sixrings
Senior Member
Been in Taipei for a few days now. I'm bipolar about theirelevated transit. I llove the speed andthe grade separation. I hate what itlooks like at street level. That said it be perfectfor eglinton east and west.
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Forgotten
Active Member
Note how they never show any renderings from the perspective of drivers or walkers.
Because bridges are from the future and they're cool.
smallspy
Senior Member
No, that had already been tried 10 years previous. They tried, and failed.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
44 North
Senior Member
Exactly. Narrow downtown streets in the old parts of a city is where subways should be underground. Suburban arterials with a massive roadway allowance OTH is where elevation makes the most sense. But still, your point about grade-separation should be the takeaway from your post. I think the needs of 250k transit users outweighs the qualms of, say, 2.5k. And a couple pics of Taipei's elevated metro would be much appreciated!
2/3 of the renders I posted are from a ground-level POV; I thought it'd be pretty clear what's going on. Though I guess they are pretty useless without a steering wheel or nose drawn over the centre of the image...otherwise who's to know if what's being shown is of a subway, or a penguin. They should also be 3D.
But I get what you're saying. The Prov did provide renders of their ICTS system to show how it'd look for those below a guideway (these can be found online). I know you'll scoff at it, but the logic and reason behind ICTS/GO-ALRT was pretty sound. Maybe it wasn't "futuristic", but IMO the concepts were ahead of their time: e.g underground = costlier than above, heavy = slower than light, faster = better than slower, etc. Zany, I know.
robmausser
Senior Member
You are missing my point, which is proving the narrow mindedness of Torontonians.... there is a perfectly good rail yard directly behind Union. Heck the damn thing in the renderings crosses over it right after being on Front street. It seems incredibly stupid to not use the rail yard to put the station in, whether elevated or not, considering thats you know...what a rail yard is for, and where the damn thing seems to be headed anyways.
To me this rendering looks entirely "form" over function. Its meant to look 1970's futuristic.
44 North
Senior Member
Very true. But a couple things:
-This would've been an entirely different class than what's running on USRC, so even if it was on the rail corridor it'd still have to be separated somehow.
-Like what AoD said, having it on/under Front brings it closer to where ppl are and where they're transferring.
-I don't have any proof to back this, and I could be wrong, but I believe the Prov really wanted the system out in the open and conspicuously placed to showcase their new tech - provided that ICTS was chosen. So yes, form over function.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I think we haven't considered the context at the time - the station and the shed are not owned by the city and it would limit the freedom of TTC to just move in and make changes.
AoD
AoD
aquateam
Active Member
junctionist
Senior Member
When they created those renderings with the elevated DRL on Yonge Street, Union Station was already preserved. The Metro Centre plan was dead.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...der-to-kickstart-the-economy/article26125406/
The federal Liberals are proposing a massive increase in infrastructure spending (to the tune of $5 billion a year in the first two years, and ultimately ramping up to $9 billion a year of additional spending), much of it for public transit.
Does this bring the DRL closer to reality?
The federal Liberals are proposing a massive increase in infrastructure spending (to the tune of $5 billion a year in the first two years, and ultimately ramping up to $9 billion a year of additional spending), much of it for public transit.
Does this bring the DRL closer to reality?
crs1026
Superstar
I doubt it.
First of all, the Liberals haven't been elected. And this is just an election promise.
Second, it's unlikely that Ontario's share of the fund would be greater than the amount of the fund that is actually raised in Ontario. We already have a Liberal government willing to fund projects by borrowing. So Ontario can raise the money itself. We don't gain anything by passing money to Ottawa so they can pass it back.
Lastly, the fund would likely require provincial/municipal matching or contribution. So we need to raise the portion of funding - likely the biggest share - that Ottawa won't be providing. To do this, we still have to get Ontario politicians engaged and aligned towards the project. That may take a while. Ontario's political heart isn't in this project, yet - and its political head is still in the sand.
- Paul
Last edited:
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Let's hope so. The NDP is leading in the polls now, but I am skeptical that they will actually win (most of their support is in Quebec, and they are unpopular in most of the GTA). I think that the Liberals have a better chance than the polls claim. Also I think that Harper is practically guaranteed to lose because of the 2015 recession.
The money is going to have to be spread out all over the country though. Montreal needs a big commuter rail expansion project like Toronto for instance. Also, claiming that $125 billion will be spent on infrastructure over 10 years is an exaggeration because this is for the entire country, and probably includes absolutely every type of infrastructure that the federal government funds portions of (so this includes hospitals, etc.) Building the DRL properly (Union to Finch/Don Mills, with a possible extension to Dundas West) will cost $10-15 billion. It is a lot of money to build the whole thing at once.
The money is going to have to be spread out all over the country though. Montreal needs a big commuter rail expansion project like Toronto for instance. Also, claiming that $125 billion will be spent on infrastructure over 10 years is an exaggeration because this is for the entire country, and probably includes absolutely every type of infrastructure that the federal government funds portions of (so this includes hospitals, etc.) Building the DRL properly (Union to Finch/Don Mills, with a possible extension to Dundas West) will cost $10-15 billion. It is a lot of money to build the whole thing at once.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
If think you're confusing the results of the 2008 election results with the 2011 election results.
2008:
2011:
For 2015, the ridings have been redrawn because of population growth. I'm expecting a lot of the current Tory blue to be NDP orange with some Liberal red, a lot less blue.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
For what it's worth, all of Mississauga is currently projected to go Liberal, as is Don Valley West. I believe most of the blue is going to red, minus the inner city, where the NDP already holds seats.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't see how the extra money will help a DRL. All federal programs require a one-third financing from the City itself and seeing Tory isn't even willing to cough up one nickel for his Smart Tracks programs {waiting for the private sector to pay for the station} I don't see him looking at much larger bucks for a DRL.