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

[Northern Light]

Completely agree. I hate the noise walls. Even more, I hate that trains have become something we seemingly need to hide or be ashamed of (HS2, I'm looking at you). I was recently looking at a place on Prescott, right near there. Didn't get it and was a bit disappointed, but now, seeing those walls go in, the draw to something like that is gone completely. Imagine living like my 3rd picture above? No thank you.

Nevermind the noise walls PE; you just don't want MX as a neighbour.

Secretive, misleading, obnoxious, entitled, uncaring...........and those are the things kind people say about them.

As someone involved in development, you're likely aware of their rules around installing tie-backs next to a rail corridor..........

 

[smallspy]

I obviously don't know but would be very surprised if Metrolinx has legally ceded anything. The legal footwork involved with every bordering landowner would be daunting and expensive. The location of the soundwalls and the existing old fences may have no bearing on the actual property lines. A fence right on the property line legally imposes shared ownership and responsibility and it is not uncommon for fences, etc. to be installed completely on one side of the line. I suspect that Metrolinx has simply de facto ceded caring about what's on the other side yet retaining the legal title to both sides of the walls. I wouldn't be surprised that, over the years, bordering landowners tear down their back fences and simply assume the strip, grow grape vines or whatever. It might lead to a claim of adverse possession ('squatter's rights') but I'm not that up on the legalities of the concept.

Those soundwalls will no doubt have an impact beyond their intended purpose, such as heat reflection, sunlight, etc. Some may be beneficial, some not so much.

This was exactly what the case was before the construction started.

Over the years, the property owners would encroach further and further onto the railway's land, to the point where some of the "backyards" were in line with the hydro pylons. The same thing has happened all over where railways have owned corridors far larger than their current needs. It was the case on the Stouffville line before the work started there (especially north of Sheppard), on the Kitcherner Line before UPX, etc.

But squatter's rights don't equal actual legal rights. And so Metrolinx removed all of their extended yards in order to have room for their construction.

The sound walls are indeed totally built on Metrolinx property, and there is about a 4 foot strip of land on the backside of the walls that was required in order to install the walls, and that they will own but will not be using. It won't be ceded back to the neighbouring property owners, but they will be welcome to use it should they see the need to. But should Metrolinx need that strip in the future, they will take it back again.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

But squatter's rights don't equal actual legal rights. And so Metrolinx removed all of their extended yards in order to have room for their construction.

That's true in the abstract, but "squatters' rights" and lot line ambiguity is a pretty common source of neighbour disputes, and plenty of lawyers successfully argue claims in this area.

As a resident I would most certainly be inclined to treat that four foot gap as part of my property, for purposes of making my back yard attractive and enjoyable. I might put up a trellise, or extend my patio stones or deck right to the wall.

But is ML liable, for instance, for noxious weed abatement? Vermin control? Will ML remove a dead raccoon? Do I have to give ML an easement to access their strip of land, or do they have to access over the top of the sound wall? Is it similar to the City owning half my front lawn but my having to do all the snow removal and lawn maintenance? What if ML rents that four foot corridor to a telco for fibre cable?

I'm being pedantic, absolutely - but it may be entertaining to watch, and lawyers may well get fed in years ahead.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

That's true in the abstract, but "squatters' rights" and lot line ambiguity is a pretty common source of neighbour disputes, and plenty of lawyers successfully argue claims in this area.

As a resident I would most certainly be inclined to treat that four foot gap as part of my property, for purposes of making my back yard attractive and enjoyable. I might put up a trellise, or extend my patio stones or deck right to the wall.

But is ML liable, for instance, for noxious weed abatement? Vermin control? Will ML remove a dead raccoon? Do I have to give ML an easement to access their strip of land, or do they have to access over the top of the sound wall? Is it similar to the City owning half my front lawn but my having to do all the snow removal and lawn maintenance? What if ML rents that four foot corridor to a telco for fibre cable?

I'm being pedantic, absolutely - but it may be entertaining to watch, and lawyers may well get fed in years ahead.

- Paul

It is similar to the boulevards' on City streets. In many cases the concrete/asphalt sidewalk does not fully occupy them and adjacent property owners (who are obliged to keep them tidy) expand into them with lawns, bushes and ??? If/when the City is doing sidewalk work you get a notice warning you to remove any of your property as it may be damaged.

