Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawan
When the western leg of the transitway is converted to LRT to Baseline, assuming it is by Byron through a cut and cover (which I believe is the most likely outcome), why could we not cover the pre-existing cut from Tunney's (or preferably where it becomes grade separated between Tunney's and Bayview) to Dominion? I'm sure that this was not considered when the transitway was first built due to a combination of cost, and the difficulties involved with ventalation for BRT.
|
I'd support this. Split the entire length into a mix of developed sections (covered by buildings) and park sections (covered and then landscaped). To pay for it I would require developers that are building above the LRT line to pay into a fund to cover the park sections. High-rises immediately adjacent or on top of transit stations should be very desirable, and they would have great views as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado
Personally, I dislike the idea of covering transit regardless. Why should transit users be deprived of daylight as well as views compared to their car-driving colleagues, all for extra expense? There might be cases where localized covering of the trench makes some sense (say immediately either side of Island Park, or near the mosque) where the covered trench would be useful, but as a general thing, what's the point?
|
You want to protect the riders view of the trench? I ride it every day and I would rather ride a train on covered tracks and read my magazine than look at rock and concrete from the bus.
It's about space. We can put all the roadways underground. Maybe if all cars are fully electric we'll be able to do that, but not now. But LRT is already fully electric so we can easily put it underground through dense areas. And in the case of the Scott Street trench we could put land back into use that was previously devoted to fossil-fuel burning vehicles.
Threaded Mode