Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Dichotomy]

So what is your solution for the Allen Road?

Tunnel. Make it a toll road until it is paid for, like they did with the Burlington Skyway. Lots of people would pay to avoid the Eglinton fiasco. Those that don't, could make the left turn and ride the Avenue Rd. parking lot downtown. Why don't they get real novel and float a public bond to raise money for it? Lots of people would jump on that bandwagon.
But whatever they do: don't let it turn in to the NDP/Mike Harris fiasco that the 407 has become.

Put a tunnel on Mt. Pleasant, right at Roxborough Dr while we're at it. There's even a nice little hill and parkette there which would be perfect for a 4 lane tunnel to punch through. Think of all those nasty cars that would be gotten off Mt. Pleasant! On bad days (which is any weekday after 3:30 pm) Mt. Pleasant is backed up from St. Clair to Roxborough anyway.

 

[urbanboom]

Tunnel? That's your solution?

Do you know how much a tunnel would cost? You epessially like to point out how spending-addicted and broke city hall is.

Boston's Big Dig project cost $14.6 billion! I know you love your car, but I for one will not have my property taxes triple so that they can build a tunnel from Eglinton to Dupont Station, then tear down the Annex, and build a six-lane highway where Chinatown is! As you pointed out before, this city was built for people, not for deer and not for cars. The only reason Boston didn't go bancrupt, was because Washington stepped in. I'd love to see someone try to convince Harper to finance that scheme.

But why should I care? They'll never do it. That time has come and passed.

And back to the Gardiner debate, San Fran. tore down their elevated highway and reported very little traffic increases... You know why? because people simply find other ways of getting around! Highways in dense urban centres don't make sence at all. Slowly people are realising this and changin the way they look at urbanism. As they say, "If you build it, they will come", they could also say "If demolish it, they will find an other way".

But then again, I bet Atlanta has many highways that releive traffic from their endless sprawling city... Too bad Toronto can't be more like them; What a dynamic city it is!...

 

[smuncky]

interestingly enough, i walked yonge street from the lake to 16th ave. in richmond hill, and i felt that the most hostile place along that street was between the 401 and clark ave in thornhill. coincidentally, this is where the road is 7 lanes wide and mostly concrete with little or no trees to be seen (especially from finch northward). i couldn't even begin to imagine streets like the ones you mentioned widened to 6 lanes.

lets not forget again, that they are not proposing to tear down the whole gardiner. just a small part of it. i really don't understand how tearing down that one part will "...take away their ability to connect with the rest of the world" from the residents of the portlands.

 

[nfitz]

Tunnel? That's your solution?

Do you know how much a tunnel would cost?

An extensive tunnel is not the answer, but there should be some improvements to distribute traffic at the Allen/Eglinton interchange. What about a short 2-lane "tunnel" alongside the subway just to let some of the traffic daylight on soutbound Bathurst. About 1.5 km of "tunnel", should be in the hundreds of millions rather than billions.

The problem at Eglinton, is the thing was never engineered to simply terminate there, so the traffic impacts are terrible.

 

[TKTKTK]

And back to the Gardiner debate, San Fran. tore down their elevated highway and reported very little traffic increases... You know why? because people simply find other ways of getting around! Highways in dense urban centres don't make sence at all. Slowly people are realising this and changin the way they look at urbanism. As they say, "If you build it, they will come", they could also say "If demolish it, they will find an other way".

But then again, I bet Atlanta has many highways that releive traffic from their endless sprawling city... Too bad Toronto can't be more like them; What a dynamic city it is!...

Atlanta? If you want an example of a city with urban highways, look no further than your first example; San Francisco. They did get rid of one, but it seems there are THREE left.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=e...6751&spn=0.06059,0.102654&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr

They tore down a stub highway (like the Gardiner was East of the DVP) after it was largely destroyed by an Earthquake. They didn't spontaneously decide to axe it to the tune of $400 million dollars. And they certainly didn't go after the highway that forms a real link in their freeway system.

 

[Dichotomy]

The problem IS Eglinton. Eglinton is one open lane in each direction through the densest (and getting denser) part of its length: Laird to Jane! True that Allen wasn't supposed to end at Eglinton, but if Eglinton had at least been widened east and west of the terminus, it would have made a big difference. Or how about 2 left-turn lanes?
Really, many of the bottle-necks in this city are easy fixes: like the short on-ramp, westbound from Jameson onto the Gardiner.

Back to the tunnel idea, what about the toll? It's been done before. Hell, if Europe can punch holes through granite mountains, I am sure we can dig a 6 lane tunnel down to the Gardiner! There was a proposal about 10 years ago to build a tunnel under Humber Bay and the city wouldn't have had to pay a dime. You can only guess where that idea went.
Dragging the 'big dig' into this is silly. They were moving highways, train tracks and building tunnels and bridges under/over rivers! Slightly more involved than a tunnel from Eglinton down to the Gardiner. Besides, I admire the Americans attitude of 'go big or go home.' Maybe we Canadians should get some cajones and start thinking a little bigger, too?

