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

AlvinofDiaspar said:
They can use polycarbonate panels for that. Better yet, coloured polycarbonate panels (in different shades of green, or go full on colour mode as a public art piece)

AoD
Click to expand...

The clear panels along the West Toronto Railpath have been a bit of a disaster so far. Cycles of graffiti and cleaning are already turning them into hazy looking mush. Plus at least one has been smashed.
 
Interesting tidbits that I found in the report - the alternatives of a trench and a raised earthen structure both place a limit of 2 tracks on the Newmarket Sub, where the guideway option would provide for a potential 3rd track at a later date. The raised options will provide enough clearance for the CP line to be widened to four tracks. Both points provide an interesting insight into the scenarios that ML envisions.


- Paul
 
It looks like there will be room for a narrow linear park alongside the two-track flyover structure from Paton Street to Davenport Road, with the old overpass at Dupont retained. There's a great opportunity for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the CP North Toronto Sub alongside the GO flyover, connecting the conceptual Green Line with the Railpath.
 
ShonTron said:
It looks like there will be room for a narrow linear park alongside the two-track flyover structure from Paton Street to Davenport Road, with the old overpass at Dupont retained. There's a great opportunity for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the CP North Toronto Sub alongside the GO flyover, connecting the conceptual Green Line with the Railpath.
Click to expand...

It would be really great if something like this could be done. The one fly in the ointment would be if they do go to three tracks, which is one of the pro's for an elevated approach.

I wonder if they could still (at minimum) maintain a bike path.

The video shows the center of the elevated section riding on pilings (as opposed to the solid fill structure at the ends). The challenge will be to make the spaces underneath the elevated parts welcoming and safe. We don't need another Gardiner - and it can't just end up as a sheltering place for the homeless etc. It needs to feel open and secure.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
The video shows the center of the elevated section riding on pilings (as opposed to the solid fill structure at the ends). The challenge will be to make the spaces underneath the elevated parts welcoming and safe. We don't need another Gardiner - and it can't just end up as a sheltering place for the homeless etc. It needs to feel open and secure.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think there is much reason to fret. 2 tracks on pilings ≠ 6 lanes and multiple ramps on multiple columns.
 
Unlike the Gardiner most of the traffic passing overhead (with the exception of VIA Canadian northbound and maybe a Richmond Hill diversion) should ultimately be electric, so a bit quieter, cleaner. Those near the diamond will also presumably not miss the sounds of trains passing over it.
 
ShonTron said:
It looks like there will be room for a narrow linear park alongside the two-track flyover structure from Paton Street to Davenport Road, with the old overpass at Dupont retained. There's a great opportunity for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the CP North Toronto Sub alongside the GO flyover, connecting the conceptual Green Line with the Railpath.
Click to expand...
I think the pedestrian/cyclist path is an absolute must. It's utterly silly to leave out such beneficial and useful infrastructure from any project like this going forward. A little forward-thinking now will save a lot in the future.
 
So given that the TPAP has now been delayed (again), does this impact the date Metrolinx wanted to have RER/electrification on the GO Barrie line operational?
 
''Councillor Ana Bailou says a tunnel would meet more city-building principles.''

Yeah and it will also cost four times as much. Why don't you tell the city to cough up the money if they want a tunnel...
 
Towered said:
There's no way they're going to build a tunnel.
Click to expand...

Why not? I support elevated solutions such as this, but I don't see why building a tunnel here is so ludicrous (considering worse precedents have been set). As we speak we have deep bore heavy rail being built below fields, transmission lines, and a toll highway - where the nearest resident is 1,500m away. Not to mention that said project never had a BCA issued by the Prov. We also have +1000 pages on this forum from posters who believe we should never build anything elevated ever.

So why is it so logical for elevated to be built in this instance (rhetorically speaking, considering I support this move and wish we did it for certain past projects and certain subsequent ones)?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top