Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

That's one individual though, and a bit of a crackpot sometimes. Long-term data shows we are no where near the levels of a few decades ago, despite the increase in population. I've not seen significant concerns from professionals. Compare to the Lake Simcoe watershed, where there ARE concerns.

Here's long-term data - we are well below 1970s levels, and it appears to have been relatively static for years.

View attachment 177091

Obviously more of a concern where there are local creeks, and such. But City of Toronto streets and sidewalks along Queens Quay aren't feeding local streams! So how is this relevant?

Pulling images without proper citation, tsk tsk. Let me quote that exact bit from Water Quality Ontario 2014:

The effects of chloride, urban growth and changes in climate on Great Lakes water quality

Other measures of water quality in the Great Lakes have also changed in response to multiple stressors. Long-term chloride data from Lake Ontario intakes provide an example of how land use changes and climate can affect water quality. The ministry currently monitors chloride in water as an indicator of the impacts of human land use, including the use of road salts, on water quality; in decades past, chloride was primarily attributed to industrial inputs. Road salts are mostly comprised of sodium chloride, which separates into its two components, sodium and chloride, when it comes into contact with water. Chloride, which is highly mobile in the environment, is the greater threat to aquatic life. Studies show that elevated concentrations of chloride can negatively affect the health of plants, animals and aquatic ecosystems and can contaminate sources of drinking water footnote vii [vii] .

Chloride levels peaked in Lake Ontario between the 1960s and 1970s and then decreased between the mid-1970s and 1995 (Figure 3c). These decreases reflect reductions in chloride loading following controls on industrial sources footnote viii [viii] .

However, chloride levels have been increasing in Lake Ontario since the mid-1990s. Increasing urbanization and associated use of road salt on many roads, parking lots and sidewalks is likely contributing to these increases footnote ix [ix] . Chloride levels are highest at the South Peel and Toronto sampling sites, which are intensely urban areas, further suggesting urban stormwater and runoff are driving increases in Lake Ontario.

---

No one is suggesting a total ban on road salt, and there are way to reduce salt use and achieve the same results - what's at issue is the excessive application of salt we have all seen before. And let's go back to the original point - road salt kills street trees, period.

AoD
 
Pulling images without proper citation, tsk tsk. Let me quote that exact bit from Water Quality Ontario 2014:

What do you mean? I just went back and checked my post, and the image is linked to https://www.ontario.ca/page/water-quality-ontario-2014-report

No one is suggesting a total ban on road salt, and there are way to reduce salt use and achieve the same results - what's at issue is the excessive application of salt we have all seen before. And let's go back to the original point - road salt kills street trees, period.
No one is suggesting a total ban on road salt ... but there's an uproar when I say we should minimize road salt use. How do we do more than minimizing road salt use without a total ban?

Meanwhile, it seems to me that the public isn't crying out about reducing road salt. What I see is people asking for better sidewalk clearing downtown. Surely that's going to make the salt issue worse - particularly for street trees.

Part of the problem is the selection of street trees. Urban forestry seems more concerned about picking trees native to Toronto, rather than trees that are good with road salt.

Of course, if we were restrict ourselves to species that were native to Toronto, we'd all have to move! That would solve the road salt issue! :)
 
Last edited:
[...]
New Hampshire was the first U.S. state to use rock salt (that is, sodium chloride) on its roads, and it’s ahead of the curve when it comes to moderating use of the stuff, although it hasn’t turned to licensing. Instead, the state’s Department of Environmental Services offers Green SnowPro training for snow removal contractors; those who take it are protected against liability to slip-and-fall claims.

“What we heard from the contractors is that it was very challenging for them to reduce given the liability concerns. One of the reasons they put down so much salt is to prevent liability in a slip-and-fall case,” says Ted Diers, administrator in the Department of Environmental Services’ water division. “What we did was we wrote a bill for our legislature that would give limited liability relief for people that have gone through our Green SnowPro training program.”

If someone slips on a parking lot full of salt drifts, it’d be tough to argue that the landowner had been negligent. But more visible salt doesn’t necessarily mean more safety — especially if temperatures are cold enough to render it ineffective (sodium chloride works only between 0 C and -7 C).

“Because putting salt down increases your safety, the assumption is that the more salt down, the more safety you’ll get — and that’s simply not true,” says Bill Thompson, manager of integrated watershed management with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. “There’s a point beyond which putting more salt down doesn’t actually increase safety. It’s a waste of money. It’s an impact on the environment. And in some cases, it may cause pavement to become slipperier ... When you’ve got really high amounts of salt on some sidewalks you feel like you’re walking on marbles.”

