Metroscapes
Active Member
The original designs contemplated during the EA stage contemplated tunnels and an at-grade crossing. Metrolinx said no and insisted all crossing were bridges. After public appeals and some back-and-forth between the City / TRCA and Metrolinx, we landed at the configuration we saw today. That flipflopping and redesign cost a lot of time and money.It seems people on this forum might know.... did Metrolinx "make building the pedestrian tunnel difficult" and if so, how so? Clearly if it wasn't for Metrolinx and the existence of a rail corridor the project would have been done quicker... the existence of a river probably made building the path take longer too with the damned TCRA and their need to have rivers.
Then there was the actual design approvals. The construction updates over the past 5 years specifically state that construction (which was delayed repeatedly) was pending "agreements with Metrolinx", "work[ing] with Metrolinx to secure final approval", and 'securing track closures' for construction. How much of this was Metrolinx and how much of it was project mismanagement and/or difficulty working with utilities will probably never be known with certainty, but Metrolinx was the common denominator with a bad track record.