Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

BurlOak said:
My understanding is that Jennifer Keesmaat does not like elevated transit so it will never be proposed by Toronto. She could care less that we could be build twice as much transit for the money. The key to being a City planner should be to take the concepts of the political direction and find a solution. Her strategy appears to be to take the political direction and fudge the numbers to match.
Click to expand...
You look a little silly wearing that tinfoil hat.
 
44 North said:
Perhaps a little bit of both, as well as an open cut (i.e cut/cover minus the cover)? I'm definitely game when it comes to affordable subway-building. But realistically the precedent of having every new line/extension be deep underground has already been set. So I don't think we'll see much in the way of having the DRL elevated or cut/covered along Don Mills. But it'd be nice to have this at least explored, which is something that has been sorely missing in the last 10-20yrs.
Click to expand...
The word you are looking for is trenched.

I don't see why we should leave it trenched when we can cover it, and convert Don Mills into a complete street with wider sidewalks. (This argument can also be directed to the elevated option too!)
 
WislaHD said:
I don't see why we should leave it trenched when we can cover it, ....
(This argument can also be directed to the elevated option too!)
Click to expand...

You want the elevated option to be covered?
Is this with clear glass for noise?
 
BurlOak said:
You want the elevated option to be covered?
Is this with clear glass for noise?
Click to expand...
Heh, unsure if this is joke post, but in case I was unclear, I mean that elevated takes space from the road, which is less road width that can be used for a complete street with bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks.
 
Dubai has a metro (subway) that is elevated.

Dubai_Metro_Red_Line_Viaduct_on_22_November_2007.jpg


Must protect their precious sand.
 
Personally, I hate elevated rapid transit -- it is so visually intrusive, and leaves a wasteland underneath it. To me it is more of a past era of disregard for urban built form. (Perhaps I've simply seen the chase scene in the The French Connection too many times.)
 
Tulse said:
Personally, I hate elevated rapid transit -- it is so visually intrusive, and leaves a wasteland underneath it. To me it is more of a past era of disregard for urban built form. (Perhaps I've simply seen the chase scene in the The French Connection too many times.)
Click to expand...
Elevated also gives a an organic urban feeling. It also saves money, a lot of it.
 
Tulse said:
Personally, I hate elevated rapid transit -- it is so visually intrusive, and leaves a wasteland underneath it. To me it is more of a past era of disregard for urban built form. (Perhaps I've simply seen the chase scene in the The French Connection too many times.)
Click to expand...

Modern viaducts take up very little room though? They might be somewhat visually intrusive still, sure, but on the other hand when you're actually riding them the view is much more pleasant!

I never understood the staunch opposition to elevated transit in Toronto. We could save significant money compared to tunneling or excavating, which would allow more track to be built which is something the city desperately needs at the moment.
 
NYC has such an extensive a network because it's mostly elevated outside of Manhattan. It's ugly and noisy but I'm sure a modern build could improve those problems.
 
The elevated tracks could be covered over like at High Patk, and would be visually less intrusive if it were covered with mirrors to make it seem that it's not really there
 
WislaHD said:
The word you are looking for is trenched.

I don't see why we should leave it trenched when we can cover it, and convert Don Mills into a complete street with wider sidewalks. (This argument can also be directed to the elevated option too!)
Click to expand...

I think the term "open cut" is used pretty widely in technical docs, and it's basically synonymous with "trenched".

Really I'm open to everything. Cut-cover, tunneled, trenched, elevated, surface. Geotechnics, hydrology, topography, existing built form, size of ROW etc will naturally dictate when and where a type of infrastructure is optimal. But this kind of holistic, dynamic, fiscal approach is the best kind of approach imo.
 
Tulse said:
Personally, I hate elevated rapid transit -- it is so visually intrusive, and leaves a wasteland underneath it. To me it is more of a past era of disregard for urban built form. (Perhaps I've simply seen the chase scene in the The French Connection too many times.)
Click to expand...
Not always. I thought Roosevelt Ave in Queens, NY felt so vibrant even though elevated rapid transit covers the entire street.
110.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top