[Tuscani01]

And who will access this underside park?

The thousands of people who will be living in this area? Who accesses Underpass Park just north of here?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It will be for the area east of Cherry... that's the extra acreage that would be opened up under the remove option.

Actually nope, if you look at the plans, the area is going to be bounded by ramps. It's definitely not that simple an analogue.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

Actually nope, if you look at the plans, the area is going to be bounded by ramps. It's definitely not that simple an analogue.



AoD

I only see one ramp, under one side of the Gardiner. The other side is still free of any roadway. Also, a ramp doesn't prevent access to the space. You can walk under the ramps today. What makes you think it will be any different then?

 

[dowlingm]

One thing that I think needs more study in this matter is the future usage of the Harbour Lead Rail Line. Some of the renders don't even include the line. At the same time, if the Don Roadway-LSBE junction isn't elevated from current position then increased rail usage will result in congestion with the increased traffic pressure going east-west encountering turning traffic which cannot proceed.

 

[arcum]

I still think they should go with a modified "Replace" option.

The reduced elevated 4-lane structure can act as "Express" lanes connecting the Gardiner to DVP the Lakeshore (East of the Don). The 6-lane Boulevard below acts as "Collector" lanes servicing Jarvis, Parliament, Sherbourne, and Cherry.

The reduced 4-lane expressway cross-section could have a lower design speed with tighter curves to maximize the existing space (Basically mimic the Boulevard alignment).

This would really give it a nice aesthetic, modern look. Everyone wins (IMO). Costs be damned!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I only see one ramp, under one side of the Gardiner. The other side is still free of any roadway. Also, a ramp doesn't prevent access to the space. You can walk under the ramps today. What makes you think it will be any different then?

That's only true for the stretch immediately beside Keating - the bit immediately east of Cherry is hemmed in by two ramps, for example - and it's been acknowledged that these ramps tend to have an even more deleterious effect on the urban realm than the expressway itself. The point being, you can't use examples free of these features and use it as an argument that somehow it can be translated - the space won't be used in the same way and certainly won't have the same urban design qualities.

I still think they should go with a modified "Replace" option.

The reduced elevated 4-lane structure can act as "Express" lanes connecting the Gardiner to DVP the Lakeshore (East of the Don). The 6-lane Boulevard below acts as "Collector" lanes servicing Jarvis, Parliament, Sherbourne, and Cherry.

The reduced 4-lane expressway cross-section could have a lower design speed with tighter curves to maximize the existing space (Basically mimic the Boulevard alignment).

This would really give it a nice aesthetic, modern look. Everyone wins (IMO). Costs be damned!

I don't disagree, but if you are going to spend that much, you might as well bury it.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

That's only true for the stretch immediately beside Keating - the bit immediately east of Cherry is hemmed in by two ramps, for example - and it's been acknowledged that these ramps tend to have an even more deleterious effect on the urban realm than the expressway itself. The point being, you can't use examples free of these features and use it as an argument that somehow it can be translated - the space won't be used in the same way and certainly won't have the same urban design qualities.

AoD

The point is that we have to work with what we've got. The Gardiner vote is likely going to result in it staying up. It's time to start thinking about what we can do with the space. If the ramps are going to be a problem, then its something we need to fight for. Giving up just because we are losing the keep vs. remove battle is just going to lead to the outcome that nobody wants for the waterfront. There are still many small moves that can be made to turn this into a decent space and im not going to just put my hands in my pocket and accept things as-is like so many are quick to do around here. No other city does that. Toronto shouldn't either.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The point is that we have to work with what we've got. The Gardiner vote is likely going to result in it staying up. It's time to start thinking about what we can do with the space. If the ramps are going to be a problem, then its something we need to fight for. Giving up just because we are losing the keep vs. remove battle is just going to lead to the outcome that nobody wants for the waterfront. There are still many small moves that can be made to turn this into a decent space and im not going to just put my hands in my pocket and accept things as-is like so many are quick to do around here. No other city does that. Toronto shouldn't either.

Oh me neither, but I am not going to even seriously consider that until the battle has been fought. On the alternate, one should read up the original Gardiner Expressway Transformation study by van Nostrand, Brook McIlroy, pA/aA/rA back in what, 2003. It's very much a lipstick on a pig scheme, but it's a starting point. The ramps definitely had to go. That plan also considers far more radical surgery like narrowing Lakeshore and pulling it out from underneath the expressway, which will entail another round of EA.

