Euphoria
Active Member
How about trees, bike paths, and public art?
|
|
|
Civdis
Active Member
The Gardiner is not the barrier people like to make it out to be. Lakeshore Boulevard is the problem. I feel like I'm taking my life in my hands crossing that artery. We should keep the Gardiner but spend some money making it a little more aesthetically pleasing, especially underneath it as they are doing in the west end. As the city grows up around the Gardiner, it becomes much less of an issue. We need a variety of transportation options.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Again, I really don't buy this argument that it'll reconnect the city to the lake, for two reasons:
1. The area south of the rail tracks is a slim strip of industrial land - as little as 150 meters wide in some parts. You can't (and will never be able to) build much there.
2. The Gardiner isn't an obstacle to development. Want proof? Look at the waterfront west of Jarvis. It's packed with pedestrians and people biking/rollerblading in the summer, and there's a lot of development. The real barrier is a high-capacity surface boulevard (particularly the Cherry Street intersection) and a lack of public transit. Rebuilding Lakeshore as an eight-lane, 70 kph road is going to create an even larger barrier if anything. It's not going to be a pedestrian-friendly boulevard, it's going to be something like Highway 7 in Woodbridge.
#2 is the big issue. If it's done right, the Hybrid option can mean a much more pedestrian-friendly road that's built for local traffic - fewer lanes, lower speeds, a multi-use trail and an LRT to Union Station, and that'll to a much better job "reconnecting" the city to the lake than a congested 8-lane high-speed road.
Euphoria
Active Member
I always shake my head after leaving the St. Lawrence Market and the old York area to visit the waterfront. It's such a substandard connection to walk across and under such a bleak corridor. Neither Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, New York, Paris, or London would accept this. It's poor.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Boston did accept that. The only reason why they buried I-93 was insane traffic congestion - imagine the DVP but all the traffic has to merge into two lanes at Lawrence, and you get a good idea of what the original central artery was like.
New York currently does accept that. There's an elevated freeway along the entire east side of Manhattan, another along half of the west side, and a third that completely encircles Brooklyn.
San Francisco also accepts that, unless you call this a walkable boulevard.
Chicago is a pretty clear example of what a removal option would look like. Lake Shore Drive is an elevated freeway in some parts, and the non-elevated parts form a real barrier between the city and the lake. It's ten lanes of traffic that is always either freeway-speed or very congested, neither of which is particularly "walkable". The most accessible part of the waterfront is the Navy Pier, where the road is an elevated freeway.
I'm not going to compare Toronto to cities that were built in the 17th century.
44 North
Senior Member
Agreed, it is very bleak under there. I'm okay with the Gardiner and concept of an elevated expwy, but I'd be a fool to say it doesn't stymie the gateway to our waterfront. Lake Shore is a real barrier, but the Gardiner is like a dark ugly shroud to this barrier.
There are improvements here and there, and what we've done with the Richmond/Adelaide/Eastern flyover is nothing short of phenomenal. But with the Gardiner, particularly the central section where we see tens of thousands walk under every day (not to mention drive under), the City really should create some kind of taskforce to find quick and easy improvements to the streetscape. It needn't cost us an arm and leg either, and s.37 could go a long way. Unless there are regulations preventing painting, illuminating, and decorating a bridge structure/elevated highway, we should tackle this issue. Even while rehab work continues.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Good ol' Toronto will fail and approve condo after condo down there.
Euphoria
Active Member
A few condos and some retail can enliven an area and prevent the 'no man's land' phenomenon. The point is to repair the urban fabric and improve connectivity. The scale and street grid of Old York is so liveable and older than anything in Chicago, most of which was rebuilt after the Great Fire in the early 20th century. Waterfront Toronto is trying to recreate this grid pattern and scale along the lake, but the effort is half-baked with the Gardiner and it's associated ramps blowing a hole through the area.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Indeed. One of the key issues isn't having an elevated expressway per se, but how the current design of the Gardiner and Lakeshore combo work together to make that stretch sterile. It didn't have to be at that way. If the Gardiner was anything like the stretch around Fort York, it wouldn't have been that much of a problem.
AoD
ADRM
Senior Member
Exactly; nail on the head. I've taken scores of international guests around the city and to the waterfront and, uniformly, they A) love what the city's done with the waterfront (wave decks, H2O park, etc.), and B) can't fathom how we invested all that money in those transformative projects and then did nearly nothing to improve the quality of the pedestrian experience of actually getting there.
What I'd love to see (well, what I think might be best-case scenario given that our current council is generally loathe to spending money on anything close to resembling city-building) is a privately funded (a la Bentway), internationally-tendered design competition aimed at reconnecting the pedestrian realm north of both the Gardiner and Lakeshore to our now-awesome waterfront.
