[Rainforest]

I really don't get the love of elevated transit -- to me it is so profoundly visually intrusive, and creates dead spaces underneath.

Again - it depends on the design. A standalone concrete slab is intrusive and creates a dead space; Gardiner fits that description perfectly. Vancouver's SkyTrain is not quite as bad because it is not quite as wide; but it is not top of the line when it comes to streetscape integration. There are better options, actually implemented in other cities.

 

[Palma]

If underground is too expensive, elevated is a cheaper alternative that's better than in the median.

There is no way that elevated is better than median. I love the College, Queen and King streetcars and they are not even ROW. Of course downtown with the amount of cars and people its hard to go above the speed limit which is nice and those street are so vibrant. Putting anything below ground on those street would be a tragedy

 

[ssiguy2]

I really don't get the love of elevated transit -- to me it is so profoundly visually intrusive, and creates dead spaces underneath.

Depends on how it's developed.
I went to Dim Sum last week in Richmond. We were one floor up and the SkyTrain was literally 10 meters from where I was sitting and I didn't hear a thing. There are condos and commercial developments going right up against the line and the base of the pillars have trees and plants growing. Elevated structures don't cut the roads in half like LRT medians. The SkyTrain goes along one side of the road so it's visual presence doesn't feel as great and is easier to access stations.
The area has far MORE pedestrian traffic now than it did before the SkyTrain and having far fewer buses going down the road also makes it safer and, believe it or not, quieter.

 

[BurlOak]

Again - it depends on the design. A standalone concrete slab is intrusive and creates a dead space; Gardiner fits that description perfectly. Vancouver's SkyTrain is not quite as bad because it is not quite as wide; but it is not top of the line when it comes to streetscape integration. There are better options, actually implemented in other cities.

I do not think anyone is proposing a 6 lane wide elevated LRT structure. Comparisson to the Gardiner is the same as comparing median LRT to the at-grade CN/CP tracks near Union Station.

 

[spider]

Am I seeing a proposal to build an elevated structure on an exclusive restricted ROW in the middle of Eglinton Ave. E?
If stations are proposed to be spaced 800M apart would vehicles only be allowed to cross the ROW at these points?
Would pedestrians be subject to these same restrictions?
Would the rolling stock be the same low floor configuration train sets that will be running on City streets in traffic?

If the answers to the above questions are yes I think there will be considerable opposition from everyone along Eglinton Avenue who is not a Streetcar fan. I anticipate an adverse reaction to building a new Gardiner Expressway like barrier down the middle of the road. Isn't having to climb stairs at every station to board a low floor vehicle a little silly?

I am disappointed that no one has provided any answers to my questions.

 

[nfitz]

I am disappointed that no one has provided any answers to my questions.

I didn't really understand them. There's no proposal to build on an elevated structure on Eglinton, and presumably the remaining questions are moot.

 

[BurlOak]

Am I seeing a proposal to build an elevated structure on an exclusive restricted ROW in the middle of Eglinton Ave. E?
If stations are proposed to be spaced 800M apart would vehicles only be allowed to cross the ROW at these points?
Would pedestrians be subject to these same restrictions?
Would the rolling stock be the same low floor configuration train sets that will be running on City streets in traffic?

If the answers to the above questions are yes I think there will be considerable opposition from everyone along Eglinton Avenue who is not a Streetcar fan. I anticipate an adverse reaction to building a new Gardiner Expressway like barrier down the middle of the road. Isn't having to climb stairs at every station to board a low floor vehicle a little silly?

I would guess that Scarborough residents would prefer a Gardiner Expressway above Eglinton than to have a MacMillan Yard or Willowbrook Yard train facility in the middle of Eglinton.

 

[toraerach]

Building Eglinton East at-grade does not preclude elevating it at some point in the future when ridership has grown on the line and the neighbourhoods it serves have changed. At some point, assuming TTC ridership continues to grow and the continues to densify, it may make sense to completely grade separate the line. Until then, we have other transit priorities in this city that are more pressing, including the Eglinton extension to Pearson. It would be nice to build the line completely above/below grade today, and I'm all for it if elevating it doesn't require relocating funds from other projects. However, if elevating the line would impact other projects (remember that even a couple hundred million will have to come from somewhere), it's best to just go ahead with the planned at-grade option. Maybe in a couple decades we'll have enough money and enough of a reason to either tunnel or elevate the line completely. Until then, we'll have a higher capacity transit service running along Eglinton in its own dedicated lanes. That's certainly an improvement over what we have now, and I'm not entirely convinced that the minor speed improvements and increased capacity are worth it in the short term.

