Bureaucromancer
Active Member
Ugh.
Because despite Calgary being referenced in the post you're responding to you think there's nothing between this nonsense and the TTC's terror of anything resembling rapid operation.
|
|
|
Ugh.
Because despite Calgary being referenced in the post you're responding to you think there's nothing between this nonsense and the TTC's terror of anything resembling rapid operation.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
This looks fun. Hopefully we can bring this to the TTC.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The only people to blame for that are the electors in Toronto and Ontario. These are the consequences of austerity.
BurlOak
Senior Member
However, I don't think Eglinton being in the median had anything to do with austerity. Some (i.e. the planner types) actually argued that in-median was better than grade-separated. Others wanted on-street just to be opposite to Ford.
Rainforest
Senior Member
It is hard to argue against the fact that building in-median is cheaper than building grade-separated.
What's "better" is an open question, and depends on the future demand that can't be accurately predicted today.
All the published predictions suggest that in-median will have sufficient capacity, if so, then in-median is probably "better" because it allows to take the line further for the same cost.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'll remind everyone that the decision to make Eglinton at-grade was made in 2007, back when the City was planning to build seven LRT lines with limited funding. In this context, grade separation was truly the only workable option, unless we were to cancel delivering transit to other parts of the city.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Your right to some degree, but I still think Transit City was more about sprinkling so money across the city, and not about building proper transit and solving a transit need.
Steve X
Senior Member
It depends on who you speak to. Urban planners agree with Transit City and not with the C-Train model. It's easily accessible, fits within an urban realm and doesn't divide the street with an unfriendly railway in the middle.
It wasn't just a transit plan as mostly everyone has made it so. There are many benefits to surface LRT as long as a higher order of transit priorities is implemented. Hopefully ML does it right.
One point was to build better transit to low income neighbourhoods (the ones that are forgotten or simply ignored cause some don't think they are important). The Scarborough subway is a good example. The richer people prefer subway and don't have to travel to Malvern. Poor Malvern doesn't even get a chance of an SRT extension with the subway extension in planning now. Yet many people agree it's right to do cause they don't pay as much taxes as the middle class. Not building a replacement for Lawrence East Station is another perfect example or ignoring the low income riders living just east of there along Lawrence. The whole Scarborough Subway Extension is designed to get the wealthier riders funneling north of STC to get on a faster subway and yet it seems like it's the right thing to do.
The second point of Transit City was to help develop those "Avenues" with more mid-rise development. Oppose to high rises at every subway station. This is controversial. Some don't even want those avenue developed.
Third is about accessibility and ease of access. It's way easier to access the platforms and there's no elevators to maintain. The cheaper way seems to be the better way.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Who said it had to be in the middle of Eglinton? They could have easily moved it to the side. I know urban planners like the design aspect of things, it's their job trying to make things look pretty and useable, but in the end, if you ask a traffic or even a civil engineer, they'll tell you that type of building will remove a functional aspect of the project. It's a balancing act, plain and simple, you either move people as efficiently as possible and sacrifice aesthetics (think subways or grade separation), or you make it pleasing in an urban sense but sacrifice speed and therefore efficiency. Both have their places, and I would argue that with the traffic we currently see on Eglinton (and with all future traffic we will see on Eglinton), the job of the crosstown should have been efficient movement of people, not an attempt at improving the appearance of the street. Finch, Kingston Road, and Jane on the other hand need the streetscape upgrades, and I can understand putting light rail there.
MisterF
Senior Member
Talking about planners and engineers like they're all united in their opinions is foolish. Both professions are highly subjective and you'll find a wide variety of opinions about any given topic among both groups. Planners don't necessarily disagree with the C-Train model, many of them are big fans of it and are critical of the Transit City model.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
shifting LRT lines from the middle of the street to the side causes all kinds problems don't forget they dug the tunnel right under Eglingtion so basicly the trains will come out at Lared alredy in the centre of the street if they were to be on the side of the raod they would have to corss all lanes of traffic to do so
BurlOak
Senior Member
Well now it's too late. I imagine the comment was for it being done in the original design.
For a while I thought the best option was to dig up the first couple of hundred metres of the tunnel portal and rebuild it so that the track would surface on the south side. Now I think that too much work has been done with the original plan and we will have to live with this - warts and all.
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
I do wonder what they plan for that section. Part of the section runs through Ford territory, so maybe it won't be a "glorified streetcar", or maybe it will be. You never know!
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out that Urban Planners and Transportation/Civil Engineers don't see eye to eye, their priorities are completely different. Will their opinions meet occasionally? Absolutely, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that each have their own agenda and will do what they deem is necessary to fulfill it. If an Urban Planner's job is to make a city more appealing, they will generally try to do that to the best of their ability, even if it means reducing the efficiency of a road. There's nothing wrong with that, again, opinions are subjective and many will share opinions, or have different opinions. Nothing wrong with that.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
In this age of austerity, I highly doubt the 17-18 stop, 500 metres apart road median design originally proposed for Crosstown West is going to fly. Nor should it. The Richview corridor is perfectly suited to any configuration of side-of-roadway at-grade, trench, elevation and tunnel. No one said we have to stick to a specific right-of-way alignment.
10 stops max to Pearson from Mt Dennis is more than suitable.