News   Apr 02, 2026
News Roundup for April 2, 2026
 238     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Mount Celeste
 298     1 
News   Apr 01, 2026
UrbanToronto Explores the State of Environment with Special Features Throughout April
 425     0 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

Final Report heading to Jan 8th meeting of EYCC recommends approval of the new GO Station at the Woodbine lands, at 555 Rexdale Blvd.


From said report:

1608682198877.png


Note that the City has made its dissatisfaction with the traffic plan known and has asserted that a revised plan is a condition of approval.
 

Attachments

  • 1608682104575.png
    1608682104575.png
    11.2 KB · Views: 212
Northern Light said:
Final Report heading to Jan 8th meeting of EYCC recommends approval of the new GO Station at the Woodbine lands, at 555 Rexdale Blvd.


From said report:

View attachment 290548

Note that the City has made its dissatisfaction with the traffic plan known and has asserted that a revised plan is a condition of approval.
Click to expand...
I wish the documents were more clear about how a connection to the Finch West LRT would work. I get that the extension is farther off into the future but it would've been nice to get an idea of the connection.
 
Last edited:
Coolstar said:
I wish the documents were more clear about how a connection to the Finch West LRT would work. I get that the extension is farther off into the future but it would've been nice to get an idea of the connection.
Click to expand...
Regardless if the Finch extension is 10-20 years down the line, there should be some indication how The Finch line stop could connect to the new GO station. This is an example of ML missing the mark for planning as well informing the public what could take place over time. Could be a case of one hand not talking to the other, but falls at the feet of the person in change of system planning in ML at the end of the day.

The LRT could be in between Hwy 27 and the track road subject to space for a station and the line itself.
 
Haydenpoon said:
There are clearances for three-tracks on the Stouffville Line? Agincourt GO is extremely narrow already with two tracks.
Click to expand...

Without the SRT, there is clearance for 3 tracks in many areas of the Stouffville line.

More than enough for proper express service with PTC installed.
 
robmausser said:
Wont deliver for a decade?

There will be multiple incremental improvements before full GO-RER, including increased service to all day 2 way every 30 minutes on the Stouffville line, albeit using the current diesel fleet of trains.

Thats still a huge improvement, that will happen almost immediately after this project is complete.
Click to expand...

Stouffville and Barrie are both hourly atm, not half hourly.

Northern Light said:
As some discussion this last week or so has been around the LSE East expansion and its impact on the Small's Creek ravine system (Williamson Ravine and Merrill Bridge Road Park);

I thought I would share that Mx has made the restoration plans public.

Of note, all the trees and shrubs listed for planting are native.

Some of the seedmix is not.

The seedmix is likely for fast growth to prevent erosion, and while I think it could probably be entirely native, it gives me no great concern.

That said, this plan, which basically seems sound, would not, in my judgement, meet a net benefit test without further investment, likely off-site.
Click to expand...

Maybe this specific plan isn't a net benefit but I must say I find it hilarious how we act like the environmental benefit on the whole from RER is not clear on every one of these assessments. Obviously where it makes sense local impacts should be mitigated to the fullest extent, but eod GO RER will have massive environmental benefits.

It never feels like these is the same level of scrutiny when we blast a highway through various places . . . despite the impact being much much larger
 
superelevation said:
Stouffville and Barrie are both hourly atm, not half hourly.



Maybe this specific plan isn't a net benefit but I must say I find it hilarious how we act like the environmental benefit on the whole from RER is not clear on every one of these assessments. Obviously where it makes sense local impacts should be mitigated to the fullest extent, but eod GO RER will have massive environmental benefits.

It never feels like these is the same level of scrutiny when we blast a highway through various places . . . despite the impact being much much larger
Click to expand...

I certainly support subjecting highways to far greater scrutiny.

Many beautiful areas have been trashed by their construction; I particularly lament the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton; which did extraordinary harm; for little benefit.

***

i also concur RER is of great benefit; this particular segment (LSE expansion) is as well.

I support it.

The issue here is really two-fold; one is is absolutely terrible communication by Mx w/locals, including forcing an a Freedom-of-Information request just to look at the drawings. That's not a way to smooth the path or make friends.

The other issue is whether a material benefit to the local community and/or environment has been offered here; as a sop for both the ecological damage and the hassles of construction (night work next to homes etc.)

I would suggest it has not; and there's no real reason except laziness or indifference.

The project should go ahead either way; but with some improvements in the offset package; and a wholesale change to communication strategies with an eye to avoiding such debacles in the future.
 
superelevation said:
It never feels like these is the same level of scrutiny when we blast a highway through various places . . . despite the impact being much much larger
Click to expand...
That's because we blast highways through the middle of nowhere. Environmental protocols are just as rigorous, they just aren't in the way of most people.

Freeway expansions are done along existing corridors, most of which is already owned by the MTO.
 
Streety McCarface said:
That's because we blast highways through the middle of nowhere. Environmental protocols are just as rigorous, they just aren't in the way of most people.

Freeway expansions are done along existing corridors, most of which is already owned by the MTO.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I don't think the MTO is held to a particularly high standard on mitigating/offsetting ecological damage.

Many highway projects routinely damage dozens or even hundreds of hectares of ecologically sensitive land (see the the Highway 400 extension), and we are not seeing that habitat replaced; let alone a net benefit.

The MTO might argue there is one in some of their investments; I feel confident they would not win that argument.
 
Northern Light said:
In fairness, I don't think the MTO is held to a particularly high standard on mitigating/offsetting ecological damage.

Many highway projects routinely damage dozens or even hundreds of hectares of ecologically sensitive land (see the the Highway 400 extension), and we are not seeing that habitat replaced; let alone a net benefit.

The MTO might argue there is one in some of their investments; I feel confident they would not win that argument.
Click to expand...
Of course they're not, but it would be foolish to not believe that every contractor, contract adminster, contracting authority, etc would do away with environmental concerns if they had the ability to. My point was that the MTO is generally less suceptible to scrutiny (especially on extensions like the hwy 400 extension) simply because they are completed in areas that are not near large numbers of people.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top