News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Tza said:
For those who have not see this yet ....

http://www.toviaduct.com/

I got all tingly and excited looking at the renderings. This would be the best possible option to ever happen which is probably why it will never happen. I can always dream I guess.
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen it yet (but now I have.) and all I can say is that this is so awesome. I think that for such a good space, the cost would surely be worth it. Even if the Condos in the piers is a rather Sci-Fi idea, it just seems like an amazing use of space. This is what my vote goes to out of all the other proposals.
 
Parts of the viaduct do have merit, for example, this could be part of a front street extension, or a reconstruction of the Gardiner from west of Dufferin once the old structure becomes to expensive to repair. It could free up a large amount of real estate currently occupied by the expressway.

However, there are a number of other projects that are in dire need of attention, mostly electrification and increased service and capacity on our rail corridors and a real transit plan for Downtown. Until these are figured, and assuming the money can be found and political support gained to build any variation on a new Gardiner, it will have to remain a pipe dream.
 
^ Or we could build the viaduct and charge tolls for cars and use revenue from shops, services, etc. that were built into the skypath to pay off the system.

I for one commend the viaduct people for at least offering an outside the box idea. It is a feasible idea and not one that should be dismissed out of hand. Combining the Gardiner and the rail tracks in one corridor is a space efficient idea. The addition of bike paths, LRT corridors and PATH extension are bonuses over and above what would be a significant accomplishment (getting rid of the Gardiner while maintaining its capacity and dealing with the real barrier: the rail corridor).
 
I don't know about you, but if given the choice I would never use a bike path that was suspended 100ft in the air without some sort of enclosure, especially when there are countless parallel alternatives. It's not fear of heights, but as soon as the unimpeded wind starts blowing, it is a pain to have to fight it. The wind is also stronger at a higher relative elevation.

In the plan, the Gardiner's capacity would not just be maintained, but increased. This could cause severe congestion for the other highway sections that lead up to it unless they were expanded likewise.

The Gardiner and DVP should be tolled regardless of what new infrastructure is decided on.

While the PATH extension is a nice idea, you have to consider how much power would be used to maintain a 6km long greenhouse with no insulation.

I won't be convinced that the rail corridor won't be as much of a barrier if the viaduct is built until i see some street level renders looking up at the structure. It's this, and not the vista from a helicopter that people will see every day.
 
dunkalunk said:
The Gardiner and DVP should be tolled regardless of what new infrastructure is decided on..
Click to expand...

Only if and when there is a reliable, affordable and fast alternative. Otherwise, this will spell disaster and drive business out to the 905 at a faster rate than is currently the case.
 
realtycoon said:
Only if and when there is a reliable, affordable and fast alternative. Otherwise, this will spell disaster and drive business out to the 905 at a faster rate than is currently the case.
Click to expand...

Not just businesses but residents too. Miller seems intent on doing that. Taking down Gardiner East without having effective transit in place is the first step.
 
realtycoon:

Only if and when there is a reliable, affordable and fast alternative
Click to expand...

As if using that stretch of the Gardiner is a fast alternative right now during rush hour...

Keithz:

Not just businesses but residents too. Miller seems intent on doing that. Taking down Gardiner East without having effective transit in place is the first step.
Click to expand...

I think you're a bit melodramatic about it - as if removing a small section of the highway will somehow be the end of the world. Interestingly, that's also the same arguments put forth when the eastern Gardiner stump was removed.

As to the viaduct - if you spend enough money, anything is feasible - that doesn't mean it's a good idea. One of the possiblity they should look into is rebuilding the Gardiner - have say a 2 lane (4 total) highway for through traffic, raised higher to mitigate the effect and divert the rest to a redesigned Lakeshore blvd.

Another observation - traffic on the Gardiner generates a lot of white noise that's very noticeable along Queen's Quay.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
realtycoon:
As if using that stretch of the Gardiner is a fast alternative right now during rush hour...
Click to expand...

It's still faster than taking most forms of public transit from the burbs to downtown. Outside of rush hour (which is really only a few hours each day) it's importance as a fast route is more obvious.


I think you're a bit melodramatic about it - as if removing a small section of the highway will somehow be the end of the world. Interestingly, that's also the same arguments put forth when the eastern Gardiner stump was removed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we're being melodramatic, but I also think you're being a little flip with what's being discussed. You're not removing a small section of a highway - you're removing a rather large swath of highway that currently connects two well-traveled routes (even if the connection itself isn't as heavily traveled). The Eastern Gardiner stump was just that, a stump. It merely extended the end of the highway towards the East. It made perfect sense to tear down that orphan - though what replaced it is nearly as unpleasant.

As to the viaduct - if you spend enough money, anything is feasible - that doesn't mean it's a good idea. One of the possiblity they should look into is rebuilding the Gardiner - have say a 2 lane (4 total) highway for through traffic, raised higher to mitigate the effect and divert the rest to a redesigned Lakeshore blvd.
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather see the opposite. The height could be raised, I guess, though it's quite high already. And rather than see more traffic on Lake Shore, I'd rather see less traffic there so that it can be adjusted and reworked to be a more attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists crossing under it. I would rather have heavy traffic up and out of the way, than right on the ground where we have to deal directly with it.


Another observation - traffic on the Gardiner generates a lot of white noise that's very noticeable along Queen's Quay.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for beautification with some sound barriers or baffles.
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
How can you put a toll on an existing crumbling infastructure.Tolls are usually justified on a new development.
Click to expand...

London's congestion charge.

Tolls are one of the few measures that show to have a direct impact on traffic congestion. I don't think it would be possible to tear down the Gardiner, or rebuild it without implementation of some variety of congestion charge.

The Gardiner and DVP are both municipal highways. I don't see how it can't be done. Coupled with increased parking fees, it would take a lot of cars off the road in downtown.
 
Why not just impose a tax on parking space in the downtown core?

It's much less intrusive, punishes anyone who does drive to work when there is an alternative, and encourages developers to think twice before laying parking.
 
urbanfan89 said:
Why not just impose a tax on parking space in the downtown core?

It's much less intrusive, punishes anyone who does drive to work when there is an alternative, and encourages developers to think twice before laying parking.
Click to expand...

There's the rub. There usually is no alternative.


I'm not sure some of these ideas make sense on a civic level, though they certainly seem to have a benefit on a social level (well, for some). Making it harder and harder for people to get around this enormous city is not going to reap any sort of economic rewards. Often we're talking about purposely obfuscating people's commuting choices so that they HAVE to take public transit - even if it's a poor substitute. That's not urban planning, that's just social conditioning.

I wonder what the ultimate goal is sometimes. Is it JUST to have cars gone?


I've been reverse commuting for the last three weeks (ugh), if I take the car I can get to work in about 15 minutes. If I were to take transit it would be an hour and a half. That's unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
realtycoon said:
Only if and when there is a reliable, affordable and fast alternative. Otherwise, this will spell disaster and drive business out to the 905 at a faster rate than is currently the case.
Click to expand...

Not if you toll the 400, 401, 403, 404, 409, 410 and QEW as well. That would not only help reduce demand for suburban office but it would pay for Metrolinx's budget plus highway maintenance. As an added bonus, tolls are flexible and can be increased during peak times to discourage peak period commuting.

My theory on tolls is Metrolinx knows perfectly well that they're the right long-term solution, they're just not strong enough yet to overcome the intense resistance they'd face from the 905. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out now that Metrolinx is less politicized.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top