raptor
Senior Member
The EA for that stretch has been completed long ago.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
smuncky
Senior Member
Heard on CBC radio that the City and Metrolinx couldn't come up with an agreement about who would maintain the bridge.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 1,926
- Location
- Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
Correct. It merely awaits funding and political decree.
Meanwhile, if we had Metrolinx leading the file and controlling revenue through tools in their investment strategy...
Oh come on! Metrolinx conducted the works (the Weston tunnel) that made the bridge necessary in the first place, so they should be responsible for maintaining it (or at least make the city the responsible and pick up the tab).
jcam
Active Member
Apparently they JUST came to an interim agreement so that it could open...it's been finished and usable, but closed, for months.
drum118
Superstar
Chalk up another Metrolinx blunder. Time for some heads to roll and a shakeup from top to bottom.
Metrolinx wanted and build it, therefore they need to maintain it 100%.
Weston GO station pedestrian bridge set to open Friday after long delay
Metrolinx wanted and build it, therefore they need to maintain it 100%.
Weston GO station pedestrian bridge set to open Friday after long delay
smallspy
Senior Member
That's not at all what went down Drum, and as someone who's claimed for a long time to have gone to all of the meetings you of all people should know that.
Metrolinx wanted to close the crossing altogether - and frankly, would have been well within their rights to do so. The neighbourhood was the one that demanded a crossing, and complained long and loud enough to get it.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
muller877
Senior Member
I think they should have just bought all the houses backing onto the tracks and kept it at grade. Would have saved so much money and stopped the insanity of the Weston ratepayer group. And maybe even made some when they resold to a developer for condos.
Normally an agreement for maintenance is reached prior to the construction. But if not, I guess Metrolinx can just fence it off if the City refuses to maintain it.
crs1026
Senior Member
Well, here's a good example of why you don't do the "cheapest thing possible".
At Weston, not caring about pedestrian routes, and "walling" off one side of the corridor from the other was the first plan, and it was the cheapest. It was a good thing that the community was sufficiently vocal and united to be able to reverse that decision and get the tunnel added. The urban blight that would have happened if this neighbourhood was broken into two "riverbanks" is to no one's benefit, even if money is saved.
Same thing has happened at Davenport - the original plan was an unimaginaive Ministry of Transport Highway-style overpass. It was the cheapest, and it would not have been constructive to the community. They have had to push hard to get a better quality design, and yes it will cost more.
Same thing was proposed for the ECLRT west extension - no grade separation and a plain-vanilla center of roadway ROW, despite clear evidence that Eglinton's traffic patterns may not permit that. The risk being save money and end up with an LRT that is slower and a traffic mess that benefits no one. Some grade separation is creeping back into that project and that is a good thing.
At Weston, the solution may not have been ideal, and there are a few unnecessarily expensive bits (CP still remains a barrier, and how we went from a simple pedestrian bridge, to an international design competition has me scratching my head)....but.... the added expense to make the project fit the community fabric is necessary and should have been factored in all along.
Metrolinx tends to plan things unrealistically on the cheap - not surprising given how many projects are needed, and how little money there really is. But plonking an unfriendly design down in neighbourhoods is not design excellence. Doesn't have to be lavish - but spend a little more and you get a lot more quality, if you do it judiciously.
- Paul
At Weston, not caring about pedestrian routes, and "walling" off one side of the corridor from the other was the first plan, and it was the cheapest. It was a good thing that the community was sufficiently vocal and united to be able to reverse that decision and get the tunnel added. The urban blight that would have happened if this neighbourhood was broken into two "riverbanks" is to no one's benefit, even if money is saved.
Same thing has happened at Davenport - the original plan was an unimaginaive Ministry of Transport Highway-style overpass. It was the cheapest, and it would not have been constructive to the community. They have had to push hard to get a better quality design, and yes it will cost more.
