east don trail - design concepts

EAST DON TRAIL PROJECT

Welcome to Public Event #3Tuesday June 24, 2014

PurposeThis evening we will present and seek your feedback onthe design concepts for what the preferred trail alignment might look like.Format • View open house panels throughout the evening• Attend an overview presentation about the design

concepts: 6:30 pm• Ask for clarification during the question period

Feedback….• Speak directly with City and TRCA staff• A station has been set-up to gather your feedback

and assist with filling in the workbooks provided when you arrive

• Take a comment card and write down your questions to be read out loud by staff

• Fill in a questionnaire

EAST DON TRAIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

If you would like more time you can send in your comments by July 11, 2014 using one of the following options:

Mail to:Maogosha PyjorPublic Consultation UnitCity of TorontoMetro Hall, 19th Floor, 55 John St.Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Tel: 416-338-2850TTY: 416-397-0831Fax: 416-392-2974Email: [email protected]

www.toronto.ca/eastdontrailOpen house materials are available on the project web page:

In , a century and a half after European settlement began in the Lower Don, less than 15 percent of the watershed was urbanized. Most of its land was rural or agricultural, and the study area was home to cottages, industry, sugar bushes, and orchards.

By the , economic forces and plans for the DVP began to shift industry off of the East Don River.

The completion of the DVP in the encouraged the suburbanization of the East Don Valley through to the .

At the Don Watershed is 80 percent urbanized and home to more than 1.2 million residents. About 16 percent of its land remains dedicated to natural heritage, including forests, meadows, and wetlands.

Since , much of the East Don Valley, including the study area, has been protected within the Charles SauriolConservation Reserve, and remains undeveloped parkland.

The East Don Trail is the largest and most complex multi-use trail project in the Bikeway Trails Implementation Plan and is identified as a short-term priority.

In May 2012, a feasibility study was completed to assess the potential for a trail system through the East Don Corridor. The study determined that a trail was possible and identified potential technical challenges. In order to determine the best trail route, further investigations and environmental studies were recommended.

The next step in realizing the completion of the East Don Trail will involve a comprehensive planning and design process facilitated through an Environmental Assessment.


STUDY AREA

Potential TrailConnection Point

The East Don Trail study is being planned under Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, which includes the five (5) phases presented below:

Environmental Study Report

Implementation*Pending EA approval

Identification of Opportunity or Problem

• Identified the problem/opportunity and developed statement• Defined project objectives• Prepared a detailed inventory of existing conditions within the

study area

Alternative Solutions• Identified and evaluated all reasonable alternative solutions

Step 1 – Alternatives To• Identified and evaluated Alternatives To approaching the

problem/opportunity• Selected a preferred approach based on results of

evaluationStep 2 – Alternative Trail Alignments• Identified and evaluated Alternative Trail Alignments• Selected a Preferred Trail Alignment based on results of

evaluation

Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Solution

• Identified Alternative Design Concepts• Evaluated Alternative Design Concepts•

• Complete Environmental Study Report• File Environmental Study Report with Ministry of the

Environment for 30 day public review

• Complete contract drawings and tender documents• Proceed to construction• Monitor construction for adherence to environmental

provisions and commitments

October 2012 – June 2013

June 2013 – March 2014

March – September 2014

September – December 2014

2015 to 2016

A significant gap in the multi-use trail network exists within the East Don Corridor between the existing East Don Trail (East of Wynford Heights Crescent), Gatineau Corridor Trail (at approximately Bermondsey Rd), and the Don Trail System. The East Don Trail will fill this existing gap in the trail network thus creating a continuous connected trail network.

• To provide a safe way for a broad spectrum of users to access the valley system

• To provide safe off road options (where possible) for cycling and recreational use

• To investigate options to accommodate emergency response, City and utility maintenance vehicles/activities

• To assist in the management of informal trails by providing a single focused multi-use trail within the East Don Corridor

• To be respectful of the natural environment through the alignment, design, and construction of the trail by aiming to avoid, prevent, or minimize negative impacts

• To increase access for a range of users to discover and appreciate natural areas within the City

• To function as a safe travel route to everyday places and amenities

• To coordinate with other planning initiatives in the area allowing for future integration of the multi-use trail. (e.g. Eglinton Cross-town LRT)

The Problem/Opportunity Statement and Project Objectives were revised following public review and feedback during Public Event #1 and Community Liaison Committee Meeting #1.

• To provide a key connection route linking local and inter-regional trail systems

• To create trail and outdoor recreational opportunities for a variety of users• To provide trail and outdoor recreational opportunities for neighboring

communities

Below is a brief overview of the feedback received from the second public event which was held on September 12, 2013:

• Overwhelming agreement with the evaluation criteria being used to assess the alternative trail alignments for the East Don Trail Study. Comments on criteria included more consideration to the social benefits of the golf course.

