innsertnamehere
Superstar
Sorry about the confusion, but I started writing the post before denfromoakville posted, and it was aimed at ramako.
The more I think about Eglinton East and it's built form the more I actually prefer the on street option. At least from an urban design perspective.
Bike lanes on a 60km/h road where most drivers drive 70-80 = ridiculously dangerous. Not a good idea at all.
The more I think about Eglinton East and it's built form the more I actually prefer the on street option. At least from an urban design perspective.
^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city. I do not live on Eglinton in Scarborough.
Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.
^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city.
^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city. I do not live on Eglinton in Scarborough.
Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.
Thornhill MPP against rapidway bus route
Thornhill’s MPP has come out against a portion of the rapid bus lanes planned for Hwy. 7 that will take a detour through a residential neighbourhood.
“We want to avoid another divisive, unsafe and expensive St. Clair disaster in our own neighbourhood,” MPP Peter Shurman said this week in reference to a contentious downtown Toronto streetcar line.
Mr. Shurman decided he had to support residents after receiving many letters from those opposed to having the rapidway service running through their Thornhill neighbourhood. He held a press conference Monday at The Promenade Mall’s York Region Transit and Viva bus terminal.
“This project is not warranted, even with future intensification,“ he said in an interview.
VIVA’s east-west rapidway line — which will allow buses their own lanes across the region — detours from its Hwy. 7 route, down Bathurst Street, along Centre Street to Dufferin Street before linking up again with Hwy. 7.
The rapidway is part of York Region Transit’s rapid transit plan to introduce a public transit system that provides fast, frequent service. It is meant to ease projected road congestion caused by population growth.
Beverley Glen Ratepayers Association president Gila Martow joined Mr. Shurman at the press conference and pointed to the failures of the St. Clair Avenue light rail project in opposing the Centre Street portion of the rapidway.
“After four years of construction, it decimated business and lives,” she said.
The busway route would be faster if it stayed on Hwy. 7, she added.
She believes the money should be reallocated to funding the Yonge Street subway extension.
Other residents have said they are concerned the rapidway will lead to extra traffic and the dedicated bus lanes will pose a danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
“Centre Street and the Beverley Glen area are home to many families and children. Keeping a rapid transit way above ground is a recipe for disaster,” Mr. Shurman said. “Subways are faster, safer and have greater utility than this project. I hope that the local councillors, who have heard the concerns of our constituents, will listen to their wishes and do what they were sent to City Council to do, fight for their constituents and get busy on Yonge Street.”
Rapid bus service is coming to Thornhill’s Centre Street. It’s just a matter of time, Vaughan Ward 5 Councillor Alan Shefman insisted.
“It is funded, it is happening and it will be built,” he said. “People should be focused on design, aesthetics. There is no question it is going to happen.
“People have really been misled if they have the impression they can stop it. Direct your energy where change can have an impact,” he said.
“We can work to ensure the rapidway fits nicely into the community. The net benefit to the streetscape will be better than today.”
He cautioned that residents opposed to the rapidway do not represent everybody.
“Many residents are dying to have it in place. We need transit everywhere or we will die with congestion everywhere.”
He said when the bus rapidway is finished, riders will be able to take the rapidway from The Promenade Shopping Mall to the new subway station at Jane Street and Hwy. 7 in 11 minutes.
He also said the rapidway needs to go through Bathurst and Centre streets. because this area is densely populated.
Mr. Shefman is hopeful critics will come around to his way of thinking.
“People will start to see the value of the busway. We desperately need transit.”
I'm not saying Nimbyism doesn't exist. Especially in the case of the above, the politician is speaking on a subject to which they clearly have no knowledge. It's hard to understand why people would be against things that would profit them through increases in land value. But I feel like many use the term on this website to simply dismiss other forumers, not necessarily in this instance but in general.
Nevertheless, there still remains more options than elevation. Even partial elevation over major intersections would be preferable.
If you don't think it would be needed, then simply design true signal priority and save a lot of money.I'm not proposing that all intersections be elevated rather some, and it's just a theoretical suggestion. Another suggestion would be to cut and cover under major intersections, however with true signal priority I doubt these features would even be needed. However, the unfortunate situation in Toronto is that we've never even seen true signal priority.