SmartTrack (Proposed)

[WislaHD]

I am sure elevated rail can look like that in the city if we put in enough money.

But Eglinton West? Elevated or not that area is going to need a lot more than an elevated line to look nice. And since that is the case, I don't think the beautification aspect is a relevant qualifier for elevated as opposed to in-median.

At the end of the day Eglinton West is still barely serving 1000 per hour at peak, which hardly justifies elevated.

 

[gweed123]

Elevated would look great on Eglinton West, especially the parts that would use the Richview corridor. If you design it properly, you can keep a lot of the existing trees on either side of the track. You can also place a linear path underneath the guideway. It would be a pretty peaceful ride with tree tops flying by on either side.

 

[nfitz]

There's more than two tracks in the corridor at the point due to the leads into Vincent Yard, so it's not really a fair example.

At Clendenan Ave is only two tracks wide:

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Clend...=UXRuG0cDEgLFS_h4clPcVw&cbp=12,341.76,,0,8.56

But the examples from Vancouver are likely better examples of what a modern elevated corridor looks like.

Or Copenhagen:

If Amsterdam, London, Vienna, Copenhagen, and others can build elevated I'm sure we can too.

Are those examples heavy rail? They look too narrow and slender. Vancouver isn't heavy rail ...

London hasn't done much elevated heavy rail recently (I think Toronto has done more in the last decade!). But here's a shot of what they have done - the new elevated section west of Shoreditch High Street Overground station. Looks more like the Richmond and Adelaide bridges that destroy Corktown than anything else. Not impressive.

 

[CDL.TO]

Are those examples heavy rail? They look too narrow and slender. Vancouver isn't heavy rail ...

London hasn't done much elevated heavy rail recently (I think Toronto has done more in the last decade!). But here's a shot of what they have done - the new elevated section west of Shoreditch High Street Overground station. Looks more like the Richmond and Adelaide bridges that destroy Corktown than anything else. Not impressive.
URL="https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl...tUT8Izmw6c2VImw&cbp=12,323.56,,1,-2.13.&dg=oo

Vancouver and Copenhagen are light metro, which aren't heavy rail but aren't exactly light rail either. But we had been discussing LRT on Eglinton West and I posted in that context (even though this is the Smart Track thread. I would expect things to potentially look different if we were discussing Smart Track.).

Here's another recent London example (light metro):
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Lo...2!3m1!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75:0x52963a5addd52a99

The car park certainly isn't helping in your pic. Still, my point is that London is hardly a urbanity-hating hellhole, and yet they believe that elevated rail has its place in an urban environment. Why do we disagree?

 

[44 North]

Elevated would look great on Eglinton West, especially the parts that would use the Richview corridor. If you design it properly, you can keep a lot of the existing trees on either side of the track. You can also place a linear path underneath the guideway. It would be a pretty peaceful ride with tree tops flying by on either side.

Exactly. And it’s simple and inexpensive fixes that make it work so well. Landscaping, artwork, murals, pathways, trees…just like how it’s done in Vancouver, or most cities for that matter. The space below the guideway is completely usable, and if anything the barren suburban arterial is improved.

Looks more like the Richmond and Adelaide bridges that destroy Corktown than anything else. Not impressive.

I actually like the overpass through Corktown. It has a very urban feel.

 

[nfitz]

The car park certainly isn't helping in your pic. Still, my point is that London is hardly a urbanity-hating hellhole, and yet they believe that elevated rail has its place in an urban environment. Why do we disagree?

The original context was how would heavy rail look.

London was connecting from to a historic piece of elevated, into a subway tunnel. How many kilometres of elevated heavy rail has London built in the last 50 years? 2? We've built more than that in Toronto in the last decade.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

There's more than two tracks in the corridor at the point due to the leads into Vincent Yard, so it's not really a fair example.

At Clendenan Ave is only two tracks wide:

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Clend...=UXRuG0cDEgLFS_h4clPcVw&cbp=12,341.76,,0,8.56

But the examples from Vancouver are likely better examples of what a modern elevated corridor looks like.

Or Copenhagen:

If Amsterdam, London, Vienna, Copenhagen, and others can build elevated I'm sure we can too.

The Copenhagen example also reminds me of a Toronto example. The elevated portion of the YUS line is also split into two tracks as you can see above the 401. While it may be rusty here and disused here, the height and the two tracks allow for much more sunshine.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.730...m4!1e1!3m2!1sUBmLj7MMh7YkcQAd5Epq8Q!2e0?hl=en

 

[CDL.TO]

How many kilometres of heavy rail has London built in the last 50 years? 2? We've built more than that in Toronto in the last decade.

