News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

The geography in that area is all wrong for what you propose.

The trail is just above the river level, and the tracks sit another 15 to 20 feet higher than that.

To make it a straight ramp up and over the tracks (plus their own clearances), and still maintain an appropriate grade, you would have had to start from the previous bridge over the river.

Thinking about those grades now, all of a sudden an overpass makes sense here. A tunnel under the tracks would have put the floor just above the spring water line - it would have made it a potential target for scour and erosion.

Dan
Your knowledgeable insight is always appreciated.

What are your thoughts on the crossing to the south? It's to be a tunnel.

It looks like this will be the last significant section to be completed and unfortunately work has not yet started.

DJI_0031.jpeg
 
It almost looks like one of the contributing factors of this odd design is a requirement to put a cage around the sides that face the golf course (I can see what looks like a cage on the roof and side facing the golf course, but not the opposite side)
 
Your knowledgeable insight is always appreciated.

What are your thoughts on the crossing to the south? It's to be a tunnel.

It looks like this will be the last significant section to be completed and unfortunately work has not yet started.

View attachment 548923
Yes, this one is to be a tunnel. But as it is located towards the inside of a river bend (and past the outside of the previous), I guess that the situation there when it comes to flooding is less dire than the one upstream. That's just my intuition however - there are others out there far better versed in this kind of thing than I that will know for certain.

There is to be a full-weekend closure of the line at some point in order to cut the embankment that the track sits on, excavate it, install the tunnel sections, backfill and reinstall the track. I believe that this is currently scheduled for a weekend in May, but I need to verify this.

Dan
 
There is also a tunnel a mere 100 metres or so north of the level crossing, making the crossing if not redundant then only a small added convenience for a moderately small number of people.
1710877761884.png
 
Re the above, Robert Zaichkowski covered these in his recent blog of April 7th, and includes his follow up w/TRCA staff on the timelines here.

1713286388682.png


For those not familiar w/Rob's blog, a link: http://www.twowheeledpolitics.ca/
 
2025?

I’m constantly surprised by how long it takes us to build. Is coordination between multiple entities also a major factor in delays?
 
2025?

I’m constantly surprised by how long it takes us to build. Is coordination between multiple entities also a major factor in delays?
Certain entities are well known for being particularly obtuse and troublesome when it comes to the coordination of projects outside of their direct supervision. Metrolinx is a spectacularly good example, but is hardly the only one.

Dan
 
2025?

I’m constantly surprised by how long it takes us to build. Is coordination between multiple entities also a major factor in delays?

@smallspy is 100% on point. I don't want to be too specific in my examples but I can confirm Mx has delayed some relatively simple projects, because the abut or cross an Mx corridors by years.

I will add Hydro One to the list of entities that moves as its own pace, one that is generally quite slow unless speed is particularly beneficial to them.

Edit to Add: The way in which we choose to organize infrastructure in different contexts is its own problem too.

Let me give you a partial list of people who may need to sign off on something.

- Metrolinx, and/or CN/CPKC
- Hydro One
- Toronto Hydro
- Rogers (if it touches their plant)
- Telus
- Bell
- Enbridge
- Transnorthern (Oil pipeline)
- Toronto Water
- TTC (commonly for streetcar overhead, but also if a project has any impact on any operating route or other plant)

While you may not need all of the above to sign off for anyone project, 4 or more is quite common.

The fact we don't, generally impose the sharing of a single conduit duct under the road for all utilities, like Montreal, is a royal pain.

But its more than that, its both individual company/agency/department obstinance and a general lack of coordination.

In an attempt to coordinate on a project, you might try to invite everyone to a site meeting. Getting everyone on board, for a common time and day can easily take weeks.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of finger pointing at Metrolinx is well deserved:
  • They pushed against establishing any at-grade crossings for the rail line, adding additional design time and cost for structures
  • That was one reason cited by folks who objected to the project at the EA stage
  • Final approvals from them have been cited as the cause of delays in TRCA's November 2023 update
At-grade crossings could have saved a chunk of time and money. I know it's not ideal, and it's a good practice at roads, but excessive for a trail IMO.
 
Id like to add too that a lot of the current "MUP" projects are "missing links" and sort of the last parts of connecting or completing trails. There were many trails that were built rather quickly in the 2000s and 2010's because they basically didn't interact with many obstacles. Now we are left with the remainder, which are the most difficult parts, like the Humber Gap etc.
 

Back
Top