[Jaye101]

But there is already a 5km+ long parking lot in it

Yeah, there is already a highway in it. And Bayview Road. I still think a rail yard under the Bloor Viaduct is a terrible idea. Not only because it's under the picturesque Century old bridge and it infringes on the parkland underneath. But it's also in a flood plain.

We have no standards in this city anymore, we can't get street lighting right, we can't plant trees right, we have no regard for the way our city looks aesthetically. It's sad. An 11-acre train yard under the Bloor viaduct is only acceptable because the bar is so low we will literally accept anything if it's billed as progress.

 

[Allandale25]

Dismissive comments like these offer nothing to the conversation. It actually makes me chuckle. Do you work for Metrolinx PR? Or are you hurting to smell idling trains in the Don River Valley. We have a rail corridor we want to spend $1B to deck and convert into a park, and then we have this... It's funny to see so many in support of this. As if we've exhausted every reasonable alternative.

I'm just one man on a forum with my opinion just like all of us here. So I would implore you to hold your tongue next time you try to demean or belittle my opinion.

(emphasis added)

According to Metrolinx, the trains won't be idling.

Will the Layover Facility Create More Noise?​

Noise associated with the facility is expected to be minimal. Only three trains will enter and exit the site each day, and will park elsewhere overnight for deep cleaning, refueling, and maintenance activities. When they arrive trains will be plugged in to wayside power and won’t be idling.

With the location planned for daytime operation, there will not be any overnight or early morning noise generated by the site.

Source.

 

[Allandale25]

Yeah, there is already a highway in it. And Bayview Road. I still think a rail yard under the Bloor Viaduct is a terrible idea. Not only because it's under the picturesque Century old bridge and it infringes on the parkland underneath. But it's also in a flood plain.

We have no standards in this city anymore, we can't get street lighting right, we can't plant trees right, we have no regard for the way our city looks aesthetically. It's sad. An 11-acre train yard under the Bloor viaduct is only acceptable because the bar is so low we will literally accept anything if it's billed as progress.

(Note to mods: this topic might be better suited for GO Construction Projects rather than the GO Electrification topic.)

Metrolinx has detailed their responses to the floodplain question. [1) and 2) from this page. 3) from the link as noted below.]

1) June 29, 2021 | Don Valley Layover Virtual Town Hall (presentation)

2) April 15, 2021 | Community Meeting Presentation →

"Revisions to Proposed Don Valley Layover Facility: Moved the facility north of the viaduct to avoid the floodplain and environmentally significant area."

3) PDF found via Google search. Link here. Date of PDF: 2020-12-01

There are further responses in the deck on pages 9, 10, and 15.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Maybe with GO Transit improvements, there will be less single-occupant automobiles on the Don Valley. Which is one improvement.

 

[Jaye101]

(Note to mods: this topic might be better suited for GO Construction Projects rather than the GO Electrification topic.)

Metrolinx has detailed their responses to the floodplain question. [1) and 2) from this page. 3) from the link as noted below.]

1) June 29, 2021 | Don Valley Layover Virtual Town Hall (presentation)

View attachment 382506

View attachment 382507


2) April 15, 2021 | Community Meeting Presentation →

"Revisions to Proposed Don Valley Layover Facility: Moved the facility north of the viaduct to avoid the floodplain and environmentally significant area."

3) PDF found via Google search. Link here. Date of PDF: 2020-12-01

There are further responses in the deck on pages 9, 10, and 15.

Thank you, Allandale25 for replying with pertinent information in a constructive manner.

It seems like Metrolinx admits the usefulness of the facility will be reduced due to flood risk in the slides above with another non-response. Yes the buildings will be flood protected, but the track towards Union is not.

Only 3 trains utilizing the yard per day. I'm not convinced that Metrolinx has considered alternatives such as through running trains to destinations beyond Union or using pocket tracks next to proposed stations outside of the core... Even though they pushed it north and the scale is small, I'm still not sold on the reliability, necessity, or nature of the location chosen. Seems lazy. 3 trains?

 

[crs1026]

Only 3 trains utilizing the yard per day. I'm not convinced that Metrolinx has considered alternatives such as through running trains to destinations beyond Union or using pocket tracks next to proposed stations outside of the core... Even though they pushed it north and the scale is small, I'm still not sold on the reliability, necessity, or nature of the location chosen. Seems lazy. 3 trains?

This is the part that baffles me, more than the flooding issue (I suspect ML realises the risk they are taking). All this for just three trainsets? A 3-track layover facility is pretty inefficient - there will be staff coming and going during the day, likely from the Don yard, or perhaps Willowbrook - some travel time involved especially when traffic is bad. Some small amount of power supply and other utilities will be installed and maintained that wouldn't be needed if 3 tracks were added to some other facility eg the Don Yard. That lightly used access trail to the Hydro substation will have to be paved, and plowed, and will experience daily traffic.

While it's hard to argue that a layover yard backing on the DVP is incrementally noxious, it's just an odd place to park three trains. They will not be invisible. They will degrade the ambience in some small way - not necessarily intolerable, but certainly in opposition to all the other efforts to make the valley more pleasant and more natural.

The opponents to this yard may be overselling the adverse elements, but intuitively this proposal just seems to run against the grain. For three trains that could fit somewhere else? PS - My theory is, it's just a matter of dollars.... it's land ML already owns, so not a new expense, whereas three trainlengths of real estate somewhere else will cost new $$$. Maybe they should just point out the cost of that, rather than all this spin around floods and whose plan will make the valley the greenest.

