The Ins and Outs of Lake Ontario

Note: This post was first published on June 1, 2019 with data available from May 30, 2019. It was updated on June 3, 2019 with the latest data available, and improved graphs. It was updated again on June 5 and July 2, 2019 to reflect new height records.

In June 2017, Lake Ontario rose to a height not seen in the last 100 years of recorded history. The pictures of how this impacted Toronto were dramatic; flooding parks, eroding shorelines, and boardwalks, beaches and the Islands underwater.

Two years later, we broke records again. Once again, it’s a shocking scene.

The height of water in a lake fluctuates naturally. The amount of rainfall flowing into it, and the rate at which it drains through an outlet (if it has one) is a major determinant. However, it can also be affected by temperature, sunlight, formation / melting of snow and ice, and wind.

But how have we hit crazy high levels within the last two years? Rain, and how much and how hard it falls, is definitely a huge factor. But you may be surprised to learn that its less about the rain that falls onto Lake Ontario’s surface and shores or how hard it fell, and more about what’s happening to the east and the west.

This is a look at where water in Lake Ontario comes from, and where it goes.

The Setup

Lake Ontario basin. From a Report for the International Joint Commission.

First, let’s set this up with some historical context on Lake Ontario’s water level (Note 1).

Prior to 2017, Lake Ontario had only gone above a height of 75.7 metres twice in the last century: 1952 and 1973. It has also only gone below 73.8 metres twice during the same period: 1934 and 1936. Otherwise, Lake Ontario has varied in height within this 1.9 metre range from year-to-year, and season-to-season.

Then in 2017, the previous record set in 1952 was broken by 5 centimetres, with the lake reaching a monthly average height of 75.81 metres above sea level. It was dramatic and visually striking, flooding the Toronto Islands and other shoreline areas on the mainland. The capital repair costs to the city were estimated to total $15.6 million.

This year, the high lake levels are repeating themselves. Most days in June 2019 broke Lake Ontario’s previous daily height record of 75.88 m set in 2017. June 2019 also saw a new record average lake height of 75.89 m, or 8 cm above the previous record set in June 2017.

Looking back makes you realize that in Lake Ontario’s history, a couple pairs of high level years occurring in close vicinity is not unprecedented. 1929 + 1930. ’43 +’ 47 + ’52. ’73 + ’74 +’76. Keep the last two sets in mind next time you’re looking at imprints on Toronto’s bridges and culverts. Same story goes for sets of years with record lows.

Graph of annual minimum, average and maximum levels in lake Ontario, 1918 to present.

What causes the changes in Lake Ontario to swing so much? Do I really need to bust out that graphic from your high school science class showing the water cycle? No? Good.

But as I alluded to, Lake Ontario’s water level isn’t affected as much by the rain that falls near the lake. Below is a chart showing the water balances for the Great Lakes.

As you can see, Lake Ontario’s levels are highly dependent on upstream inflow and downstream outflow (79% and 95% of total inflows and outflows, respectively). The remaining 21% of the total inflow is from water fed from rivers and streams, and 5% of the total water is evaporated (Note 2).

Upstream inflows come from the other Great Lakes, which are fed by rainfall and streamflow. So technically, it makes it an indirect impact. But it’s an important distinction to make. A closer look at where Lake Ontario’s water comes from and where it goes will make it clear why.

Ontario: Last Stop Before the St Lawrence

Lake Ontario is impacted by the fact that it is part of Great Lakes-St Lawrence River system. This means it is fed by water from (going upstream):

Lake Erie via the Niagara River;
Lake St Clair, via the Detroit River;
Lake Huron / Georgian Bay, via the St Clair River;
Lake Michigan, via the Straits of Mackinac; and,
Lake Superior, via the St Mary’s River.

Water from Lake Erie flows down the Niagara River, and its mostly unregulated, meaning it flows without anything really holding it back (i.e. a dam). Two exceptions are hydroelectric power plants on both the Canadian and American sides, as well as the Welland Canal. However, the power plants are restricted in how much water they take in; the International Join Commission (IJC) is a bi-national agency that has rules to ensure there is enough water flowing over Niagara Falls, so they look pretty and aren’t a pathetic dribble.

Furthermore, they don’t have much capacity to hold what flows down the Niagara River, and they have to let it go eventually. It only manages to change the flow +/- 5%.

The Welland Canal is another pathway for water between Lakes Erie and Ontario. It isn’t a huge factor either; it’s 8.5% of what flows through the Niagara River (Note 3).

Continuing upstream, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are technically one lake, as they are hydraulically connected through the Straits of Mackinac and generally sit at the same level. The water from them flows unregulated through the Lake St Clair and the St Clair and Detroit Rivers.

Lake Superior is the one major upstream part of the basin that is regulated. Outflow is controlled via three power plants and a 16-gate dam on the St Mary’s River. However, the outflow of Superior pales in comparison to other inputs to Lakes Michigan, Huron and Erie, and even then, any water held back would be a percentage of that outflow.

All that to say Lake Ontario is fed by the other lakes and the rainfall that feeds into them, and there’s really nothing holding it back. So when all of the lakes are up, it can mean a significant cumulative height difference for Lake Ontario.

Outflow: A Balancing Act

Lake Ontario, and all of the water fed into it, flows into the St Lawrence River, and eventually the Atlantic Ocean. But it’s not as simple as draining a tub.

While the eastern end of Lake Ontario is defined as being at Kingston (where it passes both sides of Wolfe Island), there are locks and dams along the way, which widen the St Lawrence River behind them and form ‘lakes.’ These lakes are:

Lake St Lawrence, between Kingston and Cornwall
Lake St Francis, between Cornwall and Melocheville
Lake St Louis, along the west end of Montreal Island.

The key outlet is at Cornwall, between Lake St Lawrence and Lake St Francis, where the Moses-Saunders Dam controls the flow of water. How much water is released is once again determined by the IJC, but unlike the Niagara River, that goal is not making pretty waterfalls. Nor is it just contingent on what is happening to the west. The IJC has to play a balancing act between the height of Lake Ontario and how high the St Lawrence is downstream.

Lake Ontario is 19,000 km² and an average depth of 86 m. Lake St Francis and Lake St Louis on the other hand are…not so big. I couldn’t find the figures I was looking for, but it’s in the ballpark of 400 km² and an average depth of 10-20 m (if you got better numbers give me a shout). But the magnitude speaks for itself; the same amount of water has a disproportionate impact on water levels.

Even if Lake Ontario is really high, increasing outflow to reduce its height by a couple centimetres could send downstream communities underwater. So even if the Toronto Islands are underwater and our shorelines are being eaten away by erosion, it’s a small cost relative to the damage that could occur down in Quebec.

Courtesy of the International Joint Commission

Another complicating factor is that the Ottawa River meets the St Lawrence at Lake St Louis. It is a very large river basin which is also relatively unregulated, and it can significantly alter the height of the St Lawrence at Lake St Louis. If there are already high flows coming down the Ottawa River, this put extra restrictions on the flow out of the Moses-Saunders Dam so that flooding in Montreal and other Quebec communities downstream doesn’t occur or isn’t worsened.

