News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

superelevation said:
Metrolinx *owns* the land, its next to highways and utility corridors . . . . at what point does demanding the electric train storage facility so we can stop clear cutting greenbelt to build more suburban housing matter to anyone?
Click to expand...
You seem to be responding to an argument I didn’t make: at no point did I dispute Metrolinx’s right to expand the layover. I also never stated that I agreed with either side.

I simply pointed out that both parties are coming in with completely different expectations of what a community consultation would cover. This would explain why community members consider the consultations a ‘sham’.
 
Allandale25 said:
www.guelphtoday.com

Active transportation advocates concerned about potential rail crossing closures

Guelph Coalition for Active Transportation is encouraging as many people as possible to complete a city survey on the crossings
www.guelphtoday.com www.guelphtoday.com
Click to expand...

I'm uncertain why there seems to be a need/desire to close off all the crossings to pedestrians/cyclists.

The level of service proposed at Guelph and points west, for now, is only hourly, with the odd additional VIA or Freight.

The level of speed envisioned in this area, very near to DT Guelph is nowhere need high-speed either. Even with further upgrades, its unlikely to see speeds beyond 60mph/100kmph simply because its so close
to an all-stop station.

I can understand the idea of cutting off car traffic; but leave the foot crossing open.

If, at some point, the desire is to go to much more frequent service and/or 110mph++ then it will be reasonable to contemplate an end to all at-grade crossing.

But if so, there may be a need to do more than reconsider the crossings.
 
^ A carproof pathway with crossing gates certainly seems like a reasonable compromise. But if train frequency goes up, or even at hourly headways, it’s a passing point so there may be two trains at a time in the area. The surface would need to be very well built and tended so that a handicapped user could be assured of getting to safety from the middle of a two track right of way.

It’s similar to the problem at Lancaster in Kitchener, where after all sorts of upgrading, there was a serious pedestrian incident that left the improved crossing with a 15mph speed restriction.

I can understand why ML might just want to avoid the whole issue by closing off all access.

- Paul
 
^I don’t support building the layover yard there, but this does seem to be a case of overplaying one’s hand with questionable arguments.
In no universe will the Don Valley ever be a pristine nature preserve.
The Don needs to be developed carefully and with restraint, to minimise the impacts of necessary transportation infrastructure and to optimise its value as parkland against other uses..
In my eyes the layover yard is inappropriate, but the railway line has potential value as a future rail corridor, and needs to be retained as such.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^I don’t support building the layover yard there, but this does seem to be a case of overplaying one’s hand with questionable arguments.
In no universe will the Don Valley ever be a pristine nature preserve.
The Don needs to be developed carefully and with restraint, to minimise the impacts of necessary transportation infrastructure and to optimise its value as parkland against other uses..
In my eyes the layover yard is inappropriate, but the railway line has potential value as a future rail corridor, and needs to be retained as such.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I've noted this before, so I won't belabour it........

The right thing to do here is actually to shift Bala to the Don Branch route, and extend it past the 1/2 mile bridge, hugging the DVP over Pottery, and then return it to the existing route at some point to the north.

This would result in removing the two-track ROW along side Bayview south of Pottery (north of Don Branch); and some additional single-track portion north of Pottery.

it achieves a net increase in natural area/parkland, reduces the risk of track flooding/washout, achieves grade separation at Pottery, allows daylighting of up to three creeks between Bayview and the Don River and creates connectivity between the bike trail and large natural spaces and Bayview + Rosedale Valley and the Brickworks. Win-Win.
 
Northern Light said:
The right thing to do here is actually to shift Bala to the Don Branch route, and extend it past the 1/2 mile bridge, hugging the DVP over Pottery, and then return it to the existing route at some point to the north.
Click to expand...
That…sounds pretty awesome. I assume the reason this isn’t being pursued is the cost?

And, also, there may be a lot of constraints that neither of us are aware of.
 
allengeorge said:
That…sounds pretty awesome. I assume the reason this isn’t being pursued is the cost?

And, also, there may be a lot of constraints that neither of us are aware of.
Click to expand...

I don't have any direct info on the extent to which the above has been looked at..............its my understanding that Mx has considered (at a high level) grade-separating Bala at Pottery and costs, both financial and environmental were a serious issue.

Given the watertable/flooding issue, Bala would have to go over Pottery; that would essentially mean doing something similar to Davenport and having the track begin rising a considerable distance away to allow for clearance.

But unlike Davenport, you have a host of flooding related issues as well as other environmental issues that would creep in.....

Whether Mx has given 10s thought to the alternative I have suggested I don't know; it wouldn't be cheap either; but to me the value proposition is much greater.
 
Long term it would likely be cheapest to re-route Richmond Hill onto the Bala sub, construct an underpass under the CP line where it merges with it and already has to climb the hill to join the line, and run it up the Leaside spur. It would result in much, much faster travel times due to the better alignment and more direct route, but would be problematic politically in a very wealthy area to re-lay tracks on the Leaside spur.
 
Agenda for the Dec 2nd meeting of Mx is up.

On Capital Project status, I picked out this:

1637956514000.png
'

 
Ok.......as a dedicated environmentalist...........there are moments..........

As members here may be aware, some of the locals are holding a funeral for trees Mx is cutting down.................

I happened to see a portion of their material on FB:

1637971999558.png


Non-Native, Invasive, just saying.

Here is how they describe said invasiveness:

259797089_305301994929230_591999221532792887_n.jpg


Edit to Add:

1637972968981.png


From: https://inspection.canada.ca/plant-...ree-of-heaven/eng/1612898593817/1612898594354
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
^ A carproof pathway with crossing gates certainly seems like a reasonable compromise. But if train frequency goes up, or even at hourly headways, it’s a passing point so there may be two trains at a time in the area. The surface would need to be very well built and tended so that a handicapped user could be assured of getting to safety from the middle of a two track right of way.

It’s similar to the problem at Lancaster in Kitchener, where after all sorts of upgrading, there was a serious pedestrian incident that left the improved crossing with a 15mph speed restriction.

I can understand why ML might just want to avoid the whole issue by closing off all access.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Didn't the person that got hit get charged?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top