All the suburbs look 'desolate' until the trees grow in. I remember how awful most of Brampton looked 30 years ago, now many of the 'older' parts are quite nice. 6-lane arterial roads should be the norm, not the exception.

Really, the anti-car lobby wants it both ways: they want cozy, quiet neighborhoods, bicycle lanes and scenic avenues, but won't acknowledge that there has to be some areas that give way for traffic flow. Jarvis and University are two good examples. Let Sherbourne, Parliament and Church be all leafy and bicycle-plagued but widen Jarvis! Expand the Gardiner and the DVP, tunnel down from Eglinton on the Allen and maybe some of the neighborhoods will be nicer to live in again.

Or we can all just sit around another 10 years until the Gardiner falls down, then it will cost us billions to revamp it.

 

[Dichotomy]

Atlanta? If you want an example of a city with urban highways, look no further than your first example; San Francisco. They did get rid of one, but it seems there are THREE left.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=e...6751&spn=0.06059,0.102654&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr

They tore down a stub highway (like the Gardiner was East of the DVP) after it was largely destroyed by an Earthquake. They didn't spontaneously decide to axe it to the tune of $400 million dollars. And they certainly didn't go after the highway that forms a real link in their freeway system.

I get the impression many of the posters here haven't travelled beyond Bathurst or north of St. Clair - really. Or they can't get beyond their myopic view of the world behind their handlebars.

Frankly, in all the cities I have travelled in, I haven't seen anything that has the traffic challenges that we do. Every friggin' city on earth 'got it' 50 years ago and started widening roads as buildings were torn down and neighborhoods turned over. Toronto never did, and now we are going to pay the price, literally.

 

[urbanfan89]

Frankly, in all the cities I have travelled in, I haven't seen anything that has the traffic challenges that we do.

Obviously you haven't travelled to Europe or Asia.

Or Sao Paulo. The rich there even have their helicopters!

Or Moscow. There's even a tunnel with a Putin-Only Lane! Seriously! I'd hate to see a Miller-Only Lane on the Gardiner!

Compared to them Toronto is a paradise for driving. Of course it's harder and more expensive than most US cities, but...

Every friggin' city on earth 'got it' 50 years ago and started widening roads as buildings were torn down and neighborhoods turned over. Toronto never did, and now we are going to pay the price, literally.

...they now regret paving over entire neighbourhoods.

Perhaps City Hall should subsidize Valium. It would do you good.

 

[Dichotomy]

Obviously you haven't travelled to Europe or Asia.

Or Sao Paulo. The rich there even have their helicopters!

Or Moscow. There's even a tunnel with a Putin-Only Lane! Seriously! I'd hate to see a Miller-Only Lane on the Gardiner!

Compared to them Toronto is a paradise for driving. Of course it's harder and more expensive than most US cities, but...


...they now regret paving over entire neighbourhoods.

Perhaps City Hall should subsidize Valium. It would do you good.

Have you been watching the National Geographic channel again? I've been to Sao Paulo 6 times and I have hundreds of pics of blue skies (well, hazy skies on many occasions) and NO HELICOPTERS.

No neighborhoods need be paved over. Yet another disingenuous argument. However, we could have set buildings back as they were replaced and over a period of 15-20 years, we would have acheived a 6 lane Bloor-Danforth, 6 lane Jarvis, etc. Next time you're out on your bicycle, why don't you take a trip from Main St. to Jane along Bloor/Danforth. There are only 2 or 3 places where both sides of the street are more than 75 years old. So, easements could have been made and eventually, the street could have been widened.

 

[urbanfan89]

Have you been watching the National Geographic channel again? I've been to Sao Paulo 6 times and I have hundreds of pics of blue skies (well, hazy skies on many occasions) and NO HELICOPTERS.

I'll trust statistics over anecdotal evidence from a private citizen, thank you very much. Then you extol how Moscow allows more road capacity, forgetting that things are so bad there they even set aside a lane for Kremlin Big Wigs in a tunnel.

No neighborhoods need be paved over. Yet another disingenuous argument.

Many cities *did* pave over their neighbourhoods. Now they regret it. You even ranted about how it was necessary for neighbourhoods to be "turned over".

However, we could have set buildings back as they were replaced and over a period of 15-20 years, we would have acheived a 6 lane Bloor-Danforth, 6 lane Jarvis, etc.

In which case you'd be the VERY first to rant about how the city doesn't care about pedestrian safety and air pollution.

Next time you're out on your bicycle, why don't you take a trip from Main St. to Jane along Bloor/Danforth. There are only 2 or 3 places where both sides of the street are more than 75 years old. So, easements could have been made and eventually, the street could have been widened.

