News   Apr 18, 2024
News Roundup for April 18, 2024
 214     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Layered
 536     0 
News   Apr 17, 2024
Sustainability Month: The Combined Power of Bike + Subway + RER
 1.9K     0 

Scarborough Waterfront Project (?, ?, TRCA)

E

Eug

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
52
Location
Toronto
I didn't see this mentioned anywhere. I am not sure if this the best sub-forum for this topic, but it seems as good as any. Mods, feel free to move this where you think this is most appropriate.

Scarborough Waterfront Project

190029.jpg


Project Brief (PDF)

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to create a new waterfront park along the Lake Ontario shoreline from Bluffer's Park to East Point Park in Toronto, Ontario. The purpose of the project is the creation of a destination park featuring a system of linked scenic landscapes both along the top of the bluffs and at the water's edge integrating shoreline regeneration, public access and safety, and natural heritage. The first step in the process is to produce and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. The Terms of Reference sets out the framework and work plan for addressing the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, including alternatives that will be considered and the public consultation activities that will be carried out. A key component of developing the Terms of Reference will be public consultation, providing opportunities for members of the general public (including, affected stakeholders, public interest groups and any other interested parties) to learn about and provide input on the proposed project, environmental assessment process, development of the ToR and studies to be undertaken.

---

Basically, this is an initiative by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to link up the paths and spruce up the parks where necessary, on the top of the cliffs and along the shoreline, from Bluffer's Park (in Cliffside-Cliffcrest, Brimley Ave) to East Point Park (Manse Valley (east of Guildwood), east of Morningside Ave).

Obviously it's still very, very early in the process, but it's a good start. We'll see how all this progresses.
 
Last edited:
I would really like to see a paved bike path get build along the bottom of the bluffs, similar to the new waterfront path in the Port Union area. For now it can go from Highland creek to Bluffers Park, but in the long term it would be nice to have it extend all the way to the beaches. I think that would be spectacular. How feasible is it?
 
Re: Paved path:

1. In some spots a paved path would be problematic unless they really built up the base for the area. However, they have done that in the past to protect the bluffs as junctionist mentioned, so that could work provided there is enough money. I'm guessing a lot more money would be required however. But that's just a guess.

2. There might be a lot of opposition to it by the locals. I live in the area and personally would support it, but I know that a lot of people in my area vehemently oppose paved trails. They support maintained hiking trails, but paved trails are too much for them. I think they feel that paved trails would bring too many fast bikers and other Toronto "tourists", and would make their morning walks with their dogs (who incidentally are usually off-leash) less enjoyable. It's as if they feel those hiking trails are almost their own private local spots, and don't want too many "outsiders" clogging it up. I too liking hiking on those mostly empty trails, but I personally might actually use it more though if it were paved. It certainly would make pushing a baby carriage a heluvalot easier.
 
Last edited:
Eug said:
Re: Paved path:

1. In some spots a paved path would be problematic unless they really built up the base for the area. However, they have done that in the past to protect the bluffs as junctionist mentioned, so that could work provided there is enough money. I'm guessing a lot more money would be required however. But that's just a guess.

2. There might be a lot of opposition to it by the locals. I live in the area and personally would support it, but I know that a lot of people in my area vehemently oppose paved trails. They support maintained hiking trails, but paved trails are too much for them. I think they feel that paved trails would bring too many fast bikers and other Toronto "tourists", and would make their morning walks with their dogs (who incidentally are usually off-leash) less enjoyable. It's as if they feel those hiking trails are almost their own private local spots, and don't want too many "outsiders" clogging it up. I too liking hiking on those mostly empty trails, but I personally might actually use it more though if it were paved. It certainly would make pushing a baby carriage a heluvalot easier.
Click to expand...

I remember a little while back, residents of Chine Drive south of Kingston were all worked up because the city wanted to put sidewalks in. I really don't get why this was an issue since I like sidewalks since cars can't drive up on them. It's really hard walking in parts of southwest Scarborough, especially in winter, because many of the areas don't have sidewalks. The neighbourhood north of Kingston between Bellamy and a bit west of McCowan has no sidewalks at all.

I know there was opposition to paving part of the "park" at the bottom of Chine Drive. It is mostly used by people and their off leash dogs. I'd prefer not to have it paved.

As far as this proposed bike path, I think it's a good idea. I hope it's feasible.
 
Great idea - one would think it falls under WT's jurisdiction as well. In any case, sounds like NIMBYism might rear its' ugly head again.

AoD
 
EagleEye said:
I remember a little while back, residents of Chine Drive south of Kingston were all worked up because the city wanted to put sidewalks in. I really don't get why this was an issue since I like sidewalks since cars can't drive up on them. It's really hard walking in parts of southwest Scarborough, especially in winter, because many of the areas don't have sidewalks. The neighbourhood north of Kingston between Bellamy and a bit west of McCowan has no sidewalks at all.

I know there was opposition to paving part of the "park" at the bottom of Chine Drive. It is mostly used by people and their off leash dogs. I'd prefer not to have it paved.

As far as this proposed bike path, I think it's a good idea. I hope it's feasible.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, they're putting sidewalks on Chine Drive now. The unfortunate death of a young girl nearby in an accident with a garbage truck may have softened the stance of some of the local residents.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...ncil-approves-single-sidewalk-on-chine-drive/

In that same article they say that the a granular path in part of Scarborough Bluffs Park connecting the path to Brimley has officially been scrapped by the city. That's too bad because it would have made it easier to hike since after a rain it gets really muddy. Ironically it might have made it harder to bike, because bikers hate gravel.

