes have a significant east-west trail - meaning it's certain that one will be untouched, we just don't know which one yet. Do we need both?
I know that those trails are the result of a great deal of hard work, and investment not only of dollars but also sweat and pain of volunteer labour....but I wonder what the numbers of actual users who ride end to end might be. So if Alto represents a setback, or forces a couple more decades of trailbuilding to reconnect stranded segments, while that is unfortunate it's not a gamechanger. Nor would it move the needle on community benefit, tourism, etc. I can't rate this concern as a showstopper, nor need there be an assumption of km for km replacement.
- Paul
Voltz
Senior Member
The presentation slides I’ve seen show they will have a decently wide corridor that includes a service road along side the tracks, so they should be able to squeeze in room for a bike path as well.
generalcanada
Senior Member
maybe following the tracks going east/west, but would most likely close the north/south trails crossing the route right now.
PL1
Senior Member
They could do bridges or culverts for crossing paths. And it's important that there are regular wildlife crossing points as well
legoswmonkey
New Member
Another detail they shared with me after I asked about using TMC is that they're aiming to have one yard/maintenance centre per 100km, with a smaller facility every 50km. That seems overly dense to me but is apparently standard HSR practice.
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
That seems unnecessary. The cost of a handful of grade separations for multi use trails hardly seems prohibitive. They're pretty common where trails cross highways and even city streets. The pedestrian bridge over the 401 in Pickering for example, and quite a few crossing of the 417 in Ottawa. Multi use trail bridges over a high speed rail line would be l shorter and ess complex than any of those.
reinventingthewheel
Active Member
100km sounds reasonable. Hypothetically for Tor-Ott, that’s one yard near the edge of Toronto, one in Peterborough, one in the shield, then one just outside of Ottawa.
crs1026
Superstar
The ruggedness of terrain and the likelihood of civil works for the tracks that leap over swamps and such makes me think that a parallel bike path is just not practical or affordable even for such a big-ticket project. And there will be considerable concern about keeping people away from the tracks altogether. More likely, new best choices for patching the bike trails back together will have to be found, quite likely over time, and at a distance from the right of way itself. Detours will be cheaper than parallel works, and likely more pleasant to ride.
Plus, I can't imagine that cycling along a high speed line with trains whooshing by regularly will be all that pleasant.
Let's just hope that Alto has better sources of inspiration to copy than Metrolinx. We know how well they do railpaths.
- Paul
Plus, I can't imagine that cycling along a high speed line with trains whooshing by regularly will be all that pleasant.
Let's just hope that Alto has better sources of inspiration to copy than Metrolinx. We know how well they do railpaths.
- Paul
McGillicuddy
Active Member
Don't threaten me with a good time. I'm 1000% supportive of any initiative that annoys the people who live on the Island.
TwoWheelPoli
Active Member
My point is not to hold up the much needed HSR project, but to ensure the construction phase properly ensures any rail trails crossing the line can be properly maintained. I know railway companies like Metrolinx and CPKC have a notorious track record when it comes to accommodating active transportation and it's essential we get this right the first time.
That wouldn't be a bad idea, though I wouldn't place as high a priority on that idea for the entire 1000 km rail corridor. Maybe as an opportunity to fill in some strategic trail gaps?
micheal_can
Senior Member
When you think of all the options, the one that would make the most sense is either elevated or deep under everything. Of those 2, deep under everything makes more sense. You are not limited to curves of existing infrastructure and buildings. You are not supplanting any existing services in or out. And if you dig under everything, you can connect to all the existing services how you want. For instance, you could have station exists to several subway stations, including possibly the Ontario Line.
As much as I love a good rail trail, the rails were there first. This trail is 'railbanking'
Having said that, with a 7km radius for corners, most of any existing abandoned rail corridors won't be straight enough.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I don't know how other jurisdictions handle a topic like this, but I think liability would be a concern.
As for intersecting trails, I think a lot would depend on the grade of the HSR in relation to the surrounding terrain at any particular point. A suitable solution might have a trail link go over or under, depending, or even divert to a nearby road grossing. There will also be calls for wildlife corridors.
I saw a FB post for 'save South Frontenac'. Some people want HSR to serve their town; others want it nowhere near them. Interesting times.
smallspy
Senior Member
The yards and maintenance centres that they're describing are not the same as a facility such as the TMC, which is designed primarily for maintaining rolling stock.
What they are describing is a small, fenced in property with a siding (or two), which will allow them to stash some maintenance equipment for upkeep of the ROW as the facility every 100km or so. The smaller facility would simply be an access to put on hi-rail equipment, or to load and unload the MOW equipment to road-going vehicles.
It's not necessary obvious at first glace, but there are loads of both of these kinds of facilities all around the GO network today.
Dan