[MisterF]

No, but they typically follow common sense and overthrow city limits on building size, when it's adjacent to something taller.

It depends on the context. There are plenty of examples of public infrastructure that towers over single detached homes. Any developer would have a hard time convincing the OMB that development on Canterbury Crescent or Murray Glen Drive should match the scale of the adjacent overpasses. Not to mention the countless low rise neighbourhoods next to hydro and transmission towers.

 

[salsa]

When they raze the trees, it's not likely they'll re-plant in the exact same place...that wouldn't make any sense, as they would have to chop them down /prune them when they reach a certain size again. Or they can move them farther from the corridor...into the soccer field. Even re-planted in the same place, it would be decades before they reach the same size.

It's likely they would find alternate locations for the trees. Similar to the Georgetown corridor....many trees were chopped and they promised to replace large trees 3:1, but not in the corridor / in the way of their walls. I haven't seen any re-plantings yet (though the work isn't finished either...)

Are they actually gonna cut down the trees? During the Jane's Walk I was told by a Metrolinx spokesperson that the trees may require some pruning and that maybe the pillars (which are widely spaced) might affect a few of the roots, but it didn't sound like clear-cutting of all the trees in the park was inevitable or part of the plan at that time.

 

[Brent Cehan]

Are they actually gonna cut down the trees? During the Jane's Walk I was told by a Metrolinx spokesperson that the trees may require some pruning and that maybe the pillars (which are widely spaced) might affect a few of the roots, but it didn't sound like clear-cutting of all the trees in the park was inevitable or part of the plan at that time.

Here's an article on the trees in the Georgetown corridor. It's not exactly the most encouraging precedent:
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ting_trees_along_the_rails_say_residents.html

 

[salsa]

Here's the City Planner's rendering of two locations. Do you really want to argue that these look better? What rendering of the "Monster Bridge" doesn't look like instant urban decay?

Look like we have a local resident here!

I get that there are some legitimate issues to be resolved, but all this partisan talk I keep hearing from some of the locals about "monster bridge", "Gardiner for GO trains" or "instant urban decay" are unhelpful. The renderings created by the residents are another attempt to purposely make the bridge look worse than it is by darkening the sky, editing out all the people, removing all the trees, and putting graffiti all over it. I don't see any urban decay when I visit places like Underpass Park, and if similar murals and public spaces can be created in Davenport under the proposed bridge, then I don't expect any urban decay here either.

 

[Brent Cehan]

Look like we have a local resident here!

View attachment 61517


I get that there are some legitimate issues to be resolved, but all this partisan talk I keep hearing from some of the locals about "monster bridge", "Gardiner for GO trains" or "instant urban decay" are unhelpful. The renderings created by the residents are another attempt to purposely make the bridge look worse than it is by darkening the sky, editing out all the people, removing all the trees, and putting graffiti all over it. I don't see any urban decay when I visit places like Underpass Park, and if similar murals and public spaces can be created in Davenport under the proposed bridge, then I don't expect any urban decay here either.

"Monster Rail Bridge" comes from the Toronto Star.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...diner-refugees-on-toronto-council-agenda.html

The Gardiner Expressway is the closest analogy to what Mextrolinx is proposing. It's also a useful example of construction that at one point was thought to be expedieant but produced really negative effects on the city.

The renderings of the overpass look bad, because well it's a really really bad idea. There are only so many ways you can render a four story high bridge through a residential neigborhood.

The community has faced some problems with illegal dumping less than five years ago in the current rail lands, so that's not encouraging for the space under the bridge.
http://www.junctiontriangle.ca/node/592

The Triangle has also faced other issues in the recent past, including drug activity in an underground pathway (that has since been sealed) and yes even
graffiti. So again, I'm not really sure why that's unrealistic.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-the-junction-triangle-at-5/article23675767/

I'm not sure what you mean by "make the bridge look worse than it is" since thankfully it hasn't been constructed yet.
Will you in the interest of fairness critique some of the idealized architectural renderings of "under the bridge projects" for being unrealistic?
(I think Underpass Park is a great first step in dealing with a difficult under-thought space. I don't think we should be building problems like that unless we have to, And yes most residents I imagine would much rather keep their existing park.)

