Even the lighting makes a difference. Going through the railway underpass on Simcoe Street is so much more pleasant than pretty much anywhere else.
|
|
|
FNTS
Active Member
BMO
Senior Member
I don't see a report. it says the findings will be presented at a PIC tomorrow evening.
FNTS
Active Member
You're right, they only presented the Preliminary Evaluation Results Matrix.
http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/default/files//media/Preliminary Evaluation Results Matrix_0.pdf
http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/default/files//media/Preliminary Evaluation Results Matrix_0.pdf
BMO
Senior Member
shocker...preferred option is for removal. What's funny is that maintaining has the second most preferreds and I suspect if they even looked at an underground option it would have a bunch more greens (especially for urbans design/ environment, and even cycling and pedestrian transportation) except for direct cost/benefit
Last edited:
bobbob911
Active Member
How is traffic going to flow down the DVP and onto the Gardiner if they remove this piece? Its so asinine it defies belief that we are even entertaining it. Anyone who thinks the pedestrian or car experience will be improved by doing this has never actually been in that area of town, plain and simple.
Fix it/rebuild it and spend some money improving the pedestrian experience below the Gardiner. Win/Win.
Fix it/rebuild it and spend some money improving the pedestrian experience below the Gardiner. Win/Win.
FNTS
Active Member
Car experience probably won't be improved, but for some of us that's a good thing if we're trying to disincentive the use of the car. Pedestrian experience won't be improved? are you kidding me? I used to live two blocks from the Gardiner and had to cross it everyday on foot, and trust me, removing that monstrosity will improve it a whole lot. And not only that, it will improve the neighbourhood and the city as a whole.
bobbob911
Active Member
The way to disincentive car use is to improve other methods of transportation, not simply punish the car drivers.
The only change to the pedestrian experience will be no overhead highway - the crossing experience would still be exactly the same if not worse. I can't see how its better to have an 8 lane at-grade super-Lakeshore to cross than it is the existing Lakeshore.
If you want to really improve the pedestrian crossing experience, why not simply have elevated pedestrian walkways between the lakeshore and gardiner?
The only change to the pedestrian experience will be no overhead highway - the crossing experience would still be exactly the same if not worse. I can't see how its better to have an 8 lane at-grade super-Lakeshore to cross than it is the existing Lakeshore.
If you want to really improve the pedestrian crossing experience, why not simply have elevated pedestrian walkways between the lakeshore and gardiner?
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
[h=2]Long over due for taking it down and needs to west to York St.
Add this to this mess:
Port Lands Planning Framework & Transportation and Servicing Master Plan[/h]Public Meeting Details
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2014
Time: Drop-in from 6:30-7 p.m./Presentation and Facilitated Discussion from 7 to 9 p.m.
Location: EMS Training Centre (Toronto Fire Academy) - 895 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, ON (southwest corner of Eastern Avenue and Knox Avenue). See map.
TTC: Take the 501 Queen street car towards Woodbine Avenue and exit near Greenwood Avenue.
Parking: Parking is available on site.
Accessibility: Fully accessible
Add this to this mess:
Port Lands Planning Framework & Transportation and Servicing Master Plan[/h]Public Meeting Details
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2014
Time: Drop-in from 6:30-7 p.m./Presentation and Facilitated Discussion from 7 to 9 p.m.
Location: EMS Training Centre (Toronto Fire Academy) - 895 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, ON (southwest corner of Eastern Avenue and Knox Avenue). See map.
TTC: Take the 501 Queen street car towards Woodbine Avenue and exit near Greenwood Avenue.
Parking: Parking is available on site.
Accessibility: Fully accessible
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not that I am particularly sold on tearing down the Gardiner as the solution yet - but imagine University as is - and then imagine having University and trying to cross it with a Gardiner-like expressway above it. I dare anyone to tell me that the crossing experience it is "exactly the same".
AoD
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
They should at least have something like this:
You crossed the Gardiner on foot? That must have been tricky, dodging all those cars.
bobbob911
Active Member
Well first of all that's a false equivalence, since the new lakeshore would be massively wider than the existing one.
But, what exactly is the objection - a practical one, or an aesthetic one? Practically, yes the experience is exactly the same. Is it a little less pleasant to be walking under a concrete bunker, sure - but why on earth would we make transportation decisions based primarily on aesthetic considerations?
If you've been to Chicago, the roads in the loop underneath the El lines are not particularly pleasant to walk under either, but the trade-off is well worth the experience.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
And it is also a false equivalence that the ambience of the avenue and how the urban design elements will be handled is exactly the same way. Please don't tell me that adding an additional lane each way will necessarily make having a hulking mass overhead desirable, which leads us to the second point:
Well, that's changing the subject of your argument - considering you brought up "pedestrian experience" as a point of debate. It's not just a transportation decision - it is a planning one.
Now, just how wide are the overhead EL lines vs. the Gardiner? Like I've said, I haven't really made up my mind re: teardown vs. maintain. I tend to lean towards improve myself.
Last edited:
FNTS
Active Member
It's not only a transportation decision, it's a city-building decision as well. It's also an economic decision, patching up the Gardiner every once in a while to make it safe for cars and pedestrians is more expensive than tearing it down in the long run, on top of potential revenue lost from property taxes if this area were to be redeveloped.