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

[crs1026]

Okay, interesting. Because it seems to me SmartTrack East / Stouffville RER will be our biggest challenge. Danforth, Havendale, Huntingwood, Finch, McNicoll, Passmore, Steeles, Kennedy, Dennison. That's a substantial number, so I'm wondering which ones will by law have to be grade-separated for the service proposed.

I'm not aware that Transport Canada has any legal power to order a municipality or province to grade-separate an existing crossing. They certainly have the power to order the railway to take precautions at the crossing....which may be the requirement to sound bell and horn (or not, there are always people arguing in both directions), speed limits, enhanced flashers and barriers, and (in the extreme) the requirement to stop and have a member of the crew flag the train across the crossing. Any or all of these would have a significant impact on the operation, so the more concern the regulator has, the greater the likelihood that someone will find the money for the grade separation.

Personally I would advocate zero tolerance for any vehicular or pedestrian conflicts throughout the entire line. That includes better fencing throughout (assuming not every stretch requires sound walls), and strict enforcement of trespassers taking short cuts across the right of way (sorry railfans, but safety is safety).

One of the interesting engineering standards for the French TGV is a design that makes it virtually impossible for a car to end up on the ROW. The amount of crash-barrier fencing on the TGV lines is impressive - every little farmers' lane has a physical barrier separating it from the tracks. I'm not suggesting that for RER, but in principle there is no safe way for cars and trains to cross each others' paths, so absolute separation should be planned from the start. Yes, it's a cost - but a constructive one.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

Personally I would advocate zero tolerance for any vehicular or pedestrian conflicts throughout the entire line. That includes better fencing throughout (assuming not every stretch requires sound walls), and strict enforcement of trespassers taking short cuts across the right of way (sorry railfans, but safety is safety).
- Paul

If you advocate "zero tolerance" you had better provide many more safe places for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, such as along the Barrie Line (Newmarket Sub) north of Eglinton Avenue. If you put of fences, send out the GO-PO, and don't provide proper crossings so people don't have to go 2-4 kilometes out of the way, you're not really helping.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Surely the biggest issue if that if you elevate rail through the neighbourhood, you'll have huge sound issues, compared to at surface, or in a trench.

Why would it compare negatively to at grade? Elevating it does not decrease the distance to the source, and the homes might actually benefit from the shadowing effect of the underside of the bridge.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

If you advocate "zero tolerance" you had better provide many more safe places for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, such as along the Barrie Line (Newmarket Sub) north of Eglinton Avenue. If you put of fences, send out the GO-PO, and don't provide proper crossings so people don't have to go 2-4 kilometes out of the way, you're not really helping.

Absolutely - that has to be part of the plan for the corridors.

Some of the early artwork from the consultations for Davenport showed a footbridge over the CP next to the Newmarket line. Hopefully it's wide enough for the rail buffs to bring their lawn chairs ;-)

- Paul

 

[salsa]

Can you point to the houses, schools, and coffee shops adjacent to that structure?

The nimbys are painting the bridge as a "Gardiner for GO trains" that is somehow "unprecedented in North America". My point was that they seem to be oblivious to the fact that such a bridge has recently been constructed, in the same city, by the same Metrolinx. There may very well be some flaws with the proposed bridge, but these people need to stop being so dishonest with their rhetoric and start working constructively to make it better.

 

[nfitz]

The nimbys are painting the bridge as a "Gardiner for GO trains" that is somehow "unprecedented in North America". My point was that they seem to be oblivious to the fact that such a bridge has recently been constructed, in the same city, by the same Metrolinx. There may very well be some flaws with the proposed bridge, but these people need to stop being so dishonest with their rhetoric and start working constructively to make it better.

I don't see how you replying to dishonest rhetoric, with your own dishonest rhetoric, helps. Give an example of a similar structure built in the last 20 years in a relatively dense old North American residential or commercial area.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't see how you replying to dishonest rhetoric, with your own dishonest rhetoric, helps. Give an example of a similar structure built in the last 20 years in a relatively dense old North American residential or commercial area.

That's kind of besides the point, why limit yourself to North America where urban design and rail infrastructure interface is patently backwards? It's like not only do you have to choose from where there is little large scale expansion, but there is little innovation. It's artificially limiting your pool of design choices and then claim that see, nothing to see here. I don't think that's constructive.

AoD

 

[salsa]

Give an example of a similar structure built in the last 20 years in a relatively dense old North American residential or commercial area.

Vancouver Skytrain doesn't count?

 

[nfitz]

Vancouver Skytrain doesn't count?

No. It's not not heavy rail. Also they'd still run diesel on this line for longer runs. The electrification is only planned to Aurora isn't it?

