TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I should have defined what it was being compared to. In this case, it would be an underground LRT.
Last edited:
|
|
|
I should have defined what it was being compared to. In this case, it would be an underground LRT.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Slowing down some guy's SUV is the least of my concerns. I want elevation because it will marginally increase reliability, greatly increase operational speed and allow the line to be merged with the new SRT.
BurlOak
Senior Member
It is also "relatively cheap" compared to the project cost.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
And all the TTC has to say is that Metrolinx is in charge of the design of the project, and Solid Snake should talk to them. The crowd would have to be uniformed morons to get mad at the TTC. over this.
You're just going to to waste your time, and honestly the TTC's time on a matter that they have no control of.
Another thing to consider is that Jaye Robinson and the community wanted the Leslie stop reinstated, so is it really wise for Scarberians to get riled over an issue that is not in their neighbourhood?
Last edited:
Voltz
Senior Member
Getting it built before more factually wrong bashing, unreasonable and unjustifiable demands for changes, political opportunism and loud mouth complainers manage to scuttle the line.
Voltz
Senior Member
How do you define greatly increase operational speed? As I recall the difference in operating speed between the eastern surface section and the underground section is minimal.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Really? How do you figure that? I should spend extra money I don't have to do something no one wants to a line that will work just fine for millions of dollars less because one UT forum member has convinced himself he's right and the world is wrong?
TM: I think you're greatly exaggerating the dangers to surface LRT and gain in operational speed in order to convince the world to spend more money to not inconvenience traffic. I cannot otherwise fathom your stance, as the operational speed gains are as marginal as the reliability gains. Sure, your top speed is higher, but you still have to stop at the stops. Actual time saved will be marginal.
Also, and I keep coming back to this and y'all keep ignoring it, elevated transit is ugly. U-G-L-Y. We're going to tear down the Gardiner to build an LRT in the sky above Eglinton? Why? So far, here in the south of France, Marseille, Cannes, Nice -- Barcelona on a trip, Istanbul on a trip -- are tearing down elevated transit and/or building tramways at grade. Elevated sucks donkeys. Get over it.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Comparing Barcelona, Cannes, Nice, or Istanbul to Toronto's "Golden Mile" is a near war like provocation against those fair cities.
The Golden Mile is a commercial/industrial strip and will never be more than that but contrary to what Miller and friends think, that is a good thing. Cities need these areas as much as they need Bay, Queen, Bloor, or Yonge Streets. This section of Eglinton is ugly and completely forgetable and an elevated structure would do nothing to impair the urban environment.
The analogy to the Gardiner is a false and deceptive one in the extreme. The Gardiner is 6 lanes wide, has huge on/off ramps, rips thru the core and cuts off the city from it's waterfront............Eglinton elevation does none of those things. Another false doctrine put forward by anti-elevation crowds is that elevation has to be ugly and alienating. Vancouver's new Canada Line has done wonders for Richmond's core area even though the entire Richmond section is elevated.
In Richmond, they took out on lane for the pillions, put in bike paths under/beside them, widened the sidewalks, planted greenery not only along the entire length but also on the pillars themselves. The result? An area that has gone from a 6 lane suburban wasteland where only people with a death wish would walk down to and area that has a lot of pedestrian traffic and is infinetly more enjoyable and urbane than it ever was before.
Of course all of these things also don't mention the fact that elevation is not only more reliable, faster, and less disruptive to build but also much cheaper to run as it can be automated unlike any non-grade separated system.
The Golden Mile is a commercial/industrial strip and will never be more than that but contrary to what Miller and friends think, that is a good thing. Cities need these areas as much as they need Bay, Queen, Bloor, or Yonge Streets. This section of Eglinton is ugly and completely forgetable and an elevated structure would do nothing to impair the urban environment.
The analogy to the Gardiner is a false and deceptive one in the extreme. The Gardiner is 6 lanes wide, has huge on/off ramps, rips thru the core and cuts off the city from it's waterfront............Eglinton elevation does none of those things. Another false doctrine put forward by anti-elevation crowds is that elevation has to be ugly and alienating. Vancouver's new Canada Line has done wonders for Richmond's core area even though the entire Richmond section is elevated.
In Richmond, they took out on lane for the pillions, put in bike paths under/beside them, widened the sidewalks, planted greenery not only along the entire length but also on the pillars themselves. The result? An area that has gone from a 6 lane suburban wasteland where only people with a death wish would walk down to and area that has a lot of pedestrian traffic and is infinetly more enjoyable and urbane than it ever was before.
Of course all of these things also don't mention the fact that elevation is not only more reliable, faster, and less disruptive to build but also much cheaper to run as it can be automated unlike any non-grade separated system.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
NYC has the subways elevated in the outer boroughs sans Staten Island. I mean if its ugly oh well, I mean we are trying to move people.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Uh, I think you're making my point for me. Scarborough is 100x less dense than NYC boroughs.
SSI - the Gardiner was also considered beautiful and modern in its time. The Golden Mile needs to change. Building a barrier will guarantee it doesn't change inti a family friendly neighbourhood. Other than tilting at windmills or being car drivers, your arguments make so little sense.
This just reminds me of what the government says every time there's an investigation into something they've done wrong. "We cannot comment at this time, because there is an open investigation". And then once the investigation is done: "The investigation has concluded, so there's no point in us commenting on it."
It never seems like the right time to ask the questions that need to be asked. It's always either "it's too early to think about stuff like that" or "it's too late to make any changes to accommodate something like that".
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Wasn't the operational speed underground about 50% faster than the ROW (22 kmh vs 32kmh)
Forgive me if I'm incorrect. I'm operating off of memory from Metrolinx documents I read almost 18 months ago.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Yup.
We should be praising Solid Snake for being so proactive. At least he is willing to spend his personal time to attempt to improve the ECLRT. More than can be said for most here.
So thank you Solid Snake.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Update
My previous posts were correct was correct.
According to the February 2012 Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown LRT Report from Metrolinx, the operational speed of a fully grade separated LRT is 30-32kph. The surface LRT will operate at a speed of 22kph. So up to 50% increase in speed (approximately).
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Metrolinx report confirms my claim. The "fully separated LRT" operates at an average of 32kph, a little less than 50% faster than the current ROW plans.
And I never said that there are any particular dangers to surface LRT vs underground or elevated.
And trust me, I don't care at all about inconvinincing cars (within reason). I do not live in the area, never have not owned a car and don't plan on purchasing one anytime soon.
Average operational speeds include dwell time
From Metrolinx report regrading travel speed (final page):
"Factors include traffic, number of stops, dwell time at stops, signal priority, level of dedication of the right-of-way"
Last edited: