[Tulse]

but it appears alot of people are against at grade.

I can think of one, but he's very big and noisy.

Seriously, at-grade was not a serious issue until "War on Cars" Ford decided to make it so. Sure, the St. Clair ROW construction was mishandled, but that was its construction, not its actual operation. Nobody complains about the Spadina LRT. No one argues that the Harbourfront LRT should have been buried.

I think at grade works the best if the stop spacing is like a subway not like a street car.

Quite the reverse -- why bury or elevate if you're going to have to build a lot of stations? One of the major advantages of at-grade is that it is really cheap to put in stops.

 

[rbt]

Elevated transit has to be ugly, right? I guess the SkyTrain in Vancouver is real ugly, hence why the areas around SkyTrain stations are booming.

How about the areas near Skytrain that are not at a station?

 

[Dan416]

When Torontonians say elevated is "ugly" ... it just strikes me as very provincial and small-minded. Sure it may not be appropriate everywhere, but parts of Sheppard and Eglinton, WTF not?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Because there is a political reality we can't ignore when talking about transit. There's no appetite amongst constituents for elevated rail lines down their streets, just as there' no appetite for planning density at the levels necessary to create successful subway lines.

 

[M II A II R II K]

That's where beefing up Commuter Rail comes in with convenient connections as well as cheap park and ride out there if they insist on remaining suburban arterials. There would at least be long range transportation options that aren't that dependent on density.

 

[44 North]

I dont think elevated should be everywhere. But you arent going to convince me that places like Jane north of St Clair, Don Mills north of DVP, Eglinton between Victoria Park and Kennedy & between Jane and the Airport will ever be pedestrian friendly communities (I guess Don Mills is probably the most likely of this list). However all of these areas are dying for transit. Elevated might not be the "prettiest" but it would get the job done and if anything raise property values.

Agreed.

When Torontonians say elevated is "ugly" ... it just strikes me as very provincial and small-minded. Sure it may not be appropriate everywhere, but parts of Sheppard and Eglinton, WTF not?

Totally.

 

[Rainforest]

Vienna's U6 metro line is largely elevated, but it is built into the streetscape properly, and does not look ugly at all.

Of course, that requires some thoughtful design work and some extra funding. If all we can afford is a concrete slab like Gardiner, it will look ugly for sure.

 

[sixrings]

Quite the reverse -- why bury or elevate if you're going to have to build a lot of stations? One of the major advantages of at-grade is that it is really cheap to put in stops.

i understand its cheap to build stops which is actually one of the reasons tc did scare me as much as i was more or less a supporter of it. cheap stops means people can advocate for unnecessary stops. i dont think that is a good thing. and although we can build stations for cheap if it ultimately slows down the line i cant see how people are going to be very happy about that. adding too many stops will turn a lrt line into a streetcsr line with bigger trains.

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouverites don't seem to mind the elevated SkyTrain. In fact is has raised property values around the stations and condo towers are literally within 20 meters of the line.
Also, how are people concerned about the look of elevated sections on Eglinton between DM and Kennedy? That stretch is already as ugly as hell, a elevated train couldn't make it any worse.

 

[nfitz]

Vancouverites don't seem to mind the elevated SkyTrain.

Then why are they fighting so hard to make sure the Millennium line extension towards UBC isn't elevated?

 

[GenerationW]

Maybe time to start writing letters to Conservative MPs complaining that they had promised 12-km of LRT, and instead are going to deliver an overpriced $1-billion subway extension that only goes 2,000 metres.

Overpriced? So those TTC rubes aren't getting Toronto the best deal for a potential Sheppard subway extension? Those dirty rats!

So what should we get -- 2.5 KM? 3??

 

[11th]

Then why are they fighting so hard to make sure the Millennium line extension towards UBC isn't elevated?

For one, we have to compare Vancouver's Broadway (more urban) and UBC (very low density/parkland) vs. Sheppard East. As well, UBC is on a peninsula, along with the land being very low density/parkland , it makes sense to be at-grade for that section.

 

[M II A II R II K]

To reduce noise it could be made to be enclosed when elevated like after Sherbourne station but not have that ugly concrete look. Another thing is do these elevated lines have to actually run directly over the road? Maybe over alleys in between buildings and streets.

And anyway if there's not much on suburban Eglinton they can put it on the side of the road, particularly at intersections like Jane.

 

[unimaginative2]

Then why are they fighting so hard to make sure the Millennium line extension towards UBC isn't elevated?

Because Broadway is very different from Sheppard, the Spadina line extension, and the industrial area northwest of Scarborough Centre.

 

[nfitz]

Because Broadway is very different from Sheppard, the Spadina line extension, and the industrial area northwest of Scarborough Centre.

Precisely. A blanket statement that Vancouver doesn't mind elevated doesn't cut it. It's situational. Seems we don't mind elevated either for the SRT.