W. K. Lis
Superstar
Rob Ford does not want to SEE rapid transit to his eyes. That is why he wants to cancel Transit City because he would be SEEING rapid transit vehicles as he drives his SUV.
|
|
|
Above Ground Subways?
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
Marko
Active Member
His main opposition to 'transit' is laying down tracks on busy streets, which there is at least some merit in debating. If he likes to drive as much as you make him sound, then he'd like nothing better than to see all kinds of people taking 'visible' transit, leaving more room for him on the road.
I'm not sure he cares if it's over or under the road, just not down the middle of it.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Almost all of Vancouver's elevated track was put in non-residential areas, largely along properties that had parking out front. In other places it followed a railway line or freeway. However, on Cambie where it would be near residential areas it is underground. Between Columbia and Surrey Central they could have taken a direct path but instead went around the residential area.
You could absolutely go above ground through on Eglinton between Leslie and Birchmount without much complaints. It does limit the market for the land next to it though since most people don't want to live in a condo with a subway train passing by the third or fourth floor.
You could absolutely go above ground through on Eglinton between Leslie and Birchmount without much complaints. It does limit the market for the land next to it though since most people don't want to live in a condo with a subway train passing by the third or fourth floor.
sixrings
Senior Member
Could the condos not simply have above ground parking versus underground parking. This could go up to the LRT tracks so that no resident would have to see the trains passing their windows. That or have condo amenities on these floors which again would protect people from ruining their views.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The picture of the elevated track is a huge obstruction compared to 2 thin Monorail poles.
The thing that gets me is the people who demand tunnels or atgrade to enhance the "pedestrian experience" know little about urban planning. Eglinton "Golden Mile" is a case in point. It is an ugly commercial/industrial strip but there is nothing wrong with that. Commercial strips are just as much a part of the urban fabric as Yorkville or Kensington. They serve different needs but are essential for the economic and social vitality of the city. Miller had these wet dreams of turning the Golden Mile, Kennedy, Sheppard etc into urban nirvanas.........won't work and it's a waste of money even trying.
I don't where people like Miller get this stupid idea that all roads can be turned into pedestrian blvds. Paris, London, New York, Rome............every great walking city also has their suburban commercial/industrial strips. Where does Miller and boys think people get gas, buy their cars, work in their factories, go to school, etc? Newsflash, they don't do those things at the back of some snotty little downtown cafe but in their suburban wastelands just like every other city.
The thing that gets me is the people who demand tunnels or atgrade to enhance the "pedestrian experience" know little about urban planning. Eglinton "Golden Mile" is a case in point. It is an ugly commercial/industrial strip but there is nothing wrong with that. Commercial strips are just as much a part of the urban fabric as Yorkville or Kensington. They serve different needs but are essential for the economic and social vitality of the city. Miller had these wet dreams of turning the Golden Mile, Kennedy, Sheppard etc into urban nirvanas.........won't work and it's a waste of money even trying.
I don't where people like Miller get this stupid idea that all roads can be turned into pedestrian blvds. Paris, London, New York, Rome............every great walking city also has their suburban commercial/industrial strips. Where does Miller and boys think people get gas, buy their cars, work in their factories, go to school, etc? Newsflash, they don't do those things at the back of some snotty little downtown cafe but in their suburban wastelands just like every other city.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,474
- Reaction score
- 1,533
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
they should do this on eglinton
Marko
Active Member
Yup - all the way to Pearson, or at least to a connection point with MT and an extended Air Train down to Rathburn.
Tracked could actually be laid right into the new BRT that goes to Square One (or beyond) where the LRT shares the ROW with the multiple bus lines.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
As opposed to the unpublished and unknown monorail fanatic who has a wealth of urban planning experience?
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,474
- Reaction score
- 1,533
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Agreeed, and it would be cheaper as well,
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Not every street can, or should be, pedestrian blvds. If a main roadway or section of it is commercial then thats fine. Where does Miller think people work? There are millions of cars negotiatin the streets of London and Paris............. where do you think they were bought? Commercial and industrial areas as just as essential to an urban areas economic and social vitality as any shopping or financial district. One of the reasons we now have "reverse commutes" is that many cities have failed to acknowledge this and hence the spread of suburaban office and industrial parks.
To try to "convert" this vital areas into pedestrian ways is a waste of both time and money. Rejuevenating old and dead industrial areas {like the Portlands} is a great idea but trying to do the same with already vital industrial and commercial areas is both expensive and illogical.
This is even true of many roads with high residential density where the population is just in a bunch of concrete apt slabs as Finch is a stellar example.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
No, but the main route of transit lines should be on pedestrian blvds... because the people getting on and off transit aren't in cars, they are pedestrians.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Where do people get the idea that Torontonians would oppose elevated rail lines? It's just never been proposed on any relevant scale before. Yet, we have everyday examples. Just look at the SRT.
Chuck
Senior Member
In Chicago, some of the elevated lines run half a block offset from the main street. The Bloor subway actually runs through a narrow corridor about 100 feet north of Bloor, which had to be expropriated to build the tunnel. Imagine if instead of going underground, an elevated structure was built here instead. Sucks to be a homeowner nearby, however at least Bloor and Danforth would be kept bright and open while still being serviced by an elevated subway.
For corridors such as Eglinton in Scarborough, this would work well. It would allow a newer condo to be built fronting the street, while the elevated line runs along the back alley.
For corridors such as Eglinton in Scarborough, this would work well. It would allow a newer condo to be built fronting the street, while the elevated line runs along the back alley.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The SRT was built in an industrial area and along a railway track. Those types of neighbours wouldn't complain about it. However with the SRT extension to Malvern where the route would run near residents it was proposed at grade and opposition quickly turned it into the only part of the route to be underground. Despite an existing rail corridor in Weston carrying noisy freight trains an increase in much quieter passenger trains let to opposition that forced the province to spend a small fortune making the whole line dive down through the community.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
That's when Metrolinx, the TTC, city, and Queen's Park should turn around and tell the area residents that it must be totally grade separated but will not be tunneled and if they don't want it make it clear the money will go to other areas of the city.