First, I can't bike because it would take a whole day to get there. Second, see my point above. Third, the fact that the city is short-sighted...well...you can thank Mike Harris for choking funding and giving everyone cash rebates when public services were starving.

I question your habit of bringing up anecdotal stories. One of my high school friends got into a car accident on the Gardiner a few days ago. Obviously this is evidence the city doesn't give a damn about engineering.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I guess it would have been cool if we had done widening where we could to accommodate bike lanes in more places. So your point isn't totally without merit. Too many traffic lanes, though, have an overall negative effect on street-facing businesses, though. Hell, just compare 'narrow' Queen Street in Toronto to the five-lane one-way-street that is Main Street in Hamilton.

There ARE cases of extremely-wide multi-lane streets that aren't hostile to pedestrians, but I'd argue that they're the exception rather than the rule.

Also, on the issue of new Toronto residents having parking spaces and cars. Sure. I moved to downtown a year ago and I have a parking space and a car. It's great to have for trips out of town and when I need to buy furniture or bulk item groceries. I like my car; I like driving.

But I didn't move to the city hoping to drive around everywhere like I did when I lived in Oakville. I moved to the city because I enjoy walking places and talking transit and just leaving my car in its spot for days (sometimes weeks) on end. Maybe I'm completely off-base, but I don't feel like an anomaly: I think more and more people are either ditching their car altogether or, like me, using the car occasionally, rather than daily.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: if they were to take that part of the Gardiner down, I would absolutely walk down Sherbourne or Parliament Street to the waterfront. You, though, would probably rather drive.

 

[urbanboom]

I get the impression many of the posters here haven't travelled beyond Bathurst or north of St. Clair - really. Or they can't get beyond their myopic view of the world behind their handlebars.

Actually for your imformation, I live near Eglinton and Laird, far away from downtown. I see the traffic and I completely understand it. What makes me confused, is your theory that for a city to work functionally it must be easy to drive in, which I disagree with. Most of the great cities in the world are not car-centric, but people-centric: London, NY, Paris, Tokyo, you name it.

I think that Toronto is at a halfway point: our freeway system is OK, but not extensive and our subway/transit system is OK, but not extensive. The reason that London can survive with no freeways is because their transit system is about 5 times more extensive than ours. I many ways I agree with you: we cannot afford to get rid of the Gardiner entirely - at least for now. But what I advocate is not the total dismantle of the entire highway, but the eastern section only - which is minimally used (and used only as a pass through Toronto, which is should not). If you live in Oakville, you shouldn't be taking the Gardiner/DVP to get to Montreal! The 427/401 is for that.

If Toronto is halfway, than I think we should take the London approch, rather than the urban freeway system. Toronto needs to spend money on infrastructure - that is given - but the choice remains is how we will spend that money. Do you really think that traffic would be such a huge issue if the
Sheppard subway were complete, the Yonge-University extended both ways, an Eglinton subway from the Airport to Kennedy built and the Downtown Relief Line built (hell, or even if 'Transit City' were built)? No, it wouldn't. I say we complete the missing subway links, rather than highway links. I think that it is already proven that public transportation, pedestrian traffic and human interaction add more to a city's dynamics and function than cars ever did.

 

[TKTKTK]

I guess what I'm getting at is this: if they were to take that part of the Gardiner down, I would absolutely walk down Sherbourne or Parliament Street to the waterfront. You, though, would probably rather drive.

I live right by Parliament St. I *know* the reason you're hesitant to walk down to the end of Parliament isn't because of the Gardiner - it's because of the very low, stinking, dripping, rusting, rail bridge you have to cross under at the foot of the street. The Gardiner at that part is in fairly good repair, certainly in much, much better shape than the rail bridge (also, the Gardiner is much higher).

I don't even really like driving under the rail bridge; I have to close the roof, lest something wicked dirty drips inside.

(the first two photos are of the Lake Shore / Parliament intersection, and the other two are of Lake Shore / Cherry)

 

[TKTKTK]

If Toronto is halfway, than I think we should take the London approch, rather than the urban freeway system. Toronto needs to spend money on infrastructure - that is given - but the choice remains is how we will spend that money.

Absolutely. Which is why it's insane to spend $400 Million on dismantling something that serves a purpose and is used (albeit, not over-used), rather than spending it on something that's lacking and wanted (hint: public transit).

 

[urbanboom]

Absolutely. Which is why it's insane to spend $400 Million on dismantling something that serves a purpose and is used (albeit, not over-used), rather than spending it on something that's lacking and wanted (hint: public transit).

Two Words: Carrot, Stick.

If you take down the Gardiner, you piss off enough drivers so that they throw in the towel and take public transit. The TTC/GO then see massive ridership increases. All levels of government actually make make the proper investments into public transit.

You can't change habits without a punishment and a reward.