Crossposting from the Crosstown thread.
Construction on the Crosstown LRT will stop for nothing — not a pandemic, and certainly not a ravine filled with trees. Over the past week, scores o…
www.blogto.com
View attachment 241935
Thoughts?
I don't think this is as big of an issue as the article editorializes.
Aesthetically, replacing a medium-quality small forest on a steep'ish slope with a multi-storey retaining wall can't be called a gain, or an even-trade.
Environmentally, its not a disaster, but its not helpful, its probably eliminating about 0.5ha or a little over 1 acre of habitat. But we're not demolishing a lot of buildings or ripping up many parking lots to add that acre back anywhere else.
At the end of the day, the crosstown was mishandled here in terms of its design.
The choice to keep as many and wide car lanes as they did, and bring the Crosstown up/outside at this location, in this way, resulted in the need/desire for the retaining walls (the bottom of the slope was removed for road-widening resulting in slope stability issues.)
If I'd had my choice.......
We would have excavated the huge berm on which Eglinton sits here, and built a much longer, and taller bridge, that would have come from the grade under the CP rail bridge to an equivalent elevation on the other side. This would have allowed the Crosstown to pass under the new bridge, at roughly the same elevation as it will be now, but with a much narrower footprint for Eglinton.
It would have increased wildlife corridor space; I would have shifted the parking lot, for the park, on the south side of Eglinton, to the height of land just above Leslie/Eglinton, allowing it to be removed and renaturalized.
That would have resulted in a net gain of about 2ha/5 acres of nature.
But hey, that would have been utopian; and probably cost an extra...hmmmm 300M or so on a net basis.