[salsa]

That group is a lot more relevant to the conversation compared to the developers and MP's. I'd take their opinions on the matter 9 times out of 10.

Fair enough, but the message is still the same. However you have to wonder why the mayor decided only one particular developer (Great Gulf) was worth listening to.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Uh, let's rip up the sidewalk outside where you live and see what happens. At the macro level life will go on, but all of your trips will magically evaporate and you will soon starve to death. Think of the big picture and how much money we'll save by not maintaining that sidewalk!

AoD, urbanist, moderator, sometimes-benevolent dictator.

Nice hyperbole - actually, the equivalent change would be more like someone coming by and narrowing my street when there is barely enough traffic to fill it at the height of rush. You made it as if getting rid of that section of the Gardiner is somehow equivalent to severing your carotid artery, as if your life depended on it. It isn't.

And PS - I don't even have a sidewalk on my side of the street.

AoD

 

[salsa]

Nice hyperbole - actually, the equivalent change would be more like someone coming by and narrowing my street when there is barely enough traffic to fill it at the height of rush.

Even more equivalent: narrow the road in exchange for widening the sidewalks, planting trees, adding bike lakes. Terrible isn't it?

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Nice hyperbole - actually, the equivalent change would be more like someone coming by and narrowing my street when there is barely enough traffic to fill it at the height of rush. You made it as if getting rid of that section of the Gardiner is somehow equivalent to severing your carotid artery, as if your life depended on it. It isn't.

And PS - I don't even have a sidewalk on my side of the street.

AoD

The point is that the macro picture is just a whole lot of micro pictures added up... we are all people and the decisions we make collectively do have impacts at the individual level. You can't just assume that people will adjust and go about their lives just as happily as before.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Even more equivalent: narrow the road in exchange for widening the sidewalks, planting trees, adding bike lakes. Terrible isn't it?

Actually that's a bad analogy because narrowing a road doesn't actually increase travel times. Adding traffic lights would be more apt...

 

[Lenser]

The point is that the macro picture is just a whole lot of micro pictures added up... we are all people and the decisions we make collectively do have impacts at the individual level. You can't just assume that people will adjust and go about their lives just as happily as before.

All things considered, I really would rather assume that than assume that the sky will inevitably fall, crushing our puny bodies in a flaming orgy of agony.

Tear down the sucker. The city will deal - notwithstanding the alarmists among us.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The point is that the macro picture is just a whole lot of micro pictures added up... we are all people and the decisions we make collectively do have impacts at the individual level. You can't just assume that people will adjust and go about their lives just as happily as before.

Life - especially life in the city - is an exercise of daily adjustments. It is especially true in a rapidly changing city like Toronto, and I don't think we should be in the business of holding up city building and improving our urban environment just because some number of individuals may be inconvenienced by it.

Actually that's a bad analogy because narrowing a road doesn't actually increase travel times. Adding traffic lights would be more apt...

One doesn't have a right to no traffic lights in their lives - and one do chose to adapt accordingly. And my traffic time is increased all the time - by other drivers on the road.

AoD

 

[Eug]

Only Ford is planning to vote for something that isn't even an option.

I wonder if he will eventually change his vote to hybrid, or if he will just waste his vote

 

[PinkLucy]

^^ if it is a yes/no question, he will vote no. When he actually has to make a choice (hybrid/remove), he's going to get all stressed out. Maybe he will abstain.

 

[Edward Skira]

I guess Karygiannis has no thoughts of his own...

StrashinCBC 4:38pm via Twitter Web Client
As of 4:30 on @GardinerEast : 16 remove. 15 hybrid. 14 undecided/unknown. @jimkarygiannis tells me poll on his website is how he'll decide.

Well go and tell him what to do.

 

[salsa]

Well go and tell him what to do.

Be sure to use the correct postal code.

Jim Karygiannis ‏@jimkarygiannis 7m7 minutes ago
2 all out there #ward39 constituent will guide my vote #EastGardiner. So if u r not in #ward39 ur comments have no influence. Thx 4 trying

 

[achender]

If you look at his survey page it's pretty obvious which way Mr. Karygiannis is leaning.
He doesn't seem to have many positive things to say about the remove option. Plus his comments about DVP speeds may lead some to believe that the whole DVP would slow down to 50 km/h.

Two options will be presented to Council, each having their own advantages and drawbacks:

• The “remove†option would tear down the elevated structure, replacing it with an 8-lane boulevard at grade.
• The “hybrid†option would effectively replace the existing structure, with fewer access points. The “remove†option will create more traffic difficulties. Traffic coming down the Don Valley Parkway will slow down from 90 km/hr to 50 km/hr. This will add more time to travel downtown, as well as, providing an opportunity for more accidents.

Proponents of the “hybrid†plan argue that removal would lengthen already long commute times (by anywhere from 2 – 10 minutes per trip depending on the study). Local residents are already all too well aware of the impact of more gridlock.

Although I have my personal views as an Engineer, who specialized in transportation, I would like to hear from you.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Life - especially life in the city - is an exercise of daily adjustments. It is especially true in a rapidly changing city like Toronto, and I don't think we should be in the business of holding up city building and improving our urban environment just because some number of individuals may be inconvenienced by it.
AoD

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...

 

[DaveFlavanoid]

I know that it's a bit of arguing in an echo chamber, despite arcum and DDA's contributions, but I thought this link floating around Twitter was great:

http://onestreet.org/resources-for-increasing-bicycling/115-traffic-evaporation

http://onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf

70 case studies showing that when you close a street, the traffic really does evaporate. The first link has further testimonials to various closures as well.

Here's another one for good measure.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/33442/

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

are most of us who support the removal option "developers"?
Plus, what's so bad of developers? They build the city, provide housing and office space. Since when developers become an anathema in Toronto? Yes, they make profits, not without risks, just like in other industries. What makes developers more evil than other industries?

For once, ksun is spot on. Developers are the reason this city is profiting as well as it is.

They have billions invested in the city and have a much larger interest than any of us in having a functioning, growing city. But what do they know?