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

[ShonTron]

This makes no sense to me. The city certainly did have a plan for the Richview corridor, it was called Phase 2 of the Eglinton LRT.

Phase 2 of Eglinton LRT was going to be a median LRT alignment, which did not require the Richview corridor lands. But the bright minds (Dr. Eric Miller et al.) that came up with SmartTrack thought the land was still there because they looked at outdated Google images, rather than actually double-check the lay of the land. They also thought, and wrote in the preliminary SmartTrack documents, that the land was owned by the province. These are the people who did little more than come up with their own transit fantasy map, destroyed the momentum for the Downtown Relief Line.

 

[aquateam]

This makes no sense to me. The city certainly did have a plan for the Richview corridor, it was called Phase 2 of the Eglinton LRT. Why Rob Ford was permitted to sell it is a mystery to me, but it is not because of a lack of foresight -- something more nefarious, surely.

The city kept a narrow strip for road widening for if a centre LRT were built, so it's not as though the selling off prevents the LRT extension. But they are now very limited in their options with the land gone.

 

[CDL.TO]

This makes no sense to me. The city certainly did have a plan for the Richview corridor, it was called Phase 2 of the Eglinton LRT. Why Rob Ford was permitted to sell it is a mystery to me, but it is not because of a lack of foresight -- something more nefarious, surely.

That simply is not true. The plans for ECLRT Phase 2 has the line running in the street median, just like the Transit City standard. The lands they sold off had no impact on ECLRT as it was planned at that point in time. But plans can change.

The notion that the Leaside spur could have been made into an active rail line again is preposterous. Have you seen how close it is to people's backyards? It was hard enough to beat the NIMBYs to put in a pathway. A double track railway was simply not on, ever.

Even a single track could have seen potential use. The NIMBYs would have had no leg to stand on if it had been maintained for future transportation use.

Your idea is that we should deny people use of these corridors for 50 years because of the faint chance we will then want to build a rail line. How about put them to good use now, and if later they are better used for another purpose, let people in the future decide that.

Experience shows us that once it's gone, it's gone, and it's not coming back.

I'd use a path if they put one in. From a self-serving perspective, a path would certainly be more beneficial to me. But the planner in me says it's a bad idea that will be regretted in the long run.

 

[k10ery]

Even a single track could have seen potential use. The NIMBYs would have had no leg to stand on if it had been maintained for future transportation use.

...

Experience shows us that once it's gone, it's gone, and it's not coming back.

Examples? Here's a giant counterexample for you: to expand the Georgetown rail corridor, Metrolinx clearcut all the vegetation along the West Torobnto Railpath parkland, they are installing noise walls that were not part of the plan, and they have effectively cancelled the Phase 2 extension, forcing the path to detour into city streets. The all-powerful cyclist lobby did not seem to be able to stop that one.

Of course, when the NIMBYs are opposed for other reasons, they will cite impacts on parkland as part of their opposition. But parkland never stopped a big project like this on its own.

To me personally, it is crazy to say we should do nothing with land for 50 years, just because this MIGHT lessen political opposition to a future development. Parkland uses are easily reversible. Far more opposition if the land is released to thwe private sector and actually built on, like with the Richview corridor.

Another example: If Moccasin Trail park has been expanded to the south, instead of that new subdivision being built, we would now be talking about building a short length of track through it linking Bala Subdivision to Belleville Subdivision (hope I have those names right). Then we could straighten out the Richmond Hill line at a very low cost, without worrying about the highly impractical Leaside Spur!

 

[jcam]

Toronto didn't have any plans for the Richview corridor lands, so they sold them off. Now anyone who supports either a grade-separated ECLRT extension or SmartTrack is cursing that decision.

Just to be clear, when selling off the land for development, the City maintained a RoW wide enough to maintain traffic lanes while adding LRT trackage down the middle. I recall seeing the wording on the site plan drawings at the time of the sale.

 

[CDL.TO]

Examples? Here's a giant counterexample for you: to expand the Georgetown rail corridor, Metrolinx clearcut all the vegetation along the West Torobnto Railpath parkland, they are installing noise walls that were not part of the plan, and they have effectively cancelled the Phase 2 extension, forcing the path to detour into city streets. The all-powerful cyclist lobby did not seem to be able to stop that one

So in the first example they did not actually remove the trail after it had been installed, so that's moot, and in the second example nothing was actually built, so that is moot as well.

I think there is a way to strike a balance, BTW. I think the key is simply communication. It can be as simple as posting signs stating that the trail should be considered to be temporary and that the land is designated for future transportation infrastructure.

I still disagree about the ease of removing an amenity like a pathway in order to build a transportation corridor, but that remains to be seen.

 

[CDL.TO]

Just to be clear, when selling off the land for development, the City maintained a RoW wide enough to maintain traffic lanes while adding LRT trackage down the middle. I recall seeing the wording on the site plan drawings at the time of the sale.

That's why I said "grade-separated".

 

[drum118]

According to Metrolinx, they have no plans to triple track this corridor. What people maybe thinking about is the plan 2010 EA that called for the existing line remaining in place for CN use and the double track elevated. Since CN has no needs or require access south of Finch now, only 2 tracks are plan for this corridor.

The Resident Group is split on the what should go here with the ones and others at Tuesday night meeting calling for the subway option to be on the table being the most vocal at the meeting. They even put the MP, MPP and the ward Councilor on the spot by demanding why they not prepare to support their position on the subway option regardless of the cost and the disruption time.

Most people including members of the Resident Group were willing to live with the elevated plan so long there are sound walls and something looks better than what at the airport.