Seasonal Impacts

One mitigating factor in all of this is the evaporation off of the lakes. One would think that warm temperatures mean big thunderstorms, and that is a pathway for moisture to be carried out of the lake. Well, it actually it’s quite low.

Just as snow melt starts entering the system and the rain begins to fall, evaporation rates nosedive, and whatever goes through a lake’s outflow is the only output of the system. When you put the plug in the tub while the water’s still pouring in, it’s gonna fill up.

The manner in which snow falls and melts can also have an impact on the system. I reached out to a friend who is more academically trained in earth and atmospheric sciences to expand on these effects of seasonal change on lake levels.

“A late start to spring and extended cold weather can delay local vegetation’s break from dormancy. This has the effect of reducing evapotranspiration rates early in the season. As plants take up water, they remove some moisture from the ground which would otherwise end up in local river systems, and eventually through to the St. Lawerence River.

An extended winter may also delay snow melt timing, resulting in a greater surge of water into the Great Lakes, as opposed to the longer, drawn-out thaw that we are typically used to.

Downstream damming and excessive rainfall are much more significant contributors to lake level issues. Still, evapotranspiration and snow melt play an important part in our water cycle, and all of these factors together may have helped pushed things over the top this year.”
Alex Harris, B.Sc.(Env.), M.Sc. – Ecology candidate

The Perfect Storm

Putting it all together, you get an idea of why 2017 and this year saw crazy high water levels in Lake Ontario.

Extended winter and late spring
Significant spring rain
Significant unregulated flow into Lake Ontario from Lake Erie
Significant unregulated flow into the St Lawrence from the Ottawa River
Restricted outflow from Lake Ontario

And when you put this in chart form, with the lake level put against the rates of inflow and outflow, it becomes clear how restrictions at the Moses-Saunders Dam can play a large part in raising Lake Ontario’s height.

Between April 18 and May 21, 2019, there was an average of 114.85 million m³ more water flowing into Lake Ontario than flowing out each day. Over 34 days, that makes for a total of 3.9 billion m³ of water. If you didn’t account for elevation, that would be enough to cover the city of Toronto in 6.2 metres of water (Note 4). Accounting for elevation however, that’s enough water to flood downtown Toronto, East York and south Etobicoke (up to the old Iroquois shoreline) with as much as 50 metres of water (Note 5).

The area below the “Iroquois shoreline” ***(Note 5)***.

So, a lot of water. Spread out over the entirety of Lake Ontario however, it rose 70 cm, which is enough to impact the entirety of Toronto’s 111 km of shoreline, and thousands more kilometres of shoreline across the rest of the lake (Note 6).

So what are the odds of this happening again? I can’t tell you exactly. I have delivered simplified numbers here, and don’t have a good enough understanding of inter-year and inter-seasonal effects on basin supply and drain.

But based on my knowledge of climate change phenomena, I think the chances are good. Climate change is forecasted to increased precipitation for the Great Lakes Basin, and this may have an impact, particularly if increasingly severe storms means more rainfall runs off into local watercourses instead of being absorbed by the ground and transpired by plants. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence to suggest climate change may increase the frequency and severity of polar vortexes, which could extend winters and delay spring vegetation growth.

So perhaps it’s time to talk about how we manage the inflows and outflows of the Great Lakes. Should we be taking steps to regulate flows out of Lakes Michigan, Huron and Erie? Should we begin to deregulate flows out of Lake Ontario and find another way to mitigate flooding in the St Lawrence?

That discussion would be a geographical (upstream and downstream) and impact-based (net natural, social and economic) balancing act. And that’s way beyond a single blog post or a single year of records.

Notes

1. Lake height measurements are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s master gauges (Superior – Marquette C.G., Michigan – 9099018 | Michigan-Huron – Harbor Beach, MI – 9075014 | Erie – Fairport, OH – 9063053 | Ontario – Oswego, NY – 9052030) and are based on the International Great Lakes Datum, 1985. Monthly/annual maximums, averages and minimums available here.

2. Neff and Nicholas (2005). Uncertainty in the Great Lakes Water Balance: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5100, Table 6. Data is from 2003, and a contact at the University of Michigan indicated that it is out of date. A more up-to-date water balance model is available, but I did not have enough time to crunch the data. That said, these figures should provide a good sense of magnitude of importance.

3. Flow rates on the Niagara River and Welland Canal are obtained from Hydrometric Data provided by Environment Canada’s Water Office.

4. Not accounting for elevation, Toronto has an area of 630.2 km² (per StatsCan); taking the volume (of water in lake Ontario) and dividing it by area (of Toronto) equals height (3.9 million km³ / 630.2 km² = 6.2 m).

5. I obtained a simplified line drawing of the shore from BlogTO, eliminated the segment east of Scarborough Heights Park, and converted into a polygon (area is 152 km²). I then employed simplified math to illustrate how much water there is; assuming that this area was a triangular prism, with a height equal to point where the slope starts a significant elevation increases (~130 m above sea level, near Yonge Street and Woodlawn Ave; difference from the lowest point in Toronto of 76.5 metres of 53.5 metres from the shore). The volume of this perfect triangular prism is therefore area * height divided by 2 (152 km² * 53.5 m = 4,066 km³). To reverse-calculate how high the water would be for a different volume of water (e.g. the net flow into Lake Ontario; 3.9 million km³), you can multiply the volume by 2, and divide by the area ([3.9 million km³ * 2] / 152 km² = 51.4 m).

6. Toronto’s shoreline length is calculated based on my previous #shorelineTO work. Lake Ontario’s shoreline length is quoted as 1,020 km, however, this measurement may be subject to the coastline paradox to a greater degree than my measurements in Toronto.

Greenline: Expanding the Meadoway Treatment to Toronto’s Hydro Transmission System

Note: This was initially published on May 2, 2019. It was updated on June 10, 2019 to add one corridor, extend another, and update total statistics.

On April 11, 2018, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the City of Toronto and The W. Garfield Weston Foundation, launched a new park project called The Meadoway. The project would reimagine 16 kilometre Gatineau Hydro Corridor, which is a provincial hydro line between the Bermondsey substation in Thorncliffe Park northeast to the city border in Rouge Park. As the name suggests, the corridor would be converted from the manicured grass that exists in many sections into a meadow habitat, and would also include a multi-use path to support cycling and walking.

The Meadoway in blue, with additional portions of the Gatineau Corridor on each end in purple. Intersecting parkland is in green.

This is an ingenious idea to take this corridor from a 20th century bare infrastructure landbase, and partly return it back to nature while providing Torontonians an active transportation corridor to cycle and play in. I can’t believe we made it to 2019 without doing this, and part of my public review of the Meadoway actually laments that the east and west limits fall short.

But it’s also not brand new. Nearly 80 out of 265 hectares (30%) of the Meadoway had already received a meadow habitat treatment, and nearly 10 kilometres of trail were already built. Part of this was the Scarborough Centre Butterfly Trail project, a 3.5 km stretch between Thomson Memorial Park and Scarborough Golf Club Road, which was also granted money by the W. Garfield Weston Foundation. The Meadoway is merely scaling this idea up.

