Transit City Plan

[CapitalSeven]

If we want to make comparisons to Ottawa, the west transitway along Scott St. is likely more similar in terms of what the end result might look like. It's not beautiful, but it has a certain appeal in that a lot of the wall is actually bedrock cut with some vegetation. It gives off a faint driving through the Canadian Shield vibe.

The problem we have imagining attractive infrastructure of this sort is that being in Ontario seldom exposes one to anything that does not look as though it was designed by the owner of a concrete plant. If we thought of a trench as a landscape design opportunity, held a competition, and built the design instead of value engineering it down to nothing, we might get something not too soul-destroying.

 

[gweed123]

If we want to make comparisons to Ottawa, the west transitway along Scott St. is likely more similar in terms of what the end result might look like. It's not beautiful, but it has a certain appeal in that a lot of the wall is actually bedrock cut with some vegetation. It gives off a faint driving through the Canadian Shield vibe.

The problem we have imagining attractive infrastructure of this sort is that being in Ontario seldom exposes one to anything that does not look as though it was designed by the owner of a concrete plant. If we thought of a trench as a landscape design opportunity, held a competition, and built the design instead of value engineering it down to nothing, we might get something not too soul-destroying.

I agree. The reason I did not explicitly use the Scott St corridor is because of the what I consider to be sub-par landscaping that has occurred between the trench and Scott St. It's just a patch of grass. That stretch would be ideal for a tree-lined linear park, similar to what they did with the old Britania Park streetcar corridor just a couple blocks away. However, they have done a nice job of shielding the trench from the neighbourhood immediately to the north. You can walk along the side streets directly north of there (with homes backing onto the trench) and not even know the trench is there. They did a very good job of planting trees and shrubs directly in front of a sound fence that blocks a good portion of the sound. The lands around Westboro station have also seen a lot of redevelopment (including the tallest condo in Ottawa... yeah, it's not that impressive, but still).

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

I agree. The reason I did not explicitly use the Scott St corridor is because of the what I consider to be sub-par landscaping that has occurred between the trench and Scott St. It's just a patch of grass. That stretch would be ideal for a tree-lined linear park, similar to what they did with the old Britania Park streetcar corridor just a couple blocks away. However, they have done a nice job of shielding the trench from the neighbourhood immediately to the north. You can walk along the side streets directly north of there (with homes backing onto the trench) and not even know the trench is there. They did a very good job of planting trees and shrubs directly in front of a sound fence that blocks a good portion of the sound. The lands around Westboro station have also seen a lot of redevelopment (including the tallest condo in Ottawa... yeah, it's not that impressive, but still).

Just google mapped Scott Street and I would say that leaving an open trench like that would be a disappointment (even if they have taken steps to make it look decent). Either completely cover the trench or if a surface LRT go in media or side right of way with a nicely designed streetscape. Not St. Clair or even Spadina style, but something actually designed by someone to make things both function and pleasing to the eye (as noted before maybe a competition)

 

[Dan416]

Just google mapped Scott Street and I would say that leaving an open trench like that would be a disappointment (even if they have taken steps to make it look decent). Either completely cover the trench or if a surface LRT go in media or side right of way with a nicely designed streetscape. Not St. Clair or even Spadina style, but something actually designed by someone to make things both function and pleasing to the eye (as noted before maybe a competition)

Uh, the point of leaving it trenched is to achieve the grade separation which building in median (or even just along the side) does not allow. The advantage of trenching over TBM is that it's a lot cheaper to leave it open. If you're going to trench it, and then cover the whole thing, you would probably lose all the incentive to trench at all due to the additional cost of covering it up after the fact. You may as well have gone with the TBM (especially since we have them).

But given the area, I don't think it's necessary to TBM here (although, look at where they're TBM'ing in Vaughan, LOL).

 

[Rainforest]

What do you think about the Yonge subway line, which runs partly in a trench and partly alongside the street between Bloor and Eglinton?

To me, it does not look like a scar. Will the Richview Corridor situation be much different?

 

[Dan416]

What do you think about the Yonge subway line, which runs partly in a trench and partly alongside the street between Bloor and Eglinton?

To me, it does not look like a scar. Will the Richview Corridor situation be much different?

I'm not sure who you're talking to...

but personally I have rarely taken the Yonge line north of Bloor, so I really can't offer an opinion there. I've only taken it a handful of times, but I don't think I've seen the line from outside.

 

[gweed123]

What do you think about the Yonge subway line, which runs partly in a trench and partly alongside the street between Bloor and Eglinton?

To me, it does not look like a scar. Will the Richview Corridor situation be much different?

Exactly! It's not a picture of beauty, but it's far from an eyesore. And it's much cheaper than tunnelling.

 

[Towered]

I'm definitely not in favour of wasting the Richview corridor on an open trench. That land should be entirely filled in with mixed-use, mid-rise buildings. The stretch between Scarlett and Martin Grove has superb potential to be a very urban, vibrant street with that kind of development.

 

[gweed123]

I'm definitely not in favour of wasting the Richview corridor on an open trench. That land should be entirely filled in with mixed-use, mid-rise buildings. The stretch between Scarlett and Martin Grove has superb potential to be a very urban, vibrant street with that kind of development.

There are plenty of avenues in Toronto with that type of development potential, but so few in tact transit corridors. And there's nothing saying you can't develop those type of buildings directly to the north of the trench, by redeveloping the existing neighbourhood. And there's nothing saying you can't redevelop the south side in that fashion either.

But I think developing the Richview corridor as a mid-rise strip, while not using it for its original purpose at all, I think is a waste of such a rare transit opportunity.

