Toronto GO Transit: Davenport Diamond Grade Separation | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

I see they are adamant about not bringing the Dupont St underpass up to grade. Don't know what the residents feel, but it's a mistake IMHO.

The rendering of the crossing over CP is laughable for the amount of green space it suggests.

I don't mind the reflective finish, although not my first choice. It will definitely be annoying if it reflects into peoples' windows or yards, but at least with the sun moving the point of glare may move along quickly.

They did a much better job this time of including the electrification details, to give a truer picture of what it will look like.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I see they are adamant about not bringing the Dupont St underpass up to grade. Don't know what the residents feel, but it's a mistake IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yeah it would be ridiculous if they don't fill in the underpass. Just look at these older conceptual rendering.


Screen shot 2015-10-05 at 1.17.31 AM.png


Screen shot 2015-10-05 at 1.17.44 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2015-10-05 at 1.17.31 AM.png
    Screen shot 2015-10-05 at 1.17.31 AM.png
    1 MB · Views: 473
  • Screen shot 2015-10-05 at 1.17.44 AM.png
    Screen shot 2015-10-05 at 1.17.44 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 420
Regarding leaving the Dupont underpass: Metrolinx has stated that it's not up to them to bring Dupont back up to grade, as it was initially a City project to create those underpasses (back around 1925!) so it's up to the City to do the work to fill them back if if desired.

I have mixed thoughts on that anyway:
1) Is it even possible now with the way the new and planned developments connect to Dupont?
2) The south side sidewalk is planned to come up to grade to meet the new trail on the old overpass. So for pedestrians (and maybe eastbound cyclists?) it won't be necessary to go under.
3) If they re-grade Dupont and get rid of the old overpass, then the trail will not connect. And there's no way there would be a new traffic light or crosswalk installed there, especially now that there's the new light for the Metro / condos between the underpass and Lansdowne.

Would be different if the rail line was built as a tunnel/underpass, obviously...
 
Why even bring it back up? You'd end up with less height (and more psychological weight) from the rail bridge, which isn't desirable. Plus when the surrounding properties get redeveloped you can push the sidewalk downward to street level and let the new developments handle the slope.

AoD
 
I like the idea of the old rail bridge letting the trail cross the street without an intersection. It's the limit this places on the pedestrian spaces that is unfortunate.
Since it would not have to bear automobile weight, perhaps it would be possible to cover over more of the roadway or to widen sidewalks or create a full "park".

- Paul
 
salsa said:
Yeah it would be ridiculous if they don't fill in the underpass. Just look at these older conceptual rendering.
Click to expand...

If they removed the current bridge the NIMBY's would have tried to argue its a heritage feature and would try to stop it. It is from the '20's.

At least I hope that the pedestrian/cycle track on Dupont is elevated up to the rail height on both sides of the street. Have the underpass for vehicles only.
 
muller877 said:
If they removed the current bridge the NIMBY's would have tried to argue its a heritage feature and would try to stop it. It is from the '20's.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what's the overall opinion of the residents on this, but I remember during the Jane's Walk that several of them were upset when they heard the underpass would not be filled. One of them kept shouting "unacceptable!"
 
This is one location bring the road backup to grade would be very costly and have major impact on new development to the point you leave it as is.

Unless you plan closing the road while the infill takes place, you will have to built a shoring wall in the centre to hold the infill in place while keeping traffic moving. It will take twice as long doing this than closing the road 100%. They you are forcing pedestrians on a long walkabout as the sidewalks will have to be close to them as well if the road is close 100% and no way around it without longer construction time frame. You can leave a sidewalk open, but back filling will have to slop to the existing sidewalk while the new one is being built. You would open that new sidewalk ASP so you can close the open one to finish the back filling as well building the new sidewalk and the rest of the new road.

Filling in any of these road is the responsibility of the city since they own them.

I am lost why people would say not acceptable for the sidewalks as is, since the slop is very short in the first place and never had any issues walking it, other than the ice from the bridge.

I should note that if the road is brought up to grade, the hydro wires would have to be bury since the clearance would be an issues
 
I find it hard to believe that the mirrors are in line with the City's bird friendly design guidelines.

I guess that they do not need to conform because it is a Metrolinx transit project?
 
Here's my take on Dupont
  • get rid of the old bridge
  • install a replacement pedestrian overpass not requiring a central support, preferably a thinner deck so as to ease the current height restriction*. Ideally, this new overpass would permit ramp and stairs access from the overpass level to the sidewalk level as well.
  • delete the middle lane exclusion now that there is nothing to dodge, move the lanes closer together, widen slightly.
  • raise the cycle lane to the footpath level - possibly raise the level of the combined path a touch. Move the railings from the property lines to the outside edge of the cycle path with a small wall/suitable drainage arrangements to contain snow cleared from cycle lane - if the overpass deck could not span the full width of Dupont then this could be where a support pillar either side could go.
  • bury the hydro wires
Apart from drivers wanting to illegally park in the cycle lanes, everyone's a winner. Yes, it's more money, and the City should pay it. Given all the changes Metrolinx has made on their end, it's a valid contribution and a noticeable difference in the perception of the area.

* Question: would demolition and replacement require a minimum clearance where the current 4.2m is grandfathered?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top