UtakataNoAnnex said:
...so what does it take to get their fingers out and put one there? It doesn't have to be fancy or elaborate...just nice, easy and practical.
Click to expand...

Money would be helpful. You also need landing points on both sides.

Towered said:
Make it a requirement to gain approval.
Click to expand...

Not feasible. You can ask, but not mandate that.

guavadelic said:
Moving is never easy but why do they seem against swapping out a nearly 60 year-old building for a brand new one involving just a slight relocation?
Click to expand...

I don't know if @ADRM could add anything here.

*****

In respect of adding a bridge (or tunnel).

Its not a cheap endeavour.

The simplest version requires a ramp, ideally at a 5% or less gradiant so as to be considered accessible (you can do stairs or a steeper ramp, but you then need an elevator to achieve accessibility).

A 5% grade, when you need to clear the rail corridor at a height that allows for GO Trains, and then overhead catenary on top of that you need a fair bit of distance.

For clarity, Mx requires you clear their tracks by at least 5.3M, and at a 5% grade, a ramp would be ~100M long to reach that height. Even with one switchback, that's still 50M'ish...

That's a lot of real estate.

The alternative, add elevators, is costly you need one on each side, they have to be weatherproofed etc.

That's not to suggest it isn't do-able, it is. But its a substantial ask and would be hard to justify given the current project size/layout. Easier if the school site were included.
 
Towered said:
Also, are there any mechanisms in place that the city could use to pressure the TDCSB to play ball here?
Click to expand...

Not really.

The City has joint use agreements for some school yards/community facilities and it could choose to terminate those contracts when they come up for renewal, but that would just see the community lose access to those spaces through the City.

There really isn't any other obvious leverage.
 
Northern Light said:
Not really.

The City has joint use agreements for some school yards/community facilities and it could choose to terminate those contracts when they come up for renewal, but that would just see the community lose access to those spaces through the City.

There really isn't any other obvious leverage.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate. Perhaps this is something that needs to be looked at and a mechanism created to give the city more leverage in situations like this when dealing with entities that needlessly create obstacles despite offers of accommodation on the table.
 
Northern Light said:
Money would be helpful. You also need landing points on both sides.



Not feasible. You can ask, but not mandate that.



I don't know if @ADRM could add anything here.

*****

In respect of adding a bridge (or tunnel).

Its not a cheap endeavour.

The simplest version requires a ramp, ideally at a 5% or less gradiant so as to be considered accessible (you can do stairs or a steeper ramp, but you then need an elevator to achieve accessibility).

A 5% grade, when you need to clear the rail corridor at a height that allows for GO Trains, and then overhead catenary on top of that you need a fair bit of distance.

For clarity, Mx requires you clear their tracks by at least 5.3M, and at a 5% grade, a ramp would be ~100M long to reach that height. Even with one switchback, that's still 50M'ish...

That's a lot of real estate.

The alternative, add elevators, is costly you need one on each side, they have to be weatherproofed etc.

That's not to suggest it isn't do-able, it is. But its a substantial ask and would be hard to justify given the current project size/layout. Easier if the school site were included.
Click to expand...
With a project that millions will potentially been thrown at surely they can take the time to work out those logistics. Like I said, it doesn't have to be fancy or signature....

...and stacking the ramp industriously like I've seen done with other P bridges across town resolves real estate issues mostly.
 
As far as a crossing goes would a ramp utilizing switchbacks but still having a 5° slope use much less real estate?
 
rdaner said:
As far as a crossing goes would a ramp utilizing switchbacks but still having a 5° slope use much less real estate?
Click to expand...
....oppose to snaking them along all the way to Cleveland. >.<
 
I'm not smart enough to know if the construction activity on-site this week is at all related to this project, but last night crews had set up for some drilling (I think) of some sort in the parking lot just East of the Pizza Nova.

IMG_6108.jpg
 
txlseries4 said:
On the post it mentions:

Golden Mile (1880 Eglinton Ave E) - July 3 to 6
The Annex (650 Dupont St) - July 10 to 13
Roncesvalles (2280 Dundas St W) - July 17 to 20
Fort York (500 Lake Shore Blvd W) - July 24 to 27
Click to expand...

The first three of these have meaningful surface parking.........where is the Fort York store going to do this?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top