GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[Allandale25]

It looks like Metrolinx has posted a November 2021 update for the Don Valley Layover.

Richmond Hill Line

Information about Richmond Hill GO Line.

www.metrolinxengage.com

November 2021 Update​

Thanks for your continued interest in the Don Valley Layover Facility.

The Community Relations team has been meeting with residents and stakeholders on site to exchange information and receive input on the proposed facility.

A key objective of Metrolinx’s design process is to reduce the footprint of the facility. To complete this task, our project design and operations teams are working together to make sure the facility meets Metrolinx’s operational needs and respects the Don Valley.

Based on our discussion with community members to date, concerns about fencing, lighting, and building design have been included in the consultant scope so they can be appropriately addressed.

Metrolinx will undertake a series of studies to respond to community concerns and make sure that the design refinement phase is based on the best possible information. The work that will begin this year includes:

• Arborists (tree experts) will evaluate trees in the vicinity of the proposed layover
• Biologists will assess the habitat features in the adjacent area
• Heritage experts will assess any impacts on heritage features in the area including the Prince Edward Viaduct
• Engineers will assess the current infrastructure.

Metrolinx initiated a procurement process for the technical advisor that will advance the design for the layover facility. In addition to architects and engineers, this team will include landscape architects and restoration experts. Metrolinx expects to have the consultant on board early in 2022 to begin the initial design and work with the community.

The community is encouraged to continue to provide their input to help Metrolinx determine the design elements that can help integrate the design of the facility to the surrounding valley, like vegetation, and surface treatments on the walls and roofs. Metrolinx and our design consultant will meet with the community along the way to get feedback to work out the final design. Contact us at torontoeast@metrolinx.com.

The Don Valley Layover fact sheet appears to have been updated on November 18th. It includes this rendering:

A local group opposing the Layover has created their own rendering (it's clear if this is to scale) with their opinion.

 

[DirectionNorth]

It looks like Metrolinx has posted a November 2021 update for the Don Valley Layover.

Richmond Hill Line

Information about Richmond Hill GO Line.

www.metrolinxengage.com

The Don Valley Layover fact sheet appears to have been updated on November 18th. It includes this rendering:

View attachment 365087

A local group opposing the Layover has created their own rendering (it's clear if this is to scale) with their opinion.

Metrolinx trying to hide the thing with trees.

NIMBYs exaggerating the effect on the surrounding area.

Just another day in Toronto.

 

[allengeorge]

From my perspective it’s fairly clear that Metrolinx has chosen a location, and all the community group can do is minimize its impact.If the community group is imagining that they can change Metrolinx’s mind about location - that’s incredibly unlikely. I can’t remember a single instance of that happening.

Maybe that’s part of why people feel like Metrolinx’s consultations are a sham: they have different expectations about what the consultation should cover. If you come into it expecting to change the location and the other party is coming into it expecting just to change its impact at the chosen location…

 

[crs1026]

Metrolinx trying to hide the thing with trees.

NIMBYs exaggerating the effect on the surrounding area.

Just another day in Toronto.

And half of those trees will be planted somewhere else.

- Paul

 

[allengeorge]

And half of those trees will be planted somewhere else.

I think this is really fair criticism of Metrolinx’s tree replacement policy.

Until Steve Munro highlighted it, I didn’t realize the Metrolinx could have the replacement trees anywhere in the GTA, and, that it didn’t account for replacing a really mature tree vs. a super young one.

 

[max]

I think this is really fair criticism of Metrolinx’s tree replacement policy.

Until Steve Munro highlighted it, I didn’t realize the Metrolinx could have the replacement trees anywhere in the GTA, and, that it didn’t account for replacing a really mature tree vs. a super young one.

Definitely fair criticism, now that I realize they aren't replacing the tree within the same vicinity it raises a number of questions. Where exactly are these trees? Did Metrolinx actually plant the number of the trees they said the would? Would they have been planted anyway or are they net new? Do they even ensure that the replacement trees live some some period of time or do they view their responsibility as ending once they put them in the ground?

 

[crs1026]

Definitely fair criticism, now that I realize they aren't replacing the tree within the same vicinity it raises a number of questions. Where exactly are these trees? Did Metrolinx actually plant the number of the trees they said the would? Would they have been planted anyway or are they net new? Do they even ensure that the replacement trees live some some period of time or do they view their responsibility as ending once they put them in the ground?

