Not to mention that study after study has shown that building roads creates traffic, and getting rid of roads gets rid of traffic. After every demolition, some of the traffic simply disappears.
Of course building roads introduces more traffic. Because it also encourages development along its length. And of course after a demolition some of the traffic is going to 'disappear', they're going to find other routes out of necessity. It doesn't mean that it disappears without a trace, or without effect elsewhere.
And for those who whine about going from one side of downtown to the other, what about driving from the 401 down to the central city? Do we need to bring back the Spadina Expressway to make that easier for you? Ought the Gardiner have been extended through the Beach to tie into the 401 as originally planned. Two years after the Gardiner is gone, we'll have forgotten about it entirely and will be better off for it.
I haven't seen anyone requesting additional highways. Just the retention of the very few we have.
2. The Gardiner isn't the problem, Lakeshore is. As if the experience of crossing under the Lakeshore isn't completely influenced by the fact that it is a no man's land under the Gardiner. As if the Lakeshore isn't already a traffic funnel just like the Gardiner. As if the crossing the Lakeshore isn't really a matter of crossing the Gardiner anyways, since one of the main problems with the Lakeshore are the ramps from and to the Gardiner, that make crossing the Lakeshore a much more difficult experience. No pedestrians here, cross to the other side, crossing lanes on your bike into traffic because you are trying to get to the shore - it's all a hassle, and has more to do with the ramps than the Lakeshore itself. I don't especially like crossing University Avenue - too much traffic - but it's a whole lot better than crossing the Lakeshore under the Gardiner.
That can be dealt with while still keeping the Gardiner above. ZERO effort has been made in the past, and rather than make even a modicum of effort, it's deemed easier to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get rid of it. The Gardiner isn't going along its entire length - we're going to have to address the issue of getting pedestrians under it, even if we tear down the Jarvis to Parliament section.
This talk also seems to act as if the Gardiner is six lanes suspended far above our heads - airy, I believe it's been called. This ignores the huge, long, on and off ramps that expand it's width considerably. And as has been argued here, because no building facing the Gardiner has anything interesting at ground level (why would it?) the barrier problem extends well beyond the freeway itself.
The ramps are often cited as a problem, but there's so few of them that I just can't see it - and it's only one side that they pose a problem - on the north side they're against the rail berm. In fact, east of Jarvis there's only one ramp.
3. The Gardiner isn't the problem, the Railway is. I think this is a valid point, because the railway does create a barrier, but it's not an either/or scenario. They both act as barriers to some extent. However, I would argue that demonstratably the railway is less of a barrier because it has many more routes over and under it than the Gardiner does,
That's very false. You can only cross the rail berm where there's a hole punched through. The only holes, really, are ones created for streets - which all intersect with Lake Shore under the Gardiner. In truth, more streets have intersections with Lake Shore under the Gardiner than cross the rail berm.
...is less threatening to move around (because with the Gardiner you have tons of traffic trying to get on or off that interferes with your movement - the railway has no such problem). Just the fact that the PATH system has so effortlessly spanned the railway in many places shows that it's not as severe an obstacle as the Gardiner. Besides, the Gardiner is far uglier.
I think you've confused the two. The tunnels going under the rail berm are horrendous. The one on Cherry Street smells of cat piss and the supports are all rusted out. The other ones are tremendously dark and dank. The Gardiner in the same areas is a little rough, but is in far better shape - and is so much farther away from the pedestrian or cyclist.
Also, the railway represents the future of travel in the city, while the Gardiner represents it's past. For all the pissing about bad planning in Toronto how many places are ready to tear down expressways at this particular moment when a car culture is becoming unaffordable and unsustainable? The Gardiner is much less essential to the health and future of the city than the railway is, and to my mind ripping part of it down shows a lot of foresight on the part of the city, at this particular moment in time.
The rails are important to our future, for sure. But so are roadways and retaining car infrastructure. Cars are in a rough spot with environmental issues right now - but they're not going away in the long run. We'll probably slowly become more like the Europeans; our cars will be valued more (we won't think of them in the same disposable way North Americans tend to) but they'll still be around - and travel by car will remain important.
4. I think a secondary argument is that undoing the Gardiner frees up a lot of city owned land for development. The economic impact of that could be astonishing.
This area already has so much space for development I think the corporation responsible is scared stiff. I'm not sure they really need more land before they've done a thing with what they've got.
