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

[DSC]

I'm not ware of any public meetings, but I know that people involved with Friends of the West Toronto Railpath have ongoing meetings with councillors, City staff (parks/red, bike staff, etc.)....

I'm sure that as soon as there are some more concrete plans, there will be a public meeting.

Looking at their website might be a way to keep up to date? See: http://railpath.wordpress.com/

 

[ShonTron]

There is enough room on the right hand side to put in a bike bridge.

If Metrolinx think they can say they cannot do it for saftey reason, then they need to see this one in action.

Just look to Peterborough. A footpath hugs the CP bridge over the Otoanbee River.

 

[vic]

According to Ana Bailao, it sounds like the option their looking into right now is to have the path cross the GO Newmarket/Barrie by using the Dundas St. bridge into the south-west end of the West Toronto CI property, and then continue south along the tracks. Sort of like this:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4673109

No, I don't know how they plan to cross Sterling Rd., or how whether they will expand the Dundas St. bridge to make more room for the path.

-Vic

 

[M II A II R II K]

West Toronto Railpath Extension Study

Read More: http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/westrailpath/index.htm


The City of Toronto is studying a preferred route for extending the West Toronto Railpath from the Dundas Street West overpass (at Sterling Road), along the Georgetown GO Transit rail corridor, to Strachan Avenue and the planned Fort York Pedestrian & Cycle Bridge.

- In June 2012, City Council adopted the multi-year Bikeway Trails Implementation Plan and new trail connection priorities. These priorities included a recommendation for an environmental assessment study to develop a preferred route to extend the West Toronto Railpath south from Dundas Street West to Strachan Avenue. Upon completion of this Study, the City's goal is to commence construction of the Railpath extension in 2015 after Metrolinx has completed construction within their corridor for the Go Transit service expansion and the Air-Rail Link service from the Union Station to the Pearson Airport.

The Study will determine:

• A preferred route/alignment for the Railpath extension

• Combination of city streets and rail corridors with new bridge crossing over existing streets to make the route continuous

• Access points linking the Railpath with surrounding communities

• Urban design features such as landscaping, public art, bike parking, signage and lighting

.....

 

[M II A II R II K]

Railpath expansion coming soon

Read More: http://dandyhorsemagazine.com/blog/2014/04/28/railpath-expansion-coming-soon/

Phase two of the West Toronto Railpath will add another 3.2 km to the beloved linear park that cyclists in this city love so much.

The current 2.1 km section of railpath extends from Dundas Street and Sterling Road north to the Junction. The original railpath plan called for this wonderful, west-end railpath to go all the way downtown to the financial district and help connect cyclists to the lake. This second phase of the railpath will head south and connect the existing Dundas Street West terminus with the new pedestrian and cycling bridge at the Fort York national historic site.

.....

 

[dowlingm]

If rail path crosses to the east side of GO Newmarket does that leave enough room for a second track if needed in future?

 

[innsertnamehere]

metrolinx has reserved enough space on the ROW for 8 tracks south of the Barrie line, and have given the additional space over to the railpath.

 

[smably]

Surprised I haven't seen any discussion on this, but the preferred alignment was posted a few days ago:
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=b57a8d0195ce1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Oddly, they don't have a direct link to the PDF version of the presentation and it's impossible to read the labels on the Slideshare version. Here's the PDF on Dropbox.

The design looks quite nice, particularly the bridges, of which there are four proposed -- one over the Newmarket sub south of Dundas and continuing over the No Frills parking lot and Lansdowne, and one each over Brock, Dufferin, and Queen. The route would only deviate from the rail corridor north of King, where 99 Sudbury is built right up to the Metrolinx property line. I understand that that property is to be redeveloped, which might provide an opportunity to move the trail to its own dedicated alignment in the future. That section of the route is a bit disappointing, as the proposal just calls for sharrows on Sudbury and a crossing of King at grade with no special facilities. It's a pretty significant gap in what's otherwise a very well-connected route, but I guess there's not much that can be done as long as Metrolinx requires the full width of its ROW.