We've discussed the issue with trees being removed from Campbell Park and yes the precedent on the Georgtown corridor indicates pretty strongly that they will be removed.
Full disclosure, I took the picture the first rendering is based on, and posted it here a couple days ago. Yes kids play soccer on it in the summer, and there are winter sports on the ice.

Will you be posting your name and picture in your next response to remove any doubt of potential ulterior motives?

My motive right now is to encourage a closer look at the tunnel option that was included in Metrolinx original feasibility studies and to stop some really bad construction in my neighbourhood.

 

[Adjei]

The tunnel option also comes with a $500 million higher price tag, why don't you go to the city and tell them to fund the remaining balance. They want to dictate to someone else how something should be built without offering up any of their own money.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Oh the irony of public realm arguments with an anti-sign on a rusty fence. Urban decay?

AoD

 

[crs1026]

I take it that the opponents decided to leave the catenary and noise walls off their renderings tbecause diesel powered trains appear more noxious. Electric trains are not necessarily quiet, but those MP40's sure throb and wail. One reasonable accommodation might be that the bridge must be electrified from its opening. IIRC there is already a commitment of this sort on another GO initiative.

The tree issue confuses two separate issues - the desirability of 'canopy' vegetation over a city versus the value of low growth as a sound barrier beside rail lines.Neither belongs on an electrified rail ROW - although perhaps future rail ROWs need to budget space on either side for nautral growth. I agree with ML that rail lines need to be cleared fence to fence, for visibility and to deter trespassing. The current situation didn't exist until the 1990's, when railways gave up on manual clearing for reasons of economy. This should never have happened. However, replacing the natural quality of the neighbourhood is an area where ML's feet ought to be held to the fire, and if GTS reflects badly on them they should be held to a higher standard.

Similarly - ML can't walk away from the underside issues, although perhaps a grant to the City might get more done than making ML accountable for this - for ML it will always be a distraction and not a core activity.

It's certainly a brave new day to see partisan renderings become so prominent in the adversarial part of the planning process, but maybe that's a good thing. Architects and planners have always considered these to be a 'professional' product - and hence objective - when they are often wildly optimistic. I like the residents' renderings as a tool for expressing their fears - which may not be objective either, but are valid as a test of whether the plan may need fixing. A picture is worth a thousand words!

If these kinds of things are addressed, I suspect Metrolinx will conclude that a bridge will be twice as expensive and take twice as long to build compared to their intended path forward. That may change the cost-benefit comparison. It's a bit of a demonstration that while we may be emphatically in favour of better transit solutions, one agency can't be given carte blanche to ram its projects through. Balance is required. (Digression - I fumed over the Weston ditch as an egregious appeasement to undeserving NIMBY's. Now that it's done, I kind of like it. I can see how much worsse an at-grade approach would have been. Hindsight.....)

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

If MP40s (or 2-3 F40PHs en route to CN Bala) have to climb a steeper overall grade because of a dip and then climb, that has implications for local air quality I would think. The issue would then become how long the MP40s would remain on the route and how often other diesel services such as diversions, work trains etc. would be on it in the medium term.

 

[vic]

Look like we have a local resident here!

Yes, and me too. I started this thread and lead the Jane's Walk. Thanks for coming.

 

[TOareaFan]

 

[innsertnamehere]

The Gardiner is not the most relevant comparison. The most relevant comparison would be more along the lines of the Skytrain in Vancouver.

 

[44 North]

I take it that the opponents decided to leave the catenary and noise walls off their renderings tbecause diesel powered trains appear more noxious. Electric trains are not necessarily quiet, but those MP40's sure throb and wail. One reasonable accommodation might be that the bridge must be electrified from its opening. IIRC there is already a commitment of this sort on another GO initiative.

The tree issue confuses two separate issues - the desirability of 'canopy' vegetation over a city versus the value of low growth as a sound barrier beside rail lines.Neither belongs on an electrified rail ROW - although perhaps future rail ROWs need to budget space on either side for nautral growth. I agree with ML that rail lines need to be cleared fence to fence, for visibility and to deter trespassing. The current situation didn't exist until the 1990's, when railways gave up on manual clearing for reasons of economy. This should never have happened. However, replacing the natural quality of the neighbourhood is an area where ML's feet ought to be held to the fire, and if GTS reflects badly on them they should be held to a higher standard.

