[Euphoria]

The current elevated Gardiner and the Hybrid Gardiner East plan are pure mediocrity and always will be. People on here whine about the expense of Boston's Big Dig, even though we'd face half the challenges of that project and our tunnels would pale in size by comparison. The facts on the ground are that they pulled it off; we didn't. The seam that once existed in that city is disappearing beneath infill projects, public art, markets, and greenery. Grow a pair and achieve one great project for the city that isn't a another watered down box in the sky by a private developer. The Rogers Centre and CN Tower are getting long in the tooth...

 

[pman]

Toronto...the city that puts what meagre infrastructure dollars it has into an expressway in its most densely populated neighbourhood and subway extensions in its least densely populated neighbourhoods (and beyond). The city whose mayor and council voted against using real data and objective analysis in making transit infrastructure decisions. Because, to paraphrase Rob Ford...Suburbs, Suburbs, Suburbs!

 

[ADRM]

I'll just say this again - What would you rather have by the lake: this road or this road? People love to romanticize the "boulevard", but in reality it would be Highway 7 - two-stage crossings for pedestrians and eight lanes of busy traffic moving at 70-80 km/h between the city and the lake. The barrier will still be there, but instead of a bridge it'll literally be a wall.

That's a great argument to make a potential boulevard here a break from our tradition of building crappy roads, not one in favour of maintaining a crappy, old, elevated blight.

 

[amnesiajune]

Lake Shore is already somewhat of a pedestrian impediment with some two-stage crossings and 6 lanes of busy traffic moving quickly.

My point is that a removal vs. a refurbishing/partial replacement of the Gardiner will make absolutely no difference to the Waterfront. The only impact a removal would have is more traffic, not just on the lake but throughout downtown as people take alternate routes, since a road designed for 50,000-60,000 cars per day will be replacing two roads that move a combined 150,000. (Let's not kid ourselves, there is no way that the TTC or Go Transit will absorb 125,000 new daily trips on a handful of specific routes)

Want to revitalize the waterfront? Build transit! That's how Queen's Quay West is doing so well. The freeway hasn't been an obstacle to development or pedestrians over there. You go on any day in the summer and it's packed with people, virtually none of whom drove there. They take the streetcar or they simply walk across Lakeshore Boulevard, something that would take longer if the Gardiner was removed and Lakeshore's capacity was increased by widening it and increasing traffic speeds.

 

[PinkLucy]

I live near QQW; it's a zoo in the summer. A lot of those people do drive there. And they don't simply walk across Lake Shore -- they dodge and dart because crossing Lake Shore, particularly at Spadina as noted earlier but elsewhere too, sucks. QQW is doing well because of its location not because of its design. Personally I like the design but there are many threads and posts by people who don't, who find it confusing and problematic. And when you live in the area, you know that it has added to the congestion. It's a victim of its own success.

 

[salsa]

My point is that a removal vs. a refurbishing/partial replacement of the Gardiner will make absolutely no difference to the Waterfront. The only impact a removal would have is more traffic, not just on the lake but throughout downtown as people take alternate routes, since a road designed for 50,000-60,000 cars per day will be replacing two roads that move a combined 150,000. (Let's not kid ourselves, there is no way that the TTC or Go Transit will absorb 125,000 new daily trips on a handful of specific routes)

Want to revitalize the waterfront? Build transit! That's how Queen's Quay West is doing so well. The freeway hasn't been an obstacle to development or pedestrians over there. You go on any day in the summer and it's packed with people, virtually none of whom drove there. They take the streetcar or they simply walk across Lakeshore Boulevard, something that would take longer if the Gardiner was removed and Lakeshore's capacity was increased by widening it and increasing traffic speeds.

"Nobody wants a roadway with two stage crossings!"

Says people who should try walking there more often, who seem unaware that it already exists at a lot of locations.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

The one that doesn't have three stage crossings or missing crosswalks in some areas. The one that also has bike lanes, trees and a quality public realm that you happen to get while spending much less money than the alternative, and that was deemed to be far more preferable in almost every possible way by a highly competent team of consultants whose work was peer reviewed twice and went through multiple rounds of public consultation.

This sounds like a fantasy street to me Both Lakeshore and the gardner are extremely busy most times during the day replacing the gardener with what is described won''t allow the capacity for traffic it needs to have. If you take down the gardner and close off lakeshore downtown Toronto will be a mess as people in the south end of the city are trying to get across it or poel from mississauga and hamilton that are in the southern sections are doing the same as well.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I live near QQW; it's a zoo in the summer. A lot of those people do drive there. And they don't simply walk across Lake Shore -- they dodge and dart because crossing Lake Shore, particularly at Spadina as noted earlier but elsewhere too, sucks. QQW is doing well because of its location not because of its design. Personally I like the design but there are many threads and posts by people who don't, who find it confusing and problematic. And when you live in the area, you know that it has added to the congestion. It's a victim of its own success.

The design from an urban design perspective is just fine - that's what the priority is, and it served the purpose. The previous design, which maximized road space, didn't.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's a great argument to make a potential boulevard here a break from our tradition of building crappy roads, not one in favour of maintaining a crappy, old, elevated blight.

We already had that - it's called University Avenue, and I most definitely prefer that over the current Lakeshore/Gardiner combo. Let's not forget, when we talk about the Gardiner, it isn't just that - but the mass of ramps as well.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

We already had that - it's called University Avenue, and I most definitely prefer that over the current Lakeshore/Gardiner combo.

University Avenue moves 50,000 cars per day. The Lakeshore/Gardiner combo moves 150,000. Could traffic volume on University Avenue be tripled, or even just doubled, without causing a ridiculous amount of congestion?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

University Avenue moves 50,000 cars per day. The Lakeshore/Gardiner combo moves 150,000. Could traffic volume on University Avenue be tripled, or even just doubled, without causing a ridiculous amount of congestion?

Well, I am not the one who brought up the Highway 7 vs. overhead Gardiner/Lakeshore-plex comparison and then asked for one's preference. So let's not wrap this whole thing around whether it makes a difference to the waterfront (because it does), but whether and what can and should be done instead.

AoD

 

[Palma]

I'll just say this again - What would you rather have by the lake: this road or this road? People love to romanticize the "boulevard", but in reality it would be Highway 7 - two-stage crossings for pedestrians and eight lanes of busy traffic moving at 70-80 km/h between the city and the lake. The barrier will still be there, but instead of a bridge it'll literally be a wall.

i cannot believe how ugly that gardiner is

 

[pman]

i cannot believe how ugly that gardiner is

But on the plus side, it fits in well with the rest of the city's esthetic.

 

[hawc]

Induced Demand Theory means there's not point in doing any traffic planning at all.

You build more roads to reduce congestions and more traffic flows in because it's easier to drive and the congestion is right back where it was.

You tear down roads and there's temporarily more congestion, but very quickly drivers learn to avoid that area and it returns to normal.

Induced Demand Theory means it's all a fool's errand.

(And unfortunately the same applies to transit planning too. You can never build enough because the more you build the more people flow in to fill it.)

 

[nfitz]

(And unfortunately the same applies to transit planning too. You can never build enough because the more you build the more people flow in to fill it.)

Yeah, that's why the Sheppard subway always has people lined up to wait for the next train ...

Yes, you can do transit planning - because you can handle the latent demand on transit. You can't with highways - unless you build something of unprecedented scale.