Above Ground Subways?

[EnviroTO]

In the case of home owners they are quite likely to choose that the money be spent elsewhere. The enjoyment of ones own property far exceeds the importance of a new transportation largely used by other people for most residents.

 

[CapitalSeven]

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.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that they get the idea from history. I was at a public information session on the Eglinton West line in the early 90's at which city staff presented an alternative plan to save a quarter-billion by building much of the line elevated. The locals tarred and feathered the idea and then took it out behind the barn and shot it. I felt really sorry for the folks running the session. They were trying to save money. We all know what happened to that project.

 

[gweed123]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that they get the idea from history. I was at a public information session on the Eglinton West line in the early 90's at which city staff presented an alternative plan to save a quarter-billion by building much of the line elevated. The locals tarred and feathered the idea and then took it out behind the barn and shot it. I felt really sorry for the folks running the session. They were trying to save money. We all know what happened to that project.

I really hope that Torontonian's views have evolved since then. We certainly know that Toronto has grown more accepting of height outside the downtown core. What Toronto needs is a small elevated section (and I'm not talking Bloor-Danforth west of Dundas West type of elevated) to show that it can be done without severely impacting urban form. I think if you can point to a concrete example of elevated in Toronto done right, it could potentially be used in a lot more places.

 

[Marko]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that they get the idea from history. I was at a public information session on the Eglinton West line in the early 90's at which city staff presented an alternative plan to save a quarter-billion by building much of the line elevated. The locals tarred and feathered the idea and then took it out behind the barn and shot it. I felt really sorry for the folks running the session. They were trying to save money. We all know what happened to that project.

While that sentiment will always exist, I think the response also depends on how the informaton is presented and who is delivering it. This area has been strongly behind Ford and if it comes from their guy Rob that this is the best way to proceed, the medicine will go down a little smoother.

 

[sixrings]

I really hope that Torontonian's views have evolved since then. We certainly know that Toronto has grown more accepting of height outside the downtown core. What Toronto needs is a small elevated section (and I'm not talking Bloor-Danforth west of Dundas West type of elevated) to show that it can be done without severely impacting urban form. I think if you can point to a concrete example of elevated in Toronto done right, it could potentially be used in a lot more places.

I thought the same logic could have been used for LRT. If we had a good example of it being used in the middle of the street its possible people might embrace it. As a result I think Finch should still be built this way. The only problem with using finch as an example will be its stop spacing. However it would demonstrate the luxury of LRT vehicles over busses, the comfort, the convenience and the reliability.

 

[Paleo]

While that sentiment will always exist, I think the response also depends on how the informaton is presented and who is delivering it. This area has been strongly behind Ford and if it comes from their guy Rob that this is the best way to proceed, the medicine will go down a little smoother.

You're delusional. If someones perceived self-interest is threatened, it doesn't matter who it is coming from (unless of course you're the Blue Jays GM).

This is especially true when we're talking about Rob Ford, who is so bad at public speaking that he hides while his brother has become defacto mayor.

 

[ssiguy2]

Frankly I think what the people of Weston and Malvern want should be irrelevant. They have the right to be concerned about diesel trains because the exhaust can be a health issue but electrified transit?....no.
If somebody doesn't want the noise of trains here's an idea..............don't move beside a railway line. This is why any DRL downtown going to Union should be elevated and if the people don't like it maybe they should have thought of that before moving up against the busiest rail station in the country.
You want to listen and try to negotiate but when push comes to shove tell them they have the right to move away from a rail line if they don't like trains. Should we rip up the 401 becuase the new residents of North York Centre have belatedly decided they don't like the roar of the traffic or how it ruins the view?
This is when people with balls need to stand up and they seem to be in shockingly short supply in Toronto.

 

[Justin10000]

If somebody doesn't want the noise of trains here's an idea..............don't move beside a railway line.

Hmm.. No point in commenting on the rest of your insane post. You rant on issues you know nothing about. I find this part of your nutty post relevant, because you think people are moving into the area. That is not the case. The neighbourhood is already established, and residents are used to the occasional freight trains, and the current GO service. Residents have a right to be concerned when their neighbourhood will see rail traffic rise from a few trains a day, to a much, much higher number. It's easy for you, who lives in B.C. to criticize these residents, but until you actually live near a rail corridor, you should be ignored.

