FNTS
Active Member
You crossed the Gardiner on foot? That must have been tricky, dodging all those cars.
Dang, you caught me. It wasn't easy either with all the climbing gear I had to bring to climb on top of it first
|
|
|
You crossed the Gardiner on foot? That must have been tricky, dodging all those cars.
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?
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.
Again, you don't improve the city by punishing drivers - you improve the city by building better alternatives.
Further, you don't make proper decisions about city infrastructure based on what is cheapest to maintain - you make decisions based on what the needs are, both now and in the future.
Well, you actually DO improve the city by punishing drivers, that's what congestion charges do, for instance. And how does tearing down the Gardiner impede building better transit alternatives? Construction of the DRL is still a priority. There's even the possibility of adding transit to the new Lakeshore.
To me the "pedestrian experience" is simply, how hard is it to cross the road? From that point of view, an 8-lane super-Lakeshore is harder than the existing Lakeshore. The pedestrian experience would be worse, IMO. Further, there are plenty of ways to massively improve the pedestrian experience while still maintaining an elevated highway above.
Not as wide, they are downtown 4-lane roads, but it again gets back to what people actually find objectionable about the Gardiner as it relates to the pedestrian experience below. If you object to a lack of light and trees, etc - then the Chicago example is an appropriate analogy.
Let me rephrase, you can't punish drivers until there is a better solution in place. And Toronto has a long way to go until that's a reality.
That PDF is laughable. What does cycling have to do with it, for example - Are they going to put bike lanes on the new super-Lakeshore?!
You just managed to undermine your own definition of "pedestrian experience" - if it was just crossing the existing Lakeshore, how would one "massively improve" the pedestrian experience short of cutting lanes?
Even if it just looks like this (another option being studied) it will be a huge improvement from what currently exists:
Disagree - that may *look* prettier but it's far less functional IMO.
In what ways?