News   Mar 28, 2024
 714     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 490     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 798     0 

Roads: Post on TO Viaduct "proposal"

W

wyliepoon

Guest
image060.jpg


Link to article

Cars, cyclists and condos welcome at proposed viaduct

Dave McGinn
National Post

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Last Sunday, the Toronto Party, a fledgling civic political party, endorsed a plan to replace the Gardiner Expressway with a cable-stayed viaduct running above the railway corridor downtown. The viaduct (see it at www.toviaduct.com), designed by engineer Jose Gutierrez, is part of a comprehensive transportation plan for the city of Toronto created by urban and transportation planner James Alcock. The viaduct would accommodate not just cars, but also transit, pedestrians and cyclists. Dave McGinn spoke to Mr. Alcock about the plan.

Q Would it be weird to have a bridge spanning the downtown core?

Alcock No, of course [it wouldn't]. We already have a bridge running through the downtown core -- it's the Gardiner. We'd just build a much nicer looking one, a Gardiner we could be proud of.

Q Good point. It's also a Gardiner we could live in, right?

Alcock The pylons that the bridge would stand on, some of the towers could actually be habitable and could actually be condo buildings.

Q Is there anything like this anywhere else in the world?

Alcock France has just built a cable-stayed viaduct that's taller than the Eiffel Tower that goes across a big valley. You have to understand that great cities around the world have signature bridges: London with the Tower bridge, San Francisco with the Golden Gate bridge. Toronto would have a signature bridge with this plan.

Q What advantages do you think the viaduct plan has over other plans to deal with the Gardiner?

Alcock Instead of having two transportation corridors, we have the expressway beside the railway lines. We'd combine them into one so that the expressway is above the railway lines in a much more aesthetically pleasing design and where the Lakeshore now could be opened up as a beautiful, grand waterfront boulevard.

Q How much would it cost?

Alcock We estimate about $1.6-billion. Don't be scared by that price. Private-public partnerships and probably taxes from many of the habitable towers could pay for it.

Q Do you think people would want to live in those towers?

Alcock Sure they would. They live right beside the Gardiner as it is now. And they could be offices as well. They may not necessarily be homes.

Q Have you had any feedback from politicians about the plan?

Alcock We have. We've surveyed quite a few councillors and they just love the idea. Karen Stintz likes it very much. Jane Pitfield, when she was running for mayor, liked it very much.

Q Where do you think the viaduct stands in regards to other plans to deal with the Gardiner?

Alcock I don't think it stands very high at the moment. We had presented it to the Waterfront Revitalization Committee but they don't seem to take much interest.

Q Toronto seems obsessed with being a world-class city but at the same time it seems reluctant to approve big projects.

Alcock I think we're too frightened to take bold steps. We're concerned about the cost, we're concerned about the public reaction to it. We're very conservative in our nature.

Q Were you pleased to see that the Toronto Party endorsed the plan?

Alcock I was absolutely delighted. I was at the meeting when I made the presentation and then it passed unanimously.

Q When I was first told about it, I thought, "Didn't viaducts die with the Romans?" Then I realized I was thinking of aqueducts.

Alcock Viaducts are the in things all over Europe. There's the one in France that I mentioned. We want to build one right here in Toronto. It would solve the whole Gardiner issue.

Q Where does the plan stand now? Is this a viable viaduct?

Alcock Sure it is. The engineering work is all done. It's just a matter of moving the political will.
 
The engineering work is all done? What P.Eng firm would spend all that effort on soil sampling, calculating, drafting, etc. on a project of that scale. Something tells me this guy doesn't have a clue what "engineering work" is.
 
Why can't they just keep the Gardiner and make it look better?
 
Pie in the sky. Kind of like those CAA proposals still kicking around like the Scarborough Hydro expressway and the Lake Ontario causeway. I remember the plan - one of my favourite redundant features was the lanes for ambulances to by-pass downtown, even though that's where almost all the big specialty hospitals are.
 
Notice those mentioned in support: Pitfield, Stintz, the Toronto Party...with friends like those...
 
Why not give this proposal some actual study instaed of completely dismissing as "too expense" or "pie in the sky"...........sure can't be worst then the half arsed recomendations in the recently released Gardner report.
 
Kind of like those CAA proposals still kicking around like the Scarborough Hydro expressway and the Lake Ontario causeway.

It's the same guy, James Alcock. Seriously... look it up. Same guy as the former "History of Toronto's Expressway Network" and "Missing Links" websites (if you remember them). The gene pool of people proposing things in this city is surprisingly small. Although it's only an accusation, I'm positive that the same guy has editied the Wikipedia pages on Jane Jacobs and Toronto (among others) blaming Toronto's refusal to embrace expressways as the cause for the city's debt and "downfall". According to him we've doing nothing but invest in transit and ignore roads for the past 40 years. I'd like to know what "Toronto" he lives in.

A fun quote found through Google:

"It’s time to put the blame where it truly belongs with the traffic mess in Toronto - this whole thing was started by Jane Jacobs. She came here in 1968 to help her sons to draft dodge and then spread her socialist nonsense that screwed up our planning. People call her the guru or the high priestess of planning. This is only true for the leftists, not for sensible people. How can she be the guru of planning when she doesn’t even have a planning degree? She’s a sociologist! She is 86 years old and not long for this world. When she dies, the best legacy for her is to throw her books on to a bonfire and forget her. Then get on and build some new expressways. It’s time people realized that Jane Jacobs is responsible for starting this whole luny left madness in Toronto, and start to discredit her. 30 years of her ideas is long enough to prove that they don’t work. Meanwhile, Calgary is building lots of new expressways, has a vibrant downtown and will lead the country in economic growth this year. We should take note. Forget Jane Jacobs and long live Sam Cass and Wrojeich Wronski (the architects of Toronto’s 1966 [Expressway] Plan)."