I and the group support the idea of having a station at Bloor to the point TTC has it already on their plans. I have call for a platform supporting 5 cars long only and the station not being man. As we move into the RER ages, running 10-12 will mostly happen at peak time, if that. You can do what takes place today when haft a platform is out of service for the 10-12 cars trains with short platforms. There needs to be more stations on all lines like I have being calling for since 2007 that are smaller with no parking to service a different type of service for them and the system with RER now doing that role.

My question to my table is which project are you prepare to be cut to fund this tunnel and how do you want to compensate TTC riders for longer travel time when roads are closed off for building the cut fill tunnels under their current route? Why should X project be cut when it offer more bang for the buck than this project? Bloor Subway will have the same issue as the Eglinton Crosstown Line for Spadina & Yonge for a tunnel under it.

My position is, you bought your place next to a rail corridor and therefore you have accepted the noise factor regardless if at grade or elevated. Land value will not go down because this line is elevated.

More east-west walkways are needed once the elevation is done. Because the grade starting north of Bloor, a road will remain close like its is today, but must have a walkway tunnel through the retaining wall.

Know a few Metrolinx staff who are looking after this project as they worked on the Georgetown line.

There is enough room on the west side of the current track to build elevated line, but will have an impact on the hourly service plan for 2017, as that is when construction will start and take up to 2 years to built it.

There is money being funded for public space, but how much is still unknown.

Someone call for the continue of the RailPath over the Barrie corridor south of Dundas as being part of the corridor upgrading funds. Also to take the pathway for this corridor under CP tracks and up to Davenport. Need a tunnel under CP track and it will have to be push under the tracks without interfering with CP service.

 

[CDL.TO]

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but when people say "[organization] has no plans to do [idea]" to discredit an idea, it shows a lack of understanding a lack of understanding of good planning. Planning timeframes are limited to a few decades, at best, and, for better or worse, are highly influenced by politics. Short and medium term planning, which is what people are referring to when they say "there is no plan to do this", is different from long term contingency planning. I think Metrolinx does good work, but we need to understand what their processes are actually like. They are a short- and medium-term focussed organization. That's their job.

And sometimes, even medium-term is questionable due to those aforementioned political influences. If you asked Metrolinx two years ago whether the RER concept (as currently described) was planned, they would have said no ("but we're considering it and it needs further study"). If you asked Metrolinx five years ago if electrification was planned, they would have said no ("but we're considering it and it needs further study").

It's impossible to know what the future will look like. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." But that doesn't mean it's not necessary or worthwhile.

So how does this relate to the Davenport Diamond issue? Because even though a third or fourth track aren't planned at this time, there's still good reason to believe that they might be needed in the future. Why? Because that's how every single rail corridor in Toronto, in Canada, in the world evolves. Increased demand -> need for more capacity, such as more tracks being needed. High demand for longer-distance trips (such as Barrie) -> need for more tracks to separate express and local trains. This is what happened on Lakeshore over the past few decades. This is what happened on the Georgetown corridor over the past few years. With the level of planned development around the Barrie corridor (for one, consider the land that is within the growth boundary), it's not unrealistic to think that this WILL happen to the Barrie corridor in the future.

Look, it's fine to say that something isn't planned at this point in time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider longer term needs or that it's OK to plan things in such as way that precludes potential expansion.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Indeed - at the very least, any plans should not preclude the future possibility of adding additional track (and in the ideal situation, should be designed for it). It's simple foresight - and if planners can't do that, what's the point of planning in the first place?

AoD

 

[k10ery]

Indeed - at the very least, any plans should not preclude the future possibility of adding additional track (and in the ideal situation, should be designed for it). It's simple foresight - and if planners can't do that, what's the point of planning in the first place?

AoD

Exactly. Build a linear park beside the viaduct. If in 50 years more tracks are required then build a second viaduct in the park. If planners can't figure out when not to build 50 years too early, then what's the point of planning in the first place?

 

[Allandale25]

Was there a presentation or display boards at the May 12th public meeting? I can't seem to find them if they were put online. Thanks in advance if you're able to post any links!

 

[mdrejhon]

I am curious about the display boards if they already "protected" a ROW for expansion in the 22nd century. Or by then, they will bury it -- the viaduct does have a lifespan.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Was there a presentation or display boards at the May 12th public meeting? I can't seem to find them if they were put online. Thanks in advance if you're able to post any links!

There is usually a bit of a delay - it will probably be available on the previously posted site (link: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/inthecommunity/davenportpanel/default.aspx)

AoD

 

[drum118]

There were boards, but nothing to write home about. Since this early stage with the EA not officially getting under way until the fall, there will be another meeting in June and Sept, but June not a given.

There are 2 more meetings for the Residents panel as well having everything done to date in a written report. There is no protection noted on any boards I saw, then I didn't read every one.

None of the boards shows how the corridor will look like as well the elevated design, as that will happen after all the feed back from the panel as will Tues and possible June meeting. The boards and meeting were broken down into areas for the project as what the public saw that could happen or should happen to them.

I can say 100% that any tunnel plan will show it starting as the line coming off the Weston Sub and surfacing north of St Clair. You will have to add $70 million per station on top of the tunnel cost for Bloor and St Clair. Bloor could be higher. Who backyard will have the exhaust events for the tunnel as that will not set well for the residents around that area??

As for planning long range for a 3rd track, I can't see the need for one at all even if you get service down to 10 minutes. This line will only have a 3 car DD EMU since there will be no high ridership for more cars for off peak service both inside and outside Toronto. You can get away with 5 car trains at peak time to Barrie once you go to 15 minutes at best.

Even if you add stations at Lawrence and Steeles or Finch, you have enough track space to run different types of service on those lines. Even in Europe, they use 1 or 2 tracks outside the core area with longer headways than plan here that have higher ridership than here come 2031. As noted before, if a 3rd is require, it can be built onto the exist structure that will have a 75 year life cycle like a tunnel.