- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
drum118
Superstar
What is an extra $1.5m to do it right for an overbuilt and costly extension to have a walkway with a lot shorter walking distance.If I lived on Ravenbourne, I would have put in a gate (with a key gate lock of course).
From link.
Not so good for those on the other side of the street. The city or Metrolinx (read province) should buy the properties to put in walkways. (If it is in the budget.)
W. K. Lis
Superstar
For EACH house that needs to be expropriated and paid for, for each cul-de-sac or crescent or maze that does not go in the direction of a station, and for each wrong direction roadway. Let the engineers and accountants figure that out.
Would have been less of problem if they went with surface stops (half way between the current stations). Like a stop at Bemersyde Drive, Lloyd Manor Drive, Russell Hill Road, etc.. No, we can't, because we must have "subway, subway, subway".
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Your point stands 100% but there is indeed a cut-through from Oldham to Richview CI.
crs1026
Superstar
^I may be dreaming, but I actually see merit in a program to selectively repurpose “keystone lots” - to drive straight-line pathways for pedestrians, cyclists, and possibly mini-transit or emergency vehicles through “traditional” suburbs built with winding roads.
If the properties are large enough (many are - there are lots of keystone-shaped lots on a curvy back street) there will be room left to redevelop parts of the site with more appropriate buildings, meaning that much of the cost can be recouped and density can actually be added. In the extreme, one could build houses on stilts with the pathway running at ground level underneath.
It may sound draconian… but when you see how many perfectly good houses are being knocked down anyways to build bigger monster s-f homes, it’s not that big a change.
I see similar potential in the older, more central streets in the city, where it would only take the removal of one or two houses to link non-connecting streets or laneways to create bike or walking routes away from main streets.
It’s just a fantasy, perhaps, but I think it might solve a lot of these problems and actually be popular politically, especially if the urban planning community bought in.
- Paul
If the properties are large enough (many are - there are lots of keystone-shaped lots on a curvy back street) there will be room left to redevelop parts of the site with more appropriate buildings, meaning that much of the cost can be recouped and density can actually be added. In the extreme, one could build houses on stilts with the pathway running at ground level underneath.
It may sound draconian… but when you see how many perfectly good houses are being knocked down anyways to build bigger monster s-f homes, it’s not that big a change.
I see similar potential in the older, more central streets in the city, where it would only take the removal of one or two houses to link non-connecting streets or laneways to create bike or walking routes away from main streets.
It’s just a fantasy, perhaps, but I think it might solve a lot of these problems and actually be popular politically, especially if the urban planning community bought in.
- Paul
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Must be a problem with Google maps. Doesn't show a "pedestrian" route to Richview CI. Guess we are supposed to pick someone's backyard at random and scale the backyard fence.
Don't forget that people currently have to walk the maze of sidewalks (if any) to reach the current buses on Eglinton Avenue West and the cross street bus stops. Should have the "short cuts" decades ago. Many of the "suburban" street layouts have the same problem, even without a rapid transit line, just bus routes.
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
Metrolinx statement on Eglinton Crosstown LRT
Metrolinx CEO statement on Crosstown LRT
www.metrolinx.com
Islington Express Bus
Active Member
That area doesn't even have sidewalks.
I remember our favourite councilor Stephen Holiday fighting against having them installed across his ward a few years back.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
We see the results with TTC service, because Councillor Stephen Holyday is a TTC board member. He is for the automobile, not for the pedestrian.
Now "luxury" would be sheltered sidewalks and pathways for the pedestrians. This image is from Singapore, definitely not Toronto. Not going to happen here, especially with the automobile disciples on city council.
Last edited:
down on the upside
New Member
If you lived at 65 Evesham Crescent or were visiting, couldn't you just leave by the backyard exit, walk across the football field and be at Eglinton ave / Islington in 5 min?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
What about across the street, on the other side of the same street?
fanoftoronto
Active Member
The sheltered sidewalks work even better at keeping the elements out than the sad excuse for shelters on the Finch and Eglinton Crosstown LRTs. They're probably also a fraction of the cost of the shit shelters that we're getting which adds to the stupidity of our design.
Why can't we ever get nice things at a reasonable cost!
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Says who? Nearly every new building has a canopy or overhang for weather protection and wind mitigation.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Need a "permit" from the city, since it would be encroaching on city property (the sidewalk). So to save money, stores go without. Could use a retractable awning, which needs to be "rolled" up at the end of day. Same reason why we see few overhanging signs over the sidewalk.
