My suggestion for Scarborough Waterfront West has been adopted;
The future Leaside South connection has been illustrated;
The Weston North Humber Connection gap was recognized; and,
The Finch Hydro Corridor trail will be kept within the corridor across the Metrolinx Uxbridge Subdivision.
It definitely feels good that I was able to lean on my walking experience and create some change in a major planning document. This will help create continuous trails along the waterfront, Humber River and Finch Hydro Corridors. Furthermore, some of the things I raised were (relatively) small scale details that I’m not too worked about.
That said, I am a bit disappointed that three of my large scale suggestions were not taken up.
The Crosstown Southwest corridor is the biggest disappointment for me, and is somewhat baffling. It is a natural corridor that would be richer than the bike lanes on Bloor. Furthermore, the middle part between Davenport and St Clair is a formally recognized project by the city, and there is about a kilometre and a half of existing trail west of that. I thought filling in the gap in the Stockyards area and continuing the line past Rockcliffe Boulevard to Etobicoke Creek was a good idea.
A trail through Black Creek Ravine also seems like a relatively feasible project, as pretty much all of the approximately 6 kilometre trail would be on existing, publicly owned parkland and open space. The only exception would be a half-kilometre stretch under the Highway 400 / Jane Street interchange, which is still public land, making access negotiable.
North Scarborough has this ginournous gap in north-south connectivity. Once again, there are existing segments of trail and most of the ravine is intact. It may be constrained in spots where wetlands are present and a meander belt is protected for, but I think a link to Scarborough Centre should be worth the effort.
Progress is slow and steady sometimes, and the fate of these potential trails is not sealed. So I will take this as a win, and I hope Torontonians will continue pushing for a better trail network.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are some trails that I mostly agree with, but would implore TRCA to consider alternative ways of connecting them to the broader network.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finally, there are some gaps in the Trail Strategy that have been overlooked or misrepresented, which I feel need to be addressed.
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 a regional trail corridor 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.
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.
One big driver for this is the fact that parkland acquisition has not kept pace with population growth over the past 10 years, leading to a decline in the average park area per person. That’s the math, but in real terms it means that our existing parks have to keep accommodating more people and are becoming more crowded.
The other driver for this is the continued inequality of how parkland is distributed throughout the city. In addition to general inequality between the community council areas, there are particular neighbourhoods and districts with severe deficiencies, with almost no parkland within a walkable distance.
So the city is currently drafting the Parkland Strategy with this in mind, and sculpting it around four key themes:
Expand: Creating and aquiring new parkland
Connect: Bridging gaps between existing parks
Improve: Reimagining the use of parks and open spaces
Share: Programming parks and allowing multiple uses
The theme of connecting in the Parkland Strategy talks a lot about ensuring there is access. Definitely important; if you want to enjoy a park, you need to get to and from it, as well as around within it. And to be clear, we’re talking about access by foot, bike, or other active transport. But I can’t help but feel like this has a ceiling to it. We need to elevate this from accessing parks for parks sake, and realize that parks can be a transportation system; A and B may be outside of a park, but you want to get between those points through the parks.
Screw the sidewalk. Walk, bike or whatever to/from work, home, a friends house, a community centre, or a restaurant in nature. Fresh oxygen > nitrous oxides. Birds singing > tires roaring.
All parks, regardless of their intended primary function (nature preservation, recreation, cultural hub, utility conveyance) need to have active transportation as a foundational component, mandatory and integrated. Not as an afterthought, not as a low-priority accommodation around other features.
It needs to be set as priority one, providing the shortest desired path for where people need to go. It needs to be done in a high-quality fashion too. Wide enough to accommodate all users, and in a way that is convenient, safe, assigning priority and reducing conflicts. This means building bridges, underpasses, other appropriate crossings, and reducing grades, much like I highlighted in my piece about The Meadoway.