 

[sixrings]

Hmm.. No point in commenting on the rest of your insane post. You rant on issues you know nothing about. I find this part of your nutty post relevant, because you think people are moving into the area. That is not the case. The neighbourhood is already established, and residents are used to the occasional freight trains, and the current GO service. Residents have a right to be concerned when their neighbourhood will see rail traffic rise from a few trains a day, to a much, much higher number. It's easy for you, who lives in B.C. to criticize these residents, but until you actually live near a rail corridor, you should be ignored.

Justin I respectfully disagree with your qoute. Again I am not the monorail fanatic that SSiGuy is and usually I disagree with alot of what he proposes and I too recognize he lives in Vancouver so his outlook might be a little scewed. For instance the reason LRT over Monorail is that monorail doesnt do very well in the snow. But I guess in vancouver that wouldnt be such a big deal. Anyways I think what he said sounded harsh but doesnt change the fact that its true. You cant move next to a rail line and then be upset that it starts to get used more frequently. This is the equivelant to all the people who moved to the entertainment district a few years ago to suddenly complain about the condos in the area. Thats absurd. The condos and the redevelopment of the area benefitted more people, then it hurt. Similarly these lines being run more often and even possibly elevated would again benefit more people then it would hurt. That has to be a factor. If the government wants to give every house that backs onto the track 50,000 as a way to bribe them incase their future property value doesnt increase, fine. But otherwise the line should be built dispite the FEW who have a train in their backyard. It is the greater good.

 

[Justin10000]

You cant move next to a rail line and then be upset that it starts to get used more frequently. This is the equivelant to all the people who moved to the entertainment district a few years ago to suddenly complain about the condos in the area. Thats absurd.

These residents have lived near the rail line for years, probably even decades. This is an established neighbourhood who are (rightly) concerned of the impact on their neighbourhood from a massive increase in rail traffic. It's not absurd for community residents to voice their opinion on a major project in their community.

Similarly these lines being run more often and even possibly elevated would again benefit more people then it would hurt. That has to be a factor. If the government wants to give every house that backs onto the track 50,000 as a way to bribe them incase their future property value doesnt increase, fine. But otherwise the line should be built dispite the FEW who have a train in their backyard. It is the greater good.

Respectfully, I find this type of thinking absurd, even disgusting. This is the sort of attitude I would expect from 1960's type planning where people's neighbourhoods are destroyed so freeways can be built to make it easier for suburbanites to get to their nice houses. "For the greater good". Let's destroy established neighbourhood and put people into housing projects "For the greater good". Now let's run 100's of diesel trains daily even with reports detailing the negative impacts of the exhaust. "For the greater good".
Truly, truly absurd. But it's easy when it does not impact your neighbourhood, I guess?

 

[sixrings]

One would assume that the trains which would be run would be electric NOT diesel. As for your example of 60's planning which ripped up neighbourhoods for freeways. I would think that this plan is exactly opposite of that. We would be attempting to correct the errors of sprawl by increasing transit. Also no houses would be harmed, nothing ripped out. The only negative (and this is relative, because some people would think it a positive) would bt that there would be all day transit in the existing railways (which happen to be CLOSE, very different then on, their property), instead of a handful of times a day. I dont see how Tranist can DESTROY a neighbourhood. I use to live on a street which had houses that backed onto a rail line. By no means did that rail line Destroy our neighbourhood. Would it have destroyed it if it ran frequently? Thats debatable but it might have also given our neighbourhood a decent transit alternative then the car.

 

[ssiguy2]

As I stated the people who live near railways have a very legitimate concern about more diesel trains because they are polluting and having so many trains is a very legitimate health concern. That I stately, quite clearly, they can't bitch about electrical trains regardless of technology.
They have far less to bitch about than some who have lived along the TC streetcar lines as those are new lines on streets that never had streetcar lines before.