But it got me to thinking: why aren’t we doing this city-wide? How many other hydro corridors are there, with potential to add new natural habitat and trail systems? Some of the distribution system has been buried underground, but much of it remains as open wide corridors of grass, pylons and line.

The Meadoway is 15.6 km long, but when you include the two end bits of the Gatineau Hydro Corridor, it ends up being 21.1 km long. Aside from that, there are 10 other active hydro corridors and 2 former hydro corridors in the city. These stretch a total length of 165 km (5 times as long as the Gardiner and the Don Valley Parkway put together) and covering and area of 1,400 hectares (equal to an area bounded by Queen, Parliament, Bloor and Roncesvalles).

That’s a significant amount of landmass, and the Meadoway Project along the Gatineau Hydro Corridor will naturalize a good chunk of it (10% of the length and 20% of the area). Expanding what I call “the Meadoway treatment” could go a long way towards adding to Toronto’s natural ecosystems and active transportation network. Below is a short profile of each corridor.

Royal Railside

Length: 9.8 km
Area: 41.0 ha
Average Width: 42 m

This corridor initially stretched from the 427 to the Don River. This sent it over the “South Parkdale” neighbourhood, and parallel to the former railway lands to the Don River. With the construction of the Gardiner Expressway and redevelopment of the railway lands, the middle of the corridor was buried between the Queensway / South Kingsway interchange and Sherbourne Street. South Parkdale was also demolished in the process.

The west leg is a mix of grass, industrial/commercial scrub lands with encroaching parking lots and vegetated ravine. The east leg is basically an extension of the Union Station Rail Corridor. The corridor crosses 17 roads (11 arterial, 5 local, 1 expressway onramp) and 1 rail line. A Meadoway treatment to the west leg would augment 2 ravines (Mimico Creek, Lower Humber River), and make for a new trail system along Mimico Creek. A Meadoway treatment to the east leg would enrich the void between the Gardiner and Union Station Rail Corridor.

Etobicoke Spine

Length: 15.4 km
Area: 126.3 ha
Average Width: 82 m

This corridor starts at North Queen Street, and continues north and northwest to the 401/427 interchange, and then north again parallel to Highway 27. South of the 401, it is mostly bi-secting low-density residential neighbourhoods. North of the 401 is mostly light industrial/commercial.

Most of the corridor is grass, with intermittent encroachments by adjacent homes and businesses. There are trees sparsely dotted along the corridor which have been trimmed away from the lines (it’s noted that south of the 401, the trees seem less trimmed away from the eastern pylons, which are rusty; perhaps they are unused). The only significant patches of vegetation occur in the three ravine crossings (Etobicoke Creek, West Humber River, Albion Creek), and a small patch of overgrowth between Bethridge Road and Rexdale Boulevard. The corridor crosses 32 roads (12 arterial, 20 local), 2 expressways, and 2 rail lines.

A Meadoway treatment to this corridor would augment 3 ravines (Etobicoke Creek, West Humber River, and Albion Creek), and connect to 3 existing trail systems (West Humber, Etobicoke Creek, Mimico). Potential future improvement areas include the headwater for Berry Creek, minor tributaries of Albion Creek, the 401/427 interchange, as well as the Crosstown West corridor (see next section below).

Humber-Pearson

Length: 13.4 km
Area: 151 ha
Average Width: 113 m

This corridor starts at Etobicoke Creek south of Eglinton Avenue, and goes northeast through the 401/427 interchange, Rexdale, and the forks of the Humber River to Finch Avenue. The adjacent lands are parkland and open space southwest of the 401/427, commmercial / industrial lands to Rexdale Boulevard, and residential or ravine lands the rest of the way. Most of the corridor is grass except where it crosses the Humber Valley, and where a couple parking lots and industrial yards encroach into the space. The corridor crosses 25 roads (12 arterial, 7 local, 6 access), 4 expressways, and 2 rail lines.

A Meadoway treatment to this corridor would augment 6 ravines and their respective trail systems (Etobicoke Creek, Tributary 4, Mimico Creek, West and East Humber River, Berry Creek). A major improvement area, as alluded to above, would be Mimico Creek and where it crosses the 401/427 interchange. I have written before about how the Royal Woodbine Golf Club should be the #2 candidate for converting city-owned golf courses into public parkland, and how extending this connection across the Humber-Pearson Corridor could serve a broader regional trail network.

Finch

Length: 37.8 km
Area: 497.0 ha
Average Width: 131 m

As the name suggests, this corridor runs north of and parallel to Finch Avenue, between Highway 400 and the city’s eastern border. Much of the adjacent lands are residential, with the exception of commercial / industrial sectors in York University Heights, Steeles, Milliken and Armdale.

Most of the corridor is grass except where it crosses ravines, and a marshy patch west of Morningside. A few parking lots are located in the corridor, as well as the York University Busway, the G. Ross Lord Dam reservoir, at least two critcket pitches, seven soccer fields and two community gardens.
The corridor crosses 45 roads (19 arterial, 26 local), 2 expressways, and 4 rail lines.

A Meadoway treatment to this corridor would augment the Rouge National Urban Park and 6 other ravines (Black Creek, West Don River, Newtonbrook Creek, East Don River, West Highland Creek, Morningside Creek), and connect to 4 existing trail systems (Black Creek, West Don River, East Don River, West Highland Creek). Potential future improvement areas include the upper reaches of the East Highland Creek’s West, East and Malvern Branches.

Crosstown West

Length: 14.8 km
Area: 42.4 ha
Average Width: 29 m

This corridor goes across the city to the west. It starts at Etobicoke Creek near the Queensway, where it has two parallel legs west of North Queen Street, with a third leg around The West Mall. From here, it parallels the GO Transit Milton Line until the Humber River, heads due east to the GO Transit Barrie line, jaunts southeast to Canadian Pacific’s east-west mainline, and then parallels that to the Bridgman Transformer at Davenport Road and Macpherson Avenue.

The corridor is a mix of grass, parking lots, recreation parks or industrial yards. Lavender Creek also parallels the corridor between Weston and Symes Roads. The corridor crosses 44 roads (23 arterial, 21 local), 1 expressway, and 5 rail lines.

Between the Wiltshire Transformer Station and Davenport Road, the corridor is a proposed park and trail known as the Green Line, which was part of a design competition. Realizing this vision would at least bring a continuous trail to this 5 km segment of the corridor, hopefully grade separated from most of the arterial roads along the way. I also proposed making this corridor into a trail connection across Toronto in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s Draft Trail Strategy. This would be in lieu of relying on bike lanes along Bloor and Danforth, and keep active transportation users in the natural system.

A Meadoway treatment to this corridor would augment Lavender Creek, as well as 3 other ravines and their existing trail systems (Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Humber River). Potential future improvement areas include the buried portion of Lavender Creek around Weston Road, connections to the Etobicoke Spine and Mindtown Corridors, as well as the proposed trail along the GO Transit’s Davenport Grade Separation project.

