News   Sep 27, 2022
 335     0 
News   Sep 26, 2022
 1.5K     0 
News   Sep 26, 2022
 695     0 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
3,806
Location
the original Holland Marsh
Here's a shot of the CP Mainline at Bartlett in the west end...........a corridor capable of and that used to support 4 tracks at this location........today there are 2.........but look at where they installed the crossing signals.....

View attachment 410852

That's right...........directly in the path of restoring the additional tracks...........sigh....

At least those additional tracks are purely theoretical. In 2015, Metrolinx relocated a bunch of signals in Guelph onto the path of the second track which was already being planned at the time and is now under construction in 2022. See for example at the Yorkshire Street crossing:

2011: 2 tracks in place
Capture.JPG


2014: 2nd track has been removed
Capture1.JPG


2019: signal has been relocated into space of old 2nd track:
Capture2.JPG
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,145
Reaction score
51,364
Location
Toronto/EY
At least those additional tracks are purely theoretical. In 2015, Metrolinx relocated a bunch of signals in Guelph onto the path of the second track which was already being planned at the time and is now under construction in 2022. See for example at the Yorkshire Street crossing:

2011: 2 tracks in place
View attachment 410862

2014: 2nd track has been removed
View attachment 410863

2019: signal has been relocated into space of old 2nd track:
View attachment 410864

There's a word for that..............well a few come to mind actually, and almost none are compliant w/UT posting rules......... LOL
 

SaugeenJunction

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
5,431
At least those additional tracks are purely theoretical. In 2015, Metrolinx relocated a bunch of signals in Guelph onto the path of the second track which was already being planned at the time and is now under construction in 2022. See for example at the Yorkshire Street crossing:

2011: 2 tracks in place
View attachment 410862

2014: 2nd track has been removed
View attachment 410863

2019: signal has been relocated into space of old 2nd track:
View attachment 410864
It’s not a government project if you don’t have to re-do the same thing multiple times!
 

MrGoose

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
264
Reaction score
804
So two wrongs make a right?

How does this justify the lack of consultation on site selection - and other aspects of Metrolinx's incompetence?
Its a piece of land that is right next to a highway and under the Bloor Viaduct. Anyone trying to portray this environment as "natural" is lying.

What kind of consultation is really required?

Its not next to anyone's homes. This part of the Don Valley has Bayview Ave, the Richmond Hill line, the Bloor Viaduct and the DVP side by side, so any additional noise is minimal, etc.

What do you feel like ML could have consulted the public on? Aside from cancelling the project wholesale b/c 10 people don't like the proposal.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,145
Reaction score
51,364
Location
Toronto/EY
Its a piece of land that is right next to a highway and under the Bloor Viaduct. Anyone trying to portray this environment as "natural" is lying.

What kind of consultation is really required?

Its not next to anyone's homes. This part of the Don Valley has Bayview Ave, the Richmond Hill line, the Bloor Viaduct and the DVP side by side, so any additional noise is minimal, etc.

What do you feel like ML could have consulted the public on? Aside from cancelling the project wholesale b/c 10 people don't like the proposal.

If the environmental consequences of this choice are overstated by some; and they are; then you are every bit as guilty of understating the opposition, there are literally more than 10 formal groups opposed, so self-evidently there are more than 10 people.

I personally take no issue w/reactivating this track. I would prefer that it be used for through operations ultimately, and I would prefer not to have a cleaning/storage location at this site.

To me, w/o overselling any damage the project will do (and there will be some)....

1) I want any facility where workers have to show up to service or operate vehicles to be accessible by transit. This location is not; forcing operators/service staff to drive, which certainly seems less than ideal.

2) The valley has been an on-going restoration project for many decades, and will likely be for many more; while removing the Parkway is not on anyone's horizon (however desirable that might be in the longest term); there is
opportunity to remove some existing road and rail infra over the next 2 decades and materially improve the health of the valley. While the storage facility will not make things materially worse, it will result in new lighting, more
road infra, more paving, additional buildings (modest in size) etc and that certainly isn't consistent w/a vision of restoration.

***

Is this project some apocalypse for the valley? No. That's grossly over selling it.

Is this project the optimal location for this infrastructure based on longer term environmental and transportation goals for this area? No.

Would the City, the valley, and arguably Mx be better served by reactivating the Leaside Yard? Yes.

Things are rarely 'black and white' and this too is a shade of grey. The trade-off for the better site, money, time, and 3m additional deadhead time. The upside, significantly more long-term capacity at Leaside, environmental benefit, Belleville sub available as future through track (which is likely in the longer term......though probably not the way most think).

On the latter point, the idea has been raised of shifting the Bala onto the Belleville sub, and then extending it north across Pottery Road before rejoining the existing alignment. That too would have environmental consequences, though it would allow the removal of about 3km of the existing Bala sub which could then be restored added to the park system.
 
Last edited:

kamira51

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
498
Reaction score
717
Location
Caledon East
Definitely what he's meaning.

My understanding was Mx didn't want to spend on the rehab/reconstruction of the 1/2 mile bridge, and thus discounted this option, which I think is shortsighted.

Not a problem unique to Mx.

