nfitz
Superstar
An elevated berm that looks like that EAST of Jarvis? Instead of just a surface street? That's even worse than the elevated solutions.
Last edited:
|
|
|
Good grief - build an elevated berm that looks like that EAST of Jarvis? Instead of just a surface street? That's even worse than the elevated solutions.
What kind of city-hating anti-environmentalist would think up such an absurd destruction of our city!?!
The amount of land sterilized by that unnecessary expressway does nothing for city building. I don't even know who the proponent is ... let alone their record. But proposing an expressway rather than a city street isn't city building; particularly one that you can't even use the underside.
It's endorsing a bad city-destroying decision. If they had any integrity, the'd propose a solution that doesn't look like an expressway - or at least allows for a usage underneath it.
It's endorsing a bad city-destroying decision. If they had any integrity, the'd propose a solution that doesn't look like an expressway - or at least allows for a usage underneath it.
Perhaps someone with Bedford's stature should be out there attacking what council has done, and campaigning to fix it, rather than endorsing council's decisions and playing along. He's no long a civil servant, and not bound to play along.
Perhaps this picture from the Star could help visualize what the berm would look like.
Aside: I really dislike Lakeshore Blvd in the west end just as much as the downtown segment. The road is very wide, every single intersection (like the one in the photo) has a terrible design that is extremely unfriendly to cyclists and pedestrians, and it wastes a lot of land on the waterfront:
One day I hope the city will completely rebuild the whole damn thing between Bathurst and Parklawn.
1. Shift the roadway north right up to the Gardiner so that it's away from the Martin Goodman trail. Right now it feels like you're cycling beside a highway with all the traffic noise.
2. The parks along the waterfront could be significantly expanded with all the new land that would be made available.
3. Rebuild all intersections to modern standards.
He's changed his mind then?Perhaps he knows better than you that it isn't an irredeemable choice like you've presented it to be?
He's changed his mind then?
I'd agree with this. Interestingly, your points about Lake Shore E+W are one of the main reasons I support an elevated, limited-access highway. As a pedestrian and cyclist, I hate that Lake Shore is like a highway. And I find that it's what really hampers waterfront access and the pedestrian realm. No doubt the Gardiner needs improvements, as well as its on/off ramps and how they meet the surface network. But if anything we should be narrowing Lake Shore, reducing its speed limit, and encouraging more Lake Shore drivers to use the Gardiner.
Lake Shore West I haven't given much thought about how it could be improved. But aligning it further north seems reasonable. The section between the Ex and Kingsway I find myself and the flow of traffic driving upwards of 90kmh, which is bs considering its within metres of playgrounds and people. I think there needs to be more of a buffer beyond a simple curb.