Midtown

Length: 6.8 km
Area: 12.9 ha
Average Width: 19 m

This corridor continues east from where the Crosstown West Corridor left off at the Bridgman Transformer Station, following the Canadian Pacific east-west mainline until reaching the Leaside Transmission Station at Millwood and Overlea. There are actually two legs to this corridor: the first is mostly north of the rail corridor, and buried in a tunnel between Yonge and Bayview Heights Drive; and the second remains above ground south of the rail corridor, but has been eliminated between the Bridgman Transformer Station and a substation east of Yonge. The corridor is mostly squeezed beside railway tracks before spreading out into Crothers Woods, and only crosses 6 arterial roads and 1 rail line.

Archival photos show the south leg of the Midtown Corridor used to run south of the Canadian Pacific Railway’s North Toronto Station to Yonge Street (see bottom right) and parallel to Malborough Avenue until joining the rail corridor again. Courtesy City of Toronto Archives.

Establishing active transportation uses would be a challenge as the corridor is not very wide, and has multiple private properties and the rail corridor itself encroaching onto it. However, there would be great opportunities to maintain a connected corridor for active transportation users between Yonge and Bayview, as ample publicly owned space should exist adjacent to Shaftesbury Avenue, Carstowe Road and the Old Bridle Path.

Scarboro-Oakridge

Length: 6.4 km
Area: 22.6 ha
Average Width: 35 m

This corridor intersects the Gatineau Hydro Corridor south of Lawrence Avenue and east of Kennedy Road. From here, it parallels TTC Lines 3 and 2 south to Victoria Park station. Aside from where it’s flanked by transit infrastructure, much of the adjacent lands are residential. Warden Woods parallels the corridor between Warden and Pharmacy Avenues, and some former railway lands intersect the corridor between Birchmount and Kennedy Roads. Most of the corridor is grass except where it crosses ravines. The corridor crosses 10 roads (6 arterial, 4 local), 1 subway line and 1 rail line.

A Meadoway treatment to this corridor would augment Warden Woods and 3 other ravines (Taylor-Massey Creek x2, unnamed Taylor-Massey Creek tributary), connect to an existing trail system along Taylor-Massey Creek at St Clair Ravine Park, and connect to the future trail along the Gatineau Hydro Corridor . Potential future improvement areas include additional connections under TTC Line 2 to Warden Woods, through Firvalley Woods, under the rail spur between Farlinger Ravine and Eglinton Ravine Park, and around Kennedy Station and the local road network there.

Taylor Creek

Length: 5.3 km
Area: 17.5 ha
Average Width: 33 m

This corridor goes northwest from Victoria Park station (where it links to the Scarboro-Oakride Corridor), and paralles Taylor-Massey Creek and the Lower Don River until the Leaside Bridge, where it links up with the Lower Don Corridor. The corridor crosses 6 roads (3 arterial, 2 local, 1 access), 1 expressway, and 1 rail line, as well as passes beneath another two road bridges.

This corridor is already naturalized with significant woody vegetation west of the corner between Lumsden Avenue and Eastdale Avenue, although it is kept trimmed in the immediate vicinity of the power lines by Hydro One. East of this corner, some parking lots are within the corridor, and it is flanked by some hi-rise towers. Meadoway treatments to this corridor would only be required in a couple localized spots, mostly in Crescent Town. The corridor has an existing trail for most of its length, although new crossings between Coxwell Ravine Park and the north side of the rail line east of the Leaside Bridge would be welcome.

Lower Don

Length: 7.6 km
Area: 18.5 ha
Average Width: 24 m

This corridor goes south from the Leaside Transmission Station at Millwood and Overlea, following the Lower Don River to the Keating Channel, where it takes a couple turns in the Port Lands to reach the Shipping Channel opposite The Hearn and the Portlands Energy Centre. The corridor crosses 10 roads (1 arterial x4 + 3 additional arterial, 1 local, 5 bridges), 2 expressways and 2 expressway offramps, as well as 3 rail lines (one of them x3).

This corridor is already naturalized with significant woody vegetation north of River Street, and parallels the existing Lower Don River Trail. South of this point, the corridor abuts roads and rails, and at one point stands in the middle of Commissioners Road. Therefore, opportunities for Meadoway treatments are limited. However, there are plans by Waterfront Toronto to create a stormwater channel under the hydro towers along Commissioners Street, which is an interesting use of limited space.

Beltline

Length: 4.5 km
Area: 5.1 ha
Average Width: 46 m

As the name implies, the Beltline Corridor follows the former Beltline Railway, north from St Clair and eventually east to the Fairbank Transformer Station near Marlee Avenue and Roselawn Avenues. The corridor is part of the GO Barrie line right-of-way until Eglinton Avenue, and is then part of the York Beltline Park the rest of the way.

The corridor crosses 7 roads (6 arterial, 1 local), and criss-crosses the Barrie line once. North of Eglinton, a Meadoway treatment is not needed everywhere, but may help augment some of the more scrubby vegetation. South of Eglinton, there is a major opportunity to create a major north-south link between the Beltline Trail and, in the future, the Greenway planned as part of the Davenport Diamond Grade Separation project.

Dorset Park Bent

Length: 3.2 km
Area: 20.5 ha
Average Width: 64 m

The Dorset Park Bent appears to be a former hydro corridor that has since been abandoned. It started at the Scarboro Transormer Station where the Gatineau and Scarboro-Oakride Corridors intersect, and continued north and northwest until linking up with the Warden Corridor at the 401 west of Warden Avenue. Historical aerial photos show the hydro towers that ran along the corridor, but they are no longer present today. Current satellite images and land parcel configurations make it clear where the corridor once was.

Corridor between Kennedy and Birchmount circa 1956, with hydro towers still visible. Courtesy City of Toronto.

Between Kennedy and Ellesmere Road, the corridor is grass, and actually contains the Dorset Branch of West Highland Creek. North of Ellesmere, the land has been taken up for commercial and residential development. East of Kennedy, it’s a bunch of industrial / commercial yards. The short corridor crosses 8 roads (4 arterial, 3 local, 1 access) and 1 rail line.

Being an abandoned hydro corridor with no vertical restrictions, this corridor could go beyond a Meadoway treatment and be reforested. This is especially important given that it shares the path with the Dorset Branch, which has been straightened and urbanized. Naturalizing the corridor could include restoring a meander to the creek, and bring much needed water quality and quantity improvements to this part of the watershed.

Warden

Length: 9.0 km
Area: 24.9 ha
Average Width: 28 m

The Warden Corridor, as the name implies, parallels Warden Avenue to the west. It starts at the Gatineau Corridor in Wexford, and proceeds directly north to the city boundary and beyond. Within the city limits, the corridor crosses 20 roads (7 arterial, 13 local), 1 expressway and 1 rail line.

However, somewhat like the Dorset Park Bent, it appears to be an abandoned hydro corridor. Between the 401 and the Finch Corridor, the hydro towers are gone and much of it was taken over for residential development, leaving a small 15 metre wide corridor behind for a natural gas line that still lays beneath. South of the 401, the towers remain, but it seems the wires lead to nowhere. What remains of the corridor is all grass, with occasional trimmed trees.

Aerial photo circa 1962, showing the former width of the Warden Corridor north of the 401, as well as the Doreset Park Bent. Courtesy City of Toronto.

If the corridor is indeed inactive south of the 401, it could also be a candidate for full reforestation (as opposed to just a Meadoway treatment). It also parallels the upper reaches of Taylor-Massey Creek for half a kilometre, and would provide some improvements to the watershed. North of the Finch Corridor, a Meadoway treatment would augment the existing trail to the north of the city.

Pan Am Path: An Update on our Legacy

Toronto hosted the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games in 2015. Along with hosting such a large sporting event, Toronto invested in several facilities to host the games, to be reused for community benefit afterwards.

There was also one “legacy project” to pay tribute to the games. The Pan Am Path was a proposed 84-kilometre continuous off-road multi-use trail to connect the city, from the northwest Etobicoke, through downtown, to southeast Scarborough. Much of it was along existing trails, but there were a few gaps that needed to be completed:

East Highland – Orton Park Road to Morningside Park
Don Valley – Forks of the Don to Eglinton Avenue
Waterfront – Stadium Road Park to Sherbourne Common
Humber Marshes – Riverwood Parkway to South Humber Park
Weston – Crawford Jones Memorial to Cruickshank Park

So as a legacy to a significant event that happened in the summer of 2015, these projects should be done almost 4 years later…right?

1. East Highland

This segment would connect from the Forks of Highland Creek to an existing trail where Ellesmere Avenue crosses the East Highland Creek. The current detour is following the existing multi-use trail along West Highland Creek south, and Orton Park Road back north to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor.

The City of Toronto’s project site for this connection says that planning did start with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority back in 2014, with construction starting last year, and completion in 2020. However, I walked the East Highland Creek back in July, and the only construction I saw was old construction accesses from previous creek remediation work. That said, I was able to reach out to the city and confirm that construction will start this year, and it is still anticipated to be done by next year.

2. Don Valley

This segment would connect an existing trail along the Gatineau Hydro Corridor, down the East Don River to the Forks of the Don. The current detour is along various streets to Taylor Massey Creek, and along that ravine.

The East Don Trail and connection to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor was another project planned through a city-conservation authority partnership back in 2016. Construction started in September last year, and is ongoing for Phases 1. This completes this connection for the Pan Am Path, despite leaving an unfunded gap along the East Don Trail north to Wigmore Park.

3. Waterfront

This connection was missing when the Pan Am Path was first announced, but was well under construction, and was completed in June 2015, one month prior to the opening of the games.

The path was created out of Waterfront Toronto’s revitalization of Queens Quay. The former 4-lane industrial boulevard with a streetcar saw itself cut down to 2 lanes, 1 in each direction north of the streetcar right-of-way, and the former eastbound lanes reclaimed as a dedicated cycling trail and wide pedestrian promenade. For a progressive dense community that was forced into amalgamation and dominated by suburban conservative politics, it was a breath of fresh air. It also made a track record for Waterfront Toronto, the tri-governmental agency that made it happen.

4. Humber Marshes

This is a connection I am not very clear on; the gap exists between King’s Mill Park and South Humber Park, requiring users to travel via Riverwood Parkway and Stephen Drive.

However, where exactly you would place a dedicated trail connection is a mystery to me, as welcome as it would be. This is akin to the TRCA’s proposal to extend a trail through the bottom reach of the Rouge River; it’s entirely a wide river channel with wetlands, and the adjacent tableland is taken up by private residential housing. Creating a path would be tricky and expensive, so this might be one acceptable on-street connection.

5. Weston

This segment would make the Humber River Trail continuous by making a connection between Memorial Park and Cruickshank Park, going under the GO Transit Kitchener line. The current detour up the St Phillips Steps, and along Weston Road.

I have seen no indication of this moving forward, and it’s extremely disappointing. Metrolinx recently completed work here to widen the rail bridge over the Humber River, and while other trail projects have taken advantage of old constructions accesses, nothing seems to have been left behind in this case. For extra irony, it is in the old Ward 11, where local councillor Frances Nunziata hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the path back in 2014.

Other Gaps

Besides the 5 main connections identified, there are still some other gaps that should be addressed to ensure the Pan Am Path is a legacy to be proud of.

Military Trail

This gap requiring use of a sidewalk on Military Trail to cross Highland Creek, and a looparound back under the road could simply use a dedicated bridge to create a more direct route.

Missing Meadoway Segments

While these could be considered in the pipeline, there are segments of trail along the future Gatineau Meadoway that will need to be finished. I have previously written at length about the work that should be done in the corridor.

Old Mill

While dedicated space along the driveway into King’s Mill Park may be a bit of nitpicking, it has always driven me crazy that trail users must face off with vehicles on the skinny Old Mill Road bridge. A dedicated connection should be made, as I suggested in my analysis of TRCA’s Trail Strategy.

Eglinton

It may be of lower priority, but an opportunity exists to improve the trail in the vicinity of Eglinton Avenue. Two additional river crossings grade-separate the trail from Eglinton, and avoid the steep climb around Humber Creek.

Final Notes

As with any trails in Toronto, I place a lot of emphasis on ensuring that off street connections are minimized, and grade separations are created where required. Completing the identified connections and filling the other gaps will mostly address both these elements.

One aspect of the Pan Am Path that I cannot knock on is the branding and wayfinding. The city, in partnership with Friends of the Pan Am Path, have made an excellent website with helpful and informative resources, great navigational signs and maps, and a distinct logo.

At the same time, the branding, wayfinding, and general fanfare for the Pan Am Path feels like a bot of a slap in the face when not all of the larger capital improvements have been completed. Almost four years after the games, I feel the legacy should almost be complete.

Perhaps I am impatient; at least 1/5 of the identified connections is complete, and another 2 will be on the way. But the lack of plans for the remaining 2 really fits with a theme of what feels like a second-class treatment of active transportation in this city; lack of maintenance, lack of building, and lack of progress. Perhaps Toronto’s legacy is talking big, and not following through.

Public Review Series

I’ve commented on a few public draft documents or projects using this blog as a medium: The Meadoway, Toronto’s Parkland Strategy, and the TRCA’s Trail Strategy. This will likely be a re-occurring thing, so I have rebranded and categorized these posts as a “Public Review Series,” and will do the same for future posts.

Golf: The Scourge of Ravines

Let me make it very clear: I don’t like golf. It’s nothing to do with the game itself, but for the fact that it is a land hog, exclusive to one sport and restricted to private members, with no space afforded to the general public (full disclosure, I don’t play typical golf, but a derivative: disc golf). In the Greater Toronto Area, a number of golf courses were established and have taken hold in ravines. This creates a problem in two parts: it fractures the natural corridors of our city.

The first part is obvious: golf courses, with their sprawling greens, are heavily managed to allow for a good game. This fragments the surrounding ecosystem, loads rivers with fertilizer, and foregoes the ecosystem benefits of having that land covered in natural vegetation.

