News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 2.7K     8 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1K     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.9K     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Too bad if that's the case - but I can see how that will become a heritage issue.

AoD
Click to expand...

I can too, but considering that particular bridge has already lived two lives in two different locations (Humber River and Downtown) I would not object if it were relocated to a third location.

- Paul
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Too bad if that's the case - but I can see how that will become a heritage issue.

AoD
Click to expand...

It is listed on Toronto's heritage register, and it could easily be a candidate for designation.

f1231_it1104.jpg
 
crs1026 said:
I can too, but considering that particular bridge has already lived two lives in two different locations (Humber River and Downtown) I would not object if it were relocated to a third location.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I expect that will expand the ROW westbound (subject to Fort York historical issues) so that there is at least some streetcar priority.

I would love to see the Chinese worker railway memorial moved from the current location (Spadina and Blue Jay Way) and placed in a more prominent location. Ideally in the Rail Deck Park right next to this bridge. (with the artists permission of course)
 
muller877 said:
I expect that will expand the ROW westbound (subject to Fort York historical issues) so that there is at least some streetcar priority.

I would love to see the Chinese worker railway memorial moved from the current location (Spadina and Blue Jay Way) and placed in a more prominent location. Ideally in the Rail Deck Park right next to this bridge. (with the artists permission of course)
Click to expand...
Never in your life time will you see Streetcar Priority in this area unless it is on Bathurst.

Can't see any need to widen the RR ROW by Fort York since the corridor can only handle 5 track west of it and no room for expansion. If Metrolinx removes tracks at Union as plan, the RR Corridor will handle the traffic plan for it.

Yes the Chinese Memorial should be move to a better location for all to see.

I have no issue with moving the current Bathurst Bridge to a new location. By doing so, it will allow TTC ROW to be build on the new bridge with bike lanes and wider sidewalks. The ramp area from the bridge could finally be remove as proposed years ago to get a better grade for Fort York intersection and to the south.

The dump question for the dump idea, will Metrolinx carry on with the plan to terminate trains at Spadina????
 
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Display boards from the public meeting:

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/wp/city-government/planning-development/Sub Pages/studies/Rail Corridor Site Official Plan Amendment/RDP Open House 5_AODA_reduced2.pdf

Images:
RDP%20NS%20section_Final_Low%20Res%20.jpg

AoD
Click to expand...

Very interesting. First time I think I have seen a diagram that includes a lower deck for additional trains. Of course they would have to go under Simcoe and the concourse at Union. Would they not need to be deeper here?

I am also surprised they didn't create a station on the far north tracks (right against Front)...which would not be through to Union.
 
muller877 said:
Very interesting. First time I think I have seen a diagram that includes a lower deck for additional trains. Of course they would have to go under Simcoe and the concourse at Union. Would they not need to be deeper here?

I am also surprised they didn't create a station on the far north tracks (right against Front)...which would not be through to Union.
Click to expand...

I would take that particular infographic with a grain of salt - but the lower deck is probably just the preexisting crossover:

https://goo.gl/maps/VtCCBhKvq8K2

The current preliminary plans for the Spadina RER station don't have platforms for the north tracks either.

upload_2017-9-26_9-41-56-png.122301


AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Display boards from the public meeting:

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/wp/city-government/planning-development/Sub Pages/studies/Rail Corridor Site Official Plan Amendment/RDP Open House 5_AODA_reduced2.pdf

Images:
RDP%20Spadina%20Street_Final_Low%20Res.jpg


AoD
Click to expand...

I know these are preliminary renderings of a megaproject that has little hope of being realized in its entirety, but it's still disheartening that the renders show that out of 16 football fields of space, they're not able to allocate a 1 meter strip for separated bike lanes. Sharrows are less than useless
Some Bike Infrastructure Is Worse Than None at All
As sharrows do not provide designated space for bicyclists and do not enhance the overall bicycle network, all cities should (as many already have) begin to consider sharrows simply as signage as opposed to actual infrastructure. It is time that sharrows are exposed for what they really are, a cheap alternative that not only fails to solve a pressing safety issue, but actually makes the issue worse through a sense of false security.
Click to expand...

The renders seem to show a happy coexistence of speeding cyclists on the paths but if I were a pedestrian (or cyclist) I would not be happy with that situation.
 
Last edited:
aquateam said:
I know these are preliminary renderings of a megaproject that has little hope of being realized in its entirety, but it's still disheartening that the renders show that out of 16 football fields of space, they're not able to allocate a 1 meter strip for separated bike lanes. Sharrows are less than useless
Some Bike Infrastructure Is Worse Than None at All


The renders seem to show a happy coexistence of speeding cyclists on the paths but if I were a pedestrian (or cyclist) I would not be happy with that situation.
Click to expand...

Not sure what benefit a bike lane through this park would provide. where would it take people that isn't already served by the existing infrastructure? I don't see people clamouring to get to Bathurst/Front as it stands and with the Bentway Park that may be a more appropriate place to put bike infrastructure.

Based on your link I would hardly say "Sharrows are less than useless". Are they as safe as bike lanes? No. But based on your link it would appear as though they do attract more people to bike on them than if they aren't there. Maybe over time a safety in numbers might have safety move in their favour.

As a side point, the charts in the link are super confusing , how does a before scenario have a percentage decline, or increase? We essentially have to visually find the difference to see what the real change from before to after is instead of just looking at the values on the axis #midlyinfuriating
 
BMO said:
Not sure what benefit a bike lane through this park would provide. where would it take people that isn't already served by the existing infrastructure? I don't see people clamouring to get to Bathurst/Front as it stands and with the Bentway Park that may be a more appropriate place to put bike infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Just saying that it would be nice to see bike infrastructure not included as an afterthought. That's what ended up happening when Montreal replaced the Bonaventure expressway with a linear park, without any consideration of linking their two major east-west cycle trails.

And I can see the potential with Raildeck park to suffer from the same issues as Waterfront revitalization, where the streetcar/pedestrian/car/cyclist paths result in interactions that look pretty and functional in renderings but result in headaches and accidents in real life. Basically a situation where urban planning visions trump practicality.

BMO said:
Based on your link I would hardly say "Sharrows are less than useless". Are they as safe as bike lanes? No. But based on your link it would appear as though they do attract more people to bike on them than if they aren't there. Maybe over time a safety in numbers might have safety move in their favour.

As a side point, the charts in the link are super confusing , how does a before scenario have a percentage decline, or increase? We essentially have to visually find the difference to see what the real change from before to after is instead of just looking at the values on the axis #midlyinfuriating
Click to expand...

According to the link, they attract more people to them but they have a higher rate of injury than streets with no sharrows at all. So people are attracted to them but they get a false sense of security.

The reason that the "before" scenario has a decline is that all the bars to the left are from data in 2000, the bars to the right are taken in 2010. They could have labelled it better but I don't think it's that confusing.

The lanes without any bike infrastructure saw the accident rate drop because overall cycling levels increased from 2000 to 2010.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top