[smably]

my thoughts as well in terms of maintenance...sure itll look all nice and pretty with the mirror coating but give it a few years and all of that will be tarnished unless theres continual maintenance and cleaning... hopefully they factored that into their budget.

According to one of the Integrated Art Strategy a few posts back, the mirror coating may actually be replaced with a public art feature. Hard to say whether that's a good or bad thing from the perspective of maintenance. Hopefully the local advocacy groups remain engaged after this is built and hold Metrolinx' feet to the fire when it comes to keeping this thing maintained.

 

[vic]

my thoughts as well in terms of maintenance...sure itll look all nice and pretty with the mirror coating but give it a few years and all of that will be tarnished unless theres continual maintenance and cleaning... hopefully they factored that into their budget.

Doubtful. I believe they're looking to partner with the City for ongoing maintenance.

Even if they promise to maintain the structure, park, etc., I would take their word with a grain of salt, if you consider how well they're doing to keep up their promise of maintaining their sound walls along the UPX corridor.

 

[drum118]

Doubtful. I believe they're looking to partner with the City for ongoing maintenance.

Even if they promise to maintain the structure, park, etc., I would take their word with a grain of salt, if you consider how well they're doing to keep up their promise of maintaining their sound walls along the UPX corridor.

ML keeping their word on fixing things or up keep is a joke.

One only has to look at the Wallace Ave area as an example of ML not living up to their words. It like a lot of areas along the corridor where they have found the upkeep cost is killing them and stop doing anything about it.

That is why ML wants only concrete areas since they require the least upkeep to maintain.
June 3

 

[jje1000]

Some interesting designs (I like the black stamped retaining walls), but I agree with the others, the designs need to be rationalized from a maintenance point of view (i.e. how will the site look like under minimum maintenance, how long are those swinging chairs going to last for?).

I also think the communal aspect of the designs are overstated- I doubt that many people are going to be spending time under the overpass (it's still going to be relatively noisy) without any sort of inherent program (i.e. sports, skateboarding) drawing them to the site- would people sit in an swing under an overpass when they can do so in a park instead?

In that case I would almost prefer more natural plantings, concentrating the communal aspects of the designs into fewer areas where there might be more people, giving the space some more activity-based programming, and using more durable materials rather than the wood-like materials they have now.

For example, I would actually probably cut out the whole "allee of swings" area and put in some small skateboard ramps. In the same area, that seating area should probably be more like stone blocks or even more of the topographic seating rather than the wood armchairs they have now (imagine if there were some "surprises" or messes left inside those chairs!).

 

[reaperexpress]

Is there room in the corridor for a third track? I find it hard to believe that they can even fit a second track as it is.

There are a number of places where a third track would be a challenge because the existing structures only support 2 tracks and it would be a big job to expand them. Some examples are replacing the Eglinton Avenue bridge or expanding the Snider Junction flyover for the CN York Sub. But building the second track would be a breeze, there's plenty of space and most of the infrastructure is already there to support it. All structures south of Aurora, except the Yonge Street overpass, are built for at least two tracks, with many built for three, such as the new bridge over the Don River south of Langstaff, completed last year:

Image of new Don Valley bridge from October 2016

Here's a quick aerial overview I did of the structures along the southern Barrie Line:

I think the most likely segment to be triple-tracked would be from just north of Sheppard / Downsview Park station (which was designed for 3 tracks) to just north of Eglinton / Caledonia Station (which is being designed for 2 tracks). This would allow peak-direction local trains to pull off to the side at Downsview Park station to be overtaken by express trains. Meanwhile counter-peak service would be infrequent enough that express and local services could coexist without overtaking along the line.

 

[Allandale25]

Sorry where is Rivermede?

 

[crs1026]

I believe the overgrown metal fence in @drum118's photo is intentional - isn't that a "living fence" that is meant to attract vegetation? I wonder what it will look in winter.

The problem with uncontrolled greenery is it creates places for less savoury people to lurk - the Junction is a lot safer than it was a decade ago (give fair credit to the City, the residents and the cops for dealing with this). The wrong approach to the underside of the overpass could wipe out those gains. Gathering places that bring the public in will help deter the wrong behaviour, but the more secluded these are allowed to be, the more it will attract drug use and sale etc,

As to keeping anything in this city graffitti-free, good luck.