The second part is that, because golf courses are mostly restricted to club member access, they create major gaps in Toronto’s active transportation network. They hog the banks of rivers and creeks, which are often conduits for high-quality hiking and biking trails. This is detrimental to the broader regional network, and in fact, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recently released a draft Regional Trail Strategy that is directly or indirectly impacted by at least a dozen of them. They can also be barriers to access from and between local streets and neighbourhoods, making them less walkable and cyclable.

When food and beverage contracts at two city-owned golf courses expired in November 2017, the city noted that golf participation rates and revenues have been declining, and that some city-owned courses struggled to break even. This triggered the question of whether the city should be owning golf courses at all. My opinion: absolutely not. A city government has no business owning land that is restricted to a single activity and charging fees for access, let alone putting public resources towards them.

So this spurred me to look at the 7 city-owned golf courses, as well as 12 private courses, to see how much of a barrier they are in these respects, and rank them in terms of parkland and active transportation criteria. Below are the top 7 courses (3 public, 4 private) that could improve Toronto’s ravines and trail systems.

Public Courses

1. Don Valley

Don Valley Golf Course occupies over 2 kilometres of the West Don River, from the northwest corner of Yonge and Wilson, under the 401 to the southeast corner of Earl Bales Park. It also covers over 47 hectares of land, making it the second largest of the public golf courses.

This course is notable for being steps from a subway station, and within reach of high density populations at Sheppard-Yonge, giving it significant potential as an active transportation corridor. Multi-use trails stretch along most of the West Don to the northwest, all the way into Vaughan. Converting this course into parkland would create a direct pedestrian and cycling access from a number of residences in the Wilson Heights, Armour Heights, Lansing and southwest Willowdale neighbourhoods to Yonge Street and the subway.

It would also create an opportunity to fill a dangerous sidewalk gap along Yonge. Currently, if you are travelling north from Wilson on the west side of Yonge, the sidewalk suddenly ends 200 metres north of William Carson Crescent, forcing you to backtrack, or try to jaywalk across 6 lanes of traffic on Yonge plus an offramp from the 401. It’s a dangerous proposition, and coming southbound is marginally better, with one formal onramp crossing and a pedestrian bridge over Yonge. A full-on trail bypass is a solution that could be facilitated, in part, by opening up the golf course to the public.

2. Royal Woodbine

Royal Woodbine Golf Club is a very long a stretched out course, covering about 3.5 kilometres of Mimico Creek. This course is notable for being in what I refer to as the “Pearson Triangle”, an area bounded by the 401, 427 and the GO Transit Kitchener line. This area has almost no parks in it; with the exception of some land south of Disco Road and north of the 409, the only open space you’ll find will be isolated patches along hydro corridors.

It’s hard to argue for park space in an area with no residents, low rise commercial buildings, and airplanes screaming into and out of Pearson. But remember that this is about naturalizing a stretch of Mimico Creek, and also providing an active transportation link. That has benefits for the environment, as well as workers and customers who don’t have a car.

The success of this stretch also depends on addressing barriers to travel north and south of the course. The 401/427 interchange, immediately to the south of the course, represents a huge barrier the Pearson Triangle and a fairly contiguous creek-side trail south of Eglinton Avenue. There are no sidewalks or trails west of Carlingview Drive either. So even if Royal Woodbine could be converted with trails included, it would be considered quite isolated in the broader network, and this knocks it out of the top spot in the ranking.

3. Dentonia Park

Dentonia Park is along a short 400 metre stretch of Taylor Massey Creek. It is also the smallest of all Toronto golf courses by a long shot: 13.7 hectares, with the next course coming in at over 20 hectares.

This course is small, but its location is critical. It’s the only break in an otherwise continuous, grade-separated, high quality, 13.5 kilometre natural active transportation corridor from Warden Subway Station all the way to Lake Ontario. By opening this course up and creating a grade-separated crossing of Victoria Park Avenue, you could commute by bike without encountering any cars outside of the first and last mile. It would be a #bikeTO fantasy come true.

Private

1. Oakdale

Oakdale Golf and Country Club covers 1,300 metres of Black Creek, which is mostly concentrated in the south part of the course. It is also the largest course in Toronto, covering 88.7 hectares.

Oakdale is a barrier to continuous trail access along Black Creek, and opening it up connect Downsview Dells and Chalkfarm Park. The TRCA has proposed a creative solution to the golf club’s presence by proposing a trail corridor that follows Heathrow Creek to Jane and Wilson, and then redirects users to the Humber River valley. I have provided feedback on the latter part of TRCA’s proposal.

However, this is not an optimal routing, as it still requires climbing out of the Black Creek ravine, and it diverts users away from existing parkland in Chalkfarm Park. This golf course could contribute towards a complete trail network from York University to Jane and Wilson, and has the potential to add significant natural lands to the Black Creek watershed and the broader Downsview community.

2. Donalda

The Donalda Club spreads over 3.25 km of the East Don River, 800 metres of Deerlick Creek, as well as a total of nearly 500 metres of at least three other minor streams. It is the second largest course in Toronto, covering 77.2 hectares.

Donalda is actually the one course to my knowledge that allows some limited access: you can cross between the end of Three Valleys Drive and Chipping Road via a short walkway across the course. However, the owners make it very clear that straying left or right is trespassing on private property.

The result is detrimental to the trail network. Existing adjacent trails along the East Don Trail currently end north of Lawrence Avenue East and east of Don Mills Road, creating a gap in what will otherwise be a continuous trail from the city’s north boundary to the lake (once the trail between Wynford Drive and the Forks of the Don is completed). There are also three potential connections to existing local trails along Deerlick Creek and two other unnamed tributaries. Opening up this course would make a significant improvement to local and regional trail systems.

3. Islington

Islington Golf Club spreads over 1.8 km of Mimico Creek. It is a medium-sized course relative to others within Toronto, covering 51.2 hectares.

The Islington Golf Club creates a gap in the trail network along Mimico Creek. Trail users must currently divert via Kipling Avenue, Burnhamthorpe Road and Dundas Street West to get between the trail segments. It’s not the worst detour in the city, but it’s enough. Closing this gap could contribute towards a continuous trail between Eglinton and Bloor, and perhaps further north to the Pearson Triangle (see Royal Woodbine above) and further south if existing segments were stitched together.

4. Markland Wood

Markland Wood Golf Club spreads over 2.75 km of Etobicoke Creek. It is also a medium-sized course relative to others within Toronto, covering 46.0 hectares.

Markland Wood creates a gap in the trail network along Etobicoke Creek. While “Tributary 4” provides an alternative parallel route, it can feel tight and confined relative to the open valley of the main creek. Closing this gap could make a continuous trail from Dixie Road (north of Courtneypark Drive) to Dundas Street, and all the way to Lake Ontario once the gap between Dundas and the Queensway is addressed. Again, this is something the TRCA has proposed, and I have presented a counterproposal on.

Conclusion

These seven courses received a score of 3 in at least three categories of evaluation. The evaluation of all courses, the evaluation criteria, and a map of the courses are posted below. Do you agree with the ranking? Are there criteria that were missed or require more weight? Let me know what you think in the comments.

