[Woodbridge_Heights]

Elevated routes would not pass in today's environment. People simply do not want to have an elevated rail line passing through their back yards. The EA process would be overrun by citizens against it.

 

[valvenis]

I agree there would be a big NIMBY fight over the actual route chosen for an elevated line. However, I think most people would love to have an above ground network similar to the London Overground.

 

[Rainforest]

Elevated routes would not pass in today's environment. People simply do not want to have an elevated rail line passing through their back yards. The EA process would be overrun by citizens against it.

Does that apply to the eastern section of Eglinton LRT though? Between Leslie and Warden, are there any dwellings facing the street?

 

[andrewpmk]

Does that apply to the eastern section of Eglinton LRT though? Between Leslie and Warden, are there any dwellings facing the street?

There are some apartment buildings between Don Mills and Victoria Park and between Birchmount and Kennedy, so there would be some opposition to elevated in these sections. Between Victoria Park and Birchmount there is absolutely no residential along Eglinton (only big-box stores and industrial).

The other obvious opportunity for elevated would be in the Finch Hydro Corridor (replacing the Finch West LRT). Here though there are houses backing the hydro corridor (except between Dufferin and Keele where the busway currently exists, which is industrial), so there would be opposition. Also there is a very recently built bike path here which would have to be removed.

 

[BurlOak]

The other obvious opportunity for elevated would be in the Finch Hydro Corridor (replacing the Finch West LRT). Here though there are houses backing the hydro corridor (except between Dufferin and Keele where the busway currently exists, which is industrial), so there would be opposition. Also there is a very recently built bike path here which would have to be removed.

In the hydro corridor, would it not be better to have at-grade with priority signals at major concession roads (and maybe even closing some smaller local streets). Otherwise, build overpasses at each concession road and have transit at-grade, trenched, or cut-and-cover tunnelled.

Elevated makes more sense when the corridor below is busy.

 

[DKsan]

I wonder how effective having the LRT dip below each intersection would be?

When I was in San Jose earlier this summer, one of the LRT lines would dip under intersections in one of the downtown areas.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=san+jo...efyNbhOMpACLovf-CF2hJw&cbp=12,114.67,,0,17.74

 

[EnviroTO]

I wonder how effective having the LRT dip below each intersection would be?

I believe that would have occurred over time at the intersections with the most delay and/or accidents.

 

[Dan416]

I believe that would have occurred over time at the intersections with the most delay and/or accidents.

Well now that's how to build transit.

 

[EnviroTO]

It absolutely is. You build it where it needs to be built. Brussels now has a sizable subway system almost completely built through a gradual pre-metro process of building the segments with the greatest surface route obstacles first.

 

[Dan416]

It absolutely is. You build it where it needs to be built. Brussels now has a sizable subway system almost completely built through a gradual pre-metro process of building the segments with the greatest surface route obstacles first.

Not going to happen while Rob Ford is mayor that's for sure.

 

[W. K. Lis]

At least with Transit City, much more people would have been able to ride rapid transit. With Transit City, where the roads are narrow they would have gone underground, where the roads are open and wide it would have been running on the surface.

[video=youtube;agHhVKP1F6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agHhVKP1F6c[/video]

Note the transit signals.

 

[BurlOak]

At least with Transit City, much more people would have been able to ride rapid transit. With Transit City, where the roads are narrow they would have gone underground, where the roads are open and wide it would have been running on the surface.

Transit City was mostly centre-of-road LRT with some underground portions. This shows side-of-road alignment with underground. I also think an example with car traffic more similar to Toronto would have been better. I think that was a major marketing error of TC - that the examples they were showing were not the same as being proposed.

 

[nfitz]

IHowever, I think most people would love to have an above ground network similar to the London Overground.

Almost all of the Overground is on old existing surface or underground rail lines (though part of the East London line was originally a pedestrian and horse carriage tunnel under the Thames they started building in the 1820s). There's only a couple of curves between existing track that have been added for the project. Though a short piece is on the old approaches to London Broad Street, that hadn't been used in a quarter-century - but the viaduct was still there.

 

[Dan416]

At least with Transit City, much more people would have been able to ride rapid transit. With Transit City, where the roads are narrow they would have gone underground, where the roads are open and wide it would have been running on the surface.

[video=youtube;agHhVKP1F6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agHhVKP1F6c[/video]

Note the transit signals.

Transit City was never Rapid Transit.

 

[nfitz]

Transit City was never Rapid Transit.

Yes it was. Perhaps you should read the plan.