I am sure I saw a ML document on line recently that did mention (in very terse language) that the third track was not forgotten, although it is not a current spending priority. Two tracks will fit just fine through Davenport, but a third track would consume the full width and likely remove any open space that this plan creates. I doubt ML will draw attention to this potential while the residents are still digesting the 2-track plan. It may not happen until mid 2030s anyways.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Sorry where is Rivermede?

Oops, my mistake. The bridge is just south of Langstaff, not Rivermede. I've updated the post now.

 

[smallspy]

There are a number of places where a third track would be a challenge, such as at Eglinton or the CN York Sub (Snider Junction) where existing structures only support 2 tracks and it would be a big job to expand them. But building the second track would be a breeze, there's plenty of space and most of the infrastructure is already there to support it. All structures south of Aurora, except the Yonge Street overpass, are built for at least two tracks, with many built for three, such as the new bridge over the Don River south of Langstaff, completed last year:

Image of new Don Valley bridge from October 2016

Here's a quick aerial overview I did of the structures along the southern Barrie Line:
View attachment 113789

I think the most likely segment to be triple-tracked would be from just north of Sheppard / Downsview Park station (which was designed for 3 tracks) to just north of Eglinton / Caledonia Station (which is being designed for 2 tracks). This would allow peak-direction local trains to pull off to the side at Downsview Park station to be overtaken by express trains. Meanwhile counter-peak service would be infrequent enough that express and local services could coexist without overtaking along the line.

Most of the line is more than wide enough for 3 tracks. Check the Barrie Rail Corridor Expansion, Caledonia GO Station and Davenport Grade Separation EAs to see just how much room there is along there. Hell, when most of the stations get rebuilt as part of the double-tracking, they will be spaced out to allow a future third track to be placed right down the middle between the first two mains - just like the bridge over the West Don River.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

Detour is likely up the Newmarket to Snider, then a reverse move similar to VIA's Canadian, then east to Doncaster and north.

I wonder if ML has considered this scenario in their promise to Davenport residents to only run x trains per day once the overpass is finished. Is there a caveat about "under normal conditions"?

- Paul

 

[Megaton327]

I wonder if ML has considered this scenario in their promise to Davenport residents to only run x trains per day once the overpass is finished. Is there a caveat about "under normal conditions"?

At any rate, I doubt that's a legally binding commitment, and even if it were, I would imagine that depending on the wording a judge would be very likely to recognize that emergencies happen.

 

[crs1026]

The issue isn't how does it play in court, it's whether an agency like ML can give its word and stick to it. Or be transparent about its true intent ahead of time.

I suspect the residents wouldn't care about rare unusual events... they care about the normal schedule. Winning in court is not necessarily honourable. Offering full disclosure beforehand is. It's about trust.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Detour is likely up the Newmarket to Snider, then a reverse move similar to VIA's Canadian, then east to Doncaster and north.

I wonder if ML has considered this scenario in their promise to Davenport residents to only run x trains per day once the overpass is finished. Is there a caveat about "under normal conditions"?

- Paul

View attachment 115653

Two other options:

1. Up via the Weston sub and across Halton. Probably ruled out (by CN and/or Mx) due to potential conflicts with freight in and out of MacMillan Yard.
2. Short-turn all trains at Downsview Park. Probably would piss people off too much.

 

[dowlingm]

Two other options:

1. Up via the Weston sub and across Halton. Probably ruled out (by CN and/or Mx) due to potential conflicts with freight in and out of MacMillan Yard.
2. Short-turn all trains at Downsview Park. Probably would piss people off too much.

S/T at Caledonia would at least get people as far as Crosstown

 

[crs1026]

For the Richmond Hill service, added buses from Finch and Don Mills might be enough to handle the volume.

Kitchener trains have detoured across the Halton to Snider and down the Barrie line, as has VIA. Getting past Mac Yard really hasn't been a problem, although one long freight, especially a hot intermodal coming in or out of BIT, could certainly gum that up. The problem going around the bend at Halwest/Malport is that it's all yard track running under Rule 105 - ie no signals and hand thrown track switches that may not be lined for the route. The backup move at Snider is not that speedy but at least it is done with signal protection and controlled switches. When the cargo is people, that's a huge risk/safety difference even if operationally it's six of one half dozen of the other.

- Paul