#metroscapes 2018 in Review

2018 marks the first full year of #metroscapes, a brand I launched in November 2017 to organize the hundreds of kilometres of hiking I had done in Toronto, and to represent their theme: the exploration of where natural and built environments collide. And with this new brand, I started upping my game. I started planning my walks, making them less of aimless wandering and more of discoveries of natural systems and built corridors. I started pulling from additional resources, such as the City of Toronto’s mapping service and historic aerial photographs. I migrated this website to a new platform to expand beyond walks, and have dedicated pages for projects such as #shorelineTO, #neighbourhoodsTO and Toronto’s Trail Network. And although this website now shifts some focus away from blogging, I still use it, with a new practice of using it to comment on public documents such as the City of Toronto Parkland Strategy and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s Trail Strategy for the Greater Toronto Region.

So it’s been a good year. I am extremely satisfied with how things have shaken out. The entire experience feels richer, easier to share and keep updated, as well as resourceful for fellow Torontonians, expats, and other followers.

So with that, I decided to conduct another year-in-review, similar to what I did for 2017 (it appears that blog post didn’t survive the migration, perhaps a retroactive rewrite is in order). I will go over the stats, the neighbourhoods and watersheds covered, and highlight my favourite shots from the year.

Statistics

2018 was the year that I surpassed what I had walked (and tweeted and recorded) in the prior 21 months.

Over 40 walks, I travelled 557 kilometres (km), the equivalent of driving from Toronto to Montreal.
The average walk was 13.9 km, about the same distance along Yonge Street from Sheppard Avenue to the lake.
The longest walk was 23.2 km (May 5), or almost the distance between Kipling and Warden subway stations.
There was lots of variation month-to-month as well; one walk early in August (when I usually take vacation, but was expecting my child this year), and 100 km over 7 walks in February.

Neighbourhoods

There were 166 neighbourhoods covered in 2018, 143 of them which were truly walked through, up from 120 and 80 last year, respectively. Good broad coverage of the city, and Scarborough in particular was blanketed pretty well. Walks in Toronto-East York mostly avoided the downtown core, sticking to East York, the shoreline, and west end. 6 walks went beyond the City of Toronto borders, 3 of them in the Pearson airport area.

Watersheds

Last year, I covered all watersheds except for Mimico Creek. I was able to rectify that this year, covering all watersheds in Toronto.

I covered most of the first-order rivers and creeks of the 7 main watersheds, with the exceptions of the East Humber and the Rouge River.
20 second-order or lower streams were followed, ranging from major tributaries such as Black Creek or Taylor Massey Creek, to small semi-lost tributaries such as Vyner Creek or Silver Creek.
7 lost rivers were traced. Two drain straight to Lake Ontario, one was a tributary of Mimico Creek, two were Lower Don tributaries, and two were tributaries of West Highland Creek’s Dorset Branch.

Looking to 2019 and Beyond

It’s been nearly three years since I started tracing and tweeting Metroscapes walks, and that has resulted in over 1,000 km of walks in total. That also means I’ve covered many of the neighbourhoods and watercourses in Toronto. That doesn’t mean I am in short supply of places to see. As I mentioned at the top, I have been planning my walks, and that means there is plenty of goals set for 2019:

Three major watercourses: Upper West Don, the Lower Humber, and the Rouge River.
Major destinations: The Islands and the Leslie Spit.
Numerous tributaries of the Humber, Don and Highland.
Exploring the edges of Toronto’s highways and railways.

If I was still able to walk every weekend, I could probably achieve all the walks I’d like in 2019. However, I need to prioritize: I’m now a father with limited free time, and 2019 may be my last year in Toronto.

But this will not be the end of Metroscapes. In fact, it will be an opportunity to expand the brand to the next city/region I call home, and to other cities as well. Stay tuned, and keep exploring your local metroscapes.

Public Review: A Regional Trail Strategy for Toronto

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has released a draft of the Trail Strategy for the Greater Toronto Region (Trail Strategy). As someone who has accumulated over 1,000 kilometres of hiking experience across Toronto, I wanted feedback based on these experiences, specific to the proposed regional trail network within the City of Toronto, and limited portions of York Region south of Highway 407.

I am in agreement with many parts of this proposed regional trail system. However, there are some parts that I feel could be changed to enhance the trail experience, and align better with the Trail Strategy’s vision. Without being privy to the decision-making and perhaps some key considerations, and keeping in mind that this is a regional network for the entire region, I’ll highlight some key issues I believe need to be addressed in a final Trail Strategy:

Creating a crosstown trail corridor within greenspace;
Extending the Scarborough Waterfront Project west;
Travelling further down Black Creek;
Sticking to the Etobicoke Creek river valleys;
Considering 3 alternative trail connections;
Recognizing 5 representations in the map; and,
Addressing 3 remaining gaps in the network.

Crosstown Corridor

I wholeheartedly disagree with the Trail Strategy’s reliance on the Bloor Street / Danforth Avenue bike lanes as a major east-west corridor for the regional trail network, between the Scarborough Heights Park area to the west boundary of the Etobicoke Creek watershed. While I fully support and agree that a) bike lanes on Bloor Street / Danforth Avenue are necessary, and b) the Trail Strategy must integrate with it, I do not agree that the TRCA should formally rely on it as a major crosstown corridor for its network. I believe it conflicts with the Trail Strategy’s vision of making a trail network within greenspace.

I think a great alternative corridor exists, using 8 kilometres of existing Valley trail in the Don watershed, and is an opportunity to create nearly 20 kilometres of Corridor trail and associated greenspace. The alternative corridor is as follows:

A new trail from the existing access ramp between Scarborough Heights Park and Rosetta McClain Gardens, and Warden Woods, partially using existing parkland and a former railway spur;
Using the existing trail network along Taylor / Massey Creek and the Lower Don River to Crothers Woods;
A new trail adjacent to Canadian Pacific Railway’s North Toronto subdivision to Davenport Road;
A new trail along the “Green Line” park system proposed by Park People to Metrolinx’s Newmarket subdivision (aka the GO Transit Barrie Line);
A new trail or existing trails along a hydro transmission corridor to Etobicoke Creek.

This alternative corridor is located within greenspace, congruent with the vision of the Trail Strategy, and ensures that the trail experience is richer and safer for active transportation users. It also connects users more directly to two of the destinations identified in the Trail Strategy: the Forks of the Don, and the Humber Parklands.

Scarborough Waterfront West

The TRCA is currently working to implement the Scarborough Waterfront Project, which will protect the Scarborough bluffs from erosion, enhance natural habitat, and create a new continuous waterfront trail from East Point Park to Bluffers Park. The Trail Strategy includes this, and then proposes to direct users up Brimley Road (a significant and relatively steep grade), and continue east via the existing ‘trail’, which is actually a zig-zagging patchwork of local streets and fractured trail segments at the top of the bluffs. Once again, I believe it conflicts with the Trail Strategy’s vision of making a trail network within greenspace.

