[Northern Light]

There's alternatives on their website. And other videos suggesting alternatives. With the third track on the north side, there's going to be some tree losses. But it doesn't have to be as aggressive as shown. On the south side, much of the tree loss is baffling, as all they are doing is having a replacement culvert pushed in from the north side, adjacent to the existing culvert.

Construction access dictates a fair bit of the cutting.

Its not just the area being worked on, but the access for heavy equipment to get to the bottom of the slope.

****

I've read their website; and have spoken w/Mx personally on this.

I support some changes to the plan, where practical.

I was merely pointing out that the video as a PR exercise would work better w/alternatives.

 

[Northern Light]

^ So they aren't doing any slope stability in addition to "all they are doing is having a replacement culvert pushed in...adjacent to the existing culvert"? Isn't the new culvert bigger and therefore requires some work around it?

The increase in the number of tracks, and space for possible gantry infrastructure dictates that the slope be modified to 2:1

That regrading dictates the need for more removals, and for a retaining wall (in this option)

There's also a fair amount of invasive species there from what I understand.

There are; particularly Manitoba Maple, right next to the railway corridor, where that is a dominant species (likes disturbed areas like rail corridors)

Though, there are also some majestic Oaks, almost certainly over 125 years old. Some may be much older.

 

[nfitz]

^ So they aren't doing any slope stability in addition to "all they are doing is having a replacement culvert pushed in...adjacent to the existing culvert"? Isn't the new culvert bigger and therefore requires some work around it?

Oh, absolutely. But look how much further east than the culvert they are planning to clear cut. There's no way trees at the top of the slope 40 metres west of the culvert need cutting. They aren't changing the slope. And they aren't talking about putting an access road on the south (unlike the north). Presumably they'll drop some equipment in by crane.

It almost looks like they need to cut more trees on the south than the north. But they are expanding the tracks on the north, and not touching most of the slope. And they are pushing in the new culvert from the north.

I can't even find the EA for this. Fixing a culvert, or replacing a culvert doesn't need an EA. But putting in one almost twice the diameter of the old one? On the edge of a wetland? But can seldom find much buried on Metrolinx's website.

 

[Allandale25]

^ @Northern Light replied with some really contextually helpful info above. I assume that the work being done is below the threshold required for an EA.

 

[Northern Light]

^ @Northern Light replied with some really contextually helpful info above. I assume that the work being done is below the threshold required for an EA.

I'm not certain; but I believe the EA requirement was fulfilled with this:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/rer/LSE_Segment1_EPR_EN.pdf

 

[Northern Light]

And This is why this whole thing is completely retarded.

you cant whine and say metrolinx didnt consult with us if you ignored them 3 years ago

That's a bit much the other way.

Perhaps we could omit pejoratives slung in any direction.

It makes the conversation so much easier.

*****

In respect of the original environmental report; its huge; it covers an enormous area; 6km give or take; it was also billed as being about the rail corridor, not ravines.

I knew what it was about.

But I'm rather unusual in my interests, professional utilities, and time.

The project was there, but the Small's Creek issue was a relative after-thought in a huge project.

I can see why people missed it.

Notices didn't go out saying ' your ravine might affected'.

It would be nice if people were more curious about things and read more public documents..............

Still; some of the details are also not in the original report.

Some of the details are also.....hmmmm

Well why don't we look: (from the report)

The northern boundary of the Williamson Park ESA is immediately adjacent to the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor.The addition of a fourth track will occur north of the Williamson Park ESA; therefore, potential vegetation removalwithin this area would be associated with the extension of the existing culvert east of Coxwell (Mile 329.50 –Small’s Creek) and would be minimal and limited to within the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor. Vegetation removalproposed in areas outside of the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor, if required for the culvert modifications (i.e., stagingareas), will be kept to a minimum and will avoid the Williamson ESA

****

If you look at the cutting on the south side, I leave it to you whether or not the report gave a correct impression.

In the main body of the report there is almost no detail on the north side at all.

Though it is there..........in the appendix.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not certain; but I believe the EA requirement was fulfilled with this:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/rer/LSE_Segment1_EPR_EN.pdf

I see nothing about enlarging existing culverts in there. It simply mentions extending existing culverts ... and given how far north of the tracks the inlet of this particular one is, then extension itself probably wasn't necessary.

 

[Coolstar]

Sorry to derail this conversation I think Reece is right on this issue. Spadina-Front should really be serving all GO lines along the USRC. Not just the Barrie Line. IIRC, the initial plan was to do exactly that but instead, all trains coming from the west would terminate at Spadina instead of Union.

 

[Northern Light]

I see nothing about enlarging existing culverts in there. It simply mentions extending existing culverts ... and given how far north of the tracks the inlet of this particular one is, then extension itself probably wasn't necessary.

The culvert is being enlarged; that was decided on later in order to comply with TRCA flooding regulation.

 

[sacred]

Sorry to derail this conversation I think Reece is right on this issue. Spadina-Front should really be serving all GO lines along the USRC. Not just the Barrie Line. IIRC, the initial plan was to do exactly that but instead, all trains coming from the west would terminate at Spadina instead of Union.

Agreed. Same goes for East Harbour. Not every train has to stop there but every train should be able to stop there.

 

[reteequa]

Sorry to derail this conversation I think Reece is right on this issue. Spadina-Front should really be serving all GO lines along the USRC. Not just the Barrie Line. IIRC, the initial plan was to do exactly that but instead, all trains coming from the west would terminate at Spadina instead of Union.

The only trains id argue could always pass are lakeshore west. With exhibition and the OL stopping close you could make a case for them to bypass.

 

[crs1026]

^That station appears to be a kludge to make some minimal dent in the passenger throughput at Union. Having only some limited number of trains (on one single route) stop there minimises the need for more tracks and platforms and especially fewer routings and interlocking plant. I would not encumber other routes by turning it into an all-lines proposition.

The money for that (a bigger station would become costly, quickly) might be better spent by, say, building track on CP’s North Toronto line and relieving Union Station that way. To me, Spadina-Front is Union West, not a new district served.

- Paul

 

[ARG1]

The only trains id argue could always pass are lakeshore west. With exhibition and the OL stopping close you could make a case for

I think it should be a case of some but not all trips. The issues com in when you need to change lines. If I'm on the Barrie Line, and I want to reach Liberty Village, why do I have to take the train all the way to Union and go back? Or leave at Lansdowne, walk several hundred meters to Dundas West and change to the Kitchener line there? Or how about Barrie to Lakeshore West, is it really necessary to put more strain onto Union Station just to switch trains on the same corridor?

 

[Allandale25]

Shelters appear to be up at the new Mount Dennis Station on the Kitchener Line.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1364643011720790017

 

[asher__jo]

Sorry to derail this conversation I think Reece is right on this issue. Spadina-Front should really be serving all GO lines along the USRC. Not just the Barrie Line. IIRC, the initial plan was to do exactly that but instead, all trains coming from the west would terminate at Spadina instead of Union.

But then it just becomes a Union West station and cost would jump. I have no problem with the station as proposed, I'd rather see a focus linking King/Liberty and Exhibition.