crs1026 said:
Who was the dissenting (ie supportive) vote?

- Paul
Click to expand...

Interesting. The one guy whose ward is going to have a Smart Track line tunnelled through it, according to Mr Tory, votes for an elevated solution in the Junction.

- Paul
 
Local Councillor Ana Bailao said her community supports transit but wants to see it benefit all communities along the rail line.
“We don’t want to be known ... as the train watching community,” Bailao said. “What do you want us to do, set up a watching station so people can watch trains eight metres high and not be able to get on it?”
Click to expand...

Well, that would please some of us, just not the residents....

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Well, that would please some of us, just not the residents....

- Paul
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I think Bailao could be on to something here. I propose an adaptive reuse of this beautiful old tower into a train watching station :p. This could be a community benefit, that benefits all communities!

17360855221_f5e47ec68f_b.jpg
 
Hey...that's me in the orange shirt.

I and several others have suggested that if they go ahead with the bridge plan, the path they're (sort of) promising (but but not funding) should actually go up with the bridge to cross the CP tracks, at least with switchbacks or something on either side of the CP line. Then it would be a truly connecting trail, and not just a short stump on either side. Potential for a good foamer train-watching lookout up there.
 
The problem with the 38-1 vote is, it leaves Council little room to negotiate with ML.

They have basically told ML to shove it, and ML has said it will plow ahead. Unlike a zoning dispute, where you can fight for Section 37 payments, there is the risk that ML will just bull ahead.

I hope the residents are strategic and use the EA to best advantage. There will be the temptation to posture e.g. boycott it, or to dismiss it as an exercise in futility.

If they play the politics and optics well, they ought to be able to at least leverage the whole thing for the best possible siting and physical improvements.

A clever mayor or councillor would find a way to play dealmaker.

- Paul
 
Great piece by the Globe that articulates every thought that is going through my head:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...umming-up-go-transit-project/article27702338/

For years, local Toronto politicians have said the city needs better rapid transit. For years, they have called on higher levels of government to help out. For years, they have complained that transit projects are too often halted or delayed. So what do they do when the provincial government comes up with tens of millions to get a big project done in a hurry? Why, stand in the way, of course.
Click to expand...
 
With TYSSE there's a tunneled section with nary a nimby around for 2km... so why couldn't we have run an elevated train there? That could've saved half a billion or more, and cut down on construction time. I definitely support elevated solutions, but there's no question that this one is particularly ballsy due to its height, width, proximity to an established neighbourhood, and that it will run noisy non-electric trains. So if the Prov says it's a no-brainer to run elevated trains here, let's see a redo of the Yonge North EA to propose running elevated trains along Yonge north of Steeles. The roadway allowance is more than ample, it could save a helluva lot of money, and cut down on construction time. Win-win, just like in Davenport. But somehow I doubt that will happen.
 
Yeah, Metrolinx, with its secretive, business-like board and its disregard for intra-Toronto matters (such as a reasonable short-distance GO fare) is going to plow ahead on the bridge. I don't live in the area, but I'd rather see the bridge go ahead rather than a more expensive and complicated tunnel; but mitigation of the structure is key, and local benefits are necessary, such as a full linear park, a pedestrian/cyclist trail and overpass over the CP North Toronto Sub that could act as an extension of the Railpath to the west (Wallace could be the connecting side street between the two).

At this point, the local advocates really should cut their losses and push for the best structure and ancillary benefits with this elevated structure. It's happening, it's now best to make it as good as it can be.
 
The council meeting has been posted online, skip to 20:30 for the Davenport bridge. I have to say that for the most part, this debate was pretty reasonable and had far less of the usual BS and identity politics that we often see on transit debates.

 
vic said:
Hey...that's me in the orange shirt.

I and several others have suggested that if they go ahead with the bridge plan, the path they're (sort of) promising (but but not funding) should actually go up with the bridge to cross the CP tracks, at least with switchbacks or something on either side of the CP line. Then it would be a truly connecting trail, and not just a short stump on either side. Potential for a good foamer train-watching lookout up there.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are all kinds of opportunities to improve the bridge, and I wish all the best to you and your neighbours in hashing out a more acceptable solution. Just curious, what are your opinions on the proposed bridge?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top