• Majority of respondents agreed with the evaluation as presented for each of the alternative trail alignments, and felt there were no alignment options missing

• Concerns were raised about: • Impacts on the natural environment• A multi-use trail in the Anewen Park to replace informal trails• Potential impacts to the golf course operations

Based on public and landowner feedback the project team looked further into three (3) additional alignments:• west side of the river and

rail line in the north section-

• shared use between the golf course and trail users in the middle section -

• east side of the rail line in the middle section -

Hillside Trail

Corridor Trail

Forest Trail C

Rail Line Crossing

River Crossing

Alternative Trail Alignments Evaluated

Forest Trail C

Corridor TrailHillside Trail


DESIGN CONCEPTSIntroduction and Overview

How Design Concepts were Developed:

Step 1: Establish Segments

The preferred Trail Alignment was divided into segments.

Step 2: Informal Trails

Existing informal trails guided the placement of the trail options.

Step 3: Surveys

Detailed topography and tree surveys were completed.

Step 4: Design Concepts

A range of Design Concepts were created considering constraints and guiding principles.

Preferred Segments:The following portions of the trail will be deferred to the detailed design stage:• Access routes• Areas limited by constraints• Areas leading up to crossings “Transition Areas” (transitions to the

crossings are dependent on the preferred design concept chosen)• Watercourse crossings* (all bridges will have to meet minimum

requirements) *unless impacts placement of trail or tunnel crossing

Based on these constraints the following were considered:

1. Accessibility requirements2. Grades less than 5%3. User needs 4. Trail outside of the 2 year flood line5. Minimized impact to the physical and natural environment6. Needs of maintenance vehicles

Highland Creek Trail

Highland Creek Trail Existing East Don Trail

East Don Corridor

East Don Corridor Summerlea Park, near Humber River

• Ability to maintain minimally steep inclines for accessibility (5% or less)

• Value of trees removed and high preservation trees impacted

• Impact on wetlands

• User exposure to potentially hazardous situations, such as: sharp turns, watercourses, and rail lines

• Ability to provide access to a variety of scenic natural views and landmarks without impacting the natural setting

• Potential impact to cultural heritage resources

• Cost to construct, considering: existing conditions, materials, and design requirements, etc.

• Cost to operate and maintain, considering: length, crossing type, flooding susceptibility, and need for erosion control works, etc.

• Potential difficulties, such as: approvals required, stakeholder acceptance, and impact to existing services (e.g., rail lines)

• Potential for flooding

• Potential risk from channel erosion

• Risk associated with interaction between trail users and rail line (based on landowner input)

The table below indicates the themes and criteria used to evaluate the trail segments and the crossing segments.


OVERVIEW

Legend

G

HIJ

KL

A B

C

E

D

F

Key Map showing Alternative Design Concepts and preferred segments limited by constraints (as shown in example pictures)

Existing Maintenance Access Route

Bank Erosion

Existing Maintenance Access Route

Very Steep Grades

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Preferred Segment

Proposed Bridge

Railway

Rail Line ROW

Transition Area

Proposed Underpass

Proposed Tunnel

B – Forested area along Option 1 and Option 2

A – View of East Don River through the trees

• Relatively flat ground (less than 5% grades) • Higher capital and operating/maintenance cost• Higher erosion risk

• Some steep grades (5 to 9%)• Greater user safety concerns• Greater variety of views and landscapes• Lower capital and operating/maintenance cost• Lower erosion risk

Scored Higher than Option 1

• Impact to wetland drainage• Lower capital and

operating/maintenance cost• Low erosion risk

• No impact to wetland drainage• Greater variety of views and

landscapes• Higher capital and

operating/maintenance cost• Higher erosion risk


B – South end of Option 2 Example of railway underpass

D – Meadow along Option 1

C – Topography at the potential tunnel crossing location

D – View north of Eglinton

• Closer to wetland• Greater variety of view and landscapes• Higher capital and operating/maintenance cost

• Further from wetland• Lower capital and operating/maintenance cost


B #2 – Insert Photo Text

• Steeper grades throughout (5 to 9%) • Greater impact on trees• Lower operating/maintenance cost

• Fewer steep grades (5 to 9%)• Less impact on trees• Greater variety of views and landscapes• Higher operating/maintenance cost


• Level crossing with signals• Railway safety concerns associated with level crossing• Lower capital and operating/maintenance cost• Not preferred by utility owner

• Bridge crossing with one ramp • Steep grades on both sides of crossing • Greater impact on trees• Fewer railway safety concerns • Impact to natural environment setting• Significantly higher capital and operating/maintenance

cost

*Note: level crossing to undergo safety assessment and all rail crossings subject to approval by Metrolinx


