GeneralGrievance
Active Member
Our (very long) editorial goes over what happened in the meeting:http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/01/contentious-meeting-metrolinxs-davenport-diamond-bridge
- Thread starter vic
- Start date
vic
Senior Member
Feel free to link to / embed my video for anyone who wants to watch the whole meeting: https://goo.gl/6qOtcu
GeneralGrievance
Active Member
For sure, I'll include a link at the bottom of the page
DKsan
Active Member
Ana Bailao and that school trustee are very disingenuous with their statements. How often do you hear of GO trains derailing into houses? How does the school trustee accuse Metrolinx of not consulting students in the area, when school board and trustees almost never consult their own students?
Also, I think perhaps the Brothers Ford perchant for subways has affected more than just the suburbs. How else do you explain a tunnel, a vanity project, for a tiny area? The area residents in the Davenport-Junction Triangle area only care about themselves, their tiny 16,000 area population (I saw that number quoted somewhere) delaying the middle of line that could be a useful intercity line.
And frankly, I'm sure if Metrolinx could afford to build a tunnel everywhere, they would. But they have a lot of road-rail and rail-rail grade separations to do in the GGHA to implement RER and a better GO system. They can't afford to be building the perfect solution that appease tiny minorities (am I allowed to call people NIMBYs here? There's some nonsense going around urbanist circles that it's a mean insult, which it is, that shouldn't be used). The D-JT can't think outside their tiny bubble. Then again, they have a subway and many probably don't go outside the 416.
Also, I think perhaps the Brothers Ford perchant for subways has affected more than just the suburbs. How else do you explain a tunnel, a vanity project, for a tiny area? The area residents in the Davenport-Junction Triangle area only care about themselves, their tiny 16,000 area population (I saw that number quoted somewhere) delaying the middle of line that could be a useful intercity line.
And frankly, I'm sure if Metrolinx could afford to build a tunnel everywhere, they would. But they have a lot of road-rail and rail-rail grade separations to do in the GGHA to implement RER and a better GO system. They can't afford to be building the perfect solution that appease tiny minorities (am I allowed to call people NIMBYs here? There's some nonsense going around urbanist circles that it's a mean insult, which it is, that shouldn't be used). The D-JT can't think outside their tiny bubble. Then again, they have a subway and many probably don't go outside the 416.
salsa
Senior Member
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
And unlike the Gardiner there won't be hoards of cars lined up to get on and off of it on the surrounding streets.
Allandale25
Senior Member
MPP Martins has posted her letter. She calls for the TPAP to be delayed but doesn't say for how long, what specific changes she wants, whether she'd ever except the bridge, or what would happen if the bridge went ahead.
If the bridge does go ahead, and it's hard to say how it won't, she could say, "well, I tried. I'll try to make it as good as can. Please re-elect me. I'll have more influence for you if I'm in the government". Maybe she's also counting on the bridge being in the middle of construction by the Spring of 2018 and she can just say to voters, "there's nothing we can do about it now. Let's move forward". Time will tell.
If the bridge does go ahead, and it's hard to say how it won't, she could say, "well, I tried. I'll try to make it as good as can. Please re-elect me. I'll have more influence for you if I'm in the government". Maybe she's also counting on the bridge being in the middle of construction by the Spring of 2018 and she can just say to voters, "there's nothing we can do about it now. Let's move forward". Time will tell.
Allandale25
Senior Member
The MP has also joined the call to delay the TPAP.
"Minister Steven del Duca, Minister Glen Murray:
Since the summer, I have been working with the Davenport community to ensure that the best option is selected for the Davenport Grade Separation, which will deliver the Barrie Regional Express Rail from Union to Barrie via the Davenport riding. The community is overall supportive of more transit in the city and region, and believes that the final option should be one that ensures that the community is better off after the development than it was before, that it is a connector for the community and - as a vibrant, growing and healthy community - will benefit from it.
For the best decision to be made, the following needs to be addressed:
All options for the Davenport grade separation need to be presented to the community.
The community feels that a transparent and complete report as well as authentic "true to life" renderings of all options have not been fully presented. Technology today allows for renderings that clearly show visual impacts to the community.
There needs to be clear benefits to the community. As mentioned, the community has to be better off after the development than it was before. The separation project should include a local GO stop/station, the highest level of design, and new public amenities (including better local connectivity, bike paths and trails) including funding for ongoing maintenance and upkeep.
Outstanding questions about safety, noise and vibrations need to be fully addressed.
The community is rightly worried about impact of rail derailments and mitigation, noise and vibration impacts not only to the residential areas along the route but also the businesses anchored in the community.
Evaluate land use and economic development impacts from the project.