I’m not just talking about new parks, or parks in the process of enhancement either. There are a whole slew of parks and open spaces that already exist, but do not allow for active transportation access. I would know, after all of my travels. There’s lots of low-hanging fruit, such as utility corridors (besides the Meadoway) without formal trails, corridors without bridges across small streams or railways, and spaces that are simply overgrown and need some mowing and/or tree trimming. While hard and complex infrastructure may take a few years to plan, design, fund and build, there are lots of cheap quick wins that can be implemented within a year or two max.
The city’s parks and transportation departments need to work together to recognize that the active transportation network is an essential city service, and for more than recreation. This means park plans need to be meshed with other transportation plans, and work together when links in the active transportation network can be achieved.
Parks as a Stormwater Management System
Much of our park system is built off of the ravines, and the various tributaries of our 6 main rivers. It’s obvious by looking at a map of the city’s parks, and seeing the corridors that generally align northwest to southeast.
However, some existing parks with open watercourses are at risk, and it is playing out in ravines across the city right now. Our built city has lots of paved surfaces, which means when it rains, there’s lots of water runoff that suddenly needs to go somewhere instead of soaking into the ground where it fell. Many paved surfaces direct this runoff into a drain, which connects to a sewer, which outlets into a nearby creek or river. And that style of stormwater management creates an unnatural, sudden, fast rush in water during and after a storm.
We’ve gotten better with our modern development, creating more porous surfaces to control the water on site, or at least direct it into some kind of management facility like a grassy ditch, a wetland, and/or an engineered pond. But it’s still not in place for many areas of the city developed after the war, when managing stormwater wasn’t mandatory. The impact: streambanks that erode and take trees, trails and anything else in the way with it, in addition to poor water quality.
If we want to protect our existing parkland, we can do so while creating new parkland at the same time. New stormwater management facilities often require a chunk of land (again, examples being ponds and wetlands), so making it parkland while we’re at it only makes sense, especially if it connects directly into the ravine we’re trying to protect and enhance. Problem, meet opportunity.
On a related thread, there has been a lot of awareness in Toronto about our lost rivers, natural ravines and tributaries that were buried and placed into sewers due to pollution, or to allow development. There has also been talk about potentially daylighting these creeks in the parkland and open space where they still exist, and restoring ravines where they do not. Taking these measures is, just like the engineered stormwater management mentioned above, a great way to enhance our existing parkland, expand our park system, and create corridor connections over time.
The thing with restoring a lost river is that it would be a long and complicated task. This leads me to my next point.
Parks as a Well Planned System
Lots of new or revitalized parks are isolated leaps at solving problems and capitalizing on random opportunities when they present themselves. Rail Deck Park emerged out of dire parkland needs downtown and the existence of the Union Station Railway Corridor. Downsview Park resulted from the decommissioning of a Canadian Forces Base. The Leslie Street Spit became Tommy Thompson Park after it was no longer needed as a ship harbour.
There are other examples, but the main point here is there is no particular method. Someone brings an idea to the table, and if it is popular, convenient, meets objectives, and we have enough money, we go for it. It hardly seems like they are stitched together by a broader purpose. We just take what we can get.
The one notable exception, of course, being the waterfront revitalization led by Waterfront Toronto. That is driven a long-term vision to open the waterfront back up for public enjoyment, and create new development opportunity. It’s a broader vision and purpose that is earmarked for a specific area.
Looking at other systems, we have examples of transportation systems guided by long-term plans. Metrolinx has its regional transportation plan that sets out specific rapid transit projects to be undertaken in the next 25 years. The city has a 10 year cycling plan to add cycling infrastructure to certain streets and parklands, bridging gaps in a broader grid and meeting cycling demands.
The Parkland Strategy is supposed to be a 20 year plan. The vision, objectives, priorities, and principles that are being discussed to date sound like a great core to the document. But I feel that without specific schedules or operating plans, it will continue to only be a vision document with no path to get there, and we will keep acquiring parkland in a random, fractured, opportunistic manner.