I am very skeptical of ML’s assumed role in tree planting. Nothing wrong with the Province planting trees with taxpayer money, but once the planting happens away from ML corridors, why is ML taking on that task instead of some other provincial agency that can strategise and be accountable for the result over all.?
ML should be focussing directly on the impacts of its business, and stop at that. Worry more about the direct impacts of the rail corridor, and try to mitigate these.
Using ML’s logic, they could also be taking on homeless shelters, vaccination clinics, and bicycle lane building - all things that we would welcome and need more of in our society, but a distraction to their core business effort and really somebody else’s accountability to deliver.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

I am very skeptical of ML’s assumed role in tree planting. Nothing wrong with the Province planting trees with taxpayer money, but once the planting happens away from ML corridors, why is ML taking on that task instead of some other provincial agency that can strategise and be accountable for the result over all.?
ML should be focussing directly on the impacts of its business, and stop at that. Worry more about the direct impacts of the rail corridor, and try to mitigate these.
Using ML’s logic, they could also be taking on homeless shelters, vaccination clinics, and bicycle lane building - all things that we would welcome and need more of in our society, but a distraction to their core business effort and really somebody else’s accountability to deliver.

- Paul

ML subs most of the work out to the TRCA or other CAs.

 

[crs1026]

ML subs most of the work out to the TRCA or other CAs.

That doean’t make me feel any better, since it clouds the finances of both ML and the CA’s.

It’s probably too little money to be material, but fee-for-service between agencies is an unnecessary complication.

Just wait til we see the cash flows for fare integration ;-)

- Paul

 

[Krypto98]

Great work. What are these lines I've circled in yellow?

View attachment 364964

Those are some streets. I'm going to try to make a better version later for the whole kitchener corridor with everything that has been proposed compiled.

Much easier to read! Nicely done!

Last I saw, "Woodbine" station was planned for two island platforms between the 4 mainlines, plus a CN siding on both sides (not just the north side). Has that changed?

The on Coor document has it with i think 3 island platforms or 2 island? I'm not sure entirely its a bit hard to read.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Those are some streets. I'm going to try to make a better version later for the whole kitchener corridor with everything that has been proposed compiled.

The on Coor document has it with i think 3 island platforms or 2 island? I'm not sure entirely its a bit hard to read.
View attachment 365178
View attachment 365179

Seems to be 2 islands and a side.

 

[KevinT]

From my perspective it’s fairly clear that Metrolinx has chosen a location, and all the community group can do is minimize its impact.If the community group is imagining that they can change Metrolinx’s mind about location - that’s incredibly unlikely. I can’t remember a single instance of that happening.

Yes and no, the transformer station in Guelph for GO electrification is now completely homeless due to nimby pushback (there was really only one place it could go, yet somehow they successfully killed it). I fail to see what they accomplished, but I'm sure they're all happy to sit back smugly satisfied with themselves; at least until they start choking on the diesel fumes of the expanded service plan.

 

[Krypto98]

Seems to be 2 islands and a side.

What about Mount Dennis? All the renderings I've seen show 1 island and a side but that only serves 3 tracks. You would need an extra side platform for the 4th track
Edit: I found 1 with 3 platforms

 

[reaperexpress]

What about Mount Dennis? All the renderings I've seen show 1 island and a side but that only serves 3 tracks. You would need an extra side platform for the 4th track
Edit: I found 1 with 3 platforms

There are 1 island and 1 side under construction at Mount Dennis, serving the west 3 tracks. The plan is for the 4th track to be served by a side platform to be built in a separate contract. Apparently that was what worked best with the construction staging with the LRT.

 

[superelevation]

From my perspective it’s fairly clear that Metrolinx has chosen a location, and all the community group can do is minimize its impact.If the community group is imagining that they can change Metrolinx’s mind about location - that’s incredibly unlikely. I can’t remember a single instance of that happening.

Maybe that’s part of why people feel like Metrolinx’s consultations are a sham: they have different expectations about what the consultation should cover. If you come into it expecting to change the location and the other party is coming into it expecting just to change its impact at the chosen location…

Metrolinx *owns* the land, its next to highways and utility corridors . . . . at what point does demanding the electric train storage facility so we can stop clear cutting greenbelt to build more suburban housing matter to anyone?