 

[salsa]

Surprised I haven't seen any discussion on this, but the preferred alignment was posted a few days ago:
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=b57a8d0195ce1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Oddly, they don't have a direct link to the PDF version of the presentation and it's impossible to read the labels on the Slideshare version. Here's the PDF on Dropbox.

The design looks quite nice, particularly the bridges, of which there are four proposed -- one over the Newmarket sub south of Dundas and continuing over the No Frills parking lot and Lansdowne, and one each over Brock, Dufferin, and Queen. The route would only deviate from the rail corridor north of King, where 99 Niagara is built right up to the Metrolinx property line. I understand that that property is to be redeveloped, which might provide an opportunity to move the trail to its own dedicated alignment in the future. That section of the route is a bit disappointing, as the proposal just calls for sharrows on Sudbury and a crossing of King at grade with no special facilities. It's a pretty significant gap in what's otherwise a very well-connected route, but I guess there's not much that can be done as long as Metrolinx requires the full width of its ROW.

I think you meant 99 Sudbury Street that is to be redeveloped. But thanks for the update, I'm really looking forward for this.

 

[smably]

I think you meant 99 Sudbury Street that is to be redeveloped. But thanks for the update, I'm really looking forward for this.

Oops, thanks for catching that! Edited.

 

[Platform 27]

Is it just me or is does it seem like that bridge structure crossing the Barrie line is massively overbuilt? Rather than lift the path up and over whatever dynamic clearance is needed for GO (+ electrification over doublestack freight), surely it would be easier (and much cheaper) to drop 8 feet down, duck through a pre-cast tunnel under the tracks dropped in on a weekend, and climb the 8 feet again?

 

[Voltz]

Is it just me or is does it seem like that bridge structure crossing the Barrie line is massively overbuilt? Rather than lift the path up and over whatever dynamic clearance is needed for GO (+ electrification over doublestack freight), surely it would be easier (and much cheaper) to drop 8 feet down, duck through a pre-cast tunnel under the tracks dropped in on a weekend, and climb the 8 feet again?

That seems far more intensive than just going over with a pedestrian bridge.

 

[ShonTron]

I agree - underpasses are better for cyclist/pedestrian crossings of rail corridor (less of a up and down grade), though there are some security issues that would have to be addressed.

Would all Metrolinx-owned lines require doublestack freight clearances, especially the Newmarket Sub? When was the last freight train ever on that section, at least south of Eglinton Avenue? (I know some local bulk freight is sent to a few industries south of Snider) I can see Lakeshore west of Canpa requiring the clearance and possibly the Weston, and the rest of the Kingston and Oakville Subs (in case a freight needs to bypass the Halton and York Subs) but Newmarket?

 

[drum118]

I agree - underpasses are better for cyclist/pedestrian crossings of rail corridor (less of a up and down grade), though there are some security issues that would have to be addressed.

Would all Metrolinx-owned lines require doublestack freight clearances, especially the Newmarket Sub? When was the last freight train ever on that section, at least south of Eglinton Avenue? (I know some local bulk freight is sent to a few industries south of Snider) I can see Lakeshore west of Canpa requiring the clearance and possibly the Weston, and the rest of the Kingston and Oakville Subs (in case a freight needs to bypass the Halton and York Subs) but Newmarket?

You never know what route a train may have to take if something happens on the other corridors and expect high clearance is in the agreement of sale just in case.

At the same time, some industry may come along and want to build a spur to it with a need for high clearance movement of goods. Never know and better safe than sorry down the line.

 

[dowlingm]

It's not like there's an enormous difference between d/stack height and bilevels. CN usually sells track contingent on ongoing access and without sight of the sale document a worst case approach would assume they can block any changes which would inhibit their exercise of those rights.