[vegeta_skyline]

Those Gotrain nazis imposed their overwrought requirements and forced a pure idea into something convoluted.

Gotrain nazis? Ok, so I suppose the world would be a better place without them huh? What with those 57 million trips a year taking their cars to get downtown instead of the train. The city would be so much better for it right?

Its not GO who decided the only way to get up to the bridge would be by that super massive ramp. Why would the city not simply build a flight of stairs on the east side? Or better yet, extend the bridge over front street so that people wouldn't have to cross the road at all??

 

[PinkLucy]

Why would the city not simply build a flight of stairs on the east side?

Because then bikes, wheelchairs, strollers, etc. couldn't access it.

 

[Redroom Studios]

^^^ some of these complainers have got to be pretty self absorbed to not understand why there is not simply a flight of stairs. Geez, not everyone in the world is blessed with perfect mobility...

havent really been following this thread but I sincerely hope there is some fresh vision for this stretch of Front Street coming in the near future. It is absoultely hideous on the south side and completely non-functional. The bridge is a nice idea and a fine piece of public art but the way it integrates with Front Street is embarrassing.

 

[neubilder]

Gotrain nazis? Ok, so I suppose the world would be a better place without the then huh. What with those 57 million trips a year taking their cars to get downtown instead of the train. The city would be so much better for it right?

Its not GO who decided the only way to get up to the bridge would be by that super massive ramp. Why would the city not simply build a flight of stairs on the east side? Or better yet, extend the bridge over front street so that people wouldn't have to cross the road at all??

I'm not opposed to rail traffic at all. I support it wholeheartedly, over cars in fact, but not bikes. But during the whole process of getting approvals for the Cityplace crossing GO was extremely closed minded and uncooperative to the point they they almost weren't going to allow a crossing at all.

My use of the term nazi's was a reference to the soup nazi in Seinfeld. Relax, it's a joke.

 

[neubilder]

The original design would have not required any ramp - just a gentle slope aligned perfectly with Portland St arching straight across the railway corridor.

 

[neubilder]

You can see in this photo that the Spadina crossing is at the ideal height for a ramp-less crossing.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Because then bikes, wheelchairs, strollers, etc. couldn't access it.

^^^ some of these complainers have got to be pretty self absorbed to not understand why there is not simply a flight of stairs. Geez, not everyone in the world is blessed with perfect mobility...

Clearly my comments were misinterpreted, I never said anything about there being no need for the ramp. Its a great and necessary idea. What I was implying is that there should be a set of stairs as additional access point. Have the ramp on the west side and a set of stairs on the east, is there anything wrong with that idea?

I'm not opposed to rail traffic at all. I support it wholeheartedly, over cars in fact, but not bikes. But during the whole process of getting approvals for the Cityplace crossing GO was extremely closed minded and uncooperative to the point they they almost weren't going to allow a crossing at all.

Cars but not bikes? So are people who travel by bike somehow more important than those who travel by train?

Closed minded isn't accurate, I'd call it protecting their interests; i.e. electrification and the safety of rail operations.

You can see in this photo that the Spadina crossing is at the ideal height for a ramp-less crossing.

You can't make that determination based on that photo alone. Perspective has a lot to do with why the bridge appears to be a lot higher than the Spadian overpass. Also the track level is lower at the Spadina bridge.

 

[drum118]

The bridge is higher than the other 2 bridges for the simple reason:: Electrification.

Since you need overhead support and wires, the distance between rails and the top of the support system will be close to 9 meters, not the current 8 meters for double stacks.

This extra height was a GO/CN requirement for the bridge to be built.

As for the stair, a steel/precast/concrete one could go in on the north side, east side if the ramp has been design for it with no problem. The south side has too many issues to allow for one.

 

[neubilder]

The bridge is higher than the other 2 bridges for the simple reason:: Electrification.

Since you need overhead support and wires, the distance between rails and the top of the support system will be close to 9 meters, not the current 8 meters for double stacks.

This extra height was a GO/CN requirement for the bridge to be built.

As for the stair, a steel/precast/concrete one could go in on the north side, east side if the ramp has been design for it with no problem. The south side has too many issues to allow for one.

