[ponyboy]

Under my DRL plan, the RH line would interline with it as the tunnel would support EMU DD trains up to 12 cars long. The tunnel would be 3 tracks to allow express service. All stations south of the RH interline point would have stations to handle 12 car trains and 10 cars north of the interline point.

That sounds like a great idea. Are people at Metrolinx talking about such a plan?

You just remove GO trains, now what do you do for the one daily CN train southbound on the line around noon, give or take a few hours???

Perhaps a deal can be worked out with CN to divert north of the core? Or, does this single daily train need to stop somewhere near the city centre?

I think the city should be bold and take advantage of Provincial and Federal governments willing to spend. Perhaps Wynn can help give the city new revenue tools to help us pay for it. Given that the Don Valley cuts across so many council wards, an integrated park might be something a majority of council would support tax increases, as long as the needed transit improvements are done at the same time.


Sadly, I don't know if we can ever get rid of the DVP from the valley, as some have suggested. It would be a big fight to put it down Woodbine and across lakeshore to meet the Gardiner. If only the mass desire to re-naturalize the Don river had happened 40-50 years ago, this might have been doable, but the environmental movement critical mass came too late. Sound walls are essential, though, to make the River environment enjoyable.

 

[jcam]

They never changed the zoning of the rail trail to parkland...it's listed as open space as I recall, which means it can be used for transportation purposes. If they were to reactivate the line, I imagine you'd have as much if not more of an outcry than the Options for Davenport group.

I know someone who's inlaws back onto the trail...when I mentioned the open space issue, they had no idea.

 

[minilude]

Eglinton/Leslie is the minimum point the DRL needs to go in order to meet with Richmond Hill GO. Sadly it's not yet on the book...

 

[smallspy]

You just remove GO trains, now what do you do for the one daily CN train southbound on the line around noon, give or take a few hours???

CN hasn't run 435 regularly down the Bala Sub in over 2 years. It still does it on occasion when its needed to service Oakville, but not every day like it used to.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ponyboy]

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).

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

View attachment 73326 View attachment 73327

The renders completely wipe out the rail line adjacent to Bayview, and the train on the trestle over Bayview looks like a recreational use. I thought we were talking about sending the RH line down via the Don Branch, but what is we were talking about diverting it from Union altogether and sending it to Summerhill?

Still would require re-activating the Leaside Spur, which I agree would get people riled up and be a political firestorm. There is enough space, however. Another thing to consider though is that it would be less controversial if they committed to electric trains on opening day, and not have another episode of Weston. The Richmond Hill line didn't make the cut for Phase 1 electrification though.

On top of that, the only way you will get trains running along CP's midtown corridor is building the Missing Link. Those talks are going slow.

 

[P23]

Re-naturalizing the Don Valley isn't the only reason to remove or reroute the RH line. There's also the summer flooding that's been happening with increasing frequency in recent years whenever there's a heavy rainstorm.


View attachment 73344

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

 

[drum118]

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

Thats still 15 years away from completion and is is subject to funding.

It will not prevent everything 100%, but will reduce the risk greatly if done right.

 

[Northern Light]

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

The naturalization of the mouth of the Don is overwhelming a project taking place south of Lakeshore Blvd.

Its principle purpose is to make the portlands area flood proof to a high degree.

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

Keep in mind the conceptual level development at the First Gulf site involves a berm along the entire western frontage of the property along the Don Roadway.

In doing this, they flood-proof their own site, but add 'containment' to the valley corridor which houses the parkway and track.

I'm sure there will be mitigation strategies, but it clearly shows the thinking that lower valley flooding will remain an issue.

The storm-water holding tanks in the lower Don and Taylor Creek (set to get underway in the next year or two) will have a much more substantial effect on reducing flooding and pollution.

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).

 

[smallspy]

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

That's completely untrue.

The re-naturalization of the mouth of the Don is designed expressly to reduce the possibility of flooding events both in the Portlands area and further up the Don by increasing the amount and speed of the flow south of Lakeshore Blvd. That 90 degree corner is the primary reason for the flooding that does occur on that lower stretch of the Don.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Thats still 15 years away from completion and is is subject to funding.

It will not prevent everything 100%, but will reduce the risk greatly if done right.

Agreed. But 'reducing a great amount of risk' is also based on our current climate change predictions. If we see wacky weather on a more regular basis (i.e. that July 2013 storm), it increases the risk.

 

[Northern Light]

That's completely untrue.

The re-naturalization of the mouth of the Don is designed expressly to reduce the possibility of flooding events both in the Portlands area and further up the Don by increasing the amount and speed of the flow south of Lakeshore Blvd. That 90 degree corner is the primary reason for the flooding that does occur on that lower stretch of the Don.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

NEVER say that anything I publish here is untrue.

From the completed EA and I quote:

Areas within Reaches, 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a and 4, up to the Regulatory Flood limits are designed to
remain at risk to flooding given that the project effectively reestablishes a confining river valley
system for the Don south of Eastern Avenue.

Following implementation, the DMNP will not remove the entire risk of flooding from the Don
River to the following areas as these will remain within the residual floodplain of the Don River:

Don Valley Parkway south of Gerrard Street

Gardiner Expressway r
amps to the Don Valley Parkway

Don River Trail north of and under the CN Rail bridge

Portions of the GO and CP Train subdivision north of CN Rail bridge , along the west
bank of the Don River

Bayview Avenue east of the West Don Lands flood protection land
form

Enbridge Gas utility bridge and Old Eastern Avenue Bailey Bridge north of CN Rail bridge

In other words, Exactly what I said.

Link here:

http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/181970.pdf

And trust me, I Should Know.

 

[drum118]

That's completely untrue.

The re-naturalization of the mouth of the Don is designed expressly to reduce the possibility of flooding events both in the Portlands area and further up the Don by increasing the amount and speed of the flow south of Lakeshore Blvd. That 90 degree corner is the primary reason for the flooding that does occur on that lower stretch of the Don.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

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.

 

[Northern Light]

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.

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?

 

[drum118]

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?

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.