Talk:Prince Edward Viaduct

Untitled

The Prince Edward Viaduct was constructed in 1918 for a final cost of 2.5 million dollars (~$36 000 000 when adjusted for inflation)...

Is that in Canadian dollars?

- Eric 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably is in Cdn$

Yeah, that's definitely Canadian. Actually, the projected cost was $2.5 million, and it came out to $2,480,349.05 CDN.

WHO posted their ESC101 project here?

- unsigned

C$36M as of what year? The list of what the bridge crosses is repeated in two different forms in the introduction (where it belongs) and under Construction (where it doesn't). There is more than one railway line running under the bridge, and the tracks should be given their proper names by someone who knows them.

- poslfit

The state of the construction of the bridge was regularly updated in the Toronto Star; its opening and ribbon-cutting by Prince Edward was featured on the front page. World newspaper called it an "epoch-making project"; Canadian Engineer said that it had the "promise of becoming a boast of Toronto". When it opened it was the biggest viaduct in the British Empire. It was not "ignored" as was claimed in a previous edit.

--Geoffreynham 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Luminous Veil is aesthetically pleasing. It's ugly as hell.

- unsigned

It is ugly, and doesn't compliment the original architecture. There was actually a lot of controversy about such an unnatractive and morbid construction. Some mention should be made of this, since the article suggests that the Luminous Veil was praised as "art"

- Thebunsk 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone has a valid source for the æsthetic complaints (other than the expert opinions noted above), then go ahead and add it to the article. Cleduc 06:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can find a good looking image of the viaduct. It doesn't look nearly as good in the winter as it does in the summer. If you look at the picture carefully all i can see at the bottom of the valley are leaf-less trees.

- Blackjays

Traffic lanes

I didn't believe that the Bloor Viaduct had 5 traffic lanes until I tracked down some Flicker photos:

Looking west at eastbound traffic http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckkahn/94839624/

Heading east http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckkahn/94813242/

Looking east at westbound traffic http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckkahn/94919943/

Heading west http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckkahn/165367966/

Not sure if using Flickr/ShutterFly/etc. photos is acceptable in wikipedia.

Hughdbrown (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Suicide/Luminous Veil

I do not believe the statement about Zero (0) suicides since the installation of the barrier is entirely correct. I would like to see a reference to support that claim as it sounds like speculation. Suicides go generally un-reported and therefore it would be difficult to prove either way, however someone i know who works in field of emergency services has told me that there have been at least 2 that he is aware of since the barrier has been installed (There is no official way of confirming or denying these claims so i will not include them in the article). --Eja2k (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Also under suicide, it says that there were 500 suicides in 2003 (~1.37 per day), and that the peak was in 1997 with one every 22 days (~17 suicides all year). One of these numbers must be off. I think it is probably the the former. At least one person was jumping off the bridge every day during 2003? 142.166.48.154 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the suicide section with a link to a study noting that the annual rate of successful suicide from the Viaduct did drop to zero (from an average of just under ten per year), but the rate for that mode of suicide in Toronto didn't change. People motivated to jump to their deaths tend not to be merely opportunistic and will find another high place to jump from, so the cage prevents suicide only in a very local sense. One could still make a case for protecting people below from the risk of being hit by a falling body - or the trauma of discovering one. I don't know whether that risk alone would justify the aesthetic and taxpayer opportunity cost of an expensive modification to a heritage structure, and that doesn't appear to be how the issue was framed. - toh (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Here are some public domain photos of the viaduct construction, for someone who has the time to upload them: http://www.flickr.com/photos/43021516@N06/tags/bloorstreetviaduct/ --Padraic 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge From Luminous Veil

I removed the tags proposing a merger of Luminous Veil into this article. If someone wants to put the tags back in, feel free, but please link to a proper section in Luminous Veil's talk page. Or just do the merge if you feel strongly about it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince Edward Viaduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061214052645/http://www.nowtoronto.com:80/issues/2003-05-08/news_insight.php to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2003-05-08/news_insight.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061214052645/http://www.nowtoronto.com:80/issues/2003-05-08/news_insight.php to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2003-05-08/news_insight.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prince Edward Viaduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-30-goldengate-suicides_x.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-01-13/news/0301130268_1_viaduct-birney-bridge
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731082137/http://www.eopa.ca/newsletters/DialogueNL.June2001.pdf to http://www.eopa.ca/newsletters/DialogueNL.June2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Third phase?

The vintage diagram included in the article references a "Bloor Section" that included further bridge spans, but the article lead says that the third phase is the Sherbourne Phase that is an embankment. There certainly doesn't appear to be a bridge today where the 'Bloor Section' is diagrammed to be. Was that an original plan that was modified into an embankment? Can anyone clarify? TheHYPO (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This source had some info. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)