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The Boulevard option gives us 8-lanes.

That is enough for both through-lanes and service-lanes. I believe there is a solution to be found there to maintain through-traffic, addresses the needs of all users, make traffic lights a non-issue, and gives drivers more options.

Nobody on the Hybrid side are pro-Hybrid because they like elevated structures. They are pro-hybrid because they care about through-traffic and traffic lights. If the boulevard option addresses these concerns, then what leg do Hybrid advocates stand on?

 

[arcum]

I don't disagree, but if you are going to spend that much, you might as well bury it.

AoD

Yes, that would be the way to go.

I have an idea: Let's have the condo developers who are waiting in the wings to reap hundreds of millions in profit help pay for it! Or even use Tax Increment Financing!

 

[Tuscani01]

Oh me neither, but I am not going to even seriously consider that until the battle has been fought. On the alternate, one should read up the original Gardiner Expressway Transformation study by van Nostrand, Brook McIlroy, pA/aA/rA back in what, 2003. It's very much a lipstick on a pig scheme, but it's a starting point. The ramps definitely had to go.

AoD

Agreeing that the ramps need to go, isn't this what the remove side should now be fighting for? By sticking with outright opposition, we are missing out on an opportunity to shape the Gardiner in a way that will be a little more beneficial for the waterfront. My worry is that the maintain option will pass as planned, and that we are going to be stuck with one hell of an eye sore simply because everyone was too busy fighting the project altogether to even think about ways to make it work.

Really, the maintain option should have a plan that improves the underside of the Gardiner and makes it a more pleasing space. As currently proposed, it is nothing more than gravel and dirt.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, that would be the way to go.

I have an idea: Let's have the condo developers who are waiting in the wings to reap hundreds of millions in profit help pay for it! Or even use Tax Increment Financing!

Or put a toll on it alongside?

Agreeing that the ramps need to go, isn't this what the remove side should now be fighting for? By sticking with outright opposition, we are missing out on an opportunity to shape the Gardiner in a way that will be a little more beneficial for the waterfront. My worry is that the maintain option will pass as planned, and that we are going to be stuck with one hell of an eye sore simply because everyone was too busy fighting the project altogether to even think about ways to make it work.

Really, the maintain option should have a plan that improves the underside of the Gardiner and makes it a more pleasing space. As currently proposed, it is nothing more than gravel and dirt.

I don't see it that way - I see it as a fight for the best - and if the best couldn't make it, then we consider less the good options - and realistically, the reason we will be stuck with one hell of an eyesore isn't because of this choice, but the willingness to spend money on the problem, and that constant won't be changed by a vote to keep the Gardiner.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

How does the removal of this section of Gardiner compare to the section removed in 2002 (1.3km east of the Don River)? As referenced in this file (Page 23): http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gs_theses

It seems like that would be a great case to compare to. Did the removal of the Gardiner east of the Don River result in Urban Euphoria?

Yes. Anyone living west of Leslie no longer had to double back on Queen or Dundas (after travelling the residential part of Leslie north of Queen) to get to Leslieville or Riverdale, they could turn at Carlaw. Lake Shore was massively improved from Coxwell to Don Roadway, both the roadway and the bike paths, greenery, etc.

The tearing down of the stub may have been the single greatest improvement in South Riverdale ever, and may very well have been the main cause for the area going from a very run down east end working class community to today's funky, thriving neighbourhood where everyone can now have a coffee at Te Aro and whinge about too much construction on Carlaw.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Another point which I wished I discussed in more detail is the psychological effects of the removal of this infrastructure. Humans are illogical creatures. While the boulevard may not be all that much slower than the current highway, people will see this gap in the highway network and choose to avoid it, likely taking the congested 401. For example, there are bus routes which are faster than some slower stretches of our subways, yet people still perceive them to be inferior to subways and would likely avoid travelling on these routes.

And wouldn't that be FANTASTIC? Oh, you meant this as a negative? Sorry, that would be a major positive and part of the induced reduction in demand.

 

[Electrify]

And wouldn't that be FANTASTIC? Oh, you meant this as a negative? Sorry, that would be a major positive and part of the induced reduction in demand.

Except that the 401 is beyond capacity as we speak.