Re-routing rail away from Don River -- what can be done to open up Don River Valley Park?

[Northern Light]

Clearance is a major issue, but the roadbed could be a few feet, but is it worth it?? Can build a retaining wall that could do more protection than raising the roadbed at a high cost and blocking the view of the river.

Not up to date as what Metrolinx is planning these days.

Thanks Drum.

PS.

For those interested in the gory details.

This is the detailed flood modelling from the EA

http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/182011.pdf

 

[44 North]

Add to your comments.

There been a change to mouth of the Don from the original EA that I am not happy with, but both plans opens up the mouth to a faster displacement of the excess water.

Lake Shore Blvd will see a wider bridge as well higher built over the Don in place of the current one.

The Don River will have 3 options when it hits the Keating Channel compare to the current 1 as to where it should flow. It can flow the current route as well continue down to the shipping channel or about the 45 degree channel to take it into the harbour between the shipping and Keating channel. It will use all 3 options at all time.

Commissioners St will see a long bridge going over the new channels to a higher level Don Parkway Rd in place of the current one.

If you look at the RR bridge that exist today and compare it to the past one, you will see it has a longer span and more clearance under it.

Once this is built over the next 15 years or less subject to funding, you will not see what took place a few years ago, but some for the DVP since you will never get 100% protection for it as it stands today.

If and when Metrolinx raise and put in protection for the RH line, the chances of a train getting caught like it did a few years ago will be almost zero between what Metrolinx will do to the building of the new mouth of the Don.

The old Eastern Ave Bridge is a blocker.

As an add-on to your post and for those that aren't aware of the past plans (and the current changes as part of the Port Lands Acceleration Initiative), this is how the river mouth plans have progressed:

I'm okay with the changes, and a big benefit is that it allows for more development (while also maintaining active shipping operations). Though I personally would like if the N/S "spillway" paralleling Don Rdwy were to be a river at all times (instead of only during floods). I also wouldn't mind some Amsterdam-style or Canary Wharf-style squared-off canals...but that's obviously an unnecessary frill and probably unworkable.

No question that flooding will be reduced.

Drum, do you have any notion of what Metrolinx is contemplating at the south end Bala/start of USRC?

As has been noted elsewhere, clearance doesn't seem that high for the existing bridges, assuming that you wish to leave room for bi-levels and potentially for electrification.

Is their room to raise the bed there?

It's hard to find info on what Metrolinx is up to, has planned, or knowing what direction they'll take (since they're somewhat rogue, closed-door, and seemingly at QP's/McWynne's beck and call). But as we speak the south end of the RH line is receiving minimal flood protection measures. Things were getting quite serious with erosion north and south of Bloor a few years back, and since then they've improved the retaining wall alongside the river. And closer to Pottery Rd it currently looks like they're laying new ballast which is probably raising the track level by a few inches. This is a far cry from what's actually needed, but it's apparent that flood-protection is at least mildly on Metrolinx's radar.

And I def agree with your other points further back. Even with the new river mouth, bioswales, renaturalization projects, storm water silos, etc - the valley and transportation infrastructure in the Lower Don will still be susceptible during peak flood conditions.

 

[Armour]

Why was the plan changed from the MVVA vision?

 

[salsa]

Found this youtube video that provides more details for the plans around Brickworks -- go to 4:55. It looks like the Bloor exits from the DVP will be directly onto Bayview, and the existing exits will be removed along with the depot yard. The rail line will hug the westside of the DVP, but I don't know how far that will continue south (the renders show a rail path that has become a trail).

Great video, but one little nitpick: I know that the whole point of the video was to highlight the current shortcomings of the Don Valley, but she could have taken a much better route to the Brickworks instead of Bayview Ave. Go through Rosedale and use the beltline ravine trail. It only 3 extra minutes.

 

[smallspy]

NEVER say that anything I publish here is untrue.

Snip.....

Perhaps my understanding of english isn't as good as it should be....but you wrote the following:

In terms of alleviating DVP or track-level flooding, the answer is essentially a 'no'.

Which in the english that I understand means that the work being done is not going to improve the current conditions which result in flooding along that stretch of the Don.



In terms of the EA, yes, they say that there will still be some lower risk at flooding once all the work is completed. I am not in disagreement with that - it is impossible to make that risk equal 0. But to say that all of that work isn't going to help fix the problem is an untrue statement - the EA itself says that it will.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Northern Light]

Perhaps my understanding of english isn't as good as it should be....but you wrote the following:



Which in the english that I understand means that the work being done is not going to improve the current conditions which result in flooding along that stretch of the Don.



In terms of the EA, yes, they say that there will still be some lower risk at flooding once all the work is completed. I am not in disagreement with that - it is impossible to make that risk equal 0. But to say that all of that work isn't going to help fix the problem is an untrue statement - the EA itself says that it will.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

If you had read to the end of my post........which wasn't all that long that it couldn't be managed.............

The very last line I wrote was:

Even then, I suspect you might go from the current level of flooding (once every 2 years, on average, to one in 5 or 10).

If you then read through the hydrological modelling in the EA, which I have subsequently posted a link to; it clearly shows flooding for the once in a 10 year storm event.

(they didn't model 5 years).

****

The question that was asked, which I was answering is

The mouth of the Don naturalization is supposed to correct this, no?

I answered correctly, in saying 'essentially no'.

Because having your infrastructure flooded out every decade is not 'corrected'.

The modelling only shows some amelioration on the 2-year model, for anywhere north of the Kingston Sub, and west of the First Gulf site.

