nfitz
Superstar
????? TTC has voted many times to approve it, and are managing the extension. City of Toronto has a lot to do with the extension.
|
|
|
AnarchoSocialist
Active Member
I won't comment on those two examples directly because I don't know enough about them. And this comment is not directed to you in particular either and is meant to be just a general statement. Just because there is opposition to a plan does not mean that those voicing counter-opinions are doing so based on logical, rational reasons. It does not matter if it is the city proposing a project like razing the Gardiner, or commuters opposing the idea, both sides have to justify their reasons and plans in an intelligent, thoughtful, and precise way. Sometimes proposals die (such as the pre O'Brien LRT plan in Ottawa) because the plan is poorly thought out and the public makes enough valid concerns to send it to the trash heap. On the other hand, such as the case of the Gardiner, those who oppose it, at this momment seemingly limited to commuters and some highway nostalgists, do a poor job of making their case and are likely not to succeed.
RedRocket191 makes a good point that many people do not make the distinction between ideas and actual proposals and plans. Having ideas or opinions that are counter to what is being proposed is great because all public investments should be challenged to ensure they are in the best interest of the city (or province or whatever the geographic region might be). But if you don't understand the process and express your thoughts and opinions articulately, you are only doing a diservice to yourself and whatever point of view you are trying to put forward.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
It's weird, because I think it's the exact opposite. Most calls for tearing down the Gardiner have been passionate rather than rational.
Anyway, don't use this thread, and this forum, as the sample for how you judge the whole debate. It's been a pretty one-sided affair, the official opposition will benefit from its larger numbers
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Okay, there are more subtle maneuverings going on than council votes. Of course they voted to approve it. They couldn't get away with turning down a line fully-funded by the provinces. Things are just a little more complicated.
Archivist
Senior Member
Bicycling in the area where there will in the future be no Gardiner, it came to me how very silly the argument is, that compares the railway embankment with the Gardiner. Perhaps two photos will suffice.
Let me point out that at this location, the Gardiner is a three or four storey structure, while the railway barely makes it above a fence. Beside the railway I could hear crickets, beside the Gardiner, nothing but the roar of traffic.
And in this location, they are at some remove from each other, and the Gardiner gone will result in two city blocks of easily usable land.
Let me point out that at this location, the Gardiner is a three or four storey structure, while the railway barely makes it above a fence. Beside the railway I could hear crickets, beside the Gardiner, nothing but the roar of traffic.
And in this location, they are at some remove from each other, and the Gardiner gone will result in two city blocks of easily usable land.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
From SSP:
Quite a bit narrower than our Gardiner, but about as high. How dope!
It strikes me that we're hardly hurting for land around where the Gardiner's located. I'm not sure the space it occupies is that vital. But just in case, let's build under it
Akihabara. Not a highway, but the elevated tracks of the busiest commuter railway in Tokyo:
Quite a bit narrower than our Gardiner, but about as high. How dope!
It strikes me that we're hardly hurting for land around where the Gardiner's located. I'm not sure the space it occupies is that vital.
But just in case, let's build under it 
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
And most calls for preserving it have been hysterical rather than rational - and I might add, those who calls for tearing it down can least it put forth reports based on rational analysis. Can't say the same for the con side.
As to the pic - like you've said yourself - 1. the railway is at least half as wide as the Gardiner and 2. it's at least 5s up from the roadway. The Gardiner isn't nearly up that high. How much would it cost to rectify these two shortcomings to create this "air of openness" you think the Gardiner can replicate as the pic shows?
AoD
TKTKTK
Senior Member
The Waterfront report just came out the other day. We've been discussing this for over a week
I've answered most of the boogeyman arguments with facts. You choose to ignore them because it doesn't fit your desired result.I also don't have the benefit of the WaterfrontToronto to make my arguments for me. Most of the pro-teardown here only been repeating the press release.
Organized support for the Gardiner has been virtually non-existant, most people think it's hardly in danger of going anywhere
If that starts to seem likely to change, I think we might all be surprised be the public reaction. The middle section near Union Station is already on Preservation Toronto's radar...http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/pdf/hcd_union_builther_invent.pdfWhere we're talking is really not that much shorter. And, wider is all the better for protecting underneath from the elements
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
What boogeyman arguments have you answered with "facts"? The tearing down the Gardiner will cause traffic chaos? That hasn't been answered by any of your facts.
Sorry, but unless you are willing to pony up hard numbers, I think Waterfrontoronto and their studies have more rational weight than your assertions. Didn't you say something about ignoring facts earlier?