My apologies if this has already been explained in this thread, but if the new height standards are for future electrification, how does GO intend to address the existing crossings that are too low? They can't raise Spadina (and many others), that is certain, so if the new standards are the minimum requirement for electrification, how can they possibly ever electrify?

 

[vegeta_skyline]

My apologies if this has already been explained in this thread, but if the new height standards are for future electrification, how does GO intend to address the existing crossings that are too low? They can't raise Spadina (and many others), that is certain, so if the new standards are the minimum requirement for electrification, how can they possibly ever electrify?

In those cases(which there are many) they will either have to rebuild the bridge in question to the new height standard or lower the tracks. Rebuilding the bridge is normally the cheaper alternative. This is one of the reasons why electrification is so expensive.

 

[neubilder]

Cars but not bikes? So are people who travel by bike somehow more important than those who travel by train?

I wasn't very clear - I fully support alternatives to commuting by car. The simpler the alternative, the better. Walking or biking to work is best of all in my books. I consider commuting by train (usually done in conjunction with a short drive or bus trip at the other end) a necessary evil, but necessary nonetheless in a city the size of Toronto. Commuting by car ought to be heavily taxed to the extent that the real costs are borne by those who use the resources.
But don't take this to mean in any way that I'm opposed to developing rail infrastructure, I'm all for rail, LRT etc. I am however opposed to a city that sprawls far beyond it's reasonable boundaries. When someone buys a relatively cheap 4000ft sq house on subdivided agricultural land and pays for it by commuting 45 mins by train, I think it's to the detriment of the whole.

 

[drum118]

I wasn't very clear - I fully support alternatives to commuting by car. The simpler the alternative, the better. Walking or biking to work is best of all in my books. I consider commuting by train (usually done in conjunction with a short drive or bus trip at the other end) a necessary evil, but necessary nonetheless in a city the size of Toronto. Commuting by car ought to be heavily taxed to the extent that the real costs are borne by those who use the resources.
But don't take this to mean in any way that I'm opposed to developing rail infrastructure, I'm all for rail, LRT etc. I am however opposed to a city that sprawls far beyond it's reasonable boundaries. When someone buys a relatively cheap 4000ft sq house on subdivided agricultural land and pays for it by commuting 45 mins by train, I think it's to the detriment of the whole.

The issue I have with GO expanding its area of service, it allowing urban sprawl to jump the greenbelt. If the Towns and cities on the other side of the greenbelt don't get their act together, you are moving greenhouse gas and gridlock to another location without trying to deal with it in the first place.

The grid lock starts in the driveway of a house or a parking garage of a condo or apartment. As long as you allow that extra car or 4 for these places, you are only adding more single drivers on the road to continue the whole mess.

At the same time, until businesses stop providing free parking with surface parking, you are not going to cut down the number of single drivers on the road.

If GO can find more crews and start moving to 20 minute all day service, this will start cutting down on the number of single drivers on the road.

At the same time, local transit has to play a larger role in getting people to/from the GO station as well to a riders place of needs with 7/24 service running 15 minutes or less. In many places that kind of service cannot be done due to low density.

All towns and cities must start increasing the area density that it can support transit in the first place.

The government started to move in the right direction with "Place to Grow", but it needs to add more teeth to this policy by stating X cars are only allow in these places.

It is privilege to drive, not a given right to do so considering 50% of the drivers should not be on the road as they are poor drivers in the first place.

All planners must start designing areas as places to live, work and play to the point they happen in buildings, not separate areas. Some types of business and play area will require separate area.

 

[neubilder]

/\ Yes indeed.

 

[Tuscani01]

As for the stair, a steel/precast/concrete one could go in on the north side, east side if the ramp has been design for it with no problem. The south side has too many issues to allow for one.

I think you meant the other way around. The South side should be no problem, the North side will be a problem since a sidewalk and new crosswalk would need to be built where the stairs meet the street. The south side already has a path that the stairs could connect to.

 

[drum118]

I think you meant the other way around. The South side should be no problem, the North side will be a problem since a sidewalk and new crosswalk would need to be built where the stairs meet the street. The south side already has a path that the stairs could connect to.

...boy was I a sleep doing this posting and it should be the other way around as noted.