The conservation authority has worked with Smart About Salt — which began as a joint initiative between Landscape Ontario and the Region of Waterloo — to train some 200 area contractors in how to reduce their use of road salt safely. Thompson says the authority is also watching the New Hampshire situation closely, to see how well the legislation works. For now, though, it’s focused on education.

A major part of the solution, says Lee Gould, executive director of Smart About Salt, is to educate people about winter safety gear and change their attitudes toward snow and ice. Snow tires and boots with good traction, for example, make slippery surfaces safer — and undercut the expectation that pavement should be visible 365 days a year.

“There needs to be a lot of things that change. There needs to be a change in attitude and culture in terms of how we view winter so we’re taking the necessary precautions — snow tires, sensible footwear,” says Gould. “I think the expectation of having bare tarmac is unfortunate.”

I'm all for normalizing practices that save lives!
Like mandating winter tires perhaps, ya know, like Quebec does, the place where you "haven't lived for a while".
I'm aware of no significant salinity concerns in Lake Ontario
And the blind can't see. How salty is the see (sic)?
 
Like mandating winter tires perhaps, ya know, like Quebec does ...
When Quebec made that change, they said it wasn't related to reducing winter maintenance.

The claim I challenged when I entered this thread, was that they used less salt in Montreal than Toronto. Can someone back that up with data?
 
The claim I challenged when I entered this thread,
I quoted your initial claim for 'this time around'. You're doing what you always do, keep changing the claim for what you said. The record shows what you stated, which is why I quoted it. As I always do, since you're reaction is so predictable.

Even the National Pest gets it:
This winter, Calgary has expanded its use of beet juice as a de-icing alternative to road salt. While slightly more expensive than salt, the mixture is more efficient, less toxic and less corrosive.

Nevertheless, despite a galaxy of relatively benign de-icing agents such as beet juice, this year cities across Canada will stubbornly continue to coat their roads with literal mountains of salt. Although salt remains the single cheapest way to keep snow and ice at bay, the economics make much less sense when considering the awesome scale of the damage wrought every year by the salt truck.

Below is a repost of an article that first ran in January, 2017. Since it was originally published, road salt has dissolved hundreds of kilograms of automotive steel, chapped untold numbers of dog’s paws and done at least $5 billion damage to Canadian infrastructure.

It’s doing billions of dollars in damage to cars [...]











In 2015, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration pegged salt corrosion as the culprit in thousands of vehicle brake failures. That same year, Transport Canada issued a recall of 3,000 BMWs and Minis that had been parked at the Port of Halifax during the 2015 ice storm. But it wasn’t the ice that caused the recall; salt de-icing had damaged the vehicles so badly that they couldn’t steer properly. Way back in 1975, Transport Canada estimated that de-icing salts were causing $200 in damage per car, per year — the equivalent of $854 in 2017. Corrosion-resistant coatings have improved in the interim, but even when one-quarter that amount is applied to the roughly 14 million registered vehicles in Ontario and Quebec, the result is an extra $3 billion in vehicle depreciation each year.
 
What do you mean? I just went back and checked my post, and the image is linked to https://www.ontario.ca/page/water-quality-ontario-2014-report

No one is suggesting a total band on road salt, but there's an uproar when I say we should minimize road salt use. How do we do more than minimizing road salt use without a total ban?

Meanwhile, it seems to me that the public isn't crying out about reducing road salt. What I see is people asking for better sidewalk clearing downtown. Surely that's going to make the salt issue worse - particularly for street trees.

Part of the problem is the selection of street trees. Urban forestry seems more concerned about picking trees native to Toronto, rather than trees that are good with road salt.

Of course, if we were restrict ourselves to species that were native to Toronto, we'd all have to move! That would solve the road salt issue.

As the resident expert on trees here..........you stand corrected, again.

There is only one salt-resilient species removed from the street tree planting list, and that is Norway Maple, which has been removed due to being non-native and highly invasive.

Several species on the list, that are native are also relatively salt tolerant, such as Silver Maple, White Oak, Red Oak, Bur Oak and American Elm.

Of native species only a few are highly intolerant of salt, Sugar Maple and Basswood would be the most notable.

The natives that are fairly salt tolerant that we don't use as street trees include White Spruce which is an excellent performer; as well as Red and White Cedar. The City has a long standing policy against using
conifers as street trees. I happen to disagree with this as an over-arching policy and would like to see greater selective use; but that's not my call.

