[Northern Light]

^ I think this has been discussed before and you may have even noted it, but from your understanding is one of the alternatives the group wants a bridge truss for the 4th track on the north side? The trees would still need to go, but the embankment changes wouldn't be needed? Of course a truss here would be more expensive and given the contract has been signed and the work will start in the fall it's too late to design it.

In speaking w/the group, I can confirm that a bridge form for the 4th track is one of the options that has been presented.

But there have also been other options mooted.

One is a secant pile option which would be constructed from track level

The other a matrix type wall that would would allow a sort of buttress system that would work around important trees that they would like to see saved.

They're also reviewing further possibilities.

 

[MrGoose]

Guys, a crummy little creek near some houses will get slightly modified, cancel GO RER. Pack it in boys.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 308250

That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[Allandale25]

In speaking w/the group, I can confirm that a bridge form for the 4th track is one of the options that has been presented.

But there have also been other options mooted.

One is a secant pile option which would be constructed from track level

The other a matrix type wall that would would allow a sort of buttress system that would work around important trees that they would like to see saved.

They're also reviewing further possibilities.

Cool. I found this video for secant piles.

 

[Undead]

It's just a meme, bud.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[cplchanb]

honestly though does this group have any legal basis to do anything?
who owns this piece of land and whats the worst they can do save for staging protests in front of the stream? seems to me the only thing they can do is file for potentially costly injunctions.
hopefully ML will just ack it and ignore them.

 

[crs1026]

^The pattern of ML forging ahead with whatever plan their engineering folks first come up with, and then deflecting and stonewalling local residents’ concerns and input, seems to happen time and time again. The residents’ arguments then get more extreme as people get frustrated talking to a wall - which just makes everyone lose perspective.

In this case, I’m not sure the plan will ever please residents given that it’s a small hard-to-access site. Any construction method will be pretty intrusive. Many trees are indeed in the way and the park never really had any stature, it was an undeveloped site that developed its vegetation by accident. And the contractor has already signed on at a defined price.

I reread the TPAP - it doesn’t give the area much acknowledgement as a recreation or natural area - the TPAP mostly studied it as a watercourse. Construction impacts are not documented. I wonder if that omission provides grounds for challenge. It strikes me as an uphill battle for residents but I would dearly love to see ML tuned up, otherwise they will keep on doing this.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

^The pattern of ML forging ahead with whatever plan their engineering folks first come up with, and then deflecting and stonewalling local residents’ concerns and input, seems to happen time and time again. The residents’ arguments then get more extreme as people get frustrated talking to a wall - which just makes everyone lose perspective.

In this case, I’m not sure the plan will ever please residents given that it’s a small hard-to-access site. Any construction method will be pretty intrusive. Many trees are indeed in the way and the park never really had any stature, it was an undeveloped site that developed its vegetation by accident. And the contractor has already signed on at a defined price.

I reread the TPAP - it doesn’t give the area much acknowledgement as a recreation or natural area - the TPAP mostly studied it as a watercourse. Construction impacts are not documented. I wonder if that omission provides grounds for challenge. It strikes me as an uphill battle for residents but I would dearly love to see ML tuned up, otherwise they will keep on doing this.

- Paul

what legal basis do these lobbyists have? are they acting as snitchers to plan examiners to scruitinize their permit applications more closely? honestly if the vast majority of the people support it, ml is doing everything by the book and they have a permit to do it, who cares on what these people say.

 

[Northern Light]

what legal basis do these lobbyists have? are they acting as snitchers to plan examiners to scruitinize their permit applications more closely? honestly if the vast majority of the people support it, ml is doing everything by the book and they have a permit to do it, who cares on what these people say.

Sigh.

I've decided there's one project of Mx I unquestionably support, they should build through any and every space you enjoy, and right next to wherever you live.

They can build above ground, below ground or through your living room, I'll support it wholeheartedly.

I would prefer their construction schedule be most active whenever you're trying to sleep.

You give no credence to anyone's concerns; yet I can't imagine you would be any more accommodating were this done to you.

****

For clarity, the above is clearly sarcasm; but its meant to suggest that empathy and kindness are good values, which you don't seem to hold in high esteem.

 

[nfitz]

I reread the TPAP - it doesn’t give the area much acknowledgement as a recreation or natural area - the TPAP mostly studied it as a watercourse. Construction impacts are not documented. I wonder if that omission provides grounds for challenge. It strikes me as an uphill battle for residents but I would dearly love to see ML tuned up, otherwise they will keep on doing this.

One key problem with the TPAP is that simply talked about extending the existing culvert - which required very little extension ... if any, given it goes quite far north of the tracks already. Now they want to replace the culvert with a bigger culvert - which is the source of the clear-cutting south of the tracks. And was not considered in the TPAP.

