Examples of what we advocated for… perhaps there still is an opportunity to beg the city to implement some version of staggered berms/plantings on the first 20 feet of those disgusting walls that we will spend $$$ cleaning anyway….
View attachment 631445View attachment 631446View attachment 631447
Most of these examples are excellent landscaping and grading but are not reflective of the nature of the joint LSE+OL corridor nor its immediate surroundings. You'll note that none of them show any buildings within their immediate proximity, and none are located in a dense, urban environment such as the one the corridor at hand runs through. For example, the first image is taken from the California HSR Central Valley design, a project which runs through urban areas of a less dense and completely different character than Riverside & Leslieville (also a project which should not be our guiding light in terms of cost savings). Structures like the above would significantly increase costs along this portion of the OL alignment when compared to the retaining walls in several manners:
-
Additional Lands Requirements - These require more space adjacent to the tracks themselves, meaning more land acquisition costs, expropriation negotiations, and outrage from individuals such as yourself over the loss of portions of spaces such as Jimmy Simpson. On the other hand, a retaining wall means that all the space taken is used for the transit, and no further lands are required.
-
Greater Construction and Design Costs - these are more complex structures than the simple retaining wall, requiring in detail designs and systems for drainage, foliage, and load distribution across the seasons.
- Significantly Increased Maintenance Requirements - As annoying as graffiti is, its removal is about as cheap as any sort of maintenance can be, in that anyone can do it, at any time, with very little need for specialised equipment. Whatever money is saved on not needing to remove graffiti will be spent in short order on the maintenance of specialised individuals to conduct seasonal maintenance with specialised equipment on the walls, the foliage, and the systems. Never mind having to deal with all of the various requirements regarding foliage which this project's million stakeholders will throw into the mix.
It is fair to want for more aesthetic solutions in transit infrastructure, and fair to state that the cost for kilometer of transit in Toronto is exaggerated in context of what is managed in Asia and Europe. Unfortunately, these costs are the consequence of the institutions, society, and culture which exist in North America, and until the environment in which we build transit changes, and fewer individuals and institutions get to have a say, they are the reality which we must deal with. As a result of that reality, when there are clear-cut opportunities to cut costs and still deliver transit, they must be taken. It makes sense to pick a side, but it does not make sense to hate a project for its costs and hate a project for working to reduce them.