[44 North]

I definitely hope tree plantings / naturalization will be a major part of the upgrading of GO corridors. As it stands now many of our rail lines are these great emerald ribbons bisecting the city. They reduce sound, and look good (even if a bit scrubby in some areas). So one thing I fear if we really expand these lines and square-off earthen embankments into concrete retaining walls will be the loss of these strips of forest. It doesn't really have to be a landscaping component of the rail upgrades per se, but rather the allotment of some dirt for trees to be planted or grow naturally.

 

[crs1026]

I definitely hope tree plantings / naturalization will be a major part of the upgrading of GO corridors. As it stands now many of our rail lines are these great emerald ribbons bisecting the city. They reduce sound, and look good (even if a bit scrubby in some areas). So one thing I fear if we really expand these lines and square-off earthen embankments into concrete retaining walls will be the loss of these strips of forest. It doesn't really have to be a landscaping component of the rail upgrades per se, but rather the allotment of some dirt for trees to be planted or grow naturally.

I'm in favour of using greenery along rail lines, but the way it has been done since the eighties...ie just let natural bush creep in - has downsides. People in the Junction have told me that street crime has fallen since the GTS took out the 'jungle' that made it easy for undesirables to hang out and to elude police. It is green, yes, but it can be very unattractive, invites illegal dumping, etc. Planned planting is way superior.

When electrification comes, there will have to be controls on natural growth to avoid arcing, and branches taking out wire, too.

I would hope that this is explicitly planned in the EA's and consultations. GTS did the consultations as an afterthought, leaving a bad taste in residents' mouths as it wasn't clear whether the input came too late for decisions. This time around, ML can do it right.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Not just tree branches.

 

[crs1026]

Someone appears to be listening about the need for "transparent" renderings.....

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-86443.pdf

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Someone appears to be listening about the need for "transparent" renderings.....

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-86443.pdf

Gotta deliver on the mayor's election promises...

There is no specific prioritization of these projects in information publicly available and at this time, only the Davenport rail grade separation has advanced to the planning stages with the public. Notwithstanding this, the Scarborough Junction rail-rail grade separation which would improve service at the junction of the Lake Shore East/Stouffville lines has not been initiated. This infrastructure improvement would benefit RER and SmartTrack train services in the city, and consequently could be a more immediate priority from the perspective of delivering SmartTrack.

 

[crs1026]

I love how "the preferred option will take 5-6 years to build" and "other things could be more a immediate priority" are both argued here.

I guess the concept of "long lead time" and "critical path" is not found in transportation planning in this city.

The original proposal on this project happened in 2009. https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/davenportdiamondgrade_openhouse11.jpg.

After that, there was silence - and this past year ML suddenly brought the project to the front burner with a "no time to lose, this is urgent" case being made. That's not good process, and does not build trust.

Just another case study in how the GTA does not agree on a solid set of priorities and then figure out, with a gantt chart available, what needs to be done first. Along comes a new political idea, and we are once again shifting projects.

I like the technical and economic merits of the elevated route, but the concept of building a 1.4-km-long, 4-storey structure through this districe within the city's Official Plan is an interesting conundrum. If a developer proposed this kind of structure for condo's or commercial, would we agree to it? Of course, the OMB would likely overrule and allow it....maybe ML's mistake is in proceeding with an EA instead of calling it a condo development and going the building permit route.

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

This is on the fast burner as its needed for AD2W service on Barrie, while Stouffville Junction can be done later as it isn't needed for AD2W service, only RER. Barrie is essentially stuck with current service levels without this, stouffville has a while to go before it hits that issue. Metrolinx studied this one already pre RER as it was needed soon regardless.. The only reason Stouffville Junction is even being discussed is because of RER.

Metrolinx does have a priority list. This is being rushed as it is key for AD2W service, which Metrolinx wants soon to build ridership towards RER.

Within the Official Plan? There are official plans covering the entire province of Ontario. Not sure what you are trying to say there. surely those couple of lines are a joke.. you can't actually believe that.

