Its a piece of land that is right next to a highway and under the Bloor Viaduct. Anyone trying to portray this environment as "natural" is lying.
What kind of consultation is really required?
Its not next to anyone's homes. This part of the Don Valley has Bayview Ave, the Richmond Hill line, the Bloor Viaduct and the DVP side by side, so any additional noise is minimal, etc.
What do you feel like ML could have consulted the public on? Aside from cancelling the project wholesale b/c 10 people don't like the proposal.
If the environmental consequences of this choice are overstated by some; and they are; then you are every bit as guilty of understating the opposition, there are literally more than 10 formal groups opposed, so self-evidently there are more than 10 people.
I personally take no issue w/reactivating this track. I would prefer that it be used for through operations ultimately, and I would prefer not to have a cleaning/storage location at this site.
To me, w/o overselling any damage the project will do (and there will be some)....
1) I want any facility where workers have to show up to service or operate vehicles to be accessible by transit. This location is not; forcing operators/service staff to drive, which certainly seems less than ideal.
2) The valley has been an on-going restoration project for many decades, and will likely be for many more; while removing the Parkway is not on anyone's horizon (however desirable that might be in the longest term); there is
opportunity to remove some existing road and rail infra over the next 2 decades and materially improve the health of the valley. While the storage facility will not make things materially worse, it will result in new lighting, more
road infra, more paving, additional buildings (modest in size) etc and that certainly isn't consistent w/a vision of restoration.
***
Is this project some apocalypse for the valley? No. That's grossly over selling it.
Is this project the optimal location for this infrastructure based on longer term environmental and transportation goals for this area? No.
Would the City, the valley, and arguably Mx be better served by reactivating the Leaside Yard? Yes.
Things are rarely 'black and white' and this too is a shade of grey. The trade-off for the better site, money, time, and 3m additional deadhead time. The upside, significantly more long-term capacity at Leaside, environmental benefit, Belleville sub available as future through track (which is likely in the longer term......though probably not the way most think).
On the latter point, the idea has been raised of shifting the Bala onto the Belleville sub, and then extending it north across Pottery Road before rejoining the existing alignment. That too would have environmental consequences, though it would allow the removal of about 3km of the existing Bala sub which could then be restored added to the park system.