White Spruce is at the southern limit of its range in Toronto, however, which may pose a problem with climate change.

Resource Sheet here from Wellington County:

 
Last edited:
I quoted your initial claim for 'this time around'.
? No you didn't. My first words were "Montreal less salt consumption? I'd be surprised ... What's the source for that?".

What's the source for that?

You quoted the comment I made that I wasn't aware of significant salinity concerns. While people keep focusing on that part of my comment, I've seen no response to the only question I asked in that post!

As the resident expert on trees here..........you stand corrected, again.

There is only one salt-resilient species removed from the street tree planting list, and that is Norway Maple, which has been removed due to being non-native and highly invasive.
I wasn't incorrect there. It was the Norway Maple I was thinking of, which we've discussed before.

It's a beautiful tree for Toronto - and personally I've been planting them when I can. Though not along Queens Quay!
 
Last edited:
It's a beautiful tree for Toronto - and personally I've been planting them when I can. Though not along Queens Quay!

You are aware that it adversely impacts biodiversity? It also increases erosion as virtually nothing grows underneath it, leaving bare soil.

The City actually has a program to remove it.

Meaning your actions are contributing to increased costs for the City which we all have to bear.

Norway Maple is very deleterious to the local environment.

Aesthetically, I'm not all that keen on it either, its form, in the open is ball-on-a-stick.

It doesn't allow any light through its canopy, and its leaves are prone to tar-spot.

From Morton Arboretum:

 
You are aware that it adversely impacts biodiversity? It also increases erosion as virtually nothing grows underneath it, leaving bare soil.

The City actually has a program to remove it.
Yes!

I've got some seedlings, if you'd like!

I've tried planting 4 trees from the approved list. Two died, one was doing beautifully for ten years, but is now dying, and the fourth has always struggled.

Meanwhile the self-seeding Norway maples are doing great.

The neighbourhood was all Norway maples and White (I think) Oaks when I moved in. Perhaps because they are the only ones that survive?

The kids have been growing some White Oak seedlings ... perhaps we should plant one of those ...
 
Last edited:
The Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) is a native tree and would be a better tree. Except for the sugary sap that appears in the early spring through damaging cuts caused by some humans.

Sugars are a great tree; however, they aren't overly keen on salt.

For this application, I would suggest Silver Maple Acer saccharinum or its most common clone hybrid Acer freeman.
 
Maybe one of these 22 trees could be tapped for sap and syrup. From link.

As winter wanes and spring approaches, wild foodists all across North America tap into the time-honored tradition of sugar production – mainly, the transformation of maple tree sap into maple syrup and sugar. This process, passed on from the Native Americans to the early settlers, is still quite popular today, and is responsible for one of the few wild foods that can be purchased commercially in most supermarkets.

Most people associate syrup with the maple tree, and although much of today’s syrup does originate from the sugar maple, all species of maple can be tapped. Even better, many other trees from other genera can be tapped to extract sap, which ultimately can be turned into delicious syrup.

In this post, I won’t be discussing the methods involved in tapping for sugar production. If you are unfamiliar with the process, there are a variety of great websites, videos, and books to guide you. Rather, I would like to provide a list of various trees (maples, birches, walnuts, etc.) that you can tap successfully to yield wonderful, sugary products.

Now… before we get started, I’m wondering if you’re the kind of person who would rather watch a video than read a blog post. If that’s you, check out this recent video I created. In it, I discuss how to properly identify 4 trees — including 2 maple and 2 birch — that you can tap for sap and syrup production.

Sugar maple (Acer saccharum)
The sugar maple yields the highest volume and concentration of sap, making it a superior candidate for tapping. Its sugar content is approximately 2.0%.


Black maple (Acer nigrum)
Black maples produce as much sweet sap as sugar maples. The trees closely resemble sugar maples and can be distinguished by their leaves. Black maples tend to have leaves with three major lobes, while leaves from sugar maples have five lobes.


Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Sap yields from red maples are generally lower than those from sugar maples, although some tapping operations utilize only red maples. The trees bud out earlier in the spring, which may reduce syrup quality near the end of sugaring season.


Silver maple (Acer saccharinum)
Like red maples, silver maples bud out earlier in the spring and have a lower sugar content than sugar maples (1.7% compared to 2.0%).


Norway maple (Acer platanoides)
Native to Europe, Norway maples are now considered invasive throughout much of the United Sates. They are not as sweet as sugar maples, yet can be tapped regardless.


