urbancog
Active Member
The Portlands is a good example of the cost of providing mitigation engineering - ~$1.2B split between the 3 levels of government to mitigate flooding risk in Leslieville, East Harbour and the Portlands
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
T3G
Senior Member
Why would it be reasonable to assume that this particular project would buck the trend of hideous transportation engineering? Has anyone from the provincial government ever expressed the slightest interest in making it not so?
crs1026
Superstar
I’m not sure we need an International Design Competition for the guideway - although i’m hoping for better than “Standard MTO Overpass Concrete Bland”.
We have done well with the new bridges in the Portlands, hopefully ML matches that.
A guideway was the obvious choice for this application - neither buried nor surface with added gradient were good choices technically. If it’s equal to Line 2 at the Humber, it will be fine esthetically. Perfection is the enemy of good, and designs are often not be as timeless as we hope.
- Paul
We have done well with the new bridges in the Portlands, hopefully ML matches that.
A guideway was the obvious choice for this application - neither buried nor surface with added gradient were good choices technically. If it’s equal to Line 2 at the Humber, it will be fine esthetically. Perfection is the enemy of good, and designs are often not be as timeless as we hope.
- Paul
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Where do you suggest they relocate all the sports fields? A city can't just be endless vertical suburbs, there need to be spaces for things like sports fields (which are a thing we already are lacking in many parts of Toronto). While we do need more places for affordable housing, there has to be a balance.
Northern Light
Superstar
@goodcitywhenfinished
I think others have offered assessments with which I broadly concur on your proposal, but let me put some facts on the table.
This is the regulatory floodplain for the area in question:
The vast majority of that space is currently floodplain. There are only 2, relatively small areas outside that, one of which is sportsfields at the south/east corner w/Jane, the other being a small forested area next to Scarlett.
You're not cutting down a forest the City just spent over $100,000 planting on Scarlett.
The soccer pitches next to Jane are in high demand, so if you'd like to move them, you'll need to find 2.5 ha, or about 6.25 acres of land relatively close by, and purchase that to offset the loss, and demolish and remediate anything currently sited on said property.
Quick math, looking at the low-rise residential to the east off Weston, you'll need about 115 properties at an average cost of 1.3M a piece for about 150M, plus demolition, remediation, road removal, sewer removal, water main removal, I think we can swing it for about 250M
****
Now about that affordable housing surrounded by floodplain on 3 sides, its also not level with Eglinton, though its close'ish, and its got a very high water table. So there are some constructability issues, but they can be managed, though, you'd have to top-up and re-grade the site, and it would have some added costs per ft2; not including the replacement parks costs.
****
Another important note: Most of the land is not owned by the City, its managed by the City; that's TRCA land for the most part.
****
Now, if you really wanted reclaim regulated floodplain (which you won't be allowed to do here, and I would put a stop to it if anyone gave it serious thought..................)
You're going to have some very practical issues. Putting aside the environmental issues for just a moment, you need to understand that in order to mitigate flood risk, you have to do one or more of:
1) Elevate the at-risk land
2) Divert water flow away from the land you want to dry out, but you're going to have to put that water somewhere else.
3) Construct berms
1+3 have important features, they don't make the water go away, they shift its location.
So, if you built berms around the Humber, they would displace forest, and habitat and the existing bike trail, but they would also increase the river depth, the flow-rate and the erosion, causing serious geo-morphic issues. But that alone wouldn't dry out the land, because you would now be blocking all the water that comes down hill from reaching the river, so it would pool outside the berm.
For all intents and purposes, you're talking about very large scale engineering to re-grade a large part of this parkland away, and I can guarantee you the cost would be in the billions. The critical impact zone for those alterations would affect about 250 acres of land. Oh and we'd have to demolish the Crosstown Extension and Eglinton Avenue (no I'm not kidding), but both are engineered for the current water table, flood levels and soil levels, and you just changed them all.
I think others have offered assessments with which I broadly concur on your proposal, but let me put some facts on the table.
This is the regulatory floodplain for the area in question:
The vast majority of that space is currently floodplain. There are only 2, relatively small areas outside that, one of which is sportsfields at the south/east corner w/Jane, the other being a small forested area next to Scarlett.
