News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.2K     6 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 894     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Yes, but that load is split between two areas that are fairly distant. Here we're talking about one area absorbing 120,000 vehicles in addition to whatever amount runs along Lake Shore already (which is quite considerable from what I see)
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the same restrictive conditions aren't present in SF, of all places that is known for traffic issues?

It's not the majority of the traffic, but it's been pointed out that it's still one of the major uses of it. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't get the impression that any of you care, since I'm not supposed to be allowed to drive anyway
Click to expand...

Major meaning what? You added this term - the numbers suggest otherwise. As to suggesting that any of us don't care because we don't live there...geez, isn't that a classic ad hominem? In addition, are you saying that decision making of this nature should be restricted to the select few who uses the roadway, instead of the majority of citizens who can benefit from the change?

Good, then we don't have to worry about burrying it.
Click to expand...

Is that what passes for as constructive argument?

AoD
 
A raised barrier is worse than a flat one only for people looking at it from afar. Those who live near it just pass conveniently beneath.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should do a comparison of public opinion - walking under the current Gardiner (even those sections that are supposedly beautified) and walking along an open air railway berm. I wonder which one would people actually prefer?

Actually you got me thinking - for all the complaints about "shabby Toronto", it turns out the same forces that lead to such (parochialism, inability to think and invest big) is well at work when change is posited against their interest. No wonder we can't get anything done - we have to please every damned interest group and water down every scheme just so that someone can have their piece of cake and eat it too. If you want to make comparison about focused intervention in public realms - look at San Francisco, then Toronto, then tell me why there is such a difference - they got off their asses, ignored the nay-sayers and did the work. The Toronto way? try to pleease everybody, settle for the risk-free status quo, add a few planters and call it "beautified" even when the whole ensemble looks like a dog's breakfast.

AoD
 
aesthetically speaking, the part they want to tear down looks nicer than the part they are keeping up. at one part it gets really high in the air and the supports look nicer. but comparing it to the shittiest part doesn't mean it its self is not free from being shitty.

that part has to come down if you want improve that area. i just hope the street level solution is pedestrian friendly.


as for the comparison with the rail berm, it's somewhat a barrier but having the gardiner is also a barrier. we have the ability to eliminate half of it at least. two barriers are worse than just one. IMO, if you want that area to be developed, the gardiner must come down. i just wish the whole thing was taken down before all those condos & the sky dome were built. it's called foresight. it was used in the bloor viaduct construction.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Are you suggesting that the same restrictive conditions aren't present in SF, of all places that is known for traffic issues?
Click to expand...

No, I believe I was saying they were different.



Major meaning what? You added this term - the numbers suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a number. Do you have one?

As to suggesting that any of us don't care because we don't live there...geez, isn't that a classic ad hominem? In addition, are you saying that decision making of this nature should be restricted to the select few who uses the roadway, instead of the majority of citizens who can benefit from the change?
Click to expand...

No, just suggesting that sometimes people might want to actually listen to the people on the ground, already dealing with this stuff on a daily basis.

Is that what passes for as constructive argument?
Click to expand...

Are you always this serious? Lighten up.
 
Regarding the crossing issues of a new boulevard, pedestrian bridges anyone? At the major north-south roads across the new Lakeshore. With some nice, simple bridges designs (see: Amsterdam Bridge) it would be an attractive and easy way to cross.

I can only assume it'd be too costly though.
 
I haven't seen a number. Do you have one?
Click to expand...

I have, from p. 75 of the Gardiner Lakeshore Technical Briefing:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//451d7d515766d.pdf

Through traffic to DVP and Lakeshore (i.e. through traffic) combined constitute 20% of AM Peak trips.

In addition, the numbers suggest that (under projects with far greater scope that's what proposed now) the most through traffic time between Humber River to DVP Dundas can increase is slightly less than 10 minutes - Eastbound PM Peak Hour - the average is less than 5 minutes increase. (p. 49 of the same report).

No, just suggesting that sometimes people might want to actually listen to the people on the ground, already dealing with this stuff on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Listening does not equate to decision making your way - it means taking into account the potential negative impacts AND 1. either modify the plan or 2. balance the various cost benefits and come to a conclusion one way or another. There is no evidence to suggest that tearing down this stretch of the expressway is fatal or catastrophic - but there is plenty of experiences elsewhere whereby the negative impacts as they are happened in the context of an overall improvement in the urban fabric.

