[raptor]

Elevated is cheaper, but is it hugely intrusive visually, and usually produces an urban no-mans-land underneath.

pros outweigh the cons

 

[Neutrino]

Is it more intrusive than 6-10 lanes of traffic?

 

[steveintoronto]

Awesome. Hopefully this small section helps Toronto embrace the idea of elevated transit like in Vancouver.

You might be hoping for too much. SRT has become the butt of derision, unfortunately.

 

[rickvbiker]

Likely, they'll use traffic pylons in one of the lanes. It could become bicycle lanes when everything is finished.

Are they anywhere near returning Eglinton around Mt. Dennis (or any other station) to a "state of good repair"? I thought the Eglinton Connects plan (with its bike lanes) is supposed to kick in once Crosslinx finishes with a section of Eglinton... Aside - is there an Eglinton Connects forum here on UT?

 

[Tuck]

Elevated is cheaper, but is it hugely intrusive visually, and usually produces an urban no-mans-land underneath.

Much of these areas are already no mans land. We aren't talking about the middle of downtown.

 

[Amare]

Elevated is cheaper, but is it hugely intrusive visually, and usually produces an urban no-mans-land underneath.

Really? I had no idea:

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Really? I had no idea:

Things are nice when they are not half-assed.

This is Toronto. If we did elevated, we would make Philly blush.

 

[Amare]

Things are nice when they are not half-assed.

This is Toronto. If we did elevated, we would make Philly blush.

To be fair Vancouver cheaped out as well with the Canada Line by choosing to build it at lower capacity than what was actually needed, and now they are really regretting it.

Toronto on the other hand has a serious issue with integrating transit into our urban framework. Here we do all of these "studies" to see how we can integrate things better, and at the end we choose the worst option (ie: see Queen's Quay and St.Clair for further proof). We havent gone the way of building things to a lower capacity than what is needed, but that may very well change with the DRL South.

 

[BurlOak]

To be fair Vancouver cheaped out as well with the Canada Line by choosing to build it at lower capacity than what was actually needed, and now they are really regretting it.

Although Canada line capacity is greater than Eglinton.
- Canada Line cost $110M/km for 9 km tunnel and 10 km elevated.
- Eglinton cost $280M/km for 11 km tunnel and 8 km at-grade in-median.

 

[Steve X]

Really? I had no idea:

View attachment 153762

There is only one set of tracks on this elevated structure. They didn't want twice as much cluster.

 

[Amare]

Although Canada line capacity is greater than Eglinton.
- Canada Line cost $110M/km for 9 km tunnel and 10 km elevated.
- Eglinton cost $280M/km for 11 km tunnel and 8 km at-grade in-median.

What are you talking about? The Canada Line has a current capacity of ~6000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) with a max capacity of 15,000 if expanded to 3 car trains with less than 2 minute frequencies; Eglinton would have an estimated capacity of ~15000 pphpd without tinkering with longer trains and higher frequencies than currently planned. Eglinton has wider diameter tunnels (among many of the differences between it and the Canada Line), while in Vancouver the Canada line has a smaller tunnel diameter.

There is only one set of tracks on this elevated structure. They didn't want twice as much cluster.

Very true, but it wouldnt be that much of a difference if it was 2 sets of tracks because Vancouver/Richmond actually planned how it would integrate into the street fabric.

 

[MisterF]

Things are nice when they are not half-assed.

This is Toronto. If we did elevated, we would make Philly blush.

You're not actually suggesting that new elevated transit in Toronto would look like this are you? This kind of misinformation is exactly why Toronto keeps building the wrong kind of transit. Stuff like the elevated lines in Philly simply don't get built anymore. The Skytrain is a much more relevant example and would be fantastic for the suburban parts of Eglinton.

 

[BurlOak]

What are you talking about? The Canada Line has a current capacity of ~6000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) with a max capacity of 15,000 if expanded to 3 car trains with less than 2 minute frequencies; Eglinton would have an estimated capacity of ~15000 pphpd without tinkering with longer trains and higher frequencies than currently planned. Eglinton has wider diameter tunnels (among many of the differences between it and the Canada Line), while in Vancouver the Canada line has a smaller tunnel diameter.


Very true, but it wouldnt be that much of a difference if it was 2 sets of tracks because Vancouver/Richmond actually planned how it would integrate into the street fabric.

According to Wiki, Canada line carried 228k riders per day during Olympics. Assuming equal ridership for full 16 hours per day, with ridership fully equal in both directions, it works out to 7,000. I believe the actual capacity is ~12k to 15k, with expansion to the low 20's.


Edit: Found it in the same wiki article. Capacity is 15k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line

 

[idc24]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-t...sit-system-crossing-over-a-busy-71662331.html

You're not actually suggesting that new elevated transit in Toronto would look like this are you? This kind of misinformation is exactly why Toronto keeps building the wrong kind of transit. Stuff like the elevated lines in Philly simply don't get built anymore. The Skytrain is a much more relevant example and would be fantastic for the suburban parts of Eglinton.

You are correct, modern elevated rapid transit lines around the world are all built out of reinforced concrete viaducts like the Skytrain.

Skytrain

DLR, London U.K.
http://www.keolis.co.uk/news/2014/keolisamey-docklands-commences-operation-dlr-network

SMRT, Singapore
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/singapore-metro.html

 

[syn]

To be fair Vancouver cheaped out as well with the Canada Line by choosing to build it at lower capacity than what was actually needed, and now they are really regretting it.

Toronto on the other hand has a serious issue with integrating transit into our urban framework. Here we do all of these "studies" to see how we can integrate things better, and at the end we choose the worst option (ie: see Queen's Quay and St.Clair for further proof). We havent gone the way of building things to a lower capacity than what is needed, but that may very well change with the DRL South.

In terms of integrating in to an urban framework, I think the current configuration of the LRT is the best. Hopefully it will help encourage pedestrian friendly development.