You're not cutting down a forest the City just spent over $100,000 planting on Scarlett.
The soccer pitches next to Jane are in high demand, so if you'd like to move them, you'll need to find 2.5 ha, or about 6.25 acres of land relatively close by, and purchase that to offset the loss, and demolish and remediate anything currently sited on said property.
Quick math, looking at the low-rise residential to the east off Weston, you'll need about 115 properties at an average cost of 1.3M a piece for about 150M, plus demolition, remediation, road removal, sewer removal, water main removal, I think we can swing it for about 250M
****
Now about that affordable housing surrounded by floodplain on 3 sides, its also not level with Eglinton, though its close'ish, and its got a very high water table. So there are some constructability issues, but they can be managed, though, you'd have to top-up and re-grade the site, and it would have some added costs per ft2; not including the replacement parks costs.
****
Another important note: Most of the land is not owned by the City, its managed by the City; that's TRCA land for the most part.
****
Now, if you really wanted reclaim regulated floodplain (which you won't be allowed to do here, and I would put a stop to it if anyone gave it serious thought..................)
You're going to have some very practical issues. Putting aside the environmental issues for just a moment, you need to understand that in order to mitigate flood risk, you have to do one or more of:
1) Elevate the at-risk land
2) Divert water flow away from the land you want to dry out, but you're going to have to put that water somewhere else.
3) Construct berms
1+3 have important features, they don't make the water go away, they shift its location.
So, if you built berms around the Humber, they would displace forest, and habitat and the existing bike trail, but they would also increase the river depth, the flow-rate and the erosion, causing serious geo-morphic issues. But that alone wouldn't dry out the land, because you would now be blocking all the water that comes down hill from reaching the river, so it would pool outside the berm.
For all intents and purposes, you're talking about very large scale engineering to re-grade a large part of this parkland away, and I can guarantee you the cost would be in the billions. The critical impact zone for those alterations would affect about 250 acres of land. Oh and we'd have to demolish the Crosstown Extension and Eglinton Avenue (no I'm not kidding), but both are engineered for the current water table, flood levels and soil levels, and you just changed them all.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
I'm still puzzled where they are supposedly currently building communities in floodplains in Alberta. Which doesn't seem to the case, unless you are using a 10,000 year return period.
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
I appreciate that the cost of mitigation here is extremely high and there is no will or a real need to convert the recreational space here into housing.
My inquiry was more aimed at the land along Jane which sits at a higher elevation but still allows close proximity to the future station (in red below)
I'm assuming the planning intent for an Eglinton flats station is almost entirely to just connect to the 35 and the eventual increased service with RapidTO and the possible Jane LRT?
nfitz
Superstar
Those corridors along Jane, are just artificial embankments, to carry the roadway. If anything they should be removed and converted to an open structure.
Also they are very sloped.
Also they are very sloped.
Northern Light
Superstar
@nfitz is 100% on point.
The lands you've highlighted in red are not at-grade, and they also support existing roads. Even if it could create a material area for housing, the cost would be prohibitive. You would need retaining walls several storeys high that have to support incredible weight, so they've have to be supported by incredibly deep piles, going into, and beyond the water table, likely to bed rock.
Not remotely cost-effective.
Here's the topographic map, each squiggly line is a 1M drop in elevation:
Jane North of Eglinton:
Jane South of Eglinton:
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
I question if they will build any bus terminals (or loops). Service on the 35 is much higher north of Eglinton which would lead to TTC wanting to short turn them at the LRT if possible.
We could probably see major bus network changes when Crosstown West opens up. Central Etobicoke could see service slash in half with today's service standards (jam as many on a bus as possible).
Allandale25
Senior Member
I went back several pages I don't think this has been posted yet.
Presentation from this week's meeting on the landscape plan for the elevated section. Also notice the procurement timeline. There might be other items of interest people want to extract and comment on. cc @Northern Light
Presentation from this week's meeting on the landscape plan for the elevated section. Also notice the procurement timeline. There might be other items of interest people want to extract and comment on. cc @Northern Light
dougtoronto
New Member
I sometimes wonder if it would be feasible to elevate/bury both Jane and Eglinton and unite all four corners of greenery into a massive urban park and forest.
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member