If Metrolinx wanted to do this right, they'd replace the entire embankment through the ravine with a bridge - which would be a lot closer to the original 1850s design, rather than the 1920s embankment. This would restore the wildlife corridor. I doubt though that either Metrolinx or the community have the stomach for that.

 

[cplchanb]

Sigh.

I've decided there's one project of Mx I unquestionably support, they should build through any and every space you enjoy, and right next to wherever you live.

They can build above ground, below ground or through your living room, I'll support it wholeheartedly.

I would prefer their construction schedule be most active whenever you're trying to sleep.

You give no credence to anyone's concerns; yet I can't imagine you would be any more accommodating were this done to you.

****

For clarity, the above is clearly sarcasm; but its meant to suggest that empathy and kindness are good values, which you don't seem to hold in high esteem.

Please dont tie one thing with another and make false assumptions. At no point did I ever say screw peoples sleep. You can check all my posts. I don't hold into high esteem is nimbyism over a stream or people complaining about eyesores of above grade row and the need for cheaper faster transit at the same time

 

[Northern Light]

Please dont tie one thing with another and make false assumptions. At no point did I ever say screw peoples sleep. You can check all my posts. I don't hold into high esteem is nimbyism over a stream or people complaining about eyesores of above grade row and the need for cheaper faster transit at the same time

Fine, then actually read what the criticisms are, in full, and reply to each one specifically, with whatever counterpoints you have.

When you dismiss people as Nimbys it presumes there is one {or 3 etc.) clear arguments, that are selfish, and unreasonable, and that the needs of the many, outweigh those of the few.

I would argue, that the arguments here don't lend themselves to such a reductive analysis, across the board.

Keep in mind this group has stated explicitly that they favour a 4th track and 2-way, all-day.

 

[Northern Light]

One key problem with the TPAP is that simply talked about extending the existing culvert - which required very little extension ... if any, given it goes quite far north of the tracks already. Now they want to replace the culvert with a bigger culvert - which is the source of the clear-cutting south of the tracks. And was not considered in the TPAP.

If Metrolinx wanted to do this right, they'd replace the entire embankment through the ravine with a bridge - which would be a lot closer to the original 1850s design, rather than the 1920s embankment. This would restore the wildlife corridor. I doubt though that either Metrolinx or the community have the stomach for that.

Perfectly said.

 

[cplchanb]

Fine, then actually read what the criticisms are, in full, and reply to each one specifically, with whatever counterpoints you have.

When you dismiss people as Nimbys it presumes there is one {or 3 etc.) clear arguments, that are selfish, and unreasonable, and that the needs of the many, outweigh those of the few.

I would argue, that the arguments here don't lend themselves to such a reductive analysis, across the board.

Keep in mind this group has stated explicitly that they favour a 4th track and 2-way, all-day.

Likewise, although there are legitimate concerns at times, the majority of the vocal naysayers I've seen have for the most part been for selfish reasons, such as it doesn't look good (keyword eysore) or they don't want a tiny stream dug up. Is holding up a multi million dollar infrastructure project that is critically needed, can benefit millions and long overdue simply because they personally don't like their construction methods or the aesthetics in itself a selfish act?

I recall reading an article posted in the rem thread where montrealers despite the construction disruption recognize that it is for a better cause; short term pain, long term gain. Contrast to entitled minority here who do nothing but complain complain complain because of their personal dislikes.

You wonder why projects never get done in a timely matter? A vast portion is spent on appeasing naysayers through endless roubds of public consultation.

 

[crs1026]

Likewise, although there are legitimate concerns at times, the majority of the vocal naysayers I've seen have for the most part been for selfish reasons, such as it doesn't look good (keyword eysore) or they don't want a tiny stream dug up. Is holding up a multi million dollar infrastructure project that is critically needed, can benefit millions and long overdue simply because they personally don't like their construction methods or the aesthetics in itself a selfish act?

I recall reading an article posted in the rem thread where montrealers despite the construction disruption recognize that it is for a better cause; short term pain, long term gain. Contrast to entitled minority here who do nothing but complain complain complain because of their personal dislikes.

You wonder why projects never get done in a timely matter? A vast portion is spent on appeasing naysayers through endless roubds of public consultation.

Well, there is a baby and a tub of bathwater here.

There is nothing wrong with locals expressing their local interests and trying to get those accommodated. Sometimes they can’t be, but sometimes they should be.

Normally a due process exists to resolve these tensions. ML’s repeated abuse of this due process is IMhO more offensive than a particular neighbourhood asking the moon and the stars. We are supposed to be able to trust ML, as they are a public institution, The money they spend was ours.

The REM issue is not just about people agreeing to yield to a greater good. The institution wants to add a second line. People are looking at the first line and saying, the first effort wasn’t that great, let’s do better. That’s the kind of sober second thought that is quite reasonable. Institutions cannot just bull ahead and presume they know what’s good for people. Don’t blame nimby’s for the added time required for recircling.... blame the institution for not getting people on board early.

- Paul