 

[crs1026]

Within the Official Plan? There are official plans covering the entire province of Ontario. Not sure what you are trying to say there. surely those couple of lines are a joke.. you can't actually believe that.

It was a serious thought with a tongue in cheek commented appended.

My point was - The City renderings help envision this structure as a solid "building" rather than a bridge or Gardiner 2.0. I suspect that City staff did a fairly careful job of examining block-by-block whether a 4-storey "building" is allowed at that point under the Official Plan. The renderings do suggest that (at a distance, anyways) the overpass will redefine the skyline for this area. It's high enough to have some shadow considerations for the immediate adjoining properties. It will block the street sightlines. Yes, you can walk under it, and there's potential to create some nice spaces around it. But, thought about as a building, it is a wall and it will have that impact on the local neighbourhoods.

City staff were doing their job by providing an assessment from that point of view.

Lots of new buildings have impact, and lots of these buildings get approved. I was taking a jab at the OMB, yes, but variances do get approved by the City, given proper discussion and negotiation. The fact that it's a good idea from the transit perspective doesn't nullify this. When City staff object to something on the grounds of local zoning and land planning, one can't just blow by that objection.

I stand by my comment that ML has abused process here. They had six years to advance this with the community and local representatives. They did not do that. The 6-month timeline for a transit EA does not demand that the broader debate on a controversial proposal adhere to that timeline. This one deserves a complete debate.

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

I'm in favour of using greenery along rail lines, but the way it has been done since the eighties...ie just let natural bush creep in - has downsides. People in the Junction have told me that street crime has fallen since the GTS took out the 'jungle' that made it easy for undesirables to hang out and to elude police. It is green, yes, but it can be very unattractive, invites illegal dumping, etc. Planned planting is way superior.

When electrification comes, there will have to be controls on natural growth to avoid arcing, and branches taking out wire, too.

I would hope that this is explicitly planned in the EA's and consultations. GTS did the consultations as an afterthought, leaving a bad taste in residents' mouths as it wasn't clear whether the input came too late for decisions. This time around, ML can do it right.

- Paul

With the number of tracks going into the GTS corridor, I don't even think that they could have natural bush creep.

By the time we have SmaRERttrack/GO to kitchener/VIA/HSR/UPX/possible Bolton Line, the corridor is going to be maxed out with as many tracks as possible.

the 80's natural bush was because there were like what, 2 lines running through a very wide corridor.

Theres barely going to be room for a single row of trees along the outsides of the corridor now.

 

[muller877]

Someone appears to be listening about the need for "transparent" renderings.....

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-86443.pdf

- Paul

I like how they kept 2 bridges over the road...tells you what the city thinks of this project and why Metrolinx is moving forward in spite of them. At Dupont the existing bridge can be removed and the road can be brought up to (or almost to) original grade. Will look 10x better than the picture (and 5x better than today).

 

[crs1026]

I like how they kept 2 bridges over the road...tells you what the city thinks of this project and why Metrolinx is moving forward in spite of them. At Dupont the existing bridge can be removed and the road can be brought up to (or almost to) original grade. Will look 10x better than the picture (and 5x better than today).

I thought the picture with the two bridges was at least useful as a contrast to the scale of the old and new bridges (assuming the proportions are accurate). It's the first rendering that added the catenary and noise walls, which is a step forward. I agree that one would want a rendering of the street without the underpass to really demonstrate what could be done to improve it.

As another perspective - here's a shot from the Wallace footbridge. The purple line is my guesstimate of the top of the structure, relative mostly to the water tower and the industrial building at the grade crossing. If I was anywhere near accurate, you can see how much of the current skyline would be cut off looking eastwards.

I wonder if the whole three vertical panel noise wall is needed. Would one or two panels cut off most of the noise? A lower profile structure would have much less impact.

My point is not to argue against the elevated option, it's just to show that the structure's impact is not trivial. The staff report legitimately points to this.

