News   Jul 19, 2024
News Roundup for July 19, 2024
 3     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
We're Swimming In Water
 289     0 
News   Jul 18, 2024
Cladding, First Glazing Installed as the Foster-Designed 50 Scollard Rises
 1.1K     2 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%

  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%
  • Total voters
    120
Epi said:
What the heck? Don Mills is one of the widest streets in the entire city... there's huge grass areas on either side of this 6-laned colossus. That's more than you can say for Sheppard. Not only that, but neither Don Mills nor Sheppard need street parking unless they are also planning to demolish every building running alongside these roads and replace it with Bloor St.
Click to expand...

With the Don Mills LRT. What you're claiming is not true for anything south of Overlea.

No way to fit bike lanes onto the DVP overpass and the hill directly south of it. In fact, that entire stretch may need to be widened in order to accommodate the LRTs.

O’Connor is too narrow for bike lanes as well and Pape is even narrower than O’Connor.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
In a hundred years, maybe yes, or less, it could look like Bloor. Click on this link to check out this article from the Globe and Mail on controversial economist Jeff Rubin's new book Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm the only one here who fails to see how a CIBC economist who specializes in commodity futures and predicting an Edwardian streetscape for a suburban arterial have a plausible connection.
 
UD2 said:
With the Don Mills LRT. What you're claiming is not true for anything south of Overlea.

No way to fit bike lanes onto the DVP overpass and the hill directly south of it. In fact, that entire stretch may need to be widened in order to accommodate the LRTs.
Click to expand...

There's no intention to use Don Mills road for LRT south of overlea. It will most likely turn west on Overlea and then have its own bridge.

Of course, if the DRL comes into the picture, Don Mills LRT needn't even go south of Eglinton.
 
3591264316_a03e0da23c.jpg

Seattle's 13.9 m (22.4 km) Link Light Rail opens July 19th. Part of the route is underground, part above ground. From a link to Seattle Transit Blog, here's some photographs of their new LRT for comparison. They use low-floor light rail vehicles. Some of their underground stations are shared with buses.
554088157_EwUFf-XL.jpg

554088181_fjQhk-L.jpg

554088203_mGLg6-L.jpg

554088190_8iQgb-L.jpg

554088133_T6GHA-L.jpg

554088027_GsVjp-L.jpg

554088051_7SK6Z-L.jpg

554088016_6NqFP-L.jpg

1244063264-mlk_view.jpg

1244063100-city_view.jpg

1244063597-beacon_hill_tunnel.jpg

route_schedule.jpg

The top four stations are underground.
 
Last edited:
Wow ... and most of the underground stuff through downtown was built in the 1980s... all they had to do was change the tracks, etc. The original 2.0 km section of tunnel cost almost half-a-billion dollars back then. Makes Toronto construction look cheap!
 
Last edited:
I'm under the impression that the existing Seattle tunnel wasn't large enough and they had to raise the ceiling height (in other words the same dumb planning failure as with the SRT).
 
What a splendid example of why the LRT instead of subways movement is so stupid and uninformed.
 
The only real debate is surface vs. underground. A surface subway line would cost 90% less than a tunnelled LRT, streetcar, or even bus rapid transit line.

It is for that reason that I believe that all underground transit lines, regardless of their current mode, should be built to subway standards. The incremental cost increase is next to zero if you've already committed to building underground, but this would allow seamless conversion to subway in the future, if and when required.
 
CapitalSeven said:
I'm under the impression that the existing Seattle tunnel wasn't large enough and they had to raise the ceiling height (in other words the same dumb planning failure as with the SRT).
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound right to me ... the bus tunnel seemed to have quite high ceilings; and I took it both before and after it was closed for conversion (they still run buses in it as well); and I didn't notice any alterations to the tunnel ceiling. Are you sure? I thought it was primarily the track that was changed in the new sections.
 
Actually, I was not sure at all, which is why I said I was under the impression. Since posting that I've overcome my laziness and taken the twelve seconds required to look it up. It appears they didn't raise the ceiling, in fact they lowered the floor by about 6 inches.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top