Not that much shorter, but that much narrower. I will ask again - how much will it cost to retrofit the Gardiner to create the same effect? Do you know? Have you had any clue? And you're arguing on the basis of aesthetics and urbanity earlier - what does protection underneath the elements have anything to do with that? Shifting the argument won't get you anywhere. Then again, we know you always have the best interest of pedestrians and cyclists at heart - you've asked them! Wait, right?
AoD
TKTKTK
Senior Member
We've talked about more than that. We've discussed the barrier issue, the ramps, the look of the thing, the amount of cars that use it, future uses for it.
Each time I've answered the perceptions of what the Gardiner is with what it actually is; no barrier, easy to dress up, well-used, etc.
Just go look in the report. It supports the notion that it will be a much busier road replacing the Gardiner/Lake Shore combination. Also, the idea that we'll get another University Avenue is pretty much put to bed within the preliminary report - it wouldn't be able to handle the amount of traffic (volume exceeds capacity by 400 cars/hour) http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//48517e554f88d.pdf
No, do you? Not even WaterfrontToronto knows how much tearing down the Gardiner will actually cost. $200-300 is only a projection (do you really expect that it's going to end up within the projected budget?)
So let's say $100-150 million for a retrofit of the Gardiner. You would likely be able to fund it, in part, from leasing out the area underneath it. It would be awesome if there was a government agency exploring my idea as well - that way I could smugly make it sound like all this was the result of my own hard work, and then throw all sorts of extra attitude at someone who disagrees with me
How does protection from the elements clash with an aesthetic argument or urbanity? Protection from the elements is an added benefit to whatever we do there
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. I don't think Waterfront Toronto's plan is really taking the best interests of pedestrians or cyclists into consideration either. There's already been dopey suggestions like building pedestrians tunnels or bridges over the resulting miasma. I haven't suggested anything that would preclude pedestrians or cyclists from the area - in fact, I've suggested that the underside of the gardiner could be put to better use for both those groups, while cars would be separated out overhead. That seems the most balanced view yet - especially in the face of the ultra-heated anti-car people here
nfitz
Superstar
And clearly in the photo the railway is a barrier to people crossing it, while the Gardiner is easy to pass under allowing people to access the lake.
Surely if the issue was accessibility to the lake, it is the railway that should be removed.
However, as no one is proposing that, it's clear that accessibility to the lake isn't the real issue, and this has a lot more to do with social engineering than lake access. Proponents of this scheme would be better off not getting into the barrier to the lake issue, as it is clearly not true, and will simply turn people off the scheme, as it's pretty blatant to everyone that is not the real issue.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
All of which has already been countered on this thread one way or another. Showing me a photo of what happens in Tokyo while failing to put it into context is hardly what I consider as "no barrier, easy to dress up, well used", etc.
Perhaps you should do well to note this, from the same report as well:
Conclusions: Evaluating three different scenarios for the potential traffic capacity of an at grade boulevard in place of the elevated Gardiner Expressway east of Jarvis Street, the EMME/2 model showed relatively minor changes in predicted travel times. However, it will be important that a more detailed analysis method, a micro-simulation model, be undertaken in
the proposed EA study. These results indicate however that an at-grade boulevard design east of Jarvis Street can be managed and can result in a satisfactory overall network level of service. (p. 1)
Changes in average travel time range from a 2.4 per cent decrease to a 12.5 per cent increase (p. 3)
Interesting that you should cite that one line while ignoring the context of the whole report. The scheme appears doable, regardless of what model one choose from, and the results are not catastrophic (missing road capacity by 400 cars/h during rush hour will result in doom and gloom and the naysayers propound?). In addition, traffic demand exceed capacity ALL the time in Toronto - it's called rush hour - it's not like we are rushing out to meet that capacity right away with road building projects, nor is the city dead because of not doing it.
They have an estimate - and the city has experience with tearing down expressways (e.g. the Leslie St. Stub) - which has been budgeted and executed. Do you?
What, retrofitting it so that it look like the case in Tokyo? Are we a little bit optimistic, shall I be crude, in pulling a number out of your posterior? Like seriously, where did you get these numbers from? How would you go about making the expressway just as narrow? How would you elevate it further? Like honestly.
The best interests of pedestrians or cyclists are for them to express. Their opinions will be presented in the EA process, as well as yours. I believe you've already been reminded rather pointedly that YOUR opinions in such matters aren't exactly congruent of actual cyclists or pedestrians in another thread?
And of course, I don't have to tell you the irony of someone calling their own opinions "balanced" and how truly so it is.