Same thing was proposed for the ECLRT west extension - no grade separation and a plain-vanilla center of roadway ROW, despite clear evidence that Eglinton's traffic patterns may not permit that. The risk being save money and end up with an LRT that is slower and a traffic mess that benefits no one. Some grade separation is creeping back into that project and that is a good thing.
At Weston, the solution may not have been ideal, and there are a few unnecessarily expensive bits (CP still remains a barrier, and how we went from a simple pedestrian bridge, to an international design competition has me scratching my head)....but.... the added expense to make the project fit the community fabric is necessary and should have been factored in all along.
Metrolinx tends to plan things unrealistically on the cheap - not surprising given how many projects are needed, and how little money there really is. But plonking an unfriendly design down in neighbourhoods is not design excellence. Doesn't have to be lavish - but spend a little more and you get a lot more quality, if you do it judiciously.
- Paul
Adjei
Senior Member
I agree with this for the most part but sometimes what the community wants ends up being detrimental to the overall project. This is more evident on Eglinton line at Leslie where Metrolinx proposed to go underground all the way to the Science Centre. They community demanded a stop and they have compromised the entire line for a stop which I doubt too many people will be using. The same with the Aga Khan stop. I don't see why that stop is needed when its so close to the Science Centre stop. Metrolinx propsed removing it and the community cried foul and got it put back. I know originally they were part of the project but the Metrolinx proposals to me seem better than what we ended up with.
Megaton327
Senior Member
A small additional tidbit regarding Gormley GO's progress: apparently GO has installed a 2-port Electric Vehicle charging station in the lot, it is listed on chargepoint.com which is the provider that GO uses at their other stations. I hadn't seen this mentioned on any GO page about Gormley or about their EV charging program, saw it for the first time when I glanced at ChargePoint last night.
Maybe they intend to install EV chargers in all newly built stations going forward--Bloomington should show if this is the case.
Maybe they intend to install EV chargers in all newly built stations going forward--Bloomington should show if this is the case.
Last edited:
Fritter
Active Member
As an educated guess, I suspect that EV chargers will be part of all new and re-built GO Station projects.
smallspy
Senior Member
Indeed, they've been installing them in all of the parking structures as they've been opening. I guess new stations is the next step.
Dan
Toronto, Ont
TOareaFan
Superstar
you could even take out the words "GO Station" from in front of "projects"....office buildings, shopping centres, even some industrial complexes will be EV ready as they come out of the ground.....older office buildings already retro-fitting their parking lots to include EV chargers.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 1,926
- Location
- Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
Totally agreed, especially as someone that used to live in Weston. It was necessary to keep some cohesion to the community, one that is already starkly different on each side of the corridor; predominantly white middle-class detached homes vs. predominantly black low-income mid/high-density. Connectivity between both sides and local events promotes cohesion and integration between these groups, especially the Farmer's Market. Keeping it at-grade would have been a safety issue and segregated the two sides, doing untold damage to the social fabric of the community.
A bit apples to oranges, no? The overpass was the preferred alternative from the onset, and Metrolinx stuck to it despite community opposition and requests for a trench. Furthermore, better quality design came about as the process moved forward and increasing consultation and design work was done.
That's still up in the air. Staff haven't finalized anything and it is still subject to City Council vote.
crs1026
Senior Member
I see it as apples to apples in that, like Weston, the original Davenport proposal had significant community negatives that ML was quite happy to see the community live with. In both cases the consultation with the community was adversarial, and the 'input' was not really welcome, but the enhanced design prevailed due to the level of political pressure achieved by the community. It's true that Weston got a trench where Davenport didn't, but that solution is nowhere near as easy to implement at Davenport. The community eventually realised that a tunnel wasn't likely to be approved, and wisely directed their efforts to achieving the best possible mitigations, but that process remained adversarial.... it wasn't a case of "working together".
Again, absent a hostile reception from the community, it wouldn't even be getting consideration.
- Paul