I debated where to put this.............the concern is billed as environmental, in regards to ravine health; but would be precipitated by the LSE expansion project. I settled on here.
First, the report:
Second, a summation of the pertinent facts.
GO is set to move ahead with adding a 4th track to the LSE corridor, with some work to begin in 2021.
This corridor crosses a small ravine area just east of Coxwell Avenue which contain the remnants of Small's Creek.
The ravine section to the North is billed as Merrill Bridge; and to the south Williamson.
Small's Creek once ran, above ground, from just north of Danforth, to the Lake.
Most of it is buried today, except for a small section just north of the rail corridor, and again south to Gerrard; after which there is one tiny spot where it surfaces for a few meters before disappearing into pipes for good.
As part of the 4th Track project, Metrolinx would need to remove up to 267 trees (to be clear, most of these are not mature; but several would be); in order to re-grade, replace a culvert and add a new noise wall/retaining barrier.
A residents group says they don't oppose the project; but feel consultation was limited, Mx less than transparent, and would have liked to see if there were construction options that did less damage. Some would also like to see the Culvert made large enough to allow a walking path under the tracks between the two stretches of ravine.
Residents group page here:
https://www.lakeshoreeasttrains.com/smalls-creek-and-merrill-bridge-park
*****
My thoughts.
A) I support the LSE expansion, period.
B) There was consultation as early as 2016, I read many of the background reports at the time.
C) Mx as usual IS less than transparent, forcing the residents group to use an FOI (Freedom of Information request) to look at the engineering drawings. Talk about poisoning the well. The drawings don't make anything worse, they simply allow informed opinion and should have been shared openly from beginning or at the minimum, upon the first request.
D) There will be material environmental damage.
E) Appearances to the neighbours notwithstanding, the ravine is not in good health overall; its a very long way from pristine. But it is a nice little space for the area, and I'm not unsympathetic.
F) The restoration plan is fine as far as it goes, but won't replace what's been damaged, simply due to maturity of growth for at least 2-3 decades, and the new barriers will represent a permanent encroachment on a portion of the formerly natural area.
G) The above may well be unavoidable; ideally, any consideration of further mitigation would have happened 2-3 years ago.
H) The focus, in my mind, should be on 'compensation'. I don't mean cash paid to residents, but rather ecological compensation. This is where damage done to one area is offset in some way be adding to or restoring space in another.
There are plenty of options here; though I'm not sure how satisfied area residents would be with my suggestions.
One would be acquiring one or more ravine abutting properties, preferably ones that heavily encroach into said space, and adding the land back to the ravine, in whole, or in part.
The idea would be that if the ravine loses 0.4ha that you add back 0.6 or more somewhere else along this section, fully restoring the newly acquired space.
I) The idea of a walking path between the 2 sections of ravine, under the tracks, has its appeal; but would require a considerably larger culvert and/or bridge, and would, in fact, be a much more disruptive project. I wouldn't oppose that project; but residents concerned about tree cutting might. The expanded culvert will only be 2M wide, and not particularly tall; Assuming one added a 2.1M wide walking path; and a bit of space between that path and the creek, you would be more than doubling the size of the culvert; while it would also have to be considerably taller.
I would also oppose adding lighting; and would note that a culvert between 2 unlit ravines, under 4 railway tracks might not be a usable path much of the time for that reason.
****
Summation. I don't think project should be held up at this point; but it would be nice to see Mx compelled to make an effort at ecological compensation. Assuming that took the form of buying additional land to add back to the ravine corridor, this could be done in parallel to construction works and need not delay anything.
A picture of the ravine in question:
From:
https://www.urbaneer.com/blog/merrill_bridge_road_dog_park
Aerial of ravine in question, from Streetview:
Just for illustration, below is an aerial view from TOMaps; is shows the northern fringe of this ravine area, and you can see how much many area homes encroach into the natural area.
Removing some of the worst offenders could substantially ameliorate the health of the ravine; and facilitate future daylighting efforts.
Whether residents would be impressed with my suggestion is another matter.
