News   Nov 08, 2024
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: City of Toronto’s Rental Housing Push, Ontario Market Forecasts, and December's Buildings Show
 618     0 
News   Nov 08, 2024
Tricon's Birch House Welcomes Residents to the Canary District
 1K     4 
News   Nov 08, 2024
News Roundup for November 8, 2024
 527     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%

  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%
  • Total voters
    120
I generally agree though I'd be interested to see some business case scenarios. The in-median LRT was geared toward facilitating development of a certain type of street - mid-rise, mixed use, etc. Elevated rail probably has somewhat of an opposite effect, as residents and businesses wouldn't want to live directly adjacent to lines.
 
GraphicMatt said:
I generally agree though I'd be interested to see some business case scenarios. The in-median LRT was geared toward facilitating development of a certain type of street - mid-rise, mixed use, etc. Elevated rail probably has somewhat of an opposite effect, as residents and businesses wouldn't want to live directly adjacent to lines.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that elevated would lead to more subway-like nodal development, as opposed to 'avenuized' development. And I don't know about it having a negative impact like that, if the median is properly landscaped, I would imagine it could be quite attractive.

But overall I applaud this move by Metrolinx to go for more grade-separation, and for not taking Ford's promise of "all new transit underground" literally. Their intrepretation of "just not at-grade" could potentially save a lot of money.
 
There can be attractive, "avenues" like development along elevated railway lines. The intersection of No. 3 Rd. and Westminster Hwy along the Canada Line in Richmond is a good example.
 
I am also sceptical that neighbourhood objections can be overcome. But if they can, more power to Metrolinx. The Skytrain model isn't perfect and it isn't suited to every corridor, but the fact is Vancouver has produced an amazing expansion of their transit system. Studying that experience can't hurt.

Still, I wonder if Skytrain or elevated LRT or whatever will overcome what I perceive to be one of the Fordian/NIMBY objections to Transit City, which is its supposed second-classness. IE, 'subway's good enough for Yonge St. but not for us'?

I do have one further reservation. One of the main reasons Vancouver has been able to expand its rapid transit network so quickly is that everyone agrees on the technology. Perhaps introducing ANOTHER technology into the Toronto mix, whose relative merits will then be debated ad nauseam, will only slow things down. In which case we will have wished we'd just bit the bullet and built some subways.
 
Meanwhile...

A barrel of oil went over $90 a barrel today for a bit.

Rob Ford... what me worry? The war on the car is over!

worry.jpg


We will have a subway... in 10 to 15 years. Who needs light rail across Toronto? (We do!)
 
Last edited:
Hipster Duck said:
I think an elevated extension of the Sheppard subway would be the best compromise between cost and capacity/speed. If we retain the current 4-car operation, the length of the elevated stations doesn't even have to be very long.
Click to expand...

Interesting option. If that could be done for a reasonable cost, we get a number of benefits: good speed, no transfer at Don Mills, retention of compatible fleet, and no need to close and redo the existing Sheppard tunnel.

Some tunneling will likely be needed in Agincourt to cross the CN and CP lines, and of course east of Don Mills to bring the subway to the surface.

Hipster Duck said:
Of course, a DRL, and especially an Eglinton LRT as an elevated would be a NIMBY nightmare (particularly through neighbourhoods like Forest Hill and Leaside), even though I personally find elevated guideways attractive and the above-ground stations to be, in most cases, more accessible and user-friendly than modern subway stations that are buried somewhere below Dante's 5th circle of Hell.
Click to expand...

Central Eglinton will remain in the tunnel, there is no space to fit the elevated guideway since the buildings are very close to the edge of the road. Elevated is an option for the outer sections, although they should also look at alternatives like Richview Corridor.
 
And of course the guideways do not have to be ugly concrete slabs like the Gardiner. Vienna´s U6 line comes to mind; it is largerly elevated but is integrated into the streetscape quite nicely.
 
^ Perhaps; but density changes over time.

It is easier to build a guideway over a wide street and later add multi-store buildings, than to squeeze that guideway into an old, narrow street.

A greater concern is cost; both of construction and of maintenance. Will it be closer to an in-median LRT, or to a tunneled rail line?
 
Last edited:
I think that Eglinton East is the ideal location for an elevated guideway. It doesn't even have to be run in-median. There's a lot of space between the edge of the street and the buildings "fronting" (and I use that term loosely for the Golden Mile) onto Eglinton. Putting it through parking lots allows the space underneath the guideway to continue to be used for parking. But if Metrolinx wants to run it in-median but elevated, I have no qualms with that at all.
 
GraphicMatt said:
I generally agree though I'd be interested to see some business case scenarios. The in-median LRT was geared toward facilitating development of a certain type of street - mid-rise, mixed use, etc. Elevated rail probably has somewhat of an opposite effect, as residents and businesses wouldn't want to live directly adjacent to lines.
Click to expand...

But in median LRT helps the driver in rush hour count how many LRVs passed by them in their direction!
 
Rob Ford's plan for a short length of subway in Scarborough instead of Transit City is like using one fully loaded Rolls Royce to haul produce instead of a fleet of utility pickups for the same money.

Better to have rapid transit all over Toronto then to have only one locale get transit.
 
I don't know if anybody noticed this, but to keep elevateds from costing too much, the columns take lanes away from traffic. Almost certainly the supports for a station structure will eliminate turn lanes.

Just like LRT, except costs twice as much if not more.

The primary reason Vancouver went with elevated skytrain over subways is mostly because of the complicated geology underlying the city. The Canada line is elevated through Richmond because that city is built on what is essentially quicksand and the tunnel will float right out of the ground if there's even a moderate earthquake while an elevated structure is more stable in such circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top