The Parkland Strategy needs to be complemented by specific capital/operating plans. I am generally proposing two, one short-term and one long-term, but different numbers, purposes and timelines will work:
A Capital and Operations Plan for projects to be led by the city in the short- and medium-term, or by other governments where agreements are already struck.
Improvements or changes to existing parks
Acquisition, guidance and negotiation through development planning, and planning of other city capital works.
Considers funds required in both capitals and operating budgets
Considers policy changes that need to be made
New plans every 5 years; 4 plans within the 20-year lifetime of the strategy
A broad stroke document that highlight the areas where connections, expansions or improvements to the park system should occur
Zoning changes, and areas to be redeveloped
Major, multi-year capital projects with interactions with multiple stakeholders
A road map for complex projects requiring significant planning and design work
A concrete plan to acquire smaller pieces for assembly over the long-term
Updated with changes during 5-year plan drafting, reviewed every 20 years
This approach will ensure that all governments and stakeholders have common, concrete lists and maps of projects to guide their actions, and that the public has a clear document to information and accountability. It eliminates the risk of the strategy’s generalized vision being interpreted in different ways, and executed in a haphazard, opportunistic way. The park system can be expanded, improved and connected over the long-term.
This is particularly relevant for components that need years or decades to be built, small pieces at a time. Daylighting and restoration of ravines is a good example of this; the only way we can achieve this is to assemble pieces of land acquired over the long-term, slowly unwinding the urban fabric built around them. We need a well-defined document to guide us.
Parks as a Well Governed System
The thing with effective park system planning is that there are various parks and open spaces, involving multiple stakeholders with differing ownership, rights, roles and responsibilities. Some of these are laid out in the table below:
Administration of the parks system needs to be a broader, multi-governmental agency to ensure all players are brought to the table, silos are broken, and parks are created / improved / enhanced in a multi-disciplinary and effective manner. This is what makes Waterfront Toronto extremely effective: it is an agency representing all three levels of government, and is the primary authority for coordinating the waterfront revitalization. If we truly want a cohesive, well planned and well managed parks system, we need to consider bringing a similar governance structure for the city’s park system.
The added benefit to this is money. Having adequate money for a park project can be a difficult thing, as Rail Deck Park has shown us. We have to rely heavily on money from growth and new development (section 37 funds, development charges, developer contributions) which can contribute to the park space inequality mentioned up front, and when it isn’t enough, convincing politicians to allocate additional money is a hard sell.
By bringing other agencies on board with the park planning process, parkland can receive funding through other budget brackets and funds. Funding earmarked for new or improved water / wastewater / stormwater systems, active transportation paths, electrical transmission equipment, watershed management and/or nature conservation can all be leveraged to bring down the total bill of creating / improving parks, if that work is integrated into parkland. It also garners more political support if it checks multiple boxes.
The first common theme to all of this is creating a Parkland Strategy that is multi-disciplinary exercise. A park system is more than vegetated open space to unwind and play in. There are critical services that occur in them, to manage stormwater, to transport people, to deliver power, and act as social community spaces. Expanding and improving our parks sounds like an uphill task, but I’m convinced that more effort needs to go towards better integration of these other components that are normally seen as secondary.
It’s second common theme here is a long-term, continual improvement. A great park system will not be built in a day, let alone the lifespan of this 20 year strategy. Everybody has to work together towards the same goals, and not diverge due to interpretation. And those goals have to be consistent over time.
If the Parkland Strategy is going to be successful, it must be a team effort with a single vision. If we get that right, we can achieve a great park system for Toronto.
Expanding on a Twitter thread I wrote back in April 2018, I took a look at The Meadoway, a project by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the City of Toronto and The W. Garfield Weston Foundation. The project is a reimagination of the 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.
