[junior43]

Even the Star disagrees with the recommendation (certainly surprised me)

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...expressway_would_fuel_gridlock_editorial.html

 

[nfitz]

Even the Star disagrees with the recommendation (certainly surprised me)

Keep in mind that the Toronto Star offices are at Yonge and Queens Quay. Anyone driving down the DVP to Star's office would be the most impacted, as the logical way into downtown (Richmond/Adelaide) doesn't apply to them. Google Maps says it's a 5-minute drive from Bloor/DVP to Yonge/Queens Quay ... and there's seldom much congestion in AM peak south of Richmond if you are getting off the Yonge ramp.

 

[junior43]

Keep in mind that the Toronto Star offices are at Yonge and Queens Quay. Anyone driving down the DVP to Star's office would be the most impacted, as the logical way into downtown (Richmond/Adelaide) doesn't apply to them. Google Maps says it's a 5-minute drive from Bloor/DVP to Yonge/Queens Quay ... and there's seldom much congestion in AM peak south of Richmond if you are getting off the Yonge ramp.

Ya I get that, it was meant as a bit of Fraud Nation joke. (The Star's full of car-hating, transit-taking latte sippers, blah blah blah)

Seriously though, does anyone find it funny Waterfront Toronto was involved in this study? Their mandate is to improve the waterfront. Even I don't need a study to come to this conclusion. Obviously removing the Gardiner improves the waterfront. But the Gardiner's impact to the entire city should be thought of. Also, with the Gardiner gone, Waterfront TO has more land to sell/develop and it will be worth more. It seems it could be perceived they have alterior motives in this study.

Also, on a side note, this will be red meat for Fraud Nation, I'm worried Ford may get a 'bump' in support if city council supports removal.

 

[Grimace]

I read that and wondered if the Star editorial board came to the conclusion that the remove option would have a better chance if they didn't support it. Takes away a talking point re: the latte sipping Toronto Star elitists.

 

[drum118]

Ya I get that, it was meant as a bit of Fraud Nation joke. (The Star's full of car-hating, transit-taking latte sippers, blah blah blah)

Seriously though, does anyone find it funny Waterfront Toronto was involved in this study? Their mandate is to improve the waterfront. Even I don't need a study to come to this conclusion. Obviously removing the Gardiner improves the waterfront. But the Gardiner's impact to the entire city should be thought of. Also, with the Gardiner gone, Waterfront TO has more land to sell/develop and it will be worth more. It seems it could be perceived they have alterior motives in this study.

Also, on a side note, this will be red meat for Fraud Nation, I'm worried Ford may get a 'bump' in support if city council supports removal.

Not really since the roads have an impact on the waterfront and the surrounding area.

We already remove 2 lanes of traffic on the Queens Quay. The Lake Shore and the Gardiner have an impact between Parliament and the Don Way as how to put in a development in that area.

The Portland is a chance to build something correct from day one and the current condition prevents it as well too many hands in the mess.

Since the City not willing to invest anymore money for the Waterfront, Waterfront Toronto has to find the money the best way it can to build it. It already $370m short for building the east extension of the QQ line as plan. Then there is the $50-$75m to rebuild the Cherry St underpass that is missing.

TTC removed the Lake Shore LRT line after everyone approved it when the master Transit Plan was sent to the province for final approval.

Other cities have removed roads like the Gardiner and they are better off with them gone.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Other cities have removed roads like the Gardiner and they are better off with them gone.

Exactly. And if Ford Nation is so worried about taxes they should look at the cost of maintaining what is there versus removing it. The cost is double.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Exactly. And if Ford Nation is so worried about taxes they should look at the cost of maintaining what is there versus removing it. The cost is double.

Well the Gardiner is a great way to find out who is a true fiscal conservative. These Ford Nation types sound a lot like tax and spend liberals, especially when it comes to the Scarborough Subway and the Gardiner.

 

[junior43]

Not really since the roads have an impact on the waterfront and the surrounding area.

We already remove 2 lanes of traffic on the Queens Quay. The Lake Shore and the Gardiner have an impact between Parliament and the Don Way as how to put in a development in that area.

The Portland is a chance to build something correct from day one and the current condition prevents it as well too many hands in the mess.

Since the City not willing to invest anymore money for the Waterfront, Waterfront Toronto has to find the money the best way it can to build it. It already $370m short for building the east extension of the QQ line as plan. Then there is the $50-$75m to rebuild the Cherry St underpass that is missing.

TTC removed the Lake Shore LRT line after everyone approved it when the master Transit Plan was sent to the province for final approval.

Other cities have removed roads like the Gardiner and they are better off with them gone.

So, in other words, Waterfront TO does have a vested interest in removing the Gardiner. They would be able to make money off this to fund their other projects. This is why I think they shouldn't have been involved in the study - at least not so much. I'm all for them being involved later if the decision was made to remove or improve, as they do very good work.

Also, people continue to mention other cities have done this successfully. How many of these other cities tore down part of their only ring road around their downtown/city? A lot of the examples I've seen are in cities where they already have a lot of expressways into their core.

Marcus Gee had a good column on this today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...diner-teardown-is-a-bad-idea/article16738128/

 

[innsertnamehere]

other than the fact that tearing it down would cost more than the land sales from it.. no, they can't make money from it. Tearing it down will be nothing but another expense.

I wouldn't be surprised if Waterfront Toronto started to get more funding once the new administration comes in.

 

[junior43]

other than the fact that tearing it down would cost more than the land sales from it.. no, they can't make money from it. Tearing it down will be nothing but another expense.

I wouldn't be surprised if Waterfront Toronto started to get more funding once the new administration comes in.

Would it not be the city paying for dismantling, then Waterfront TO getting the land to manage?

 

[ssiguy2]

There is also a "Should we preserve the Gardiner" thread.............as they are talking about the same thing perhaps they should be merged?

 

[Electrify]

^^Was just going to suggest this.

 

[Landscape design ftw]

I certainly Prefer the removal idea, I did a project in my final year of landscape design as a brain teaser more or less. My plan was aimed at the central downtown area, the building on the right is the ACC. Thought it was funny how similar the proposals section drawings were to my own, done with the same program.

 

[BurlOak]

I certainly Prefer the removal idea, I did a project in my final year of landscape design as a brain teaser more or less. My plan was aimed at the central downtown area, the building on the right is the ACC. Thought it was funny how similar the proposals section drawings were to my own, done with the same program.

The Windsor Exxex Parkway wanted trees planted on top of the tunnels there (they are actually bridges with about 1m of topsoil on them), but they determined that trees were much too heavy to be supported on a bridge and they went with grass and some bushes instead.

 

[nfitz]

The Windsor Exxex Parkway...

Did Exxon get the naming rights?