I know he's been on this forum in the past; so if he still is I'm sure I'm about to get an earful.
 
Filling in a couple of arterial missing links/jogs wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to this city, and his plan, if memory serves me correctly, did include substantial bike lane networks and a bunch of new transit lines. But the silly stuff so overwhelms the good stuff that it can't be taken seriously...the bike lanes and such are probably just included so he can say "See, it's a balanced plan! Now let's get cracking on that viaduct and the Bluffs Causeway."
 
Oh god not this again. If there's a way to build a bridge the width of the 401 on top of a functioning rail corridor, I'd like to hear it. If people think buiding a pedestrian bridge at Liberty Village is difficult...
 
where's the ramps on the thing?


where's the proposal for the teleportation device?
 
Yeah the plan just doesn't seem viable (and some it's just like, "wtf!?!" like the habitable pylons), and even if that is brushed aside, i assume it's not sustainable long term.

However I love the proposal as an idea. It does make a lot of things work:

1. Two barriers (gardiner & rail) into one barrier (the rail is not movable anyway). No more gardiner and hides the tracks
2. Roadway atop would probably be reeally wide (enough lanes), providing room also for some mode of public transit, and also relieving car traffic (replaces the gardiner and more).
3. All weather "park" seems to be crazy but it does seem interesting... how about all-season "park" plus Fremont Experience lightshow rooftop? either way, it'd be a great space for anything (downtown views and sometimes lakeviews, and it'd be so large, u'd be able to do anything with the space, maybe the extention to the convention center? LOL!!!!)
4. Building atop the tracks is probably better looking than atop roads like gardiner or the Millenium Line for skytrain in vancouver.
5. A good safe bike path from the fort york side all the way to east bayfront without lights and turning cars and stuff (i used to bike down to portlands from downtown all the time).. i can see a lot of ppl using it.

What I mean is, while the plan doesn't seem doable, it's commendable for its effort to solve so many of the issues/worries. I like that they're innovative... so I wouldn't discourage it.. they should keep brainstorming and developing their ideas. This can become the right thing eventually.
 
I think we're too frightened to take bold steps. We're concerned about the cost, we're concerned about the public reaction to it. We're very conservative in our nature.

This is by far the most honest statement about Toronto's transit system I've ever heard on this message board...no wonder it's source is despised here :rolleyes !

Why not give this proposal some actual study instaed of completely dismissing as "too expense" or "pie in the sky"...........sure can't be worst then the half arsed recomendations in the recently released Gardner report.

For them to consider it they'd have to think outside the box, a concept that doesn't bode well around these parts, you'll learn that soon enough :evil !

It's the same guy, James Alcock. Seriously... look it up.

Gee what do you know. On a serious note say the DRL is approved, where along the rail corridor could it possibly be ran? It'd be far too expensive to bury it underground and at grade in the railyards would be very pedestrian unfriendly and nowhere near the density a few metres north. At least relocating the gardiner above the tracks provides a guranteed ROW. In fact, each one of the 'condoes' could house a station, one at Atlantic, Strachan, Bathurst, John, etc.

Filling in a couple of arterial missing links/jogs wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to this city,

Cough *hypocrite* cough! Maybe you'll see things the QQ-Chinatown-UTSC-Zoo-Lakeshore-Sheppard West way from now on!

"See, it's a balanced plan! Now let's get cracking on that viaduct and the Bluffs Causeway."

Anything combining highway, pedestrian, bike path, transit ROW, commuter rail and habitable office and living space is so abominable. No, no seriously, revitalizing the city core is exactly what'd detensify the necessity to build endless suburban subways that are merely bus feeders and zilch else so of course this is a catastrophe ;) .

Oh god not this again. If there's a way to build a bridge the width of the 401 on top of a functioning rail corridor, I'd like to hear it.

So they can suspend bridges 100s of ft above open water but a flimsy rail corridor's an impossibility? It kills me the things I hear sometimes :\ .

where's the proposal for the teleportation device?

Re: Where's the proposal for actually providing solutions instead of ridiculing those individuals who do? Maybe there's no off-ramps because it'd flood the downtown with traffic overkill, it's in effect a downtown bypass which drivers can exit via Humber ramp or DVP.
 
Why does it need on/off ramps? Everybody knows that people only use the Gardiner to travel across downtown and continue on east or west...
 
Re: Where's the proposal for actually providing solutions instead of ridiculing those individuals who do? Maybe there's no off-ramps because it'd flood the downtown with traffic overkill, it's in effect a downtown bypass which drivers can exit via Humber ramp or DVP.

how many would actually use a downtown bypass? most of the people that use the gardiner probably use it to get in and out of downtown. isn't that one of the reasons for taking down the part that goes through downtown? and there are many proposals that involve more practical solutions or other options that involve rail, transit, front street extension, tearing part of it down, tunnels, etc.

some of the proposals from that guy are nuts. how can public transport survive in a land of expressways? filling in some missing links, fine but do we really need a highway in a lake?

his plans contradict eachother. you can't have your cake and eat it too. if you build all those highways, nobodys gonna use public transport and before you know it, all those new highways will be full and we will be back to square one.
 

Back
Top