• Boardwalk over wetland• Many grade changes some with steep grades (5 to

10%)• Least impact on trees• Greater variety of landscapes• Highest capital and operating/maintenance cost

• Trail through forest • Relatively flat ground • Greatest impact on trees• Lowest capital and operating/maintenance cost

• Trail along edge of forest and boardwalk over wetland • Some steep grades • Greater variety of landscapes

Scored Higher than Options 1 and 3

F – Existing informal trail along a forested slope

F – View of low-lying wet area south of Eglinton

E – Topography at the potential rail line crossing location

H - Existing maintenance level crossing

An example of a level crossing with controls


• Relatively flat ground • Lower capital cost• Slightly higher erosion risk• Easier to implement

• Relatively flat with some grade changes (less than 5%)• More difficult to implement• Higher capital cost

• Level crossing with signals• Fewer trail user safety concerns • Greatest railway safety concerns• Lowest capital and operating/maintenance cost• Not preferred by utility owner

• Bridge crossing with two ramps • Steep grades on both sides of crossing • More trail user safety concerns• Impact to natural environment setting• Highest capital and operating/maintenance cost

• Bridge crossing with one ramp and one switch back

• Steep grades on both sides of crossing• Highest impact on trees• Impact to natural environment setting• High capital and operating/maintenance cost*Note: level crossing to undergo safety assessment and all rail crossings subject to approval by Metrolinx. Gatineau crossing location also subject to approval by landowner (Hydro One)

Scored Higher than Options 2 and 3

G – Flat land between rail line and forested area

I – Option 2 location

• Slightly lower impact on trees• Higher user safety concerns• Higher operating/maintenance cost• More likely to flood

• Slightly higher impact on trees• Fewer user safety concerns• Lower operating/maintenance cost

Scored Higher than Options 2 and 3 Scored Higher than Options 1

J – Existing informal trailJ – Flat forested area

J – View of East Don River

• Steep grades (5%)• More user friendly • Lowest capital cost• Low operating/maintenance cost• Easiest to implement

• Steep grades (5%)• Highest users safety concerns• Highest capital and operating/maintenance cost• May not be accepted by landowners

• Steepest grades (10%) • Lowest impact on trees• Low operating/maintenance cost• May not meet review agency requirements

Bridge-tunnel combination along the existing East Don Trail

K – Potential tunnel location

• Consistent grades• Less likely to flood• Fewer user safety concerns• Slightly higher capital cost• Lower operations/maintenance cost

• One steep short transition • More likely to flood• High user safety concerns• Slightly lower capital cost• Higher operations/maintenance cost• Higher erosion risk *Note: all rail crossings subject to approval by Metrolinx.

• Relatively flat ground• Lower impact on trees• Higher operating/maintenance cost• More likely to flood• Higher erosion risk

• Relatively flat ground • Higher impact on trees• Lower operating/maintenance cost• Lower erosion risk

Scored Higher than Option 2 Scored Higher than Option 1

L – Existing informal trail along the river bank

L – Erosion along east river bank south of railway bridge


OUTCOMESummary MapMap shows the outcome of the Design Concepts evaluation

41

20

32

5

Legend

6

10

11121314

15

16

17

18

19

7

8

9

5

4

321

8

7

6

109

11

12

13

17

16

15

14

20

19

18


OUTCOME

Preliminary PreferredTrail

• Design and construct trail while ensuring minimal vegetation removal, grading and filling

• Compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act by surveying areas for breeding birds prior to vegetation clearing and ensure vegetation will not be cleared between May 1 and July 31

• Restore disturbed areas using only native species

Wildlife Habitat

• Limit the number of large native trees removed

• All tree removals subject to the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection by-law

• Follow City of Toronto Tree Protection Policy for construction near trees

Trees

• Implement appropriate Erosion and Sediment Control program

• Comply with applicable fish timing windows for necessary in-water work

Aquatic Habitat and Fish

• Design trail to have minimal steep inclines and sharp turns, and to minimize interaction with railway traffic

• Meet accessibility criteria where physical constraints allow

Safety and Accessibility

Summer 2014• Review public input on the recommended Design

Concept• Prepare Consultation Report for the third public event• Select a Preferred Design ConceptFall 2014• Present to public through the project webpage and an e-

update. To sign-up for e-updates visit www.toronto.ca/eastdontrail

Winter 2014/2015• File Environmental Study Report with Ministry of

Environment for 30 day public review.

Please leave your completed questionnaires at the door on the way out OR, if you would like more time to write your comments, please send them no later than

to: Maogosha Pyjor

Public Consultation UnitCity of Toronto

Metro Hall, 19th Floor, 55 John St.Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Tel: 416-338-2850 TTY: 416-397-0831Fax: 416-392-2974

Email: [email protected]

east don trail - design concepts

Government & Nonprofit