k10ery
Senior Member
A real ambassador for the cause.
|
|
|
A real ambassador for the cause.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Highrises are pretty inevitable in this location, I think. But this wouldn't be the wrong place for a good setback requirement.
They should consider passing a law that says that this boulevard is not permitted to have any private driveways (that parking must be accessed off of the other streets on each block).
I've also been wondering if this is a good place for Toronto's first example of the "service streets" design. Here's a diagram, I can't find anything better but they're common in Europe and I think SF as well. Basically, all non-through-traffic is relegated to slower "service streets" on the sides.
cplchanb
Senior Member
One thing I will suggest if the Gardiner is ever torn down is to follow what Beijing is doing. Have 3 middle lanes dedicated for through traffic only and have 1 or 2 outer lanes for turning
http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/66/Beijing_traffic_jam.JPG
This can perhaps lesson the impact of right turners and pedestrians. Also this can act as a pseudo bus lane. The key to this working is to ensure that traffic lights are kept to a minimum so that the benefits won't be diluted with too many stop starts
http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/66/Beijing_traffic_jam.JPG
This can perhaps lesson the impact of right turners and pedestrians. Also this can act as a pseudo bus lane. The key to this working is to ensure that traffic lights are kept to a minimum so that the benefits won't be diluted with too many stop starts
Memph
Active Member
Although I suspect there's less of a need for frequent crossing points on the west side highway replacement since it goes right along the water. More crossing points means more lights, and more delays for drivers.
salsa
Senior Member
I wouldn't touch a CAA publication with a 10 foot pole or wipe my butt with it, let alone contemplate their stupid advice.
For your reading pleasure, this publication in it's entirety can be found here: http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/misc/CAA.pdf
It amazes me that some people think this is far worse for pedestrians than walking under a decrepit highway, which makes me wonder if they have any familiarity with University Ave or other similar roads. No matter what city we're talking about, highway proponents will make the exact same arguments against removing a highway. For NYC:
- Cars will never go away. Not everyone likes transit.
- That highway is sooooo busy. Where would all the cars go?
- What about the trucks?
- Congestion in NY costs $_ billion/trillions of dollars a year!
- NY is a massive and growing megalopolis. We are not like [insert tiny city here].
- Commute times will increase by [double/triple digit number of minutes]. Anyone who says otherwise is in fantasy land or hates cars.
- Without this vital link in the expressway network, how will cars get from New Jersey to Brooklyn?
- The boulevard will not look like Paris. No one likes big roads. No one will be riding their bike or sipping their latte. Kids will have asthma.
- Sure, the waterfront would look nicer, but you can always go somewhere else instead.
Sound familiar? I happened to visit the area a while ago (with both car and bike), and I am happy to report that the sky did not fall. Of all the cities that removed their highways, I think the outcome in NYC is the best example of what Toronto could look like without the Gardiner. But sadly, it's unlikely that Toronto will be joining the growing number of progressive cities under the current leadership in city hall.
Seriously, what's so bad about a surface boulevard? Anyone miss the old highway?
Attachments
k10ery
Senior Member
^How deceptive. Hudson River Park is a wonderful, very expensive amenity that no one is proposing building in Toronto. Meanwhile West St. is horrible, and crossing it takes forever when you're on foot. Why didn't you post any full pictures of West St.?
CDL.TO
Moderator
John Lorinc on the possible development of new consensus/hybrid option:
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/05/25/lorinc-can-kumbaya-moment-gardiner/
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/05/25/lorinc-can-kumbaya-moment-gardiner/
cplchanb
Senior Member
Your seemingly utopian comparison of nyc to toronto is skewed. NYC has an infinitely superior transit and metro network that can get people nsew from anywhere. Unfortunately Ttc has poor connectivity thus most people that are on the Gardiner are commuters from uptown. If we are to ever replicate what nyc is doing first there must be a massive upgrade of the rapid transit network to give drivers an alternative to driving on the Gardiner and downtown
sixrings
Senior Member
chicken vs egg
k10ery
Senior Member
Shorter Lorinc : let's remake the Gardiner lands so they're bad for cars AND bad for pedestrians.
nfitz
Superstar
Other than from La Guardia airport. Or Staten Island. Or if you want a frequent bus. Or if you object to the entrances to your subway stations smelling of urine.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
I like this option. I don't think the 'Elevated' proponents want anything but cars in the sky, but I hope I'm wrong.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I like this concept, you can have a significant thoroughfare that would more than adequately handle this portion of the Gardiner's demand AND the development and pedestrian realm that Waterfront Toronto envisions.
salsa
Senior Member
I don't have pictures of the road itself, and it can be partially seen in those pictures anyway. The median in the middle has the same landscaping as the bike path. If this is so horrible, then what about University Ave? Are you saying that the old highway was better? Anyway, here is a streetview pic if that makes you happy.
I also invite you to check out Allen St in lower Manhattan. It used to be 8 lanes until the bike lane was added, but the large street width remains unchanged. Horrible isn't it?
My point was to show what a boulevard could look like. Transit may not be good enough for now, but the work done by city staff says that a boulevard is a viable alternative for Toronto that would have substantial benefits. It's also been discussed in this thread that transit (or lack of) has little effect on traffic volumes in this area. No matter what happens, transit will almost entirely absorb all future travel demand in downtown from now on. Instead of planning for cars for another 50 years for the benefit of 3% of commuters, we can spend the money on beefing up the transit network as you recommend.
Attachments
andrewpmk
Senior Member
I don't have pictures of the road itself, and it can be partially seen in those pictures anyway. The median in the middle has the same landscaping as the bike path. If this is so horrible, then what about University Ave? Are you saying that the old highway was better? Anyway, here is a streetview pic if that makes you happy.
I also invite you to check out Allen St in lower Manhattan. It used to be 8 lanes until the bike lane was added, but the large street width remains unchanged. Horrible isn't it?
My point was to show what a boulevard could look like. Transit may not be good enough for now, but the work done by city staff says that a boulevard is a viable alternative for Toronto that would have substantial benefits. It's also been discussed in this thread that transit (or lack of) has little effect on traffic volumes in this area. No matter what happens, transit will almost entirely absorb all future travel demand in downtown from now on. Instead of planning for cars for another 50 years for the benefit of 3% of commuters, we can spend the money on beefing up the transit network as you recommend.
View attachment 46913
Where is all the TTC growth going to come from? If the downtown relief line is not built, then the number of people taking TTC downtown cannot possibly grow that much. The number of people using GO will probably grow a lot more because of the GO electrification plans.
I have a hard time believing that the number of people driving downtown will ever go down. Many people who drive downtown have no choice because they come from an area with poor or no transit service, or they live downtown and work in the suburbs, or they are going through downtown without stopping and would otherwise use the 401. Like it or not, there are lots of people who drive downtown and reducing the capacity of the Gardiner/Lake Shore combination by nearly 50% will cause 24/7 traffic jams. The urban planning department is incompetent and I can't take them very seriously.