Naturally, with all the walking I do, I have quite a few thoughts about road, rail and ravine crossings; the 3 Rs. I’ve walked my fair share of uility corridors (Sept. 2016, Feb. 2017, Feb. 5 and 10, 2018), and have experienced first hand what works, what doesn’t, and what sucks when you got nothing at all.
R number one is roads. All road crossings on the existing trail segments are at-grade, and generally take one of two forms: an unprotected crosswalk (but sometimes with raised and/or textured pavement), or a traffic light. The former is used primarily on smaller, two-lane local roads with little traffic, and the latter is used for all other locations where traffic is heavier. Either a dedicated mid-block traffic light is set up to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross, or the trail is purposefully directed to an existing road intersection where traffic lights and crosswalks already exist.
In my opinion, unprotected crossings are sufficient on quiet, local, 2-lane roads with 30 km/h speed limits, as long as they are scaled appropriately; textured pavement and signs at a minimum, using raised bumps and pavement markings and giving right-of-way to pedestrians and cyclists as the road or trail traffic increases. When it comes to arterial roads, a high quality trail should stop using at-grade crossings, and give increasing priority to trail users.
It’s hard to argue against using existing traffic signals and crosswalks where a utility corridor already meets an intersection. But from my experience, mid-block crossings that use traffic signals are problematic. All of these traffic signals are not programmed to be responsive to and give priority to trail users during the day; instead, they are programmed to sync with an existing time plan that controls other traffic signals and vehicular traffic flow in the area. This means a trail users could push a “beg button” and wait a couple minutes for the signal to change. This does not give any priority to trail users, and it creates risks of trail users jaywalking into traffic, or vehicles ignoring the signal. It begs the question: what kind of city are we designing that we are making trail users “beg” to cross at all?
I would argue Toronto’s famous yellow crosswalks would be more appropriate for some crossings where traffic isn’t too heavy along the trail or the road, and vehicular speed limits are lower, as it safely gives on-demand priority to trail users, and allows vehicles to proceed as soon as the trail user has finished crossing. It strikes a balance. However, as soon as traffic or speed limits increase, I’d argue that grade separated crossings should be required. The city is generally anemic to this, however; they are much more expensive due to potential utility conflicts and accessibility requirements, are disruptive during construction overall, and require an unreasonably high bar of risk.
If we’re going to create a high quality multi-use trails in the Meadoway, and frankly anywhere else in the city, we have to stop cheaping out on our infrastructure like this, and start putting greater value on trail users’ time, experience, and safety. But with a total budget of $85 million (for everything; naturalization and infrastructure), I’m not entirely confident that it is enough to cover the 8 arterial road crossings (Eglinton, Victoria Park, Kennedy, Midland, Scarborough Golf Club, Ellesmere, Neilson, Morningside) that currently have no infrastructure. And it sure doesn’t address the 4 existing mid-block crossings on arterial roads (Markham, Bellamy, Warden, Pharmacy) that currently use traffic signals.
That’s roads. The second of the 3 Rs of trail crossings is railways, and the only rail crossing along the Meadoway is the corridor with the TTC’s Line 3 and GO Transit’s Stouffville Line. As it stands now, getting across the corridor (between Kennedy and Midland) requires a trail user to detour south through Jack Goodlad Park, and use an existing pedestrian bridge between Mooregate and Tara Avenues. This doubles the required travelling distance (900 to 1,800 metres) and takes trail users away from the meadow, requiring a meander through an adjacent neighbourhood. It might be attractive to use this existing infrastructure and save more money, but this bridge is fairly skinny and does not deliver a good user experience. Once again, if the Meadoway’s goals are to deliver an attractive alternative transportation corridor that stays with the natural environment, a new crossing is required.
The third of the 3 Rs of trails crossings is ravines. One of the Meadoway goals is creating east-west linkages between the ravines of Scarborough. This will involve crossing 3 major ravines: East Highland Creek, one of its tributaries, and West Highland Creek. The latter is already completed, and is done quite well in my opinion, interconnecting with the other existing north-south trails. However, the other two are quite steep and have considerable erosion issues.