Boxelder (Acer negundo)
Also known as Manitoba maple, boxelders can be found growing in urban areas and along roadsides. They’re not recommended as a first choice for sugar production, although maple producers in the Canadian prairies rely almost exclusively on boxelders for their sap. Research suggests that boxelders may yield only half the syrup of typical sugar maples.


Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
Bigleaf maple is the main species of maple growing between central California and British Columbia. Native Americans have tapped these trees for centuries, and although the sugar content and sap flow are less than those from sugar maples, these trees can still provide a commercially viable source of syrup for the Pacific Coast.


Canyon maple, big tooth maple (Acer grandidentatum)
These trees are found primarily throughout the Rocky Mountain states. They also grow in Texas, where they are referred to as Uvalde bigtooth maples. The sugar content is comparable to that of sugar maples, but the volume produced is much less.


Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum)
Rocky Mountain maples are native to western North America, and have been used traditionally by various groups, including the Plateau Natives.


Gorosoe (Acer mono)
Gorosoe, which translates to “The tree that is good for the bones,” is the most commonly tapped maple tree in Korea. The sap is usually consumed fresh as a beverage, and not boiled down to a syrup.


Butternut, white walnut (Juglans cinerea)
The butternut produces a sap that yields roughly 2% sugar – similar to sugar maples. The timing and total volume of sap are also comparable to sugar maples.


Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
The black walnut tree is a valuable timber species, whose sap flows in autumn, winter, and spring. It is more common in the Midwest than in the Northeastern United States.


Heartnut (Juglans ailantifolia)
A cultivar of Japanese walnuts, heartnuts have sugar contents comparable to sugar maples, but produce much less sap.


English walnut (Juglans regia)
These are the walnuts commonly eaten and purchased from supermarkets. They are not typically found in the Eastern United States, but rather are grown most abundantly in California. English walnut trees can be tapped successfully, especially when subjected to a freezing winter and spring.


Paper birch (Betula papyrifera)
The paper birch has a lower sugar content than sugar maple (less than 1%), but is the sweetest of the birch trees.


Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)
The yellow birch tree has been found to have a higher mineral composition, lower sugar content, and a higher ORAC value (measure of antioxidant capacity) than sugar maple.


Black birch (Betula lenta)
Native to eastern North America, black birch is most popular for its use in making birch beer. And, as this list suggests, the black birch can be tapped.


River birch (Betula nigra)
Found growing abundantly in the southeastern United States, and planted as an ornamental in the Northeast, the river birch can successfully be tapped.


Gray birch (Betula populifolia)
Gray birch is more of a shrub than a tree, but may be tapped if it grows large enough.


European white birch (Betula pendula)
Native to Europe, and grown as an ornamental in urban and suburban areas of the United States, European white birch can be tapped.


Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Native to North America, the sycamore tree has a lower sugar content than sugar maple, yet is reported to produce a syrup that exudes a butterscotch flavor.


Ironwood, hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana)
These trees produce a sap later in the spring, although the sugar content and volume are much less than those from birch trees.


And there you have it – a list of 22 trees that can be tapped. This is by no means an exhaustive list, as other trees surely produce a sap that can be extracted through tapping. It is, however, a good representation of the most commonly tapped trees, including those that have been used traditionally for centuries, and some that are just recently gaining in popularity.


If you are fortunate to have access to any of the aforementioned trees – and the trees are healthy – explore the traditional art of sugar production by learning and participating in this beautiful craft.
 
Sugars are a great tree; however, they aren't overly keen on salt.
Someone planted a red maple near my backyard, that I see struggle after salty years (the city applies the salt in the adjacent laneway). Meanwhile the self-seeding Norway maples and Siberian elms (or something like that - now that's an ugly weed tree) do well.
 
Last edited:
Someone planted a red maple near my backyard, that I see struggle after salty years (the city applies the sale in the adjacent laneway). Meanwhile the self-seeding Norway maples and Siberian elms (or something like that - now that's an ugly weed tree) do well.

Norways were planted for their salt tolerance. That is their clear beneficial feature. It's only in decades subsequent to its introduction that we've come to understand the negative trade off that was made.

There are an excellent range of salt tolerant choices, both among natives and some non-invasive ornamentals.

Red Maples are not a good choice in Toronto, they aren't very urban tolerant at all. They hate compaction and aren't keen on salt or urban air quality. They sometimes do well, in better conditions in the the City (think high quality ravine lot) but generally I would not recommend them for street trees.
 

Back
Top