[Allandale25]

Mid Humber Gap Trail Study

The Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks has agreed to a consent order from the Divisional Court setting aside the order issued on January 18, 2023 requiring that the City and TRCA carry out an individual environmental assessment. The Minister will now reconsider the project and...

www.toronto.ca

 

[allengeorge]

Maybe they’ll just reject it outright instead of trying to cover up that rejection under the veneer of process.

 

[junctionist]

It’s not like the province did it out of the goodness of their hearts. The city had to take the issue to court, and the matter settled.

 

[Metroscapes]

The City completed an environmental assessment (EA). At that, it was a streamlined "Class EA." The environment minister ordered it undergo a more thorough, drawn up EA, because of potential environmental impacts. However, it's quite clear to me that this order was made on shaky ground because a) there's been many other municipal trail projects that have gone through the same process, b) the risks with such a trail are easily mitigated, and c) those risks don't vary greatly with those other similar trail projects.

The fact that the City went to court and have now gotten this win through the consent order sends a pretty strong signal that they had a good case. And I doubt we'll know the "true" reason the environment minister threw roadblocks at a silly little trail project. But I really hope the province gets out of the way and lets this bloody gap in the Humber Trail (and the Pan Am Path!) go ahead.

 

[Allandale25]

 

[allengeorge]

A “DEATH TRAP from which there is no escape” huh?

Maybe we should address the source of the death trap and shut down the golf course

 

[Towered]

Private golf course members must be among the most entitled snobs in society. Perhaps their playgrounds should be taken away.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

Is there any truth to it? Can a long covered bridge in a low-lying area really be a death trap in a flood?

 

[Northern Light]

Is there any truth to it? Can a long covered bridge in a low-lying area really be a death trap in a flood?

There's a great deal of hyperbole.

The real issue, such as it is, is not the bridges, its the brief section on land next to the golf course, between the two bridges.

The suggestion is that in a flash flood scenario, people would be trapped.

It needs to be said then, that there is no large dam immediately upstream that could fail. Yes, in a torrential downpour, floodwaters can rise quickly, and could and would flood the trail here, but not in five minutes; the idea that there might be dozens of people on this trail segment in the middle of a thunderstorm strains credulity.

Additionally, there will almost certainly be a door in or a way around the fence, on to the golf course lands, in the event of such an emergency.

Still, the risk profile is not all that high.

Put another way, roads and sidewalks in this City already represent a greater risk of a mass fatality event than this trail section ever would.

 

[ShonTron]

Given the fact that the City of Toronto and the TRCA are building this trail, with plenty of experience building trails and protecting against floods, this is an especially ridiculous claim.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

There's a great deal of hyperbole.

The real issue, such as it is, is not the bridges, its the brief section on land next to the golf course, between the two bridges.

The suggestion is that in a flash flood scenario, people would be trapped.

It needs to be said then, that there is no large dam immediately upstream that could fail. Yes, in a torrential downpour, floodwaters can rise quickly, and could and would flood the trail here, but not in five minutes; the idea that there might be dozens of people on this trail segment in the middle of a thunderstorm strains credulity.

Additionally, there will almost certain be a door in or a way around the fence, on to the golf course lands, in the event of such an emergency.

Still, the risk profile is not all that high.

Put another way, roads and sidewalks in this City already represent a greater risk of a mass fatality event than this trail section ever would.

That's what I thought.

 

[Northern Light]

Given the fact that the City of Toronto and the TRCA are building this trail, with plenty of experience building trails and protecting against floods, this is an especially ridiculous claim.

The claim of a high risk of mass fatalities is absurd, but the flood risk is not. Most valley-land bike trails are subject to flood risk; the distinction here is that there would be a fence on one side of the trail (golf course) and the river on the other, providing sub-optimal exiting.

That's fair, as far as it goes, but again, the risk of large numbers of people being on this section of trail in a dangerous flood scenario is low; and any issue here is best addressed by putting in a door in the fence to the golf course, with an admonition 'Emergency Access only"

 

[max]

any issue here is best addressed by putting in a door in the fence to the golf course, with an admonition 'Emergency Access only"

Glad the golf course flagged this. As they are so concerned with the potential loss of life in such a scenario I trust they will be very relieved and enthusiasticly support this emergency egress onto their property!

 

[Metroscapes]

Is there any truth to it? Can a long covered bridge in a low-lying area really be a death trap in a flood?

There's a great deal of hyperbole.

The real issue, such as it is, is not the bridges, its the brief section on land next to the golf course, between the two bridges.

The suggestion is that in a flash flood scenario, people would be trapped.

It needs to be said then, that there is no large dam immediately upstream that could fail. Yes, in a torrential downpour, floodwaters can rise quickly, and could and would flood the trail here, but not in five minutes; the idea that there might be dozens of people on this trail segment in the middle of a thunderstorm strains credulity.

Additionally, there will almost certainly be a door in or a way around the fence, on to the golf course lands, in the event of such an emergency.

Still, the risk profile is not all that high.

Put another way, roads and sidewalks in this City already represent a greater risk of a mass fatality event than this trail section ever would.

The claim of a high risk of mass fatalities is absurd, but the flood risk is not. Most valley-land bike trails are subject to flood risk; the distinction here is that there would be a fence on one side of the trail (golf course) and the river on the other, providing sub-optimal exiting.

That's fair, as far as it goes, but again, the risk of large numbers of people being on this section of trail in a dangerous flood scenario is low; and any issue here is best addressed by putting in a door in the fence to the golf course, with an admonition 'Emergency Access only"

This is also failing to mention that if such a catastrophic level of flooding was forecast, the City and TRCA would be putting flood warnings on blast. People would be warned not to go in the ravines, and worst case scenario, I don't see someone boxing themselves in on a bridge.

The real question is how the risk here is significantly different that the existing bridge 500 metres upstream.

 

[crs1026]

Has there been a time since 1954 when the river actually rose to that degree in that section?

- Paul