***

Here's a shot of the CP Mainline at Bartlett in the west end...........a corridor capable of and that used to support 4 tracks at this location........today there are 2.........but look at where they installed the crossing signals.....

View attachment 410852

That's right...........directly in the path of restoring the additional tracks...........sigh....
That honestly looks like a decent spot.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,150
Reaction score
13,950
My understanding was Mx didn't want to spend on the rehab/reconstruction of the 1/2 mile bridge, and thus discounted this option, which I think is shortsighted.

Not a problem unique to Mx.

In perfect, properly-connected world, one would expect ML and the City and CP to sit down all wearing "what's best for the public good" hats and say, look, moving to Leaside is doable but will add $XM to the cost - can you cover that for us? And somehow a solution would be worked out.

That may even have happened in a back room some place. And been told, "No, just sit tight and let the Councillor blow off steam and then go ahead with your plan. The City can live with that."

We may never know.

That's right...........directly in the path of restoring the additional tracks...........sigh....

In the same vein, if CP had any intention of adding an extra track for its own use, the signal might be placed to permit that. I'm pretty sure that future proofing the line for GO service is not in their specs, even if that may happen some day.

A crossing signal is pretty easy to move and might need upgrading for GO service anyways. But yeah, there are some more expensive-to-move things put in place if nobody has a firm commitment to fund upgrades.

- Paul
 

superelevation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Messages
435
Reaction score
907
They said on the Metrolinx podcast that they don't do it because of required ultrasonic testing of the rails from the federal transit ministry, but there could be other factors too. For example environmental concerns with the paint.
Yes, and this is where we need to use some critical thinking. Do they not need to test the rails in the much more intensively used railway networks that use this in Europe?

If the environmental consequences of this choice are overstated by some; and they are; then you are every bit as guilty of understating the opposition, there are literally more than 10 formal groups opposed, so self-evidently there are more than 10 people.

I personally take no issue w/reactivating this track. I would prefer that it be used for through operations ultimately, and I would prefer not to have a cleaning/storage location at this site.

To me, w/o overselling any damage the project will do (and there will be some)....

1) I want any facility where workers have to show up to service or operate vehicles to be accessible by transit. This location is not; forcing operators/service staff to drive, which certainly seems less than ideal.

2) The valley has been an on-going restoration project for many decades, and will likely be for many more; while removing the Parkway is not on anyone's horizon (however desirable that might be in the longest term); there is
opportunity to remove some existing road and rail infra over the next 2 decades and materially improve the health of the valley. While the storage facility will not make things materially worse, it will result in new lighting, more
road infra, more paving, additional buildings (modest in size) etc and that certainly isn't consistent w/a vision of restoration.

***

Is this project some apocalypse for the valley? No. That's grossly over selling it.

Is this project the optimal location for this infrastructure based on longer term environmental and transportation goals for this area? No.

Would the City, the valley, and arguably Mx be better served by reactivating the Leaside Yard? Yes.

Things are rarely 'black and white' and this too is a shade of grey. The trade-off for the better site, money, time, and 3m additional deadhead time. The upside, significantly more long-term capacity at Leaside, environmental benefit, Belleville sub available as future through track (which is likely in the longer term......though probably not the way most think).

On the latter point, the idea has been raised of shifting the Bala onto the Belleville sub, and then extending it north across Pottery Road before rejoining the existing alignment. That too would have environmental consequences, though it would allow the removal of about 3km of the existing Bala sub which could then be restored added to the park system.
I think its worth pointing out (not making a comment about this situation in particular), that the existence of an opposition group is not always a good metric for widespread opposition. Those who have the time and money to spin up a group to oppose PT infrastructure are often not representative and quite possibly don't even use the service. The existence of a group with a nice webpage can make people think that a group has widespread support when they may only be a handful of people with a lot of time on their hands.
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
6,130
Location
Condoland
I think its worth pointing out (not making a comment about this situation in particular), that the existence of an opposition group is not always a good metric for widespread opposition. Those who have the time and money to spin up a group to oppose PT infrastructure are often not representative and quite possibly don't even use the service. The existence of a group with a nice webpage can make people think that a group has widespread support when they may only be a handful of people with a lot of time on their hands.
Right on. This is very often the case with activism of any sort.
 

EastYorkTTCFan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
3,606
Reaction score
1,373
Location
East York
Yes, and this is where we need to use some critical thinking. Do they not need to test the rails in the much more intensively used railway networks that use this in Europe?
They may not have the same requirements as transport Canada does. Also there may not really be much of a benefit to doing as people seem to think there is.
 

leopetr

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
386
Reaction score
54
The specific project that Metrolinx choosing to aggressively re-grade the valley messes up is the Don River Valley Park:
- https://donrivervalleypark.ca/
- https://www.evergreen.ca/our-projects/don-river-valley-park/

I've been following the park for a long time and I think it has a lot of potential once more trail connectivity is in place. The existing trails are great, and I'm down there weekly for the Brickworks farmers' market. The space underneath the viaduct is actually quite nice. There is a gargoyle sculpture installation along the trail there

The park and the proposed yard are not completely incompatible, but Metrolinx could choose to accommodate the park more and design a less intrusive yard
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1

Top