[rbt]

Not really directed at your comment, but the general notion I've seen posted here that 'developers don't want elevated', or at least that 'elevated stymies development', feel is somewhat unfounded. I'd wager, at least in a general sense, that if given the two options of an in-median segregated ROW and an elevated guideway out front, that developers would opt for the guideway. Just because with an in-median setup, properties are oftentimes relegated to right-in/right-out. Which isn't all that great, at least compared with open passage below like offered with an elevated solution.

Stations are really strong selling features.

Railway/highway corridor not so much, including elevated. Developers will not be excited to build up against an elevated line over 1km from the nearest station without significant benefit to doing so (tax/zoning privileges not otherwise available).

You can see this pattern pretty clearly in Vancouver. Lots of buildings near the line at stations, very few against the lines between stations. Subways don't have as strong of a negative impact between stations.

In short, if you're building elevated, build plenty of stations (every 800m, not every 5km).

 

[micheal_can]

Or every car on the road should have a person with a flag or a lamp guiding it down the road to alert anyone that isn't in a motor vehicle that one is coming

Technically, and legally speaking, there is a law that someone must walk in front of a moving vehicle at night with a lantern.

 

[44 North]

Elevated lines were generally looked down upon in North America during the 20th century. Since most were torn down, many groups have not complained about them in recent years, but dozens of miles of the L in Chicago were demolished due to community backlash and low ridership, while hundreds of miles of elevated lines in New York City, especially Manhattan, and most notably the Second Avenue Elevated, because of privacy and noise concerns. They believed subways were the future.

For the most part I tend to frown on Chicago, NYC, or Boston being brought in as example. Some were turn of the century and torn down likely for being maintenance or safety nightmares. Wood, iron, clunky. Very little relevance to anything built in the last 75yrs, little relevance to the areas we're discussing, and little relevance to the more suburban form of recent cities.

Stations are really strong selling features.

Railway/highway corridor not so much, including elevated. Developers will not be excited to build up against an elevated line over 1km from the nearest station without significant benefit to doing so (tax/zoning privileges not otherwise available).

You can see this pattern pretty clearly in Vancouver. Lots of buildings near the line at stations, very few against the lines between stations. Subways don't have as strong of a negative impact between stations.

In short, if you're building elevated, build plenty of stations (every 800m, not every 5km).

Sorry meant in a general sense in that 1:1 comparison, which would be areas between stations (i.e the majority of the line). Yes one big selling point of in-median ROW is the frequent station spacing. But ignoring the station location aspect and just looking at a curb segregated ROW and elevated guideway out front of a property, say on roads like Sheppard, Finch, or Eglinton East/West, have a feeling the El could be preferred by developers. But this just a guess.

 

[OneCity]

A lot of the time, full grade separation is not feasible or warranted (e.g Finch LRT). In which case, what are your suggestions for implementing it in a “safer manner” compared to the currently design?

Elevated or tunneled. Saying its not "feasible" is a bit murky as lack of separation one of the biggest impendences keeping LRT on shaky support from actually being built. I cant support cutting corners when 20-30 years from now the price tag to do build in the most effective manner would be a steal. The desire to be short sighted on details has cost the City time, money and politically.

 

[BurlOak]

Stations are really strong selling features.

Railway/highway corridor not so much, including elevated. Developers will not be excited to build up against an elevated line over 1km from the nearest station without significant benefit to doing so (tax/zoning privileges not otherwise available).

You can see this pattern pretty clearly in Vancouver. Lots of buildings near the line at stations, very few against the lines between stations. Subways don't have as strong of a negative impact between stations.

In short, if you're building elevated, build plenty of stations (every 800m, not every 5km).

And of course the elevated Egltinton would have had stations at about 800m spacing, since that was the concession road spacing in Scarborough.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Technically, and legally speaking, there is a law that someone must walk in front of a moving vehicle at night with a lantern.

I think it's still on the books Maryland in the US it dates back to when cars g=firstsatred coming out and was put inplace so they wouldn't scare horses. It's like dragging a dead horse down Yonge Street on a Sunday something still on the books but not enforced.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

For comparison purposes:

Make note of the transit signals and what they use to discourage automobiles from entering right-of-ways.

 

[Streety McCarface]

For comparison purposes:

Make note of the transit signals and what they use to discourage automobiles from entering right-of-ways.

Ironically, the US is doing light rail better in a lot of cities than what we might get on the Crosstown and what we already have on Spadina and St Clair (but those are streetcars so I can't fault them).

The fact that they have room for ROWs off street don't help the Crosstown much either.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

From link.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Elevated or tunneled. Saying its not "feasible" is a bit murky as lack of separation one of the biggest impendences keeping LRT on shaky support from actually being built. I cant support cutting corners when 20-30 years from now the price tag to do build in the most effective manner would be a steal. The desire to be short sighted on details has cost the City time, money and politically.

Safety is a Trojan Horse argument - the opposition was never about safety on an avenue with high speed road traffic; it is always about taking up road space. Anyone who is saying their are worried about LRTs running over the damned kids should have asked for speed bumps along the road or pedestrian grade separation. They didn't. Case closed.

And in case anyone want to tell me it's about grade separation, we have another completely grade separated system nearby that is somehow insufficient as well.

AoD

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Elevated lines were generally looked down upon in North America during the 20th century. Since most were torn down, many groups have not complained about them in recent years, but dozens of miles of the L in Chicago were demolished due to community backlash and low ridership, while hundreds of miles of elevated lines in New York City, especially Manhattan, and most notably the Second Avenue Elevated, because of privacy and noise concerns. They believed subways were the future.

Given the construction costs, they were wrong. For example if the Sheppard East subway was elevated then I think there would be much less opposition and it would be under construction now.

 

[BurlOak]

Safety is a Trojan Horse argument - the opposition was never about safety on an avenue with high speed road traffic; it is always about taking up road space. Anyone who is saying their are worried about LRTs running over the damned kids should have asked for speed bumps along the road or pedestrian grade separation. They didn't. Case closed.

And in case anyone want to tell me it's about grade separation, we have another completely grade separated system nearby that is somehow insufficient as well.

AoD

Which - are you referring to the SRT, where the most populated area is adjacent to the elevated portion.

SRT is being replaced because the vehicles need to be replaced - and spending $500M (I don't remember the number from the 2006 TTC report) to replace the cars (along with some other minor improvements) is too much, but $2B on LRT and $3B on subway is ok.

 

[Edward Skira]

For example if the Sheppard East subway was elevated then I think there would be much less opposition and it would be under construction now.

Not a chance. They'd be screaming about the noise, lost views etc. "Downtown doesn't have elevated so why should we?".

 

[44 North]

Not a chance. They'd be screaming about the noise, lost views etc. "Downtown doesn't have elevated so why should we?".

Wouldn't have to be the whole thing as elevated, just opening the dialogue. Yonge-Don Mills could be underground, then from Don Mills-Birchmount could be non-underground. That latter stretch has like two single family homes that genuinely front onto Sheppard. That's nothing.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Not a chance. They'd be screaming about the noise, lost views etc. "Downtown doesn't have elevated so why should we?".

People in Bayview would just complain about noise, but there's nothing particularly pretty on Sheppard Avenue, and there aren't even that many houses. I mean, if they choose to live next to the 401, what are you going to expect? That corridor needs to be rezoned anyways.