[adma]

It might be 'geekdom' but I have also read officials who complain that places like Redpath or LaFarge don't fit into the waterfront plan (no, I cannot cite). I'm not sure Sugar Beach is so much a "tribute" as it is an exercise in simply place naming, much like the inane names given to some condo developments.

Except that unlike said condo developments, Sugar Beach is a commissioned public work where the homage is deliberate. Yes, maybe Redpath doesn't fit into a long-term "waterfront plan" if the aim is to deindustrialize that stretch; but that's not the same as deeming it, as a fait accompli, an offensive eyesore--except in the excessively truistic sense of *all* unabashed industrial usage not being pretty.

And you also have to remember how "officials" have taken liberties with Downsview's "heritage guidelines", or proposed the same.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, the rail spur going west to the former Toronto Cruise Terminal area at Cherry & Unwin does go through the site and yes the Ports Toronto people paid to have it repaired a couple of years ago and, yes there have been no trains actually using it for about 5 years.

An interesting website from 2015...

http://www.railpictures.ca/upload/w...ned-those-switches-that-lead-off-the-kingston

The comments mention tanker cars going that way, and I remember in 2015 or so seeing a train pulling a single tanker car along Unwin. You might be right that no trains use it now. But if there is a rail ROW, why not keep it for TTC or other public transit for when the portlands are developed?

 

[DSC]

An interesting website from 2015...

http://www.railpictures.ca/upload/w...ned-those-switches-that-lead-off-the-kingston

The comments mention tanker cars going that way, and I remember in 2015 or so seeing a train pulling a single tanker car along Unwin. You might be right that no trains use it now. But if there is a rail ROW, why not keep it for TTC or other public transit for when the portlands are developed?

I was not suggesting that the western part of this spur should be abandoned, only pointing out that it is currently unused and that even the eastern section (to the Ashbridges Bay plant) is not connected - supposedly temporarily. If/when the area on both sides of Unwin is developed (and there are no City services there now) I assume it would be completely rebuilt and having a 'transit ROW' would certainly be a good idea.

 

[lenaitch]

I suppose I don't have the vision.

One would think that if Toronto hopes to retain even a modicum of commercial port activity then a rail spur would be part of the equation.

 

[steveintoronto]

It might be 'geekdom' but I have also read officials who complain that places like Redpath or LaFarge don't fit into the waterfront plan (no, I cannot cite). I'm not sure Sugar Beach is so much a "tribute" as it is an exercise in simply place naming, much like the inane names given to some condo developments.

You are correct, and there's some bitter history behind the scenes on that, I won't go into detail, save that to say the Feds have a file on it, and perhaps the Province. Toronto Police had to excuse themselves from it. It's complicated, and involved an MP, City Councillor by extension and developers, some at odds with each other. Nuff said on that for this string...

Questions surround exactly the point you raise, and at least for now, best I steer you to this:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-107825.pdf

I think you'll be hearing and reading a lot more on this in the near future. Some excellent journos are already digging on it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suppose I don't have the vision.

One would think that if Toronto hopes to retain even a modicum of commercial port activity then a rail spur would be part of the equation.

I agree. And I'm a big fan of manufacturing. Maybe the port should go elsewhere though in the GTA? You can't bring cargo cars through Lakeshore east easily.

 

[DSC]

I agree. And I'm a big fan of manufacturing. Maybe the port should go elsewhere though in the GTA? You can't bring cargo cars through Lakeshore east easily.

Indeed! The spur that (eventually) goes to Cherry/Unwin area takes a VERY convoluted route to get there and crosses the Don Roadway and Lake Shore Blvd and is clearly not suitable for frequent or large shipments. The weekly train to/from the Water Treatment Plant runs in the middle of the night for that reason.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm seeing a couple of references to the "Harbour Lead Line" wanting to be retained by both the Port Authority and the Toronto Industry Network:

From the City:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pg/comm/communicationfile-72661.pdf

