Toronto GO Transit: Davenport Diamond Grade Separation | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[Adjei]

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...her-options-to-replace-the-davenport-diamond/

 

[salsa]

I don't see why.

This is not a new line but just an improvement of the existing one. This rail line has been there for a 100 years so they can't bitch that they don't want a rail track or bridge near their neighbourhood. To me that's like moving near Pearson and then bitching about the noise.

Anyone who lives in the area already knew there was a rail line and to expect it to not be functioning because they all of a sudden showed up is self-centered in the extreme. They choose to live in an area with a railway and if they all of a sudden don't like the railways they have the choice to leave.

The issue they have is that the rail line is being turned into a long bridge that will tower over their homes. It's all about aesthetics and public realm, but I would hope that they can hash out a solution that would be more acceptable to them.

 

[Adjei]

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/11/21/video-davenport-rail-bridge-stirring-controversy-among-residents/

 

[reaperexpress]

I don't see why.

This is not a new line but just an improvement of the existing one. This rail line has been there for a 100 years so they can't bitch that they don't want a rail track or bridge near their neighbourhood. To me that's like moving near Pearson and then bitching about the noise.

Well actually this rail line has been operating for 162 years, which rounds to 200!

But in all seriousness, maybe it would be good to have some sort of voice on the other side of the argument. As it stands, the image that will face city council is that "their citizens" are opposed to this project and demand a tunnel in compensation. But in fact the majority of citizens likely prefer an option that is massively cheaper while still accomplishing pretty much the same goals. With citizen support on both sides of the coin, council would be forced to have a discussion based on logic and reason rather than pandering to "the citizens".

 

[mpd618]

But in all seriousness, maybe it would be good to have some sort of voice on the other side of the argument. As it stands, the image that will face city council is that "their citizens" are opposed to this project and demand a tunnel in compensation. But in fact the majority of citizens likely prefer an option that is massively cheaper while still accomplishing pretty much the same goals. With citizen support on both sides of the coin, council would be forced to have a discussion based on logic and reason rather than pandering to "the citizens".

This. Please speak up for sound planning, not just here but at Council - or at least by emailing your councilors.

 

[MisterF]

Is the city looking at regrading Dupont St to bring it back up to ground level? If the Barrie line is being replaced with an overpass there's no need for Dupont to dip down like that anymore. As essential as grade separations are, those underpasses are extremely unattractive for pedestrians and divide the community.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are some opponents of the "bridge" who compare it to the "Gardiner". Yet, there are condos being built and occupied next door to the Gardiner.

Sorry. People will still live near those elevated tracks.

 

[TOareaFan]

^true....but the same "argument" can be used against the "tear down the gardiner or the city will never reach its potential" folks.....cuts both ways, you can't say to folks in the area of proposed Davenport structure "suck it up things will be ok, elevated structures don't kill neighbourhoods" and also argue "the Gardiner has to come down"

(not saying you are doing this but I have heard people argue both and it makes no sense).

 

[salsa]

^true....but the same "argument" can be used against the "tear down the gardiner or the city will never reach its potential" folks.....cuts both ways, you can't say to folks in the area of proposed Davenport structure "suck it up things will be ok, elevated structures don't kill neighbourhoods" and also argue "the Gardiner has to come down"

(not saying you are doing this but I have heard people argue both and it makes no sense).

A transit bridge is not nearly as menacing as the Gardiner. It's not nearly as wide or dark, it doesn't have a traffic sewer running under it, and there are no off ramps.

With a bit of effort, the proposed bridge at Davenport can be made aesthetically pleasing, but the nimbys need to stop with their propaganda and start working on improving the bridge instead.

 

[crs1026]

Actually, if we put as much effort into improving and greenifying the underside of the Gardiner as the Davenport project is suggesting, we might be OK with it. (it would require a no-salt diet, however)

Whoever was complicit in approving those condo's that close to the Gardiner ought to be banned from any further involvement in civic administration or land development.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

While they have to plow and salt the Gardiner, they'll just have to run trains every few minutes to keep the snow off the tracks.

The snow would never accumulate that much to be worried about. No third rail either, just the overhead electrical.

 

[mpd618]

While they have to plow and salt the Gardiner, they'll just have to run trains every few minutes to keep the snow off the tracks.

Actually, how does that work for an elevated railway through an urban area? You can't just dump it off the side, can you?

 

[crs1026]

Actually, how does that work for an elevated railway through an urban area? You can't just dump it off the side, can you?

It's unlikely that you would need to. The wind will deal with any loose powder snow, I doubt you would get many drifts on an elevated structure anyways. Frequent trains would keep the tracks blown clear.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouverites seem fine with elevated rail....................this is being used as nothing more than an excuse to have another suburban tunnel.

This, however, is Toronto's own fault. The city continues to tunnel in the burbs for no particular reason except politics and now the city has created a mindset that everything has to be tunnelled.

If they don't like it then they can damn well move. Anyone who moves beside a railways and then bitches about the noise or unsightliness of it get's absolutely no empathy from me. You don't hear people at CityPlace bitching about the fumes and noise from being between an elevated freeway and the busiest rail corridor in the city because they went in with their eyes wide open.

 

[44 North]

I actually think the residents are being more reasonable than they could be. The image they showed of a typical elevated structure is pretty standard. Many on this site continue to this day to show 30s-era rusting ELs in NYC and Chicago to get the point across about the horrors of modern transit viaducts. Or they could've shown an example of a hobo encampment and graffiti, which isn't that hard to find below bridges. I'll support them for wanting Metrolinx to make the structure attractive and landscaped.

Oh yeah, not really related. But the point above about plowing...will there be components to melt snow on the structure? A train running by and scooping blocks of snow off onto the path below might be a problem at occasions, so maybe they'll install melters. Also, why aren't we seeing something similar for the Gardiner. Bridges freeze quicker than the ground, and it'd cut down on salting/plowing. I think melters below the roadway would've been a no-brainer.