Attack (what I assume are) the most highly trafficked and strategically important corridors (York, Yonge, Lowe Simcoe, Rees, Spadina, and maybe Bay), and focus on wayfinding, physical pedestrian and cyclist safety (both at crossings and along sidewalks), and attractiveness/general excellence in design aesthetics.
That'd actually make for a pretty interesting NXT City Prize project for next year...
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Think that people will no longer drive into downtown Toronto, should they implement a toll on city owned expressway?
Why are so many people still driving into New York City?
Toll Prices (U.S. Dollars) for the Most Popular Tunnels & Bridges around New York City
And we're worried about $2.00 (Canadian)
Why are so many people still driving into New York City?
Toll Prices (U.S. Dollars) for the Most Popular Tunnels & Bridges around New York City
George Washington Bridge, connects New Jersey/Manhattan, $15.00 (Eastbound ONLY)
Lincoln Tunnel, connects New Jersey/Manhattan, $15.00 (Inbound to NYC ONLY)
Holland Tunnel, connects New Jersey/Manhattan, $15.00 (Inbound to NYC ONLY)
Queens Midtown Tunnel, connects Manhattan/Queens, $8.00 (Each Way)
Hugh L Carey Tunnel, connects Manhattan/Brooklyn, $8.00 (Each Way)
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, connects Staten Island/Brooklyn, $16.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Bayonne Bridge, connects New Jersey/Staten Island, $15.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Goethals Bridge, connects New Jersey/Staten Island, $15.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Outerbridge Crossing, connects New Jersey/Staten Island, $15.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Lincoln Tunnel, connects New Jersey/Manhattan, $15.00 (Inbound to NYC ONLY)
Holland Tunnel, connects New Jersey/Manhattan, $15.00 (Inbound to NYC ONLY)
Queens Midtown Tunnel, connects Manhattan/Queens, $8.00 (Each Way)
Hugh L Carey Tunnel, connects Manhattan/Brooklyn, $8.00 (Each Way)
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, connects Staten Island/Brooklyn, $16.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Bayonne Bridge, connects New Jersey/Staten Island, $15.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Goethals Bridge, connects New Jersey/Staten Island, $15.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
Outerbridge Crossing, connects New Jersey/Staten Island, $15.00 (Inbound Staten Island ONLY)
And we're worried about $2.00 (Canadian)
sixrings
Senior Member
WKLIS add some new York parking prices and it explains why Mercedes is the car of NYC.
Euphoria
Active Member
I'm not against tolls per se. It's a matter of what we get for them, because no matter how you slice it, the tolls represent a net increase in revenue collection. I will concede that there is an interesting, very urban effect where the Gardiner is most surrounded by development, at locations like the northwest corner of York St. and the Gardiner and places where the Gardiner forms a kind of canopy for a programmed space, such as the entrance to a condo, but the space has to be virtually flood-lit and given over to market kiosks, public art, and pedestrian/cyclist uses. I know this is the intent of the Bentway. As long as we keep the option of straight removal or underground replacement on the table for down the road, we can see what these other interventions achieve. Leaving room for a future off ramp between the Ordinance Triangle and the western edge of the Rail Deck Park would at least keep the dream of burial or simple removal of the Gardiner alive. The right of way could be hidden from view by development. I'm just not quite sure whether the current city plans -- Bentway, York ramp replacement, Gardiner East Hybrid Option, tolls on the Gardiner and DVP -- will be sufficient improvements, and they will set a certain course for future development and uses of an area of growing importance, especially as the Port Lands and the Unilever site become significant communities that will need to feel connected to the rest of the city.
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
ADRM
Senior Member
The new-ish MOVE NY plan also posits the implementation of a congestion charge of almost USD $6 for all vehicles traveling below 60th St. in Manhattan (where local, non-highway traffic is typically worst on the island). Given that four of the bridges mentioned earlier are below 60th, it would effectively add $6 to the existing tolls on each of those routes (though there are side proposals to mitigate that effect).
Puts a proposed $2 toll on two commuting routes into perspective, though granted it's a somewhat different calculus given the vastly superior rail transit in NYC.
Annually, the tolls derive about $2.56 billion in revenue for NYC.
If you assume the numbers in this Forbes article are correct, there are almost 6,000 miles of toll routes across the US which raise a collective $13 billion in revenue annually. Here are the top-earning toll agencies in the country, from that article:
Puts a proposed $2 toll on two commuting routes into perspective, though granted it's a somewhat different calculus given the vastly superior rail transit in NYC.
Annually, the tolls derive about $2.56 billion in revenue for NYC.
If you assume the numbers in this Forbes article are correct, there are almost 6,000 miles of toll routes across the US which raise a collective $13 billion in revenue annually. Here are the top-earning toll agencies in the country, from that article: