News   Jun 26, 2024
Hop, Skip, and a Jump
 137     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.6K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 1.1K     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

DonValleyRainbow said:
Well on the flip side, I subjectively think that these studies overestimate driving rates of younger adults and future generations. But that's just my POV.
Click to expand...
Yet traffic keeps getting worse and worse as we add over 100k to the region per year.

Demolishing the Gardiner (or decreasing highway capacity) is a complete non starter in Toronto. I was also against the concept of tolling the Gardiner, because if folks line up for 45 mins to save 10 bucks on gas at Costco, they'll certainly slog it through local roads such as Lake Shore in order to avoid tolls. Funny how the mayor wouldn't commit funds to South Etobicoke (and other areas that would be devastated by Gardiner/DVP tolls), so thankfully the premier shot that down, and it's rightfully dead.
 
Filip said:
Yet traffic keeps getting worse and worse as we add over 100k to the region per year.

Demolishing the Gardiner (or decreasing highway capacity) is a complete non starter in Toronto. I was also against the concept of tolling the Gardiner, because if folks line up for 45 mins to save 10 bucks on gas at Costco, they'll certainly slog it through local roads such as Lake Shore in order to avoid tolls. Funny how the mayor wouldn't commit funds to South Etobicoke (and other areas that would be devastated by Gardiner/DVP tolls), so thankfully the premier shot that down, and it's rightfully dead.
Click to expand...

I could debate this here, but I'm going to be good. Feel free to tag me in Roads: Gardiner Expressway if you want to continue this exchange.
 
I still maintain that the Gardiner isn't a 'barrier'. You can hate it because it carries cars and you hate cars. But it's not a barrier to the waterfront or to growth. SouthCore proves that well. The big physical and mental barrier are the railway land and to a lesser extent the lakeshore which you have to wait to cross (you never have to wait to cross under the Gardiner itself.) If you were to theoretically leave the Gardiner and bury the railway lands and Lakeshore Blvd that's when you'd feel the biggest difference. An elevated expressway is actually not the problem everyone thinks it is. But yes it does carry evil cars.
 
hawc said:
I still maintain that the Gardiner isn't a 'barrier'. You can hate it because it carries cars and you hate cars. But it's not a barrier to the waterfront or to growth. SouthCore proves that well. The big physical and mental barrier are the railway land and to a lesser extent the lakeshore which you have to wait to cross (you never have to wait to cross under the Gardiner itself.) If you were to theoretically leave the Gardiner and bury the railway lands and Lakeshore Blvd that's when you'd feel the biggest difference. An elevated expressway is actually not the problem everyone thinks it is. But yes it does carry evil cars.
Click to expand...

This is why:
gardinerfile.jpeg

bent80-81.jpg

rocks.jpg
 
DSC said:
Did you read the EA, I suspect not and maybe you should. Taking down the eastern end of the Gardiner and replacing it with a boulevard would have been far cheaper and would have caused minimal traffic slowdowns.
Click to expand...
That is transit planning blarney meant to put lipstick on a pig. Strongly held opinions abound here and that is fine. But a boulevard is a boulevard and a highway is a highway and there is more than a few minutes time difference between the two.

It is sad to be constantly seeking the cheapest option because that is frequently much less than the 'best we can do' - and in my books cheapest often means half-assed.

I believe strongly in good rapid transit and the city and province have plenty to be ashamed of here. But balance is important too and if we have another half a million people in the city some day, their groceries are not going to ride the subway, RER, or a bike to Longo's at Maple Leaf Square. Nor is the replacement transformer for the King st vault going to take the King car tonight.

Groceries north of Gravenhurst cost more because of distance. If it's inconvenient or difficult to get into the city, maybe city groceries will cost more than they do already. We all know that things cost more in Manhattan and Toronto. But in Manhattan, everyone working in the stores, bars and service industries live miles away in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx leaving only the wealthiest downtown. We're headed there. At least New York's suburbs are connected by a strong transit network. LIRR, subway(S) (what dat?) so people can get to a job.

It's not that the Gardiner is the epitome of transportation. Rather it is that there are bugger-all alternatives. And every transit advocate has to realize that until there are alternatives that are as convenient, then it's far from irrational to drive.

Until we respect one and other and build out for us all so that retiring assets is not inflicting inconvenience on someone else, this debate will remain contentious.
 
Last edited:
salsa said:
As if he had any credibility to begin with. I'm just gonna leave this here...