Well, there's the new bits of the Overground network, new bits of track from the Thameslink Programme, the Heathrow spur, High Speed One, and the new bits of Crossrail that are under construction. Depending on your definition, somewhere between dozens of km to over a hundred km.

Which reminds me, there's the whole new "heavy rail" connection which goes over Surrey Canal Road:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.4843...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_yR3TCMFqpAA75eQWhyFWw!2e0

Doesn't look that bad, IMO.

 

[aquateam]

The original context was how would heavy rail look.

London was connecting from to a historic piece of elevated, into a subway tunnel. How many kilometres of heavy rail has London built in the last 50 years? 2? We've built more than that in Toronto in the last decade.

Um, crossrail alone is 118 km and it's supposed to open in 2018.

Since 1964, London has added:
the Victoria line, (21km)
extended Picadilly to Heathrow (??km)
Jubilee line (36 km)

Toronto's entire (current) rapid transit network is 68.3km, which puts us behind Montreal (69.2km) and Vancouver (68.6km).

I'm happy with our progress (Vaughn extension and Eglinton opening) but our current situation is nothing to brag about.

 

[CDL.TO]

Here in Amsterdam, they built an elevated combination heavy rail and metro corridor in the 1980s.

The heavy rail is the single wide bridge, and the metro and the two narrow ones:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.3640...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-EmOI5-jkg82wRbMh2-emg!2e0

Will people write poems about their beauty? Of course not. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

Does it offer fast, grade-separated transit at a fraction of the cost of tunneling? Are they neighbourhoods around the line still urban and pleasant? Definitely.

 

[nfitz]

Well, there's the new bits of the Overground network, new bits of track from the Thameslink Programme, the Heathrow spur, High Speed One, and the new bits of Crossrail that are under construction. Depending on your definition, somewhere between dozens of km to over a hundred km.

Sorry, I meant elevated heavy rail, which is what we were discussing. I can't think of any of that that is a new elevated line, other than that short piece of Overland that I mentioned above. Though perhaps some of the massive Thameslink works around London Bridge qualifies ... though it's more of a rebuild (and widening) than anything else.

Which reminds me, there's the whole new "heavy rail" connection which goes over Surrey Canal Road:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.4843...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_yR3TCMFqpAA75eQWhyFWw!2e0

Doesn't look that bad, IMO.

It's a new bridge, but it's a rebuild of a bridge that used to be there years ago. It's not a new alignment, they've reactivated an abanonded alignment and replaced the bridges.

Um, crossrail alone is 118 km and it's supposed to open in 2018.

I'm not aware of any of it being elevated though, at least not where there hasn't been elevated rail for years.

Name an elevated heavy rail project in London, other than a short connecting piece to an old Victorian piece of elevated.

 

[CDL.TO]

It's a new bridge, but it's a rebuild of a bridge that used to be there years ago. It's not a new alignment, they've reactivated an abanonded alignment and replaced the bridges.

The corridor had been disused since 1913. The original corridor was not elevated, they built it that way new, so they didn't replace the bridges as there were no bridges there in the first place.

You're pretty much using a No True Scotsman argument... we know that they'll build new elevated, we know that they'll reactivate an elevated heavy rail line, but you say they can't TRULY be OK with elevated because they haven't built a TRUE elevated line which is both new and runs heavy rail.

 

[nfitz]

The corridor had been disused since 1913. The original corridor was not elevated, they built it that way new, so they didn't replace the bridges as there were no bridges there in the first place.

I thought those were the foundations of the original bridge in the 2008 Streetview. If the original line wasn't elevated, why was the walkway that was there in it's place elevated with a pedestrian bridge?

 

[CDL.TO]

I thought those were the foundations of the original bridge in the 2008 Streetview. If the original line wasn't elevated, why was the walkway that was there in it's place elevated with a pedestrian bridge?

Compare the height of the foundation to the height of the pedestrian bridge. The foundations don't offer sufficient clearance for road traffic.

Surrey Canal Road is called such because it used to be a canal.

(Only with nfitz could I get into a debate about bridge clearances on rail lines abandoned over a century ago in south London.)

Look, if we could prove that it was built elevated and new would it actually change your mind at all? Are you looking to have your mind changed, or do you just want to argue minutiae?

 

[nfitz]

Compare the height of the foundation to the height of the pedestrian bridge. The foundations don't offer sufficient clearance for road traffic.

I assumed that it was just the footings.

Look, if we could prove that it was built elevated and new would it actually change your mind at all? Are you looking to have your mind changed, or do you just want to argue minutiae?

Not really, as it's still an existing alignment, and it's simply connecting two existing pieces of track. It's not like they decided to build Crossrail through London as an elevated rail line down roads such as Oxford Street.

or do you just want to argue minutiae?

Your the one who used London as an example of new elevated heavy rail lines.