A multi-use path winding down a slope makes sense if you’re trying to get to a connecting north-south trail within a ravine, if/when they exist, so this is definitely a benefit of taking that as a main approach. The drawback is increased distance, stemming from the fact that as ravine slopes increase in grade, you usually need longer switchbacks to accommodate users, particularly those living with a disability. It’s absolutely necessary, it just lengthens the distance if you’re just following the Meadoway. But including a bridge structure is an opportunity to reducing that distance for those going through, and also to provide an opportunity for stunning views. This should be considered for the three major ravines the Meadoway will go through.
Over the Line
As with any project, you have to set a scope. While I completely understand the reason for doing this, I’m kind of left wishing that we could go beyond the scope in two specific instances. One has to do with missing links in the broader trail system that the Meadoway should connect to. The other is the east and west limits applied to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor itself.
The Meadoway aims to be an east-west link between north-south oriented ravines and parklands that have trails. But some ravines and other parklands do not have these connections. These are illustrated and listed below:
In the west, the East Don Trail is currently non-existent between Concorde Place and the Forks of the Don. However, the city is currently planning its implementation and connection to the Meadoway, and construction is set to begin this year.
A north-south utility corridor between Ashtonbee Reservoir Park and the north end of the city is mostly accessible to the public, but does not have a formal trail or well-defined footpath to follow.
A footpath exists adjacent to Massey Creek, but it is not formal, and does not exist south of Bertrand Avenue.
A formal trail exists along the Scarborough RT corridor between Kennedy Station and the bridge mentioned above, adjacent to John Goodlad Park. There is no connection north into the bounds of the Meadoway corridor, or to Lawrence Avenue.
There is a trail network along the Dorset Branch of West Highland Creek up until Brimley Road, and then there is not trail further west to its intersection with the Meadoway.
A collection of footpaths exist around the East Highland Creek area, but there are no formal connections south to the Highland Forks, or north to Centennial College and other parklands.
There are no paths along Ellesmere Ravine, and similar to the ravine to the west, no formal connections south to the Highland Forks.
The Meadoway is pretty much established east of Conlins Road, but not paths exist in the adjacent assorted parklands.
Building these connections is critical to linking more neighbourhoods to the Meadoway, and it meshes with the goal of allowing greater travel without leaving the natural environment.
The other scope limitation is along the hydro corridor itself. While the Meadoway’s scope ends at the East Don River and Meadowvale Road, the hydro corridor continues beyond these bounds, and not including these end pieces creates some missing links too.
In the west, the Gatineau Hydro Corridor continues to Thorncliffe Park, where the transmission lines connects to Hydro One’s Leaside Transformer Station at 1080 Millwood Road. Extending the Meadoway west would create a great opportunity to better connect the neighbourhoods of Leaside, Thorncliffe Park, Flemingdon Park, and Bermondsey, which are currently fractured by the Don Valleys and the Parkway. In the east, the Gatineau Hydro Corridor continues into Rouge National Urban Park. Extending the Meadoway east to the city border could provide a critical connection to the park, over the Rouge River to two existing north-south trails, and the future Beare Road Park.
A First Phase
The Meadoway’s vision is amazing, and it will be an incredible improvement to a considerable stretch of Toronto. I have my criticisms, but these aren’t really directed at the project’s lead, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. It’s more so towards their partner, the City of Toronto. This will be a natural corridor that links ravines, so that part of the project is covered. What needs improvement is the hard infrastructure: the trail, it’s crossings, and its connections. That should be the city’s responsibility, financially, and from the standpoint of creating recreational opportunities and building a transportation network.
If anything, the Meadoway project’s current scope should be considered a first phase. The second phase should be led by the city, with the goal of considerably improving the trail within the corridor, as well as connecting the broader trail network and the city as a whole.