 

[dowlingm]

The GOExpansion Twitter account has posted a video and is promoting it as a Twitter Ad

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768664232017465532

 

[lenaitch]

Over the years, the property owners would encroach further and further onto the railway's land, to the point where some of the "backyards" were in line with the hydro pylons. The same thing has happened all over where railways have owned corridors far larger than their current needs. It was the case on the Stouffville line before the work started there (especially north of Sheppard), on the Kitcherner Line before UPX, etc.

I recall reading about a spur in the Greater Vancouver Area that had been long disused but not abandoned and it had been virtually taken over by garden plots by adjacent and nearby landowners.

But squatter's rights don't equal actual legal rights. And so Metrolinx removed all of their extended yards in order to have room for their construction.

It can if somebody is willing to initiates a claim and can convince the court that it meets the criteria. "Squatter's right's' is a bit of misleading handle. 'Title by possession' is more accurate because, if you win, it is registered on the title.

Property law is a complex area, by as a bit of a primer on the topic:

Squatter's Rights, LTCQ and Adverse Possession In Ontario

Squatters Rights - Land Titles Conversion Qualified Is Not Enough. In Ontario, You Have To Watch For Adverse Possession. Can It Impact You?

www.hummingbirdlaw.com

It is possible but a tough hill, and I'm not sure why anyone would. As it stands, you get to de facto enjoy a slightly extra back yard for free, but if you try and claim it and win you get to pay more property taxes and inherit responsibility for it.

Depending on how wide it is, I doubt it would be useful as an easement for utilities.

My guess is nothing will change. The railway will ignore maintenance of 'the strip''; some landowners will assume, maintain and enjoy their slice. If they make any improvement or build any structures on the strip that gets in the way of wall maintenance, it would be subject to removal or damage without compensation.

EDIT: As a bit of an addendum, it struck me that property law in relation to 'squatter's rights', 'adverse possession' or whatever you wish to call it involves private property registered under the Land Titles Act or Registry Act. Railways are governed by federal legislation and, like public property (city boulevards, etc.), do not fall under this legislation. There might be, but I've not heard of a case of somebody winning title over public land, and I suspect railway land would be the same.

 

[Bojaxs]

Was the elevated guideway constructed to be wide enough to accommodate a future third track?

 

[Leo_Chan]

Was the elevated guideway constructed to be wide enough to accommodate a future third track?

This report says there are provisions for a third track, but I'm not well versed enough to know if this was actually the case in the final design and construction.

 

[lenaitch]

^^ The way I read that it is in relation to the entire corridor project, not specifically the Diamond part.

Considering that the aerial structure is built as two separate guideways, I don't see it.

 

[Bojaxs]

^^ The way I read that it is in relation to the entire corridor project, not specifically the Diamond part.

Considering that the aerial structure is built as two separate guideways, I don't see it.

Is there room for a third track on the Barrie line? Not having express service on the Barrie line for people north of Aurora would be a damn shame.

 

[urbancog]

There are certainly locations along the Barrie line where 3 tracks could fit in the right of way. For example here at Teston Road in Vaughan there are 2 tracks but a third could be added with some relocation. The green boundaries are planning regulation areas but these are derived from land ownership parcel boundaries, so one can assume they represent Metrolinx's ownership in the area.

 

[nfitz]

Wouldn't a third track fit where the track was that was left operational during the construction? Or have they already used that for a second track?

 

[dowlingm]

If Barrie wants a limited stop GO train to downtown, send it over BCRY and the MacTier

 

[crs1026]

Is there room for a third track on the Barrie line? Not having express service on the Barrie line for people north of Aurora would be a damn shame.

There are places (between Rutherford and Maple, for example, and in the area south of Rutherford) where it does appear that grading and culverts have a third track roughed in. That hints that express peak service may be intended down the road. South of Lawrence, it's clear that the line will not exceed double track.

The early consultation materials for the Davenport Flyover did portray three tracks, but I'm doubtful that will ever come to be.

- Paul

 

[ProjectEnd]

There is no space for a third track on the guideway. It also was never engineered to take that load - it's two parallel precast tube segments sitting directly over the column lines. You're not putting a third track on the unsupported middle (which is now largely open to below for drainage).