News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

superelevation said:
From Twitter a bunch of the people with supposed environmental concerns were also suggesting Metrolinx should reconsider expanding / RER due to Covid so it seems to me they are probably just NIMBYs. Its also interesting that they are complaining about a public amenity like transit removing a slice of the ravine when the construction of their houses probably did far far more damage . . .
Click to expand...
Watching the video, they aren't talking about cancelling the project; but trying to change or improve the design to minimize ecological damage.

Surely NIMBY would be not adding the fourth track; not talking about how to do it differently.
 
New platform construction at Weston Station.
IMG_1819.jpg
IMG_1820.jpg
 
Garuda said:
New platform construction at Weston Station.
View attachment 302401View attachment 302402
Click to expand...
LOL........... and how long have they been working on it??

Look back in this thread and you will see what it look like a few months ago as well over a year ago to see the lack of process. I think December was my last site visit and see no change from it to this other concrete being pour for the stairs and elevator. Has to be a make work project, otherwise completed or near completion now. Forms were in place then and waiting concrete.
 
superelevation said:
I just want to point 1 thing out here, if the goal is actually not to have interlining and switching then why would they want to have ST straddle the LSE? If they aren't interlined why not just have ST on the North . . . it would make ops easier and you wouldn't need said flyover.
Click to expand...
To have the same ability in the LSE corridor they would need 5-6 tracks Union to Scarborough, and 3-4 to Ajax so that LSE could have an express option running on the same line as very frequent locals. Based on current plans on the line Union to Scarborough they would be short the 5 tracks needed to isolate the lines so they seem to be planning on a layout of two tracks westbound, two tracks eastbound (mixing the LSE and Stouffville) so that there is enough room to maneuver express trains into the mix. The Ontario Line will hem the LSE line in and limit the corridor to a maximum of 4 tracks which means that one can expect that if Stouffville and LSE lines do get to subway like frequencies, this corridor could reach a point where any high-speed version of express becomes less feasible. Beyond Scarborough to York Sub the layout is more aligned with local westbound, passing, and local eastbound and they have protected for a fourth track out there so dedicating two tracks westbound and two tracks eastbound to handle local and express would be easily possible out there. In any case, there is a lot of capacity to grow before the 4 track limit imposed by the Ontario Line becomes a constraint, and hopefully by then intercity takes a different route.
 
EnviroTO said:
To have the same ability in the LSE corridor they would need 5-6 tracks Union to Scarborough, and 3-4 to Ajax so that LSE could have an express option running on the same line as very frequent locals. Based on current plans on the line Union to Scarborough they would be short the 5 tracks needed to isolate the lines so they seem to be planning on a layout of two tracks westbound, two tracks eastbound (mixing the LSE and Stouffville) so that there is enough room to maneuver express trains into the mix. The Ontario Line will hem the LSE line in and limit the corridor to a maximum of 4 tracks which means that one can expect that if Stouffville and LSE lines do get to subway like frequencies, this corridor could reach a point where any high-speed version of express becomes less feasible. Beyond Scarborough to York Sub the layout is more aligned with local westbound, passing, and local eastbound and they have protected for a fourth track out there so dedicating two tracks westbound and two tracks eastbound to handle local and express would be easily possible out there. In any case, there is a lot of capacity to grow before the 4 track limit imposed by the Ontario Line becomes a constraint, and hopefully by then intercity takes a different route.
Click to expand...

With 15-minute headways on LSE and Stouffville. I suspect they will stagger schedules by 7.5 mins so the frequency from Scarborough to union is one train every 7.5 mins. Local trains run on the outside tracks with the combined 7.5 minute frequency, and express trains on the inside tracks. Via slots in using the express tracks. With electric trains 7.5 minute frequency is not a problem for local services. 4 tracks is a lot of capacity that Mlx hasn't even begun to exploit
 
drum118 said:
LOL........... and how long have they been working on it??

Look back in this thread and you will see what it look like a few months ago as well over a year ago to see the lack of process. I think December was my last site visit and see no change from it to this other concrete being pour for the stairs and elevator. Has to be a make work project, otherwise completed or near completion now. Forms were in place then and waiting concrete.
Click to expand...
Metrolinx absolutely sucks at project planning. But then, who cares if the whole job (full RER to Kitchener) gets done, so long as there is a steady trickle of ribbon cuttings to keep the pols happy.

Somewhere there is a longest lead time task that defines the timeline for opening the fourth track Union to Bramalea. There’s no rush to finishing Weston when the Railpath hasn’t been moved, Woodbine isn’t built, Bramalea isn’t finished, Cn hasn’t agreed to more slots on the Halton, Guelph Sub hasn’t been upgraded, the 409 tunnel isn’t done, etc etc.