Are you always this serious? Lighten up.
Click to expand...

Geez, I am not the one finding it important enough to engage in, like I have previously mentioned, ad-hominem arguements.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I have, from p. 75 of the Gardiner Lakeshore Technical Briefing
Click to expand...
Ah thanks - I'll have to review that - though it doesn't seem to want to download right now. I couldn't see anything recent with numbers, everything I'd seen were for the old design requiring Front Street Extension, which now appears to be dead.
 
if you look at satellite images, even though they say it will be dismantled from jarvis, it really looks like they will have to partially start from yonge. the ramps start near yonge and end easterly toward jarvis. if i'm correct, the expressway will end at yonge with ramps going to and coming from jarvis.

will the DVP end at grade with an expanded lakeshore with a signaled intersection?
 
If you want to make comparison about focused intervention in public realms - look at San Francisco, then Toronto, then tell me why there is such a difference - they got off their asses, ignored the nay-sayers and did the work.
Click to expand...

To be fair to us San Francisco had the benefit of an earthquake that knocked their elevated highway down.
 
Ed,

Quite true - however they could very well have gone for a rebuild of the expressway instead, and keep in mind they tore it down in the face of reports suggesting utter traffic chaos. I can't imagine anyone expending that much of their political capital in Toronto (yet - given our governance structure).

AoD
 
TKTKTK said:
But that's the problem, I (and others) don't agree. I live near the Gardiner, I know that it isn't very difficult to cross under - and what difficulty there is is because we haven't done ANYTHING to ease movement. We can make the underside of the Gardiner less pedestrian-imposing for a lot less than $200-300 million. And the very nature of its structure means that you can pass under it at any point along it's length. The rail berm, in contrast, can only be crossed where we've punched holes in it. Also, bear in mind that the Gardiner is pressed up against the rail berm for much of its alignment between Jarvis and Parliament - after Parliament it increases (a lot) in height and becomes not unlike the skyway by Fort York. Other than the birds nesting in the girders over head, and the rust from a lack of beautification, it's really not horrible. It's quite bright and airy.

A raised barrier is worse than a flat one only for people looking at it from afar. Those who live near it just pass conveniently beneath.

It's not like a dark canyon at all...it's like a giant, now-run-down, outdoor room.
Click to expand...

I avoid commenting on these barrier related issues as it really puzzles me. Do people think there is some kind of invisible forcefield blocking their way through The Gardiner or (the new barrier du jour), the rail berm?
It always sounds to me like the real barrier to the waterfront is LAZINESS. The waterfront represents a lot of potential physical activity. I think that is what is intimidating to people, not a 30 second walk through a tunnel. The idea that they will get down there and have to do something other than sit infront of the television. In fact I'm quite sure EVERYONE who wants to get down there right now is getting there and enjoying themselves just fine.
 
With all this talk about barriers, I think what some people fail to consider (although Prometheus hinted at this several posts above) is not only the physical space that the Gardiner occupies, but the strips of land flanking it. Due to its function as a limited-acces expressway, surrounding structures are built by necessity to turn their backs to it. The result is a serious disruption to the cohesion of the urban fabric or whatever you want to call it, since there is no built-in capacity for land-uses that would draw people ALONG the route, except, of course, for the ultimate destination of the waterfront. This is especially a concern given the area between the rail berm and the Gardiner (immediately south of the core) is not that large, with only one street (Bremner) bisecting it. This produces an area hemmed in by these "dead-zone" margins surrounding the rail berm and the Gardiner, in turn limiting its potential.

Compare this to University Ave, for example (though not the best example, because of the prevalence of institutional uses along that stretch), where buildings face the boulevard and form a cohesive landscape.
 
Jonny5 said:
It always sounds to me like the real barrier to the waterfront is LAZINESS. The waterfront represents a lot of potential physical activity. I think that is what is intimidating to people, not a 30 second walk through a tunnel. The idea that they will get down there and have to do something other than sit infront of the television. In fact I'm quite sure EVERYONE who wants to get down there right now is getting there and enjoying themselves just fine.
Click to expand...

Now it all makes sense. The reason our central waterfront is underdeveloped and underused is because we're all too lazy to walk there. But wait a minute, go down to the Beaches in the summer and you'll find throngs of people from all over the city walking up and down Queen Street and the boardwalk. How come?

Could it have something to do with the fact that there is no concrete monstrosity looming nearby?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top