The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 492

FFX-ME · #**9821** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 7:21 PM**

After visiting Chicago I don't particularly like elevated metros since they obstruct views and although nice when new, they do become outdated and spoil the look of a city at street level.

Chicago's L:

I think Ottawa's approach to building a metro is the most sensible. Underground when it is needed, Only covered if possible and then when there is nothing in the way just leave it on the surface.

SkahHigh · #**9822** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I don't think LRT is cheapening out. In more dense areas it can have more stops with shorter distances. But in our outer boroughs elevated is a great way to go.

I mean do you really want to have an LRT with 61 stops (phase 2)? I know it's light rail so station spacing is different but imagine if the LRT stops at each station for 45 seconds. That's 45 minutes just spent stopped at stations during the whole trip.

Wouldn't Eglinton have been better served by a subway line under it with stops every kilometer? I don't know Toronto that well.

FFX-ME · #**9823** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 7:28 PM**

Toronto transit seems so chopped up and disconnected to me. Like, what the hell is up with the Scarborough RT? And then Eglington LRT.... and then the RER? Everything should be placed under the same umbrella. Oh and there's hurontario... My head hurts, a wonder people can get around in that city.

Acajack · #**9824** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

After visiting Chicago I don't particularly like elevated metros since they obstruct views and although nice when new, they do become outdated and spoil the look of a city at street level.

Chicago's L:

I think Ottawa's approach to building a metro is the most sensible. Underground when it is needed, Only covered if possible and then when there is nothing in the way just leave it on the surface.

Yeah, elevated urban rail sounds romantic in theory but in practice it isn't so in my experience.

With few exceptions, it doesn't generally lead to attractive urban environments below the tracks or adjacent to them.

caltrane74 · #**9825** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I mean do you really want to have an LRT with 61 stops (phase 2)? I know it's light rail so station spacing is different but imagine if the LRT stops at each station for 45 seconds. That's 45 minutes just spent stopped at stations during the whole trip.

Wouldn't Eglinton have been better served by a subway line under it with stops every kilometer? I don't know Toronto that well.

The LRT Line "is under" Eglinton for 12 km in midtown.

There is no need to go underground in Scarborough, we are already wasting $3 billion dollars on that foolhardy project.

Franco401 · #**9826** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, elevated urban rail sounds romantic in theory but in practice it isn't so in my experience.

With few exceptions, it doesn't generally lead to attractive urban environments below the tracks or adjacent to them.

The example of Chicago isn't quite fitting as Skytrain runs almost entirely on previously existing ROWs. The sections in the extremely dense areas (areas that are less widespread in Vancouver and Toronto compared to Chicago) are underground.

The Chicago El-Trains run along city streets, with little buffer and minimal attempts at noise reduction. Skytrain takes advantage of open space, which is at less of a premium in Vancouver, expensive as the city is.

isotack · #**9827** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

The LRT Line "is under" Eglinton for 12 km in midtown.

There is no need to go underground in Scarborough, we are already wasting $3 billion dollars on that foolhardy project.

yeah better to block traffic on the Eglington part of Scarborough. Besides they don't deserve it let them freeze

caltrane74 · #**9828** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isotack

yeah better to block traffic on the Eglington part of Scarborough. Besides they don't deserve it let them freeze

The LRT is timed to the lights and the subway is underground.

What are you talking about blocking traffic and people freezing?

isotack · #**9829** Posted **Sep 28, 2017, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

The LRT is timed to the lights and the subway is underground.

What are you talking about blocking traffic and people freezing?

Timed to the lights just like the Markham disaster. Cars and LRTs don't mix. There are plenty of examples in the city. Queens Quay, Spadina, and that great effort on St clair. all while standing outside on a platform in winter.

caltrane74 · #**9830** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 12:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isotack

Timed to the lights just like the Markham disaster. Cars and LRTs don't mix. There are plenty of examples in the city. Queens Quay, Spadina, and that great effort on St clair. all while standing outside on a platform in winter.

No way the car/lrt mix justifies the cost to go underground. This is already the most expensive transit project in Canadian history. Making it underground in Scarborough would have added an additional $3 billion to the cost. Remember, this is low density suburbs and this exact area is getting its own $3 billion dollar subway connection to downtown and the rest of Toronto.

SkahHigh · #**9831** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, elevated urban rail sounds romantic in theory but in practice it isn't so in my experience.

With few exceptions, it doesn't generally lead to attractive urban environments below the tracks or adjacent to them.

I really like the atmosphere an El gives, but in Chicago's case you're right, usually the neighbourhoods around it are in bad shape.

lrt's friend · #**9832** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I really like the atmosphere an El gives, but in Chicago's case you're right, usually the neighbourhoods around it are in bad shape.

And this is exactly why New York got rid of their El's, they create blight.

SkahHigh · #**9833** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And this is exactly why New York got rid of their El's, they create blight.

New York and Chicago's systems are old and the elevated portions are made of steel which makes them noisy and visually unattractive. Pretty different from a modern, quieter technology like the Skytrain.

How are the Toronto subway's elevated sections?

Innsertnamehere · #**9834** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 12:47 AM**

large and overbearing. Mind you the elevated sections are very, very limited.

Acajack · #**9835** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 2:44 AM**

I was also thinking of Paris when it comes to elevated métro sections. It's an otherwise gorgeous but the elevated section are some of the most meh parts of the city.

Bobert · #**9836** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 4:02 AM**

I think the elevated guideway for the skytrain looks fine. Even the old Expo line guideway doesnt look bad. The Millenium line as well as the Evergreen extension look elegant:

It's an easy and cheap way to bring grade separated transit to the outer reaches. I'm a fan.

SkahHigh · #**9837** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 4:36 AM**

^yeah, completely different from the El's guideway:

http://i2.wp.com/www.alexblock.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1333-trim.jpg

lrt's friend · #**9838** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 4:39 AM**

It only works if the corridor is sufficiently wide.

Doady · #**9839** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 5:46 AM**

• Video Link

Bobert · #**9840** Posted **Sep 29, 2017, 6:00 AM**

Noise is a slowly growing complaint in some area's of elevated track. But that's more a symptom of age and maintenance than an issue with elevated track in general.

In some area's the train has been forced to slow down considerably because of noise complaints.

https://youtu.be/G6P7DDcQdrs?t=223