News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 321     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 877     0 

Toronto Party Transportation Plan

Oh no, not the cable stayed viaduct again. Just a few problems... it woudn't fit in the rail corridor (it's something like 10-12 lanes wide), the foundations for the towers wouldn't fit next to the existing tracks, and there's no room for interchanges. Something tells me people living in the towers next to the corridor wouldn't take too kindly to a brand new freeway right outside their windows. And then there's the whole concept of putting a giant cable stayed bridge that doesn't actually cross anything right through the middle of downtown...
 
What? No one ridiculing the subway to the zoo?

Can someone tell me what the point of hooking up the 400 to the Gardiner would be? Are the traffic backups at Spadina, York, et al not long enough at the moment? Can the local roads handle more cars?
 
But perhaps he's from Urban Woodbridge:


If you live and work in Urban Woodbridge ... well you probably spend a lot of time in this parking lot ...
 
howl said:
The transit plan shown in the original post is great, but it would only make sense if Toronto had the density of Manhattan, London or Tokyo. If we are contemplating rebuilding all the stable lower density neighbourhoods, like the Annex and Riverdale, with high-rise towers then this plan makes sense. If we want to retain the City’s existing character then a much more modest plan is needed.
Click to expand...

I agree. I want TO to add 1 million more residents.
 
You know, looking at this map, I think Highway 448 is not that bad. While I can see increased congestion where it meets the DVP, it could produce some relief from the 404/DVP/401 interchange where about a dozen lanes merge into 3. Most of Scarborough is already very car oriented, so I can't see how this highway would further encourage car oriented development. Finally it looks as if it could be built with little if any destruction to private property.

Fortunately with the improvements to GO in the coming decade(s), it may render such a highway obsolete. However if any new highway were to be built in Toronto, one could make a good case for this one.
 
This Toronto Party is more a Suburban Toronto Party. The Toronto Party is party that is anti-streetcar and pro-car, than party that represents all of Toronto and what the future may bring to it. It sure does not represent people I know.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Such a well thought out reasoned response. Thank you for your contribution.

Of course I'm a yokel because I don't share your viewpoint...
Click to expand...

Well, given the logistics of building a Humber Bay viaduct, whether financial or environmental or through land acquisition or whatever, you'd more likely compound the offense to said residents/activists/whomever who want those nasty cars out of their backyards.

And if you don't "get it", well...yeah. Stick to Woodbridge.
 
adma said:
Well, given the logistics of building a Humber Bay viaduct, whether financial or environmental or through land acquisition or whatever, you'd more likely compound the offense to said residents/activists/whomever who want those nasty cars out of their backyards.

And if you don't "get it", well...yeah. Stick to Woodbridge.
Click to expand...

I only said I supported the idea, and logistically well...

I doubt land acquisition would be excessive. There's nothing but parkland (Marilyn Bell park?) on the east end. The West end is where there is some trouble as it's beginning to be redeveloped. However I don't think we can expect the Canada Bread factory to remain at it's current location in the mid term so there may be the opportunity to reserve some land in and around that area for an approach there.

For resident's I wonder what would appeal to them more a highway in their backyard or a bridge in their views of the lake. Personally (assuming the bridge were well designed and architecturally intersting) I would think that the removal of the highway from the area far outweighs the visual incursion of a bridge in Humber Bay.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top