News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.2K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

I think that's a flawed analogy when applied to projects that will still take a long time even with the fast band-aid pull option. How long would it take to tear down the whole elevated portion and replace it with an at grade boulevard? 5-10 years? Imagine the chaos that would be caused without any access to both the Gardiner or Lakeshore during that period. At least when it's done in sections restricted access is limited to a much smaller area.

I disagree, I doubt there will be "chaos", and extending the construction for decades doing packets will cause more disruptions to traffic and the community. Starting and stopping projects will cause more confusion and demoralize the effected communities.
 
Last edited:
I also wish the city was a bit more progressive and non-apologetic about experimenting. The best thing to do would be to just shut down the Gardiner East for two months and see how traffic responds... will it disappear like theories suggest? Will Richmond/Adelaide get gridlocked and thus gum up traffic on all of the downtown arterials? Will transit ridership increase? At the very least, it'd be an accurate picture of what would happen for the construction period of the boulevard option. And if traffic does evaporate, you have a good case for softening/reducing the expressway/boulevard into something more like the 6-lane option of the Hybrid approach, which is much more humane at street level.

That's a ridiculous idea. No one changes their entire life when they know they'll be back to their regular commute in two months. All it would do is allow a huge number of people say, 'see?' and demand their road back.

Now, what's going to be a real experiment for the 'hybrid' is the 1.5 years you quote. After that much time, people will have changed their habits completely. Will it get even a fraction of its traffic back? Maybe not, because 1.5 years of chaos is long enough to convince DDA and his wife (for example) to move to High Park.

The traffic 'evaporates' because people know that road is gone, and so they change their behaviour, permanently.
 
You have to rip the dirty bandage off and get the job done. Disruption lasting decades will cause more problems.
I suggest ripping out both the Gardiner and leaving Lakeshore as is, with a ban/limit on out of city cars, combined with increase in commuter rail service to Union and addition other urban stations, such as south of Oriole Stn.

Go-train-original.jpg
 
Ooppsie! So much for all levels of government (I know it's niggling) bringing money to the table for the "project". I'm waiting for the Ford, and Tory take since the latter's Smart Track could be in jeopardy, at least it's alignment if the LRT becomes the transit of choice.

Ontario, Ottawa at odds over funding for Scarborough subway
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nding-for-scarborough-subway/article24972350/
 
I suggest ripping out both the Gardiner and leaving Lakeshore as is, with a ban/limit on out of city cars, combined with increase in commuter rail service to Union and addition other urban stations, such as south of Oriole Stn.

Go-train-original.jpg

Interesting proposition, however, I would include a RT of sorts to feed the port land and associated communities.
 
That's a ridiculous idea. No one changes their entire life when they know they'll be back to their regular commute in two months. All it would do is allow a huge number of people say, 'see?' and demand their road back.

Now, what's going to be a real experiment for the 'hybrid' is the 1.5 years you quote. After that much time, people will have changed their habits completely.

OK, so where in between 2 and 18 months does it go from "ridiculous" to "feasible"? Hm?
It's not that outlandish - I'm just picking a number out of thin air. Use whatever number you want - 6 months, 9 months, 18 months... The point is, the city needs to start really thinking outside the box if they're going to develop truly progressive / innovative solutions. The city has recently started to do actual pilot projects - ones that are temporary. Look at the cycle tracks on Richmond/Adelaide - they may not remain once the trial period is over (though I hope they do). It's a great way to test theory.

In any event, we know they won't actually do that kind of thing - but it still serves as an interesting thought experiment. Your claim of ridiculousness will be put to the test with the pan am games though, won't it? Will people respond to the new limitations on the roads, and sit in congestion to prove a point? So that they can wag their finger and say "SEE how much of a disaster this is?" Or will they change their habits for the time being, to save themselves the headache?
 
Congratulations to all of you who voted for Tory in order to keep Ford out of office. You now have someone who is even more effective in accomplishing Ford's agenda. And to all of those so-called "social liberals/fiscal conservatives" who felt some good will to Olivia Chow but didn't trust a "tax-and-spend socialist" to manage the city. I hope you enjoy spending all of the extra $billions on brand new highways downtown and subways in the suburbs.

I've been hearing this a lot lately, the "We've should have voted Olivia Chow in", but the fact remains she was going to lose this election when it became clear she wasn't gaining ground outside Old Toronto. Even looking at the ward-by-ward breakdown of election night, we can see where strategic voting happen in a lot of place in Old Toronto where Chow was a very close second, but outside Old Toronto she fell to third place.

Don't get me wrong, John Tory isn't the prefect choice, and Olivia Chow was the better choice out of the three, but the fact remained that she was becoming the split vote candidate that could have wound up having this thread named "Doug Ford's Toronto", we've held our noses and voted John Tory to add some stability and regroup for the next election.
 
Something is definitely going on between Tory and the chief planner.

Chief planner’s rift with Mayor John Tory derails interview
Toronto chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat put her hand over a CP24 camera and walked away from an interview when asked about tensions between her and Mayor John Tory (open John Tory's policard)’s office.

Tory and his senior staff were upset that Keesmaat spoke in favour of Gardiner removal at a planning conference and on social media while he was aggressively pushing the so-called hybrid option. Many councillors, including members of Tory’s own executive committee, supported removal.

The Star revealed last Tuesday that Tory, the mayor’s staff, interim city manager John Livey and Keesmaat had earlier met to discuss the Gardiner — and Keesmaat apparently got a talking-to.