 

[ponyboy]

my apologies. I added the citation to the post.

 

[Palma]

Rather than having to reclaim the "Leiside Spur trail" for rail use, would it be possible to curve north to merge with the other line where it crosses the DVP here: https://goo.gl/maps/RMR9PFP9KEv

Maybe that is what you are saying when you said "The other northern option would be to route off north at 1/2 mile bridge and back down to the Bala sub, while likely staying on a bridge until across Pottery Road.", but I don't know the locations of these different lines and bridges.

On the southern portion, new tracks would hug the DVP south of this point: https://goo.gl/maps/Xboyw1mRup82

South of this point: https://goo.gl/maps/qbeKDBunVT82 , the DVP would need to be shifted east by creating 2-3 new lanes, allowing for the new rail to be laid on the east side of the river
The construction staging would first have the new lanes built, then the highway shifted to allow for the new rail to be put in.

I don't know if this is part of the plan, but I've been looking closely at the renders and trying to piece together what it is.

the following map is vegeta_skyline's from post #4920 at http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/go-transit-service-thread-including-extensions.4952/page-328, and the renders below are from the article in the original post.
View attachment 73325View attachment 73326 View attachment 73327

very beautiful looking if it ever came to pass

 

[ponyboy]

I found the Ryerson report done for Evergreen that contains more information to go with the Youtube video --

http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/surp/news/news/General_Public/FINAL DRAFT_PEOPLES PLAN.pdf

page 21 shows the proposed rail re-alignment, but the whole report is an interesting read. It is a thoughtful plan, and hopefully will be set into motion.

A couple of things I didn't see in the report that would help in my opinion --
1. Stairs down to Bayview and a barrier free corridor from Castle Frank station to elevators that can take people down to the River park.
2. Traffic control along Bayview south of Bloor to slow down traffic. Perhaps on-street parking along Bayview and some low density restaurants and cafe's would improve access and help the pedestrian realm. Any new buildings here, being in a potential flood zone, would have higher liability insurance.
3. More smaller streets connecting to Bayview, allowing for more access points.

 

[44 North]

I found the Ryerson report done for Evergreen that contains more information to go with the Youtube video --

http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/surp/news/news/General_Public/FINAL DRAFT_PEOPLES PLAN.pdf

page 21 shows the proposed rail re-alignment, but the whole report is an interesting read. It is a thoughtful plan, and hopefully will be set into motion.

Thanks for this. I was hoping for a bit more info on their idea to realign the rail corridor alongside the DVP, and how this realigned route would deviate just south of the Half Mile Bridge and back to the current RH routing. Considering the bridge supports/arches at Queen, Dundas, and Gerrard, as well as the gradients involved, I have a hard time accepting this aspect as possible. But that doesn't mean I think it should remain unexplored. I support basically everything this group proposes. The Lower Don and is one our city's greatest assets, and at the moment it's poorly accessible to many. And what is accessible is in dire need of improvements.

My personal area of interest for improvements is Riverdale East/West. If you have mobility issues or a stroller, this massive park is largely inaccessible. And for much of the year it's a soggy mess with poor drainage. When things are particularly wet, it seems the ponding pattern takes the shape of the original water course before it was filled-in and straightened. So I'd like to see new switchback trails, raised trails, and improved drainage.

 

[drum118]

One needs to keep in mind that if we are using the RR as the backbone for a transit network, it must have the capacity to meet current and future needs and this plan doesn't do it.

If we are going to run trains every 15 minutes or less, single track will not cut it and needs to be double track which will not fit in the proposed plan. The RH line needs to be 15 minutes.

In fact the report and plan miss the point that a 4/5 car train station should be here with no parking, but rental bike racks.

This plan still cater to the car since Bayview is major north-south route. Have no issue for the removal of the interchange for the DVP.

 

[ponyboy]

Considering the bridge supports/arches at Queen, Dundas, and Gerrard, as well as the gradients involved, I have a hard time accepting this aspect as possible.

It's an expensive engineering project to alter those supports, but how difficult? How much would it cost? Is there enough bridge height on this corridor to allow electrification? If not then many of these bridges would need reworking for electrification some day anyway.

One needs to keep in mind that if we are using the RR as the backbone for a transit network, it must have the capacity to meet current and future needs and this plan doesn't do it.

But this line along the River is just one piece of the Regional Rail (RR). How critical of a piece is it to this overall backbone? Would this proposed rail change along the River, with limited capacity that can't be further expanded, work if your idea (post #15 above) for interlining the Richmond Hill line with the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) was implemented? Wouldn't that provide the future RR capacity enhancement needed for the city?

 

[Northern Light]

I found the Ryerson report done for Evergreen that contains more information to go with the Youtube video --

http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/surp/news/news/General_Public/FINAL DRAFT_PEOPLES PLAN.pdf

page 21 shows the proposed rail re-alignment, but the whole report is an interesting read. It is a thoughtful plan, and hopefully will be set into motion.

A couple of things I didn't see in the report that would help in my opinion --
1. stairs down to Bayview and a barrier free corridor from Castle Frank station to elevators that can take people down to the River park.
2. traffic control along Bayview south of Bloor to slow down traffic.

My thanks for posting this.

 

[Northern Light]

In respect of the plan, I would note on p.30 there is a rendering at Gerrard, in which, best I can see there are no railways tracks on either side of the river.

 

[Northern Light]

A usually reliable source tells me that Metrolinx has not been consulted; and they first heard of this proposal last Friday.

Can't say if that's true, but that would seem poor if its so.