News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Cities are for people, not for cars. In case you haven't noticed, a city has grown around the Gardiner.

If pedestrians are crossing illegally, make it easy to cross legally. Barriers aren't a solution. Pedestrians don't cause congestion, motor vehicles do.
 
Given the slopes...yes. It's barrier free for movement west to east through Cityplace (without the needs for ramps).

It will not be barrier free from Spadina....there is a barrier free crossing at Bremner 100 meters away.

Except you have to cross that intersection three times to get from the southwest corner to the southeast corner.
 
Given the slopes...yes. It's barrier free for movement west to east through Cityplace (without the needs for ramps).

It will not be barrier free from Spadina....there is a barrier free crossing at Bremner 100 meters away.

It will need a ramp as the difference from the road to where the crossing is will not be high enough. I believe the sketch shows ramps too.
 
It will need a ramp as the difference from the road to where the crossing is will not be high enough. I believe the sketch shows ramps too.

The sketch is nothing more than a rough paint drawing. Don't take it as anything more. There will likely be "ramps" but it will be more of a gentle slope than anything.
 
I'm just curious why it's being built connecting mid-block when there's a linear path directly north of Lake Shore that's cut it two. Seems to me that that would be the more logical location for it. It would allow for a pedestrian/cyclist only route from Van Der Water to Bathurst, paralleling Lake Shore and connecting directly to City Place's parks.
 
I'm just curious why it's being built connecting mid-block when there's a linear path directly north of Lake Shore that's cut it two. Seems to me that that would be the more logical location for it. It would allow for a pedestrian/cyclist only route from Van Der Water to Bathurst, paralleling Lake Shore and connecting directly to City Place's parks.

This path aligns with the entrances to the buildings. The path you mentioned has little very little actual traffic. This is about getting people from one side to the businesses and services on the other side. That's the urgent need.
 
I'm just curious why it's being built connecting mid-block when there's a linear path directly north of Lake Shore that's cut it two. Seems to me that that would be the more logical location for it. It would allow for a pedestrian/cyclist only route from Van Der Water to Bathurst, paralleling Lake Shore and connecting directly to City Place's parks.

This path aligns with the entrances to the buildings. The path you mentioned has little very little actual traffic. This is about getting people from one side to the businesses and services on the other side. That's the urgent need.

That path will be the phase 1 terminus for Under Gardiner. It'll have a lot more foot traffic by this time next year. It's irresponsible to not have a pedestrian crossing there.

If Councillor Joe Cressy thinks that people walking along the Under Gardiner are going to reach Spadina then turn away to walk up hill, up to a bridge, over Spadina, and then back downhill to continue their walk, he's ignoring common sense.
 
That path will be the phase 1 terminus for Under Gardiner. It'll have a lot more foot traffic by this time next year. It's irresponsible to not have a pedestrian crossing there.

If Councillor Joe Cressy thinks that people walking along the Under Gardiner are going to reach Spadina then turn away to walk up hill, up to a bridge, over Spadina, and then back downhill to continue their walk, he's ignoring common sense.

If the bridge is located to connect the two parts of the disconnected linear park, you could make the same argument for people interested in crossing Spadina from Mariner Terrace to Brunel Court-why should they have to walk down Spadina, cross the bridge, the up Spadina again? You inconvenience people either way.

But anyway, it's only about a 20 m walk. Big deal.
 
Hm, this proposal is news to me. Not sure what I think about it. I see a few comments saying we should have a signalized intersection so as to not cater to auto traffic, which makes sense. But I don't think I've seen an acknowledgement about the 510 and what putting in a new signal would do to service. It's our fifth busiest surface route, is (or was) supposed to be "LRT", and it's slow and cumbersome. We put in a new traffic light, and 45,000 daily 510 riders will have an even longer commute than they already do (and probably less reliable and more packed). That alone should be a big plus for the pro-bridge camp.
 
If the bridge is located to connect the two parts of the disconnected linear park, you could make the same argument for people interested in crossing Spadina from Mariner Terrace to Brunel Court-why should they have to walk down Spadina, cross the bridge, the up Spadina again? You inconvenience people either way.

But anyway, it's only about a 20 m walk. Big deal.

Huh? What kind of an argument is that? Pedestrian crossings are at intersections. I don't have a bridge to get across my street. I have to walk to the intersection like everybody else.
 
Hm, this proposal is news to me. Not sure what I think about it. I see a few comments saying we should have a signalized intersection so as to not cater to auto traffic, which makes sense. But I don't think I've seen an acknowledgement about the 510 and what putting in a new signal would do to service. It's our fifth busiest surface route, is (or was) supposed to be "LRT", and it's slow and cumbersome. We put in a new traffic light, and 45,000 daily 510 riders will have an even longer commute than they already do (and probably less reliable and more packed). That alone should be a big plus for the pro-bridge camp.

I agree with this. And also because Spadina is an important access point to the Gardiner and gets high volumes of traffic.
 
Huh? What kind of an argument is that? Pedestrian crossings are at intersections. I don't have a bridge to get across my street. I have to walk to the intersection like everybody else.

My argument that is the major source of pedestrian traffic will be from Mariner Terrace on the east and Brunel Court on the west, not from the Under Gardiner development and the linear parks. So, placing the pedestrian crossing there, as is beating studied now, and only 20 m from the linear parks, is the more appropriate location.
 
This path aligns with the entrances to the buildings. The path you mentioned has little very little actual traffic. This is about getting people from one side to the businesses and services on the other side. That's the urgent need.
so why not a crosswalk then with stop lights?. That overpass just adds to the ugliness of that area with that Gardnier
 
so why not a crosswalk then with stop lights?. That overpass just adds to the ugliness of that area with that Gardnier

It's too close to Bremner. The streetcar would be too short to fit between Bremner and the new stop lights.

And no one would use it. You would have to go down 1 flight of stairs, cross Spadina and then go up a second set of stairs. The overpass would eliminate the stairs and encourage the community to cross Spadina.

Spadina is ugly to begin with. The overpass will give pedestrians the opportunity to avoid Spadina making the area more enjoyable for the community.

And finally the goal is a way for kids to get to the future school. Without parental supervision I would not allow someone to cross Spadina.
 

Back
Top