View attachment 107319
Click to expand...
If we belittle those with whom we disagree, we are at Tea Party, or Trumpian levels. That looks ugly to me and we are only at the beginning of that. The world is big and it's filled with different viewpoints. Let the debate be on the subject at hand. I have learned a lot following the various discussions here, but I don't agree with all that I read.
 
TransitBart said:
If we belittle those with whom we disagree, we are at Tea Party, or Trumpian levels. That looks ugly to me and we are only at the beginning of that. The world is big and it's filled with different viewpoints. Let the debate be on the subject at hand. I have learned a lot following the various discussions here, but I don't agree with all that I read.
Click to expand...

I'm not the first person to say this, but it's hard to respect the opinion of a willfully uninformed person who couldn't bother to inform himself of the facts and understand the actual reasons for the boulevard aside from "no one should own cars and everyone should ride bikes or take public transit everywhere". This is the same pattern I noticed on some other topics too, where no amount of explaining or new information made a damn difference. Just look at the CN Tower recladding discussion and see how well that went. At least you on the other hand know how to put together a thoughtful and rational argument instead of just incoherent babble:
if they are being torn down for the sake of tearing it down and not receiving the the road with the same amount of capacity it's useless It would be like putting stop lights on the 401 if we took the Gardier down and just had everyone use the lakeshore to get across the south end of the city.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hawc said:
Yeah and you're more likely to be hit by a car crossing King Street (or a bike crossing Queen Street) then have a piece of concrete fall on you. You're more likely to be hit by lightning.
Click to expand...
While I am not taking sides on this - the concrete issue is more than just a safety issue. Its a bottom line issue for the City - the on going maintenance of the Gardner is a big part of this equation. It will require billions just to keep it standing with no other improvements. The tear it down argument also comes with the bonus side of reducing the financial burden to the City moving forward. Also, the maintenance will mean an almost never ending cycle of lane closures and restrictions to complete these repairs - knowing these are short term closures there will be no change in driving habits (as we see with the York-Bay-Yonge ramp closure) and these constant closures will probably be worse for traffic than a new permanent boulevard.
 
salsa said:
It's hard to respect the opinion of a willfully uninformed person.
Click to expand...

Ah, my favourite of all the logical fallacies. The "If only you were as smart as me you'd agree with me" fallacy. If only you'd read (and agree with) all that I read and agree with then we'd agree. Once you educate yourself to my level then you'll see that I'm right and you're wrong. Until then, just know that I am smarter than you and therefore righter than you.
 
coopEng said:
It will require billions just to keep [The Gardiner] standing with no other improvements. The tear it down argument also comes with the bonus side of reducing the financial burden to the City moving forward.
Click to expand...

I completely and 100% subscribe to the Induced Demand Theory. So I wholeheartedly agree with the tear it down argument. Tear it down and traffic will be a nightmare for maybe a few months but eventually people will learn that trying to drive into/through the city is hellishly impossible and they'll all find alternative sources of transportation like bicycles and public transit. Families with young children, older people, delivery and construction people would all ride bikes and take public transit year round if only we'd get rid of the temptation to drive. TEAR DOWN THE GARDINER!!! Following the Induced Demand Theory I'd actually advoacte tearing up ALL roads as road only encourage driving. Replace with streetcar ROW and bike paths only.
 
hawc said:
I still maintain that the Gardiner isn't a 'barrier'. You can hate it because it carries cars and you hate cars. But it's not a barrier to the waterfront or to growth. SouthCore proves that well. The big physical and mental barrier are the railway land and to a lesser extent the lakeshore which you have to wait to cross (you never have to wait to cross under the Gardiner itself.) If you were to theoretically leave the Gardiner and bury the railway lands and Lakeshore Blvd that's when you'd feel the biggest difference. An elevated expressway is actually not the problem everyone thinks it is. But yes it does carry evil cars.
Click to expand...

I think that's a wild oversimplification. I don't hate cars but I hate the Gardiner, precisely and only because it's a major barrier to the waterfront. I can't tell you how many people - both from Toronto and from other cities/countries - who've said exactly that to me.

And "but the Lakeshore is also a barrier" is just not a valid counterpoint to that assertion.
 
TransitBart said:
If we belittle those with whom we disagree, we are at Tea Party, or Trumpian levels. That looks ugly to me and we are only at the beginning of that. The world is big and it's filled with different viewpoints. Let the debate be on the subject at hand. I have learned a lot following the various discussions here, but I don't agree with all that I read.
Click to expand...

No. The guy who prompted another person to post that graphic is doing exactly what you're taking exception to in this post; he admitted straight up that he didn't believe in being informed before spewing his drivel.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top