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

There are plenty of avenues in Toronto with that type of development potential, but so few in tact transit corridors. And there's nothing saying you can't develop those type of buildings directly to the north of the trench, by redeveloping the existing neighbourhood. And there's nothing saying you can't redevelop the south side in that fashion either.

But I think developing the Richview corridor as a mid-rise strip, while not using it for its original purpose at all, I think is a waste of such a rare transit opportunity.

The one difference with the Yonge Line trenched sections when compared to the Richview corridor is the Yonge line is not directed beside Yonge Street. So if you are on Yonge Street you don't really notice it. You have to go just a little bit east to see the trench which I'm sure some property owners back there aren't overly proud of. But I'm sure the green space where they decked over isn't bad. What we would have with an open trench in the Richview area would be more like Scott Street in Ottawa.

 

[junctionist]

They should design the trench so that the buildings can easily be built over. Or arrange for the development of the whole strip at one time and have the developers build the tunnel as they build their parking garages.

 

[Rainforest]

Our perception of elevated / trenched transit is probably skewed by Gardiner and Allen Rd. The first is ugly and the second isn't pretty, either. But both of them are just too wide and too full of cars.

If we look at smaller trenches or bridges, for example the Yonge subway trench between Davenport and the CPR bridge, same subway between Davisville and Hillsdale, or the Bloor bridge over Mount Pleasant, or Sherbourne bridge over Rosedale Valley - they are all much better.

The LRT trench in Richview would be about 8 m wide, a lot less than Allen Rd. With a little bit of creativity, it could be build into the streetscape. Add pedestrian bridges every 300 or 400 m, and crossing the LRT trench will be easier than crossing the general traffic lanes now.

 

[accura407]

The one difference with the Yonge Line trenched sections when compared to the Richview corridor is the Yonge line is not directed beside Yonge Street. So if you are on Yonge Street you don't really notice it.

Correct...but guess what?

The richview corridor is so wide and big that...if you moved put the light rail on the far north end (which is partially developed east of Royal York with a new condo) then put development in the zone between the trench and the avenue...what you have is essentially a yonge st all over again.

I wouldn't be surprised if the width of that corridor is about the same as the distance from Yonge st to the subway trench... most probably it is...

So from Martin Grove till Royal York, go on the absoulte north end of the ROW, adjacent to property lines. Then go under the new condo, which is clearly built in the former corridor, (NE corner) and continue along richview road (south side) and put a station (at grade) at scarlett. Then cross scarlett with crossing gates, on a new LRT bridge over the river and slowly descend underground after Emmett Ave and go on a tangent towards Jane, at which it would align itself with Eglinton Ave...

A trench along Eglinton from Royal York to Scarlett would look terrible because the former corridor lands have been completely used up...so in that stretch...align the route along the old richview concession for a small northerly deviation...from royal york till martin grove...the original corridor is completely untouched...trench with berm...no concrete (except for stations)...this will ensure it retains a nice green look...which is important for suburban areas. build bridges over the trench at road crossings (6 west of royal york).

Therefore, the end result would be... Jane to Martin Grove. 2 Underground Stations (Jane and Royal York). Remaining west of Royal York are open cut trench stations. Scarlett station is at grade (calgary style) on the side of Richview Road. Lastly, expropriate the greenhouse that stretches from east of the condos to the cul-de-sac of richview road...and that would be instead continuing the LRT route.

The key is to put development between the rail and the avenue so that nowhere along Eglinton Ave do you see the light rail line...and development would be sandwiched between an arterial and a rapid transit line...

 

[gweed123]

They should design the trench so that the buildings can easily be built over. Or arrange for the development of the whole strip at one time and have the developers build the tunnel as they build their parking garages.

I've considered this idea as well. On paper, it looks like a pretty reasonable suggestion, and all things being equal I would definitely go for it. It's TOD taken to the next level.

However, this type of coordination with private contractors would be a logistical nightmare. These condos would be privately financed and built. What if one of the building's (or even worse, and entire block's) financing falls through? Or the design of the buildings suffers a major setback? Is the construction of the entire line delayed? Or does the City cough up the money to keep the project on schedule, and hope that the condo owners will be able to pay them back?

Logistically, the only way that I can see this working is if the development that occurred was done using a Regent Park model (ie a mix of social and market housing). That way the City would have creative control over the entire project, and would be able to effectively coordinate the construction. Having said that, I can almost guarantee that the residents in that area of Etobicoke would fight the City tooth and nail over social housing units in their community.

Doing neighbourhood design for a living, I can tell you it's a logistical nightmare just getting all the planning approvals, engineering approvals, building permits, etc etc etc in line for one subdivision. I can only imagine how much of a headache coordinating with all those different groups would be. Yikes.

 

[rbt]

Exactly! It's not a picture of beauty, but it's far from an eyesore. And it's much cheaper than tunnelling.

I read this regularly here. Are you certain? For Ontario?

Soil remediation in Ontario is significantly more strict than it used to be even a decade ago and if I understand correctly significantly more strict than much of the rest of the world. Nearly everything from Eglinton's tunnel will need to be cleaned simply because nearly everything extracted from anywhere does.

Removing double or triple the amount of soil will double to triple the cost of remediation. Leslie LRT was pegged at $50M (and climbing) for the site and doesn't go deeper than a few feet on average.

I suspect that a 30 foot deep trench through an older industrial area would be significantly more expensive than tunnelling deep below the same area if constructed today. Couldn't guess at the Richview corridor specifically but I would want someone to carefully cost both options before jumping to the conclusion it is cheaper; toss in a land sale of the Richview corridor to developers for good measure as a side-of-the-street line will have less easily developable space.