- Paul

 

[generalcanada]

Thank you, Allandale25 for replying with pertinent information in a constructive manner.

It seems like Metrolinx admits the usefulness of the facility will be reduced due to flood risk in the slides above with another non-response. Yes the buildings will be flood protected, but the track towards Union is not.

Only 3 trains utilizing the yard per day. I'm not convinced that Metrolinx has considered alternatives such as through running trains to destinations beyond Union or using pocket tracks next to proposed stations outside of the core... Even though they pushed it north and the scale is small, I'm still not sold on the reliability, necessity, or nature of the location chosen. Seems lazy. 3 trains?

This answer your question?

 

[Allandale25]

^ Just to provide further context, it's my understanding the Don Valley Layover is going to be used for the Milton Line trains in the future. The challenge is that there really aren't any other ways to store and service them without crossing over over the lines and which would impacting them, especially with the planned service increases with GO Expension/On Orr. On the east side of Union Station, there's no easy ability to do a fly under like they did on the west side decades ago.

 

[nfitz]

^ Just to provide further context, it's my understanding the Don Valley Layover is going to be used for the Milton Line trains in the future. The challenge is that there really aren't any other ways to store and service them without crossing over over the lines and which would impacting them, especially with the planned service increases with GO Expension/On Orr.

I don't see how crossing over the Richmond Hill line is an issue.

Lots of potential storage space along the Lakeshore East corridor, on the north side of the tracks (east of Pape). The Right-of-Way is 6 tracks, and only 3 are currently in use. 4 once the expansion is complete.

 

[44 North]

While it's hard to argue that a layover yard backing on the DVP is incrementally noxious, it's just an odd place to park three trains. They will not be invisible. They will degrade the ambience in some small way - not necessarily intolerable, but certainly in opposition to all the other efforts to make the valley more pleasant and more natural.

The opponents to this yard may be overselling the adverse elements, but intuitively this proposal just seems to run against the grain. For three trains that could fit somewhere else? PS - My theory is, it's just a matter of dollars.... it's land ML already owns, so not a new expense, whereas three trainlengths of real estate somewhere else will cost new $$$. Maybe they should just point out the cost of that, rather than all this spin around floods and whose plan will make the valley the greenest.

- Paul

Going to add on a bit here. I think the trains sitting in the valley is okay with regards to ambience. They're already half camouflaged with their two shades of green and dark brown. They're photogenic, and being a commuter train fit in well in both a natural and urban environment. What degrades the ambience, both of the valley and the viaduct, will be buildings, security lighting, barb wire fence, and a parking lot. Underneath one of the nicest structures in the city.

Do wonder if they can store trains right off Lake Shore Blvd, east of Don Rdwy. I don't know the name of that mini yard. They could even slot in a train right in Lake Shore's median just east of Carlaw.

 

[Mr Finish Line]

I don't see how crossing over the Richmond Hill line is an issue.

Lots of potential storage space along the Lakeshore East corridor, on the north side of the tracks (east of Pape). The Right-of-Way is 6 tracks, and only 3 are currently in use. 4 once the expansion is complete.

The Ontario Line will be taking up space for the other 2/6 tracks.

Steve Munro points out that there historically was 3 tracks along the Bala sub (Richmond Hill Line) right after it splits from the Union corridor before it reaches the more flood prone areas at Pottery Rd. Metrolinx has yet to give an answer as to why storage was not considered here.

EDIT: I just realized you wrote east of Pape. That's an interesting idea.

 

[Mr Finish Line]

EDIT: I just realized you wrote east of Pape. That's an interesting idea.

Looks like directly east of Danforth Station could work in terms of access and space. Doesn't look like there are any realistic options before that. I'm guessing that option would rate lower in a ML analysis compared to the Don Branch or Bala because the deadheading trains would need to content with all the LSE and Stouffville traffic vs a free trip on the Richmond Hill line's tracks through USRC.

 

[Mr Finish Line]

Do wonder if they can store trains right off Lake Shore Blvd, east of Don Rdwy. I don't know the name of that mini yard. They could even slot in a train right in Lake Shore's median just east of Carlaw.

I think that trackage belongs to Ports Toronto.

 

[Allandale25]

I don't see how crossing over the Richmond Hill line is an issue.

Lots of potential storage space along the Lakeshore East corridor, on the north side of the tracks (east of Pape). The Right-of-Way is 6 tracks, and only 3 are currently in use. 4 once the expansion is complete.

Likely a track capacity issue at the location you're describing. It's my understanding they trains need to be cleaned and serviced. They need road access along the length of the train. I believe what needs to happen to the trains is described in the decks on the project website.

 

[smallspy]

I don't see how crossing over the Richmond Hill line is an issue.

The Richmond Hill Line is not the issue - that's part of the reason why they chose this site.

Trains would have to cross over - and occupy - part of the line heading east out of Toronto. With what Metrolinx is using for projected traffic levels, this would cause delays.

Lots of potential storage space along the Lakeshore East corridor, on the north side of the tracks (east of Pape). The Right-of-Way is 6 tracks, and only 3 are currently in use. 4 once the expansion is complete.

Right in an established residential neighbourhood? It sounds like you're suggesting they trade one problem for another.

Dan