[...]
Project Study Area GO Transit and the TPLC (formerly TEDCO) are the primary owners of rail infrastructure within the DMNP Project Study Area. GO Transit recently acquired the Don Yard from CN Rail and the TPLC owns the Wilson Yard. Both yards are located on the west bank of the Don River, immediately south of CN‟s Kingston Subdivision. The Toronto Terminals Railway manages the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the Don and Wilson Yards and the GO Subdivision. The two southern lines connect to GO Transit‟s Don Yard facility that is used to store trains during the day between the morning and afternoon rush hours. The Don Yard is located along the northern boundary of the Keating Precinct Plan. The TPLC also owns a network of tracks and rail yards within the Port Lands area. These are connected to Union Station by the Harbour Lead which swings southeast through 480 Lake Shore Boulevard and crosses over the Don adjacent to the Lake Shore Boulevard crossing. The Harbour Lead is a heavy industrial spur line that descends from the south side of the Kingston-GO Subdivisions through the area of 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East. The Harbour Lead provides access Wilson Yard (immediately south of the Don Yard), the Keating Yard (immediately north of Lake Shore Boulevard East and east of the Don River), and a number of spurs that provide service to the Port Lands (Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant, the Port of Toronto, and a number of other heavy industries) and Redpath Sugar. The Harbour Lead, Wilson Yard, Keating Yard and other spur lines located throughout the Port Lands will remain in operation, with the exception of the Don Roadway and Redpath Sugar spur lines. The Harbour Lead crosses the Don River adjacent and parallel to the Lake Shore Boulevard East crossing. The facilities in the East Bayfront area were formerly served by an industrial rail spur that runs along the south side of Queens Quay East between Redpath Sugar and the Keating rail yard located on the east side of the Don River. In July 2008, Redpath Sugar agreed to give up the use of the rail spur in an effort to support public realm improvements in the East Bayfront area. Existing railway tracks within the DMNP Project Study Area are described in Table 3-24 and illustrated in Figure 3-21
[...]

http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/93498.pdf

A number of references are showing, but the search is hampered by the term used for the "Harbour Lead Line". "Harbour spur" "lead spur" "harbour lead" are but just a couple of the terms used for it.

It seems from the results I've gotten so far that the future hasn't been resolved for the "lead".

 

[Admiral Beez]

The closed Mississauga power plant lands would have been ideal. That’s gone now. So, best place for GTA port is Hamilton.

 

[steveintoronto]

There's a few complications to happen before the Port of Toronto is dead:
https://nowtoronto.com/news/ports-toronto-sale-waterfront-headquarters/

 

[ShonTron]

I agree. And I'm a big fan of manufacturing. Maybe the port should go elsewhere though in the GTA? You can't bring cargo cars through Lakeshore east easily.

Hamilton and Oshawa are better locations. Oshawa has a direct rail spur that was recently rehabilitated and reactivated. Hamilton has great loading facilities and the rail and road capacity to serve them.

Most Great Lakes shipments are bulk goods - iron, coal, grains, sugar, aggregates, and salt. There's little purpose sending container traffic through the Great Lakes as that requires break-of-bulk at oceanports to get through the canal systems, and at that point, might as well transfer to train and truck at New York, Halifax, Quebec, or Montreal. St. Lawrence Seaway shippers already have the direct dock access (Steel plants in Hamilton, grain elevators in Thunder Bay, cement plants in places like Bowmanville and Clarkson, Windsor Salt and Sifto in Goderich) whenever they need them.

Places like the Portlands were built at a time when they thought the St. Lawrence Seaway would bring lots of new maritime traffic to new and expanding industry. With a few exceptions, the Portlands never got it. It just allowed the bulk freighters to bypass waypoints like Owen Sound, Midland, Buffalo, and continue on.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If Ontario wants to be in ocean container biz it needs to either widen and deepen the St. Lawrence Seaway or build a port on James Bay via the railway to Moosonee.

 

[lenaitch]

Consistent with the vision that Toronto wants no part of industrial commerce.

 

[steveintoronto]

While recreational boating will be a central point of emphasis in this strategy, commercial and industrial shipping have important roles to play in serving the economic needs of the city and in animating the harbour.
[...]
The Port Lands Dominated by industry in the past, the Port Lands are in transition towards a future of mixed uses. For many years to come, industrial shipping activities will co-exist with other types of marine use. Precinct plans in the Port Lands will determine the appropriate use of the dock wall at Poulson and Cousins Quays. The TWRC will also pursue the safe use of the Ship Channel for recreational boating in addition to its required use by cargo vessels.
[...]
Affirm that industrial/commercial shipping activity will continue at TPA facilities and as the primary use of the Ship Channel as envisioned in the City/TEDCO/TPA settlement but work with the TPA and TEDCO on a memorandum of understanding to facilitate the use of the Ship Channel for limited recreational boating, subject to appropriate safety measures and management procedures
[...]
The Resource Guide includes the following chapters: •....Industrial Shipping Activity on the Toronto Waterfront • Dockwall Condition Assessment
[...]

https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe...&CACHEID=e143aaca-1997-46c8-844d-a8215f6d7d2d

"Industrial" use discussed at length here:
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...11-82a3efe67eb8/4521df15f3b64.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

 

[lenaitch]

https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe...&CACHEID=e143aaca-1997-46c8-844d-a8215f6d7d2d

"Industrial" use discussed at length here:
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...11-82a3efe67eb8/4521df15f3b64.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

I gave it a quick read and it does seem that the study recognizes that on-shore infrastructure and access needs to exist to support industrial use. Hope folks listen.