As for interlining the Eglinton line with the SRT - it was a nice idea that made sense under the Ford plan, but it's certainly not necessary and provides only marginal benefits for most Scarborough residents. The reconstruction of Kennedy station will improve transit in Scarborough far more than interlining with Eglinton would, and I would rather see any extra or new funds going to the planned SRT extension rather than an elevated structure on Eglinton. As an aside, were there any plans for track connections between the Eglinton LRT, the SRT, and Sheppard LRT under the original Transit City plans? If so, and if the Sheppard LRT is a go, would the SRT extension not make sense from a network perspective?

 

[Emanuel]

I really don't get the love of elevated transit -- to me it is so profoundly visually intrusive, and creates dead spaces underneath.

Again - it depends on the design. A standalone concrete slab is intrusive and creates a dead space; Gardiner fits that description perfectly. Vancouver's SkyTrain is not quite as bad because it is not quite as wide; but it is not top of the line when it comes to streetscape integration. There are better options, actually implemented in other cities.

Hello,

As a point of comparison, the Indian city of Hyderabad has just started building a 70km metro system and is planning on finishing it by 2015, 2016. Due to budgetary and geological constraints, the line will be elevated about 15m above grade and run along the middle of the road. While the tracks will be built on a concrete slab, the whole thing will be supported by 1.85m-wide piers, built on a 2.5m-wide landscaped median. There isn't that much "dead space" under such a structure and the comparison to the Gardiner is not appropriate. That said, Hyderabad is building this primarily along major roads with 40-60m ROW, and the locals are already used to flyovers on some of their busiest roads. When given all the details, I think this approach would be a hard sell in Toronto. On Eglinton an elevated structure may still wipe out a lane of traffic, and stairs and elevators take up a fair bit of space, depending on the elevation of the structure.

 

[Palma]

I would guess that Scarborough residents would prefer a Gardiner Expressway above Eglinton than to have a MacMillan Yard or Willowbrook Yard train facility in the middle of Eglinton.

Why? What else is out there?

 

[JWBF]

I really don't get the love of elevated transit -- to me it is so profoundly visually intrusive, and creates dead spaces underneath.

If I understand properly, price wise, elevated is between at grade and underground, which would be preferable if a ROW is called for but the space or money does not exist for other formats.

"Dead spaces" could be avoided by providing spaces for street vendors, tourism kiosks, cooling stations... just examples.

 

[Tulse]

If I understand properly, price wise, elevated is between at grade and underground, which would be preferable if a ROW is called for but the space or money does not exist for other formats.

There is plenty of space on Eglinton East for a dedicated at-grade ROW.

"Dead spaces" could be avoided by providing spaces for street vendors, tourism kiosks, cooling stations... just examples.

I don't think there is much call for cooling stations and street vendors on Eglinton East.

 

[JWBF]

There is plenty of space on Eglinton East for a dedicated at-grade ROW.



I don't think there is much call for cooling stations and street vendors on Eglinton East.

You asked "why" pertaining to elevated transit; of course there is plenty of space on Eglinton.


Cooling stations and street vendor are just examples; however, these and other possible sources of revenue or community support should be considered to eliminate "dead spaces" (especially for side of the road els).

To explain a bit better, transit should, at least in the case of surface transit, show that it is part of a community, and support that community.

Then again I have been accused of being optimistic and idealistic...

 

[Tulse]

transit should, at least in the case of surface transit, show that it is part of a community, and support that community.

I completely agree, but that's why I think elevated lines are so undesirable, in that they loom over the community, and are visually intrusive -- they essentially define a visual scale far above people-height. At-grade transit, even in its own right-of-way, is at a far more human scale, and doesn't impose itself visually on the built environment. At-grade integrates into the community, whereas elevated just runs through it.

 

[officedweller]

Ultimately, the design, capacity and built form of a rapid transit line is a trade-off between the need for speed (exclusive right of way), cost and asthetics and the balancing of local and commuter interests (yes, commuters pay taxes that go towards the line).

The black and white Subway versus LRT debate seems to miss the various forms that rapid transit can adopt.