|
|
|
BMO
Senior Member
It may be relevant if you've looked at the area east of the don valley it's basically suburbia 2.0 with big box chains galore. Especially since, as it stands, the area east of Yonge St will have a dearth of adequate transit for people moving in. Sure there'll be a substantial amount of people who bike to where they want to go, but that number will drop in the winter and then you'll have residents who either have to walk to a bus or streetcar line on Cherry St. I'm not sure if it may not be more worthwhile to just drive the 2 or 3 km to wherever in downtown and pay the premium for parking. I imagine the apartments in this area won't be cheap, save for a few subsidize units. I imagine the people moving in could afford it.
I have no data, so I'm just talk out of my head, but I don't think we can count it out if there's no firm commitment to actually building the transit that's planned for the area.
drum118
Superstar
There are firm plans for transit on the waterfront to the point the Queens Quay E extension was to be built by now, but is $375m short in doing so and the city not willing to pickup up the cost.
In fact, that extra cost is for TTC dumb idea for Union Station Loop that cause an other cost at Yonge St. If the line stay on the surface, there would be a cost saving of $250m.
Under the original master plan developed by Waterfront Toronto, approved by TTC Commission and City Council in 2006, there was an LRT line on the Lake Shore from Yonge to Victoria Park, but TTC removed it as it was going to the province for approval.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
And anyone who drives the Gardiner every morning during rush hour, as I do, would see that it is busier going out of town than it is coming into town. I go from Dufferin to the DVP and its wide open heading Eastbound, but always bumper to bumper going Westbound.
The PM rush hour, its usually busy going both ways though.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Upcoming Event
http://www.gardinereast.ca/
We invite you to join us at the third public meeting where you can comment on the results of the evaluation of the alternative solutions for the future of the Gardiner Expressway East.
Gardiner East Expressway Public Meeting
Thursday, 6 February 2014
6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at The Bram & Bluma Appel Salon, Toronto Reference Library,
789 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4W 2G8
Open house begins at 6:30 p.m.; presentations at 7:00 p.m.
http://www.gardinereast.ca/
We invite you to join us at the third public meeting where you can comment on the results of the evaluation of the alternative solutions for the future of the Gardiner Expressway East.
Gardiner East Expressway Public Meeting
Thursday, 6 February 2014
6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at The Bram & Bluma Appel Salon, Toronto Reference Library,
789 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4W 2G8
Open house begins at 6:30 p.m.; presentations at 7:00 p.m.
TFC
Active Member
The number of people driving would be reduced if there was a disincentive to driving...say road tolls, congestion tolls or higher vehicle operating costs. However, because disincentives regarding driving are frowned upon in North America and particularly in Toronto, nothing will change and people will continue to drive in large numbers.
Cost influences everything. Until we're willing to increase the cost of driving, behaviours will stay the same.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Canadian Chocho
Active Member
This might be wishful thinking but I hope this doesn't become a big politicized and devisive issue bringing out the worst in people in this city. Wishful I know. I actually think any of the four options would help to some degree. I do believe that there are some solutions that are better then others and I definitely prefer some to tothers but I don't think the sky will fall if we choose option a, b, c, or d.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Hopefully this and the airport vote happen before October, They are the two issues I tend to lean on the "conservative" side of things, and while I plan to vote progressively in October I'd rather not have to lose the gardiner.
Found this interesting paper on the impacts of the removal of the Embarcadero and Central Expressways in San Francisco: http://www.uctc.net/papers/836.pdf
"We conclude that freeway-to-boulevard conversions, a form of urban re-prioritization that gives more emphasis to neighborhood quality and less to automobility, have yielded net positive benefits without seriously sacrificing transportation performance."
"In addition, a decade-plus since the Embarcadero Freeway and major segments of the Central Freeway were torn down, traffic snarls are no worse than in other corridors of the city, due to most traffic finding alternative routes, switching modes, or changing their travel behavior."
"We conclude that freeway-to-boulevard conversions, a form of urban re-prioritization that gives more emphasis to neighborhood quality and less to automobility, have yielded net positive benefits without seriously sacrificing transportation performance."
"In addition, a decade-plus since the Embarcadero Freeway and major segments of the Central Freeway were torn down, traffic snarls are no worse than in other corridors of the city, due to most traffic finding alternative routes, switching modes, or changing their travel behavior."
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The difference is that the Embarcadero Freeway was for local trips only. 100% of trips on the freeway began or ended on it, and it largely paralleled The I-80. The I-80 remains to service the majority of trips that the Embarcadero served, and thus it's demolition has had little effect. It is different for the Gardiner, which serves as a fairly busy throughfare and the trips it makes cannot easily be replaced with other routes. most of the traffic already on it will continue to use the route after its demolition.
I would be fully supportive of ripping up the Gardiner if it served the same purpose that the Embarcadero freeway served, but it doesn't. People would be screaming bloody murder if they wanted to rip up the I-80, and that is a better parallel to make.
I would be fully supportive of ripping up the Gardiner if it served the same purpose that the Embarcadero freeway served, but it doesn't. People would be screaming bloody murder if they wanted to rip up the I-80, and that is a better parallel to make.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'm split. If we can get rid of the Gardiner with little impact on travel times then I'm all for it. I'll be waiting to read the reports before making a final judement.
City staff endorsing the removal hopefully means that removal wouldn't have as negative of an impact on traffic flow as some of us had feared.
Last edited:
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
What do you consider to be the conservative stance on the Gardiner?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
the fact that I want to keep (conserve) it?
TFC
Active Member
I wish council actually trusted their staff.