Anyhoo, I hope they put more signs up at least, to help people navigate those paths, as it is part of the Waterfront Trail already.
 
Last edited:
Most rail trails are crushed gravel. As long as it's maintained, mountain bikes and hybrids can easily cycle on such trails (when not groomed, soft and deep stone can catch wheels). It does keep out most road/racing bikes though - those riders stick to hard surfaces such as asphalt when possible. I'm fine with biking on good crushed stone trails and do it all the time.
 
salsa said:
I would really like to see a paved bike path get build along the bottom of the bluffs, similar to the new waterfront path in the Port Union area. For now it can go from Highland creek to Bluffers Park, but in the long term it would be nice to have it extend all the way to the beaches. I think that would be spectacular. How feasible is it?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing most of this 70 mill is for the 'ends' of this plan since there already is a continuous gravel bike/walking path down there from basically, just west of Bellamy to Morningside. They need to meet the east side up with port union to connect that side. On the west side, they're only about 100-200 metres short of connecting this path to Bluffers park - why they didn't do this in the first place still confuses me, they just finished extending the erosion control down there, but stopped short of connecting it to Bluffer's park.

Almost everything west of Bluffers to RC Harris would need to be redone to connect to the beaches.

East of Brimley, I highly doubt NIMBYism would come into play, unless it's being paved. The locals would accept gravel (as it is now), but would fight against it being paved.

West of Brimley I could see more NIMBYism, especially just east of RC Harris, some Fallingbrook Dr (&Cr) residents have views or access to the lake currently and would more than likely fight this.
 
ShonTron said:
Most rail trails are crushed gravel. As long as it's maintained, mountain bikes and hybrids can easily cycle on such trails (when not groomed, soft and deep stone can catch wheels). It does keep out most road/racing bikes though - those riders stick to hard surfaces such as asphalt when possible. I'm fine with biking on good crushed stone trails and do it all the time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it depends how packed and groomed it is. The loose gravel trails will keep out even mountain bikers, but you're right that probably the city would never do that as it's kinda hard to hike too. A tightly packed and well-groomed crushed rock trail would be reasonably easy for even a hybrid.

Thanks for the clarification.

I guess that's what the locals were fighting when they opposed the trail to Brimley. Too bad, as I would have liked such a trail.

junior43 said:
I'm guessing most of this 70 mill is for the 'ends' of this plan since there already is a continuous gravel bike/walking path down there from basically, just west of Bellamy to Morningside. They need to meet the east side up with port union to connect that side. On the west side, they're only about 100-200 metres short of connecting this path to Bluffers park - why they didn't do this in the first place still confuses me, they just finished extending the erosion control down there, but stopped short of connecting it to Bluffer's park.
Click to expand...
How close were the actual bluffs to the water, for the parts they've already protected from erosion? Because the last short segment just east of Bluffers Park has the bluffs right at the water. They would have to push a fair bit outward into the lake to make that area safe I'm thinking. Don't want people walking by only to have part of the cliff fall on their heads.
 
Last edited:
I've been going to the Bluffs this year for the first time in my life. I should've gone much earlier, it's really an amazing & scenic place for running or walking.

I usually go down Gates Gully however and head east from there towards Guildwood Park. Heading west there's a gap between Gates Gully and the main Bluffer's Park. Will this project bridge that gap?

Does anybody know: is it possible to get to Bluffer's Park but avoid parking there by approaching from the south-west side?

Thanks
 
Eug said:
How close were the actual bluffs to the water, for the parts they've already protected from erosion? Because the last short segment just east of Bluffers Park has the bluffs right at the water. They would have to push a fair bit outward into the lake to make that area safe I'm thinking. Don't want people walking by only to have part of the cliff fall on their heads.
Click to expand...

Extremely close....impassable most of the time. The lake had to be extremely low to make it by there. They always build the parks - more specifically the paths well away from the cliff edge for this reason. This is the reason a majority of it west of bluffers would need to be entirely redone.

As for connecting it to Bluffers, it would have to be just as far out into the water as what they just completed for about 50 metres, then they could bring it back in as the beach then begins and the cliffs recede further inland.

more info - http://trca.on.ca/the-living-city/g...ojects/meadowcliffe-drive-erosion-control.dot
 
ehlow said:
I've been going to the Bluffs this year for the first time in my life. I should've gone much earlier, it's really an amazing & scenic place for running or walking.

I usually go down Gates Gully however and head east from there towards Guildwood Park. Heading west there's a gap between Gates Gully and the main Bluffer's Park. Will this project bridge that gap?

Does anybody know: is it possible to get to Bluffer's Park but avoid parking there by approaching from the south-west side?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes, hopefully this project will connect the two. At least that's the assumption I'm under.

As for alternate routes down there or parking, it depends how determined you are, and how muddy you're willing to get.....there are some paths - but even calling them that is generous. There's usually one 911 call a year for people trapped on the sides of the bluffs - people looking for shortcuts.

If you're talking about a shortcut right at the waters edge on the west side, what you see is what you get. No real access unless you're willing to get wet.

There's also a few paths from Gates Gully to Sylvan park up top, but again, very steep.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top