It’s lost on me why the TRCA would not propose extending its Scarborough Waterfront Project further east. The TRCA, to my knowledge, owns title to all of this stretch of the waterfront with one exception (The Toronto Hunt). Implementing this would create a continuous trail along over 85% of Toronto’s waterfront, from the Rouge River, through Scarborough and the downtown, to Mimico Waterfront Park in Etobicoke. It would also reduce the distance travelled between Bluffers Park and the RC Harris Water Treatment Plant by over 30%, and eliminate any significant grade changes.

Black Creek

The Trail Strategy has identified Black Creek and its parklands as both a trail corridor and a destination. It also proposes extending the existing trail system south from Downsview Dells Park, using Giovanni Caboto and Heathrow Parks. While it does not utilize the rich and natural west part of Downsview Dells Park, I think this is a great and creative solution to get around the barrier presented by the Oakdale Golf and Country Club.

However, the Trail Strategy then proposes to redirect users into the Humber Valley system via Highway 401 and/or Wilson Avenue. I do not agree with this redirection, as I believe there is ample opportunity to continue the trail further south along Black Creek, at least to Weston Road. This would align better with the Trail Strategy’s vision of making a trail network within greenspace, and would facilitate direct connections with the West Toronto Railpath North and the Eglinton Avenue Trail.

Etobicoke Creek

It is unfortunate that the Markland Wood Golf Club is a barrier to a continuous trail along Etobicoke Creek, from Eglinton Avenue to the lake. The Trail Strategy suggests overcoming this barrier by creating a
Corridor trail along a nearby utility corridor.

It is a worthy proposal, but wish that a Valley trail through an alternative corridor could be considered. My suggested approach is continuing to follow Etobicoke Creek north to Dundas, within lands mostly owned by the TRCA already. Once this trail reaches Neilson PArk, a trail already exists along Etobicoke Creek’s “Tributary 4” to Burnhamthorpe Road. A minor detour along Burnhamthorpe Road would link trail users back to the Etobicoke Creek Trail. Another alternative corridor could be along Little Etobicoke Creek to the west.

Alternate Connections

There are some trails that I mostly agree with, but would implore TRCA to consider alternative ways of connecting them to the broader network.

Leaside South

The Leaside Spur Trail is (technically) a dead end at its southern tip, in behind 1121-1123 Leslie Street. The TRCA has proposed connecting it by directing users to and along Leslie Street, and down the vehicular entrance to Wilket Creek Park. An alternative connection is already proposed as part of the redevelopment of the former Celestica site (known as Wynford Green): over a bridge over the Canadian Pacific Railway’s Belleville subdivision, and along the access road from Eglinton Avenue into the West Don River Valley. The TRCA should work with the developers to advance this connection.

Rendering by TACT Architecture, Rezoning Application for Wynford Green (16 236387 NNY 26 OZ).

Highway 401/427

The Highway 401/427 interchange is a major barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movement between the Pearson Airport area and west end neighbourhoods in Toronto. While the Finch Meadoway is a great opportunity to improve this connectivity, I don’t feel that continuing in a straight northeast/southwest line, from the Richview Transformer Station to the Matheson Boulevard/Eglinton Avenue intersection, would achieve that goal. Instead, I would propose a path that follows Mimico Creek, and connects directly with the West Deane Trail, as an alternative.

Leaside North

The Trail Strategy illustrates an existing ‘trail’ from the top of the Leaside Spur at York Mills Road. This is actually a series of sidewalks along York Mills Road, Lesmill Road, Valleybrook Drive and Duncan Mill Road. A true trail connection could be forged here by continuing the Leaside Spur Trail north to Leslie Street and Woodsworth Greenbelt, and forging a new path through Moatfield Farm Park to the Betty Sutherland Trail. In the future, this trail could be optimized in conjunction with minor daylighting improvements to Vyner Creek.

Map Misrepresentations

Twyn Rivers

While the Trail Strategy illustrates a continuous trail along the Rouge River in the Twyn Rivers area, two small but critical improvements are required: a dedicated active transportation bridge across Little Rouge Creek (as opposed to forcing users into vehicular traffic along the heritage bridge), as well as a dedicated or grade-separated crossing of Twyn Rivers Drive. The lack of proper crossings is an ongoing hazard to trail users.

Weston North Humber Connection

The Trail Strategy illustrates an existing trail between Crawford-Jones Memorial Park and Cruickshank Park along the Humber River. This trail, although recognized in many plans, still has not been built. Implementing this connection would avoid a steep detour along Weston Road.

Morningside Park to Ellesmere Road

The Trail Strategy illustrates an existing trail from Morningside Park north to the Gatineau Meadoway. This trail actually does not exist, except underneath the Ellesmere Road bridge. There is plenty of opportunity to use a former construction access that exists in this stretch, and it would greatly improve connectivity within the broader Highland Creek trail system.

West Don at Leslie

The Trail Strategy illustrates an existing trail following the West Don River, north of Steeles Avenue along Leslie Street. There is no dedicated infrastructure along here. A dedicated trail following the West Don, and facilitating a grade-separated crossing of Steeles Avenue, would be preferable.

Old Mill

The Trail Strategy illustrates the Lower Humber as being continuous through the Old Mill area. However, trail users must cross a narrow heritage bridge shared with vehicular traffic, and then use a vehicular access into the park. A dedicated crossing and space along the access road would be preferable.

Remaining Gaps

Finally, there are some gaps in the Trail Strategy that have been overlooked or misrepresented, which I feel need to be addressed.

North Scarborough

While the Trail Strategy provides plenty of north-south links across Toronto, there is a notable gap in north Scarborough, between the Warden Meadoway and the Rouge Valley. I think the TRCA should consider is a regional trail corridor can be established somewhere inbetween, at least from the Finch Meadoway to the Gatineau Meadoway. I would suggest following East Highland Creek, but any corridor should achieve the goal of of connecting to Scarborough Town Centre.

West Humber to Mimico Connection

I have lamented for years about the lack of a proper link between the West Humber River and Mimico Creek. Such a link has a two fold purpose, in conjunction with the alternate 401/427 crossing suggested above:

Improving connectivity for residents travelling between areas north of Rexdale Boulevard and south of Eglinton Avenue.
Creating an active transportation corridor that links to key destinations such as Pearson airport, its surrounding employment lands. and Woodbine Racetrack.

The Trail Strategy illustrates a trail along Airport Road to Pearson Airport. I think a link between the Humber River and Mimico Creek would provide a better connection through greenspace, with the potential to make local connections along less busy streets.

Finch Meadoway at G Ross Lord Dam, Metrolinx Uxbridge Subdivision

The Trail Strategy illustrates the Finch Meadoway Trail detouring from the hydro corridor in two spots: G Ross Lord Dam and Metrolinx’s Uxbridge Subdivision (aka the Stouffville GO Line). In both of these instances, the TRCA should work on more direct grade-separated connections within the corridor.

Conclusion

All of the suggestions above are framed against the Trail Strategy’s vision:
making a trail network within greenspace. But it’s more than that: it’s about making it a high-quality network that is maximized within greenspace. This means opting for connections that reduce diversions, unnecessary winding, and steep grades. It also means sticking to corridors that are as thickly vegetated as possible, grade separated from roads and railways, whereever possible. It’s making a trail network that is convenient, attractive, lush, rich, natural, and safe.