Also Vancouver has had a lot of pushback for putting any more skytrain elevated in older neighbourhoods - which is why the Canada line and the proposed extension to UBC are underground.

 

[jcam]

No. It's not not heavy rail. Also they'd still run diesel on this line for longer runs. The electrification is only planned to Aurora isn't it?

Also Vancouver has had a lot of pushback for putting any more skytrain elevated in older neighbourhoods - which is why the Canada line and the proposed extension to UBC are underground.

Only a small piece of Evergreen is underground (less than 1km I think). And there have been condos built right up against the Expo lines in the last 5 years - particularly near Science World and Metrotown.

Not to mention the Millenium line goes through mature neighbourhoods and was opened in 2002.

 

[salsa]

No. It's not not heavy rail. Also they'd still run diesel on this line for longer runs. The electrification is only planned to Aurora isn't it?

Whether it's heavy rail or not is irrelevant, given that the neighbourhood's concerns are almost entirely about aesthetics. You can run subways or LRTs on that bridge and they will still call it a "Gardiner for [insert train here]".

 

[nfitz]

Only a small piece of Evergreen is underground (less than 1km I think).

I was referring to old urban areas in Vancouver. Not suburban areas in suburban cities outside of Vancouver! None of the new Evergreen stations are in Burnaby, let alone Vancouver!

And there have been condos built right up against the Expo lines in the last 5 years - particularly near Science World and Metrotown.

I said older neighbourhoods. Obviously building new communities near elevated tracks is different.

Not to mention the Millenium line goes through mature neighbourhoods and was opened in 2002.

In Vancouver? Mostly industrial, along the Grandview Highway, or in a trench. Perhaps in the suburbs ...

How many diesel trains an hour do they run in rush-hour on that elevated Skytrain track?

Whether it's heavy rail or not is irrelevant, given that the neighbourhood's concerns are almost entirely about aesthetics.

Looking at the news articles - they keep mentioning noise and pollution, in addition to visual impacts.

I don't see why this shouldn't be taken seriously. And just why is underground okay for West Toronto diamond, but not at Davenport? I haven't seen any explanation at that. Would it cost more, or is it simply that Metrolinx isn't about to spend the same amount of money for the Davenport residents that they did at West Toronto?

 

[Allandale25]

I don't see how you replying to dishonest rhetoric, with your own dishonest rhetoric, helps. Give an example of a similar structure built in the last 20 years in a relatively dense old North American residential or commercial area.

GO Transit built a rail-over-rail grade separation on the Barrie Line a few years ago eliminating the Snider Diamond/Crossing. The Barrie Line now goes over the CN York Sub (map) on a fly-over bridge. On the east side, it runs fairly close to people's homes on Bob O'Link Avenue.

Now, I realize there are a few differences between the bridge below and the one proposed in Davenport. It appears the homes are somewhat further away from the GO Barrie Line right-of-way. However, it's my understanding that one of the concerns being expressed is the visual barrier and the retaining walls. As you can see below residents on Bob O'Link Ave do see the retaining wall (trees might block it for some depending on where you stand in the backyard). I'm not saying the Davenport Bridge is right or wrong, I'm just providing an example of a "a similar structure built in the last 20 years in a relatively dense old North American residential or commercial area". In this case, it was built by GO.

I checked the York Region map that shows the parcel boundaries and while there is a small gap between the railway right-of-way and the backyards (likely owned by the municipality), if GO ever wanted to build a third track in this area (something that's being considered as part of the GO Barrie RER TPAP), it would likely have to go on the east side, meaning it would be even closer to these homes.

 

[salsa]

Looking at the news articles - they keep mentioning noise and pollution, in addition to visual impacts.

That's why I said "almost entirely about aesthetics". For example, the home page of the website that the residents set up makes zero mention about noise and pollution.

In fact, after canvassing the entire website, I only found one single mention about noise, whereas they had no shortage of things to say about visual impact. This is consistent with what I've been hearing from them in the media as well.

I don't see why this shouldn't be taken seriously. And just why is underground okay for West Toronto diamond, but not at Davenport? I haven't seen any explanation at that. Would it cost more, or is it simply that Metrolinx isn't about to spend the same amount of money for the Davenport residents that they did at West Toronto?

I wouldn't be surprised if a new lawn sign comes out that's similar to this one, which says "WESTON GOT A TUNNEL, WE DESERVE ONE TOO".

 

[salsa]

Good god these houses are ugly. What's wrong with having a nice little front porch, instead of these hulking garages that most people use only for shoving their junk into? What's wrong with having more variation and less cookie-cutter?