|
So now Toronto's brilliant mayor wants to tear down the Gardiner (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Only in toronto would one equate underusage with smooth flowing traffic. |
lol true. However, in all practicality, elimination of an artery which flows so smoothly would only add a few minutes to each trip. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| look at examples in NYC and san francisco. huge highways with tons of capacity were torn down and the suicide rate because of traffic hasn't gone up. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
lol true. However, in all practicality, elimination of an artery which flows so smoothly would only add a few minutes to each trip. |
adding anything to an already tedious trip is ridiculous. I thought the point of city planning was to make life easier instead of more difficult.
BTW i dont buy the few minutes bullcrap unless by few they mean 10 or more. Just wait for the bottlenecks at the end of the dvp! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
look at examples in NYC and san francisco. huge highways with tons of capacity were torn down and the suicide rate because of traffic hasn't gone up. |
there is a big difference. Number one, those cities both already have an extensive freeway system. Toronto does not. Also, those cities are compactly built. Toronto is not. Third, they have an extensive transit system that also services it's suburban population very well. Toronto does not.
San Francisco would never tear down the bay bridge for example and tell everyone to just use the golden gate. New York would never close the holland tunnel and tell everyone to pile onto the lincoln. But somehow we in toronto are supposed to accept the closing of the only crosstown artery that exists in a city of 5 million?
Sheesh! |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
there is a big difference. Number one, those cities both already have an extensive freeway system. Toronto does not. Also, those cities are compactly built. Toronto is not. Third, they have an extensive transit system that also services it's suburban population very well. Toronto does not.
San Francisco would never tear down the bay bridge for example and tell everyone to just use the golden gate. New York would never close the holland tunnel and tell everyone to pile onto the lincoln. But somehow we in toronto are supposed to accept the closing of the only crosstown artery that exists in a city of 5 million?
Sheesh! |
you really don't know how to compare things. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
look at examples in NYC and san francisco. huge highways with tons of capacity were torn down and the suicide rate because of traffic hasn't gone up. |
Nice try. They built temporary highways in those cities to distribute the load. They also tore down those highways because they were unsafe, not because they wanted to beautify the landscape. They were replaced by better highways, not by trees and condos and a sketchy proposal to maybe possibly build some sort of road in the indeterminate future. And as Jay pointed out, the traffic and transit infrastructure existing in Toronto now isn't even on the same scale as what existed in those cities during their reconstructions.
Even taking all of that into account, those projects caused major chaos in those cities and were the target of constant cynicism (not surprising after what, 12 years of construction?). Obviously the suicide rate didn't go up, but what a ridiculous strawman that is; nobody predicted a cataclysm, just horrible traffic jams.
And you're telling others that they don't know how to compare? I realize that this little stretch of the DVP is not the Golden Gate, but your analogies weren't all that much better. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by smuncky
you really don't know how to compare things. |
indeed.
becuase tearing down a section of the Gardiner and replacing it with a roadway of some sort is *clearly* analagous to tearing down a bridge and directing all trafic to another one.
this is why I try to refrain from chiming in.
but I did it again just now, didn't I :( |
|
|
| Invasionmix |
Toronto should have a toll on the Gardiner, I know people are gonna bitch at me for this, but imagine all the revenues that will be collected to build the future Gardiner and a % of if can go towards the TTC. I'm not too sure how many commuters take the Gardiner but let's just say 100,000 cars. If the toll was $1 that's $200,000/day for 5 days a week so basically 1 million dollars a week that goes towards road maintenance and public transportation (not including weekends). Companies can also pay for a transponder for their employees similar to the ETR.
People will basically have no choice but to take the toll way cause it'll be the fastest route, I can't imagine anyone taking the inner roads to save a couple dollars if you're used to taking the Gardiner. (Similar to Chicago's Skyway Toll, which charges $3) |
|
|
| malek |
| If I remember correctly, the SF highway torn down was because of the earthquake, they never rebuilt it, its not the same thing at all :) |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Nice try. They built temporary highways in those cities to distribute the load. They also tore down those highways because they were unsafe, not because they wanted to beautify the landscape. They were replaced by better highways, not by trees and condos and a sketchy proposal to maybe possibly build some sort of road in the indeterminate future. And as Jay pointed out, the traffic and transit infrastructure existing in Toronto now isn't even on the same scale as what existed in those cities during their reconstructions.
Even taking all of that into account, those projects caused major chaos in those cities and were the target of constant cynicism (not surprising after what, 12 years of construction?). Obviously the suicide rate didn't go up, but what a ridiculous strawman that is; nobody predicted a cataclysm, just horrible traffic jams.
And you're telling others that they don't know how to compare? I realize that this little stretch of the DVP is not the Golden Gate, but your analogies weren't all that much better. |
the shape the gardiner is in, it's becoming unsafe. 10mil a year for repairs will only grow and grow.
from the information i found, the westside highway was knocked down and was not replaced by a better highway. it actually resembles the plan for the gardiner here. just look at battery park city. beautiful place.
also look at the Embarcadero Freeway. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
If I remember correctly, the SF highway torn down was because of the earthquake, they never rebuilt it, its not the same thing at all :) |
but the idea is there. they could've easily rebuilt because SF's traffic problems are a lot worse than ours. i think you'll agree with that.
however, what did they do? they tore the rest down and revitalized it to have everything intergrated including cars, bikes, and pedestrians.
| quote: | Originally posted by Invasionmix
Toronto should have a toll on the Gardiner, I know people are gonna bitch at me for this, but imagine all the revenues that will be collected to build the future Gardiner and a % of if can go towards the TTC. I'm not too sure how many commuters take the Gardiner but let's just say 100,000 cars. If the toll was $1 that's $200,000/day for 5 days a week so basically 1 million dollars a week that goes towards road maintenance and public transportation (not including weekends). Companies can also pay for a transponder for their employees similar to the ETR.
People will basically have no choice but to take the toll way cause it'll be the fastest route, I can't imagine anyone taking the inner roads to save a couple dollars if you're used to taking the Gardiner. (Similar to Chicago's Skyway Toll, which charges $3) |
watch out for jay. i think there was a thread made here before when miller first proposed it, and can anyone be suprised how furious he was.
----------------------------------------------------------------
anyway, i think i'm done with this thread. people already have their minds made up about something that doesn't even have a concrete plan yet and some just have a strong prejudice against the local gov't.
i am supportive of this proposal however, i want to see how the connection between the rail berm and waterfront are addressed. with the redevelopment of the west don lands, it could make for a great place to be. i'd like to see the pillars holding the westbound lanes stay and the top be remade into a linear park. the views from there would be breathtaking onto our growning skyline. just think of the view you get when you come up on the on ramp from the DVP. if we ever continue the removal of the gardiner, there could be a series of these parks from where you can look out onto the city.
an image to leave you all with.
 |
|
|
|
|