Elevating the line may be the best option, but the EA will properly need to focus on what mitigation can be applied. ML can't just go through the motions in the interest of speeding this into approval.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I love how "the preferred option will take 5-6 years to build" and "other things could be more a immediate priority" are both argued here.

I guess the concept of "long lead time" and "critical path" is not found in transportation planning in this city.

The original proposal on this project happened in 2009. https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/davenportdiamondgrade_openhouse11.jpg.

After that, there was silence - and this past year ML suddenly brought the project to the front burner with a "no time to lose, this is urgent" case being made. That's not good process, and does not build trust.

- Paul

You're right - it's not a good process.

But when Metrolinx looses funding for EAs - and believe me, there were almost 20 that were earmarked to begin around that same time, only for just about every single one of them to get shelved - and only has gotten it back within the past year or two, what are they supposed to do?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Brent Cehan]

I agree that the bridge over bridge construction doesn't make any sense. The opportunity to level Dupont will greatly increase mobility from inside and outside the triangle. It would be great for businesses and bicyclists alike.

Unfortunately that "bridge over bridge" design is from Metrolinx own Davenport Feasibility Study on page 32.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/rer/Davenport_Feasibility_Study-Main_Report_EN.pdf

Bear in mind the bridges in the photograph are directly on top of one another. The difference in scale is due to size not distance.

The "bridge over bridge" design is also part of Metrolinx 3D fly though.

My understanding is that the City of Toronto report just adds the noise barriers and caging necessary for electrification which gives a clearer idea of the size of the construction.
In a Janes Walk this summer, residents were told by a Metrolinx representative that since the existing roadway was city property, leveling is not part of their design plan.

 

[Brent Cehan]

I thought the picture with the two bridges was at least useful as a contrast to the scale of the old and new bridges (assuming the proportions are accurate). It's the first rendering that added the catenary and noise walls, which is a step forward. I agree that one would want a rendering of the street without the underpass to really demonstrate what could be done to improve it.

As another perspective - here's a shot from the Wallace footbridge. The purple line is my guesstimate of the top of the structure, relative mostly to the water tower and the industrial building at the grade crossing. If I was anywhere near accurate, you can see how much of the current skyline would be cut off looking eastwards.

I wonder if the whole three vertical panel noise wall is needed. Would one or two panels cut off most of the noise? A lower profile structure would have much less impact.

My point is not to argue against the elevated option, it's just to show that the structure's impact is not trivial. The staff report legitimately points to this.

Elevating the line may be the best option, but the EA will properly need to focus on what mitigation can be applied. ML can't just go through the motions in the interest of speeding this into approval.

- Paul

View attachment 61064

Thanks for the photograph Paul. Gaging the scale of the proposal--over 4 stories high at it's apex-within the existing community is difficult.

Although it's a panorama, so yes it's necessary to account for lens distortion, I'm still trying to figure out what the arc of the proposed overpass would look like on Campbell Park.
It would definitely be above the houses to the left, at about the third and forth floors of the condominiums behind it. The building just beside the water tower is two stories high if I remember correctly so
the downward arc of the overpass would just graze it's top floors.

It's by no means a small structure.

 

[crs1026]

But when Metrolinx looses funding for EAs - and believe me, there were almost 20 that were earmarked to begin around that same time, only for just about every single one of them to get shelved - and only has gotten it back within the past year or two, what are they supposed to do?.

It's unfortunate that our planning process is based on waiting for the stars to align, and then leaping into action to get things far enough along that they can't be cancelled when the mood changes again.

ML is making progress re fleshing out the details of what is required to get RER in place - but partnership with the City of Toronto around it is a challenge. Davenport is one of the few places where the detailed technical thinking is on the table for the public to look at....much of the rest of RER documentaion is just PR fluff. I wonder if that is why the staff report listed the other 'priorities' - a backhanded way of building pressure for ML to play their cards on these.

One can understand why ML does things this way. The City is an impediment to getting anything done. See Smart Track. But ignoring 416 interests is wrong too. Too bad the twain doesn't meet.

- Paul