There have been substantial private and government investments (including Ubisoft) in the area of the proposed separation. The project impacts on these and future investments should be evaluated. In particular, the Province's major support for Ubisoft has triggered the emergence of a local knowledge cluster; and the community should be assured that this investment and others are not in jeopardy because of the grade separation.
The City of Toronto be given an appropriate amount of time to do proper due diligence on the project. My understanding is that Metrolinx missed a step in engaging the City early on in the process, which is a prime factor in any current delays to the project.
Therefore, I strongly support the Davenport community's request for the postponement of the Davenport Grade Separation Environmental Assessment (TPAP), which is scheduled to begin next week, until the aforementioned items are addressed.
It is also important to note that there is serious impairment of trust in Metrolinx on this project in the community, given how the process, information flows and consultation have unfolded - and given past experiences with Metrolinx around the UP Express (e.g. over-representation of ridership; implementation of noise walls). I encourage full dialogue and transparency on the next steps moving forward - working with input from the Davenport community leadership every step of the way."
"Minister Steven del Duca, Minister Glen Murray:
Since the summer, I have been working with the Davenport community to ensure that the best option is selected for the Davenport Grade Separation, which will deliver the Barrie Regional Express Rail from Union to Barrie via the Davenport riding. The community is overall supportive of more transit in the city and region, and believes that the final option should be one that ensures that the community is better off after the development than it was before, that it is a connector for the community and - as a vibrant, growing and healthy community - will benefit from it.
For the best decision to be made, the following needs to be addressed:
All options for the Davenport grade separation need to be presented to the community.
The community feels that a transparent and complete report as well as authentic "true to life" renderings of all options have not been fully presented. Technology today allows for renderings that clearly show visual impacts to the community.
There needs to be clear benefits to the community. As mentioned, the community has to be better off after the development than it was before. The separation project should include a local GO stop/station, the highest level of design, and new public amenities (including better local connectivity, bike paths and trails) including funding for ongoing maintenance and upkeep.
Outstanding questions about safety, noise and vibrations need to be fully addressed.
The community is rightly worried about impact of rail derailments and mitigation, noise and vibration impacts not only to the residential areas along the route but also the businesses anchored in the community.
Evaluate land use and economic development impacts from the project.
There have been substantial private and government investments (including Ubisoft) in the area of the proposed separation. The project impacts on these and future investments should be evaluated. In particular, the Province's major support for Ubisoft has triggered the emergence of a local knowledge cluster; and the community should be assured that this investment and others are not in jeopardy because of the grade separation.
The City of Toronto be given an appropriate amount of time to do proper due diligence on the project. My understanding is that Metrolinx missed a step in engaging the City early on in the process, which is a prime factor in any current delays to the project.
Therefore, I strongly support the Davenport community's request for the postponement of the Davenport Grade Separation Environmental Assessment (TPAP), which is scheduled to begin next week, until the aforementioned items are addressed.
It is also important to note that there is serious impairment of trust in Metrolinx on this project in the community, given how the process, information flows and consultation have unfolded - and given past experiences with Metrolinx around the UP Express (e.g. over-representation of ridership; implementation of noise walls). I encourage full dialogue and transparency on the next steps moving forward - working with input from the Davenport community leadership every step of the way."
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Perhaps the MP can convince the Feds to cough up sufficient cash to bury the whole thing then? If not, I think there is an old saying - put up or shut up.
AoD
AoD
Napoleon
Active Member
I think you're right. Had this been a less-rushed and more consultative process, the community might have been if not more supportive, at least less opposed.
Adjei
Senior Member
This bridge proposal has been around since 2009 so where is all this crap about a rushed consultative process. They would have opposed it anyways even if you spent 10 years in consultations.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not necessarily - time isn't something that works in favour of the proponent in a consultation process, especially when you have a subset of the population that is fundamentally opposed to anything but a tunnel. What time allows for in that scenario is sowing discontent, polarize opinions, gather dissenters and let inflationary pressures make short work of cost estimates.
AoD
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
Can anyone explain to me why no one is discussing the trench option anymore?
It seems like it would solve a lot of the problems that the residents are complaining about, (derailing trains, eyesore of a "gardiner") and not cost as much as a tunnel.
Why is the trench option out? It seems like a good compromise.
It seems like it would solve a lot of the problems that the residents are complaining about, (derailing trains, eyesore of a "gardiner") and not cost as much as a tunnel.
Why is the trench option out? It seems like a good compromise.
nfitz
Superstar
Yes, that's a good question. They used trench as the solution in locations on the Georgetown line. They eliminate tunnel over cost. But how much does trench cost?
drum118
Superstar
Going to a trench is about 60-75% of the cost of a tunnel since you have no roof other than Wallace Rd.
Doing a trench means a 2 track line that can't be expanded to 3 as proposed by Metrolinx.
The residents get no real upgrades like the elevated plan.