In the real world, project tasks get managed so that tasks are completed soon enough that there is no risk to the overall project timing, but late enough that money isn’t spent before absolutely necessary, BUT (a big but) with an eye to getting paid and getting value flowing from the completed project at the earliest possible date.

In ML space, all these parallel tasks with later in service dates just become a good reason for dogging it. Huge complacency about the timing of the end product.

Show me where ML has declared a definitive end date for Kitchener RER. Or anything else. Coming in 2025....maybe.

All carefully concealed behind a procurement model that moves the accountability away from the top of the ML food chain.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
Click to expand...

A couple of items worth flagging from this report; about the Small's Creek area.

************
Anne Marie Aikins, spokesperson for Metrolinx, said in the email that construction work in the Small's Creek area will not begin until October 2021.
Construction initially was set to begin in January.

In an email to CBC News on Friday, Metrolinx says it has decided to add about 2,000 more trees to the community.....

...and to form the working group that will include residents, the city and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
That working group will determine a "potential solution" for reconnecting the path on the north side of the ravine that will be severed once the culvert is in place.

Edit Above, as @nfitz pointed out that I misread the intent here.

In the coming weeks, Metrolinx will work with the contractor and community leaders to minimize tree removals as much as possible. A site tour will be held with the contractor to walk them through the ravine and talk them through what has been heard," Aikins said in the email.

"If not all of the 2,000 additional trees can be planted in Small's Creek due to space, we're committed to planting them elsewhere in the community. Places like parkettes, the nearby waterfront, and school fields are all locations up for discussion. In the coming months Metrolinx will be reaching out to the community to figure out where these trees can be planted and come up with some creative ideas for distribution,"

*******

I think putting some naturalization plantings, where room permits, along the route of the buried creek (but not over the pipe itself!) would be a nice idea.

Something like the area below, along the edge of Fairmount Park 60M long x 6M wide wouldn't interfere w/any park functions, but could be a very pretty and somewhat functional mini-forest.

1615209229375.png


This is sorta what I'm thinking of; with somewhat different planting list. Its a tree advocacy planting along Eglinton from a few years ago:

1615209611901.png
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Watching the video, they aren't talking about cancelling the project; but trying to change or improve the design to minimize ecological damage.

Surely NIMBY would be not adding the fourth track; not talking about how to do it differently.
Click to expand...

I probably agree with this. Metrolinx has a bad habit too of stonewalling the public when they raise concerns or objections - I’ve been finding that with the Hurontario LRT terminus at Steeles Avenue, when I can’t even get an acknowledgment of this issues I’m raising in my public comments and my emails.
 
Northern Light said:
...and to form the working group that will include residents, the city and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
That working group will determine a "potential solution" for reconnecting the path on the north side of the ravine that will be severed once the culvert is in place.[/I]

I find that bit somewhat odd; putting in a path under the tracks would be highly disruptive; it would seem to me, IF one is seriously considering doing so, it would make sense to do it at the same time
as the culvert is being constructed. The alternative to going through the embankment; a bridge would be ridiculous, coming from the bottom of a ravine, and going back to same, it would be a multi-storey stair case on each side.
Click to expand...
Metrolinx hasn't mentioned any possibility of putting a path under the tracks (though I'd think this is a once-in-a-century time to do that). Though a pedestrian bridge slightly further east, where the tracks aren't elevated, might be easier.

The path they are talking about reconnecting is the east-west path along the bottom of the north-side of the embankment, between the two sets of staircases into the ravine. The extended embankment at the culvert leaves no room for it.

Though how wasn't always part of the plan has me scratching my head ...
 
nfitz said:
Metrolinx hasn't mentioned any possibility of putting a path under the tracks (though I'd think this is a once-in-a-century time to do that). Though a pedestrian bridge slightly further east, where the tracks aren't elevated, might be easier.

The path they are talking about reconnecting is the east-west path along the bottom of the north-side of the embankment, between the two sets of staircases into the ravine. The extended embankment at the culvert leaves no room for it.

Though how wasn't always part of the plan has me scratching my head ...
Click to expand...

Good catch, my bad.

I read the exact same words, but it spun differently in my head.

As in, 'We will look at this connecting the paths issue AFTER, the culvert is in place.'

As I know the group was interested in discussing connecting the 2 ravine sections, that was what popped into my head.
 
Northern Light said:
As I know the group was interested in discussing connecting the 2 ravine sections, that was what popped into my head.
Click to expand...
To be fair, at the Town Hall Metrolinx did in early February, they referred to restoring the existing north-side path as "reconnecting the east and west part of the ravine" - which created some confusion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top