So we know leaves on the tracks are a problem with deciduous trees, but what about planting conifers? If tracks are lined with cedar, pine, and spruce I don't really see an issue (other than the vegetation acting as a cover for trespassing or vagrancy). I recall a few years back there was a homicide at an encampment along LSE just north of Gerrard, and there are numerous reports of people getting hit while trespassing. But I think vegetation only plays a minor role in that, and it would be a hard battle to keep nature at bay in many areas. So if it's possible, plantings of certain species might be a better alternative than either/or.

If these kinds of things are addressed, I suspect Metrolinx will conclude that a bridge will be twice as expensive and take twice as long to build compared to their intended path forward. That may change the cost-benefit comparison. It's a bit of a demonstration that while we may be emphatically in favour of better transit solutions, one agency can't be given carte blanche to ram its projects through. Balance is required. (Digression - I fumed over the Weston ditch as an egregious appeasement to undeserving NIMBY's. Now that it's done, I kind of like it. I can see how much worsse an at-grade approach would have been. Hindsight.....)

I get what you mean by 'ram through' and the need for balance. And it seems with the Prov and City there can be a bit of a bias at times in this regard. With TYSSE and Yonge North no affordable options were explored. And similar to the deal made for tunneling Eglinton East there was little to no mention of elevated opportunities for major cost savings. With the exception of the pre-SSE Scarb RT debate we're presented with proposals for surface transit and deep bore, with very little in between.

But we know that's a crock, and cost savings can be pursued with these things. With the DRL the Prov is leaving no stone unturned in their quest for affordable alternatives (e.g trenched subways on Don Mills, elevated portions elsewhere, or tram-style LRT downtown...). Why didn't they leave that door open for past projects. With some priorities it seems there should be no questions asked when the costliest option is proposed, and similarly no questions asked when the least costly is proposed. So let's see what can exist in between. How many hundreds of $Millions or $Billions could've been saved with elevating parts of TYSSE, or proposing grade-separate light metro for Yonge North, or proposing a trenched/elevated Crosstown East as a Ford/McGuinty compromise. If the service is identical, and the public is adamant they want cost savings pursued in spite of localized opposition, I'd say these things should be pursued.

 

[crs1026]

So we know leaves on the tracks are a problem with deciduous trees, but what about planting conifers? If tracks are lined with cedar, pine, and spruce I don't really see an issue (other than the vegetation acting as a cover for trespassing or vagrancy).

This is exactly what's needed. A nice prickly species that would grow tall quickly and would be quite unpleasant to squeeze through.

Planned plantings are what's needed - leaving it to develop on its own is messy. There are species with a nice compact girth that won't encroach on the tracks.

Nice dense yews have kept my neighbour and I at peace for quite a while now

- Paul

 

[jcam]

Having lived in Vancouver for a couple of years, you're now seeing development being built ALONGSIDE the current elevated structure. And the Millenium line was created, well 15 years ago at the Millennium, and that passes through denser urban areas than here.

By my count, there are approximately 50 private residences that directly abut the corridor in the affected stretch. I know it's a simplification to attribute impacts to only those directly on the corridor, but by this measure, consideration of the tunnel over the elevated option is the equivalent of $1M/residence ($500M cost difference divided among 50 impacted residences). But it seems locals don't consider the cost/benefit tradeoff. $500M is a big chunk of the TCHC backlog, or more than the East Waterfront LRT.

We bought our house in Weston in the summer. Yes I benefit from the UP as an alternative to a cab to get downtown off peak....but do I think there was ever a sound business case for a stop there? No. Do I think there was a sound business case for the tunnel there? No. Yes the tunnel makes in more convenient for me to cross the corridor in my car, but in the larger scheme of allocating finite transit funding, that money could have helped a lot of other people elsewhere.

We have to think about the greater good...$500M is a lot of money for a small community to be selfish about. And it's been known for a looooong time that Metrolinx intended to increase service on that corridor, so presumably buyers were going in eyes wide open.