AoD
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Alvin, there are 18 pages of discussion behind this. You should look further back than just this page
I think it appears possible because there's very little actual data surrounding it - whether negative or positive. As it stands, though, both the 5-lane, and 4-lane proposals require additional traffic to be funneled through Corktown, which I'm obviously against. We'll have a better idea of the specifics in 4-to-5 years time. In the meantime, suggestions like University Avenue can be put to bed
Do you? I doubt it.
As I said though, I wish there was a large government-funded organization looking into my proposal. It would be much easier to be rude to others that way.Do you actually think the Leslie St. stub is equal to this section? Really?
Where did you get your numbers from? Waterfront Toronto's preliminary report? Or the EA assesment? Like, seriously. LOL
Anyway, you don't need to elevate it further. The area we're talking about is plenty high. I think you're being amazingly pedantic.
And neither, really, are yours. Was there a larger point you were trying to make? Don't mistake this internet forum as indicative of the city at large. This isn't the only place having this conversation.
There's a lot you don't need to say, but you never seem to actually refrain
You certainly do make conversations around here smooth and respectful. I've especially enjoyed your implied tone!TKTKTK
Senior Member
People want to tear down the Gardiner, they're just looking for ways to justify the action. Reading through some of the articles you get a funny view of what's going on behind the scenes:
"Even as he voted in favour of the plan, Waterfront Toronto board member Ross McGregor said traffic congestion is the "unanswered question" of the project.
He had reservations about the "cursory" glance at congestion and "sketchy" details on the economic impact, not to mention the question mark hanging over how the initiative will be funded.
But Mr. McGregor was the only skeptic. Other board members were more concerned with how the project could be accelerated beyond its eight-year timeline." —National Post
He had reservations about the "cursory" glance at congestion and "sketchy" details on the economic impact, not to mention the question mark hanging over how the initiative will be funded.
But Mr. McGregor was the only skeptic. Other board members were more concerned with how the project could be accelerated beyond its eight-year timeline." —National Post
"During yesterday's hour-long board debate, the only pointed questions came from Ross McGregor, a provincial appointee to the waterfront agency that includes federal and city representatives.
Although "supportive" of taking down an elevated roadway long criticized as a barrier to the water's edge, Mr. McGregor queried the sudden haste after years of political limbo.
"The proposal has come to us with cursory consideration of the real impact and alternatives," he said. "There are a lot of unanswered questions."
He said board consultants have raised "serious concerns" about traffic flow, describing the project's business case as "sketchy at best." But since he supports tearing down the Gardiner, Mr. McGregor said, "I won't throw myself in front of the train" to oppose the decision." —Globe and Mail
Although "supportive" of taking down an elevated roadway long criticized as a barrier to the water's edge, Mr. McGregor queried the sudden haste after years of political limbo.
"The proposal has come to us with cursory consideration of the real impact and alternatives," he said. "There are a lot of unanswered questions."
He said board consultants have raised "serious concerns" about traffic flow, describing the project's business case as "sketchy at best." But since he supports tearing down the Gardiner, Mr. McGregor said, "I won't throw myself in front of the train" to oppose the decision." —Globe and Mail
He has serious concerns about the veracity of the information their basing their case on - but he still supports it anyway, partly because he doesn't want to be the one to challenge it
Kool-aid anyone?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Indeed, and those who wish to follow it can. I don't recall however at any point that any of the points you suggested as having been rested actually are.
There is absolutely NO data to suggest it's so negative that it is an impossible task with disastrous consequences, but plenty to suggest it's positive and doable. There is also no suggestion that a University Avenue style route is impossible - just that it has negative consequences that will have to be balanced in the EA process.
I don't, but the organizations tasked with the creation of these reports have expertise beyond what you and I have. So naturally I will trust them more than your assertion that it will cost a lowly 100M. None of the reports I have in possession supporting the Gardiner to be kept has any figures on how much it will cost (not to mention serious technical problems with the presentation of their proposal which leads one to suspect the quality of the work in them in the first place).
I never said anything about equal - I said comparable. We know there are differences in the scope of the projects - and the price tag differences shows it (~40M vs. 300+M) No one is suggesting tearing down this stretch is going to cost just as little - but there is precedence in Toronto of tasks of this nature.
Indeed. Since you are a visual kind of guy, perhaps you should drag out an image of the underside of the Gardiner, with the same POV as the pic you've presented and let us see just how comparable it is?
I wasn't the one saying I have the interests of cyclists and pedestrians in mind - you are. So please stop putting words into my mouth and own up to what you've said. Beyond that, if you are so confident in your position wrt to the "city at large", well, why get so upset on this forum?
I only learn from the best, TKTKTK - or was that Tit-for-Tat?
AoD