News   Feb 04, 2026
 126     0 
News   Feb 04, 2026
 472     0 
News   Feb 03, 2026
 638     0 

Cycling: West Toronto Railpath (City of Toronto, Phase II Proposed)

Got a notice that my request was marked as closed but I walked by today and the path is completely flooded with about a foot of water, so I will file a new request (or reopen the old one?) Maybe it's just melted from the sides of the path but they should put in some bumper reinforcements on either side in that case. Don't recall this happening in past winters...

View attachment 707416

Bizarre, this space is actually grades to flood the pathway. You can see the adjacent lane is higher and graded down to the path. For the life of me, I can't fathom why you would do this......

311 can't order the grading changed, but bring that to the Councillor for sure, with this picture, its not just inconvenient, it will wear out the pavement much faster, costing the City a bundle over time.

They don't have to take out the trees or the light poles, they just need to rip up the low lying part, and dump soil and granular based to raise it up ....somewhere around 30cme it looks like (just slightly above the adjacent grade)

You then need somewhere to drain the water, I would suggest the adjacent open space in the photo, dig down ~ 30cm.....and plant a rain garden, with mix of moisture appreciating shrubs and flowers.

Parks can find the money for the garden portion in the Pollinate TO budget.
 
The upper bridge crossing is open now! I think it used to be wood planks? Smoother now but it still looks a bit shoddy. Maybe temporary given the winter conditions?

CA3AE92B-313E-48E8-9018-D0B0A2AF6F87_1_105_c.jpeg
 
The upper bridge crossing is open now! I think it used to be wood planks? Smoother now but it still looks a bit shoddy. Maybe temporary given the winter conditions?

View attachment 709044
The additional fence is terrible. OBC requirement combined with laziness / value engineering, and rooted in the worthy principle of not letting people (especially small kids) fall from great heights, but one that is affecting the aesthetic of many projects involving bridges and other overlooks.

EDIT: I see that it existed before now, I had just assumed it was added. It's been a while since I last traversed it.
 
Last edited:
The additional fence is terrible. OBC requirement combined with laziness / value engineering, and rooted in the worthy principle of not letting people (especially small kids) fall from great heights, but one that is affecting the aesthetic of many projects involving bridges and other overlooks.
I don't like the fence either, but its always been there... I'm disappointed that the wood is gone - looks shotty, but just glad its open (finally)!
Screenshot 2026-01-16 at 9.37.30 AM.png
 
The wood decking had its charm, but it needed to be replaced. I agree that something about the replacement pavement looks low quality. It could be the puddles and the apparent lack of smoothness.
 
Nolan Xuereb has an excellent piece up on the front page about the nonsensical timeline and price tag for this project.


I highly commend it for an infuriating afternoon read.

I will excerpt a couple of bits for the click averse:

1769629856316.png


1769629881967.png


****

On the price tag:

1769629930168.png


At this point, I'm being sincere in calling for a public inquiry, a full recall of all City funds from all projects connected to Metrolinx, including GO Stations underway and a Criminal investigation for fraud.

I certainly don't have proof of the latter, but the budget for this project and many others has not been public justified and is out-of-whack with most precedents.
 
The upper bridge crossing is open now! I think it used to be wood planks? Smoother now but it still looks a bit shoddy. Maybe temporary given the winter conditions?

Permanent.

The wood decking was considered unpleasant to bike over, or roll anything over.

Concrete was considered, but was dismissed both as too slippery and too heavy.
 
I really enjoyed that wooden section both on bike, on foot but also while running. It looks like complete afterthought just to cheaply satisfy an "accessibility" issue. Did accessibility lead to this garbage looking piece of asphalt too?

1769634715094.png
 
Last edited:
It is remarkable how the City can spend money to have something look worse than it did before. Some really boneheaded decision making or outright graft. I enjoyed the wooden bridge too and the asphalt looks incredibly ugly.
I really enjoyed that wooden section bot on bike, on foot but also while running. It looks like complete afterthought just to cheaply satisfy an "accessibility" issue. Did accessibility lead to this garbage looking piece of asphalt too?

View attachment 711551
 
I really enjoyed that wooden section bot on bike, on foot but also while running. It looks like complete afterthought just to cheaply satisfy an "accessibility" issue. Did accessibility lead to this garbage looking piece of asphalt too?
It is remarkable how the City can spend money to have something look worse than it did before. Some really boneheaded decision making or outright graft. I enjoyed the wooden bridge too and the asphalt looks incredibly ugly.
Isn't it Metrolinx, rather than the City?

3 posts in a row, that seem to have overlooked my post above the first of these.

On the last, the design change was requested by the City for the reasons outlined, Mx is managing the actual construction.
 
Nolan Xuereb has an excellent piece up on the front page about the nonsensical timeline and price tag for this project.


I highly commend it for an infuriating afternoon read.

I will excerpt a couple of bits for the click averse:

View attachment 711541

View attachment 711542

****

On the price tag:

View attachment 711543

At this point, I'm being sincere in calling for a public inquiry, a full recall of all City funds from all projects connected to Metrolinx, including GO Stations underway and a Criminal investigation for fraud.

I certainly don't have proof of the latter, but the budget for this project and many others has not been public justified and is out-of-whack with most precedents.
This is getting ridiculous! There needs to be a way to identify which parts of the Railpath extension can be accelerated in addition to the Dufferin Street crossing.
 

Back
Top