That followed earlier tensions over Keesmaat backing a downtown relief subway line as a top priority while Tory was trumpeting his SmartTrack transit expansion plan.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...t-with-mayor-john-tory-derails-interview.html
 
guitarchitect: You're thinking like I've been thinking.:) My solution to the boulevard nonsense would be to split it into two parallel roads, similar to how Richmond & Adelaide function. Two 4-lane roads the same distance apart as Rich/laide is today, consistant 8-10 storey streetwall with bike lanes via the communal central alley. Rather than reinvent the wheel, go with what historically works. (Ideally, just expand Richmond & Adelaide east with twin bridges over the Don joining Eastern Av etc.)

The 8 lane boulevard idea ironically is the most suburban solution--very Mississauga yuck.

Then I'd reduce Lake Shore to another 4 lane road with an LRT ROW in the removed lanes and gradually knock down the Gardiner.
 
Last edited:
^^
Something similar to Richmond/Adelaide may have been a better option.

As much as I liked the idea of tearing it down, the 8-lane boulevard was never my favourite. If you build an 8-lane road with no transit, bike lanes and minimal stops, people will drive as fast as possible regardless of the speed limit.

That being said, we definitely made the wrong decision to just rebuild the thing.
 
Something is definitely going on between Tory and the chief planner.

That or she's just not able to keep her shit in check. For someone who's all about expressing their opinion, to claim they aren't used to questions, is a pretty far fetched idea.
 
That or she's just not able to keep her shit in check. For someone who's all about expressing their opinion, to claim they aren't used to questions, is a pretty far fetched idea.

Conspiracy theorist in me thinks she's laying the groundwork for a run for mayor, and that this CPTwentyFord incident is just the first of many orchestrated spectacles. Step one, hire a strategist. Step two, call up the news and say 'hey I got news for ya, meet me at this location'. Step 3, let the front page fodder begin. As much as the Ford clan were nasty imbeciles, they did know how to get in the news and use that to their advantage. It's a tactic, and I wouldn't be surprised if others like Keesmat were to adopt it if they want to become mayor.
 
OK, so where in between 2 and 18 months does it go from "ridiculous" to "feasible"? Hm?
It's not that outlandish - I'm just picking a number out of thin air. Use whatever number you want - 6 months, 9 months, 18 months... The point is, the city needs to start really thinking outside the box if they're going to develop truly progressive / innovative solutions. The city has recently started to do actual pilot projects - ones that are temporary. Look at the cycle tracks on Richmond/Adelaide - they may not remain once the trial period is over (though I hope they do). It's a great way to test theory.

In any event, we know they won't actually do that kind of thing - but it still serves as an interesting thought experiment. Your claim of ridiculousness will be put to the test with the pan am games though, won't it? Will people respond to the new limitations on the roads, and sit in congestion to prove a point? So that they can wag their finger and say "SEE how much of a disaster this is?" Or will they change their habits for the time being, to save themselves the headache?

I believe the 'number' is long enough to permanently change daily transit use. Therefore, I'd say that it has to be at least a year (for most tenants' leases to expire, so they will think about moving) and at least a school year (for those with both a house and children to think about selling their house and moving). But the other parameter is that the change has to be seen as permanent in order to change behavior. That's pretty basic behavioral economics.

But my 'ridiculous' comment is about thinking you can deliberately gum up the works to try and 'prove' anything. The turmoil and caterwauling will completely overwhelm any 'proof' you might or might not get from such an experiment. It's not at all the same as trying a 'thought experiment' or 'pilot project': you're not trying to do something constructive, but rather destructive.
 
Conspiracy theorist in me thinks she's laying the groundwork for a run for mayor, and that this CPTwentyFord incident is just the first of many orchestrated spectacles. Step one, hire a strategist. Step two, call up the news and say 'hey I got news for ya, meet me at this location'. Step 3, let the front page fodder begin. As much as the Ford clan were nasty imbeciles, they did know how to get in the news and use that to their advantage. It's a tactic, and I wouldn't be surprised if others like Keesmat were to adopt it if they want to become mayor.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't see her as calculating enough to do that, nor interested in becoming mayor - her passion is urban planning, after all. She might have someone strategizing for her, but who?

What I want to know is why Kouvalis suddenly thinks her job is to toe the line on what the mayor says and why he believes he has the authority to police her. He didn't seem to have that view under Ford.
 
I suppose it's possible, but I don't see her as calculating enough to do that, nor interested in becoming mayor - her passion is urban planning, after all. She might have someone strategizing for her, but who?

What I want to know is why Kouvalis suddenly thinks her job is to toe the line on what the mayor says and why he believes he has the authority to police her. He didn't seem to have that view under Ford.

Under Ford she was quite mum on issues, IMO at least. Sure she was often quoted in the media about what she'd like to see, but when it came down to actual votes on make or break issues (e.g the Line 2 ext vs SLRT), she didn't really make noise the way she did with the Gardiner debate. I recall one example where in council during the lead up to the SSE vote, the only time she rocked the boat/made waves was when she was specifically asked which plan she thought was better. She did some beating around the bush, then finally relented and said the SLRT is better (from a planning standpoint). Not much else.

And perhaps her passion is planning, but she knows that many of the ideas she speaks in support of can't happen without major changes - changes she can make happen as mayor. She's got the passion, she's got the brains, she's got the looks. And now she's trying to get the attitude/power (this is where strategic spectacles and soundbites c/o Toronto's media comes in).
 

Top