adma
Superstar
Though the curious thing is, my argument of this being untenable isn't based upon the Keele zone being poor, but rather of its being now too gentrified. (Not unlike Jane Jacobs' Greenwich Village vs Moses, in fact.)
|
|
|
Extending Hwy 400 South
- Thread starter UD2
- Start date
Though the curious thing is, my argument of this being untenable isn't based upon the Keele zone being poor, but rather of its being now too gentrified. (Not unlike Jane Jacobs' Greenwich Village vs Moses, in fact.)
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Also the prices of the buildings any government would have to buy to tear down would make it too expensive to plow any kind of expressway, ramps, and intersections through any urban area of Toronto. A city like Detroit might be able to do that, but not Toronto.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Yeah, even if people were willing to be evicted without a fuss, the cost of property nowadays is enough to put the nail in the coffin for urban freeways. If each property costs $500,000, on average, and about 5,000 properties need to be expropriated, you've already spent $2.5 billion on right of way acquisition alone. And that's before the cost of removing these buildings, designing and actually building the road. And then you have to factor in the lost productivity from those now-demolished properties.
adma
Superstar
And yeah, I know that details can be refined, but...
how you're going to get away with such rampage at the SE corner of High Park, I don't know. (And don't offer any Robert Moses "parkway" excuses.)
how you're going to get away with such rampage at the SE corner of High Park, I don't know. (And don't offer any Robert Moses "parkway" excuses.)
accura407
Car is King
Were we not talking about a Tunnel here? How would a tunnel take out 5000 properties?
Also any talk of right of way acquisition is south of Eglinton at the very least...From Eglinton to Lakeshore, in a bored tunnel, with almost no disruption.
I can see an at most maximum of 50 properties being affected...not 5000. And unlike a subway, a tollway can generate its revenue back in...Tolls.
What stops us from selling off this new freeway like the 407? Since we don't "NEED" this route at all then turning it over to a private company and off any government books shouldn't be a problem...
Or better yet lets do a trade
407 becomes free and the new tunneled expressway becomes owned by them (its a joke...)
Also any talk of right of way acquisition is south of Eglinton at the very least...From Eglinton to Lakeshore, in a bored tunnel, with almost no disruption.
I can see an at most maximum of 50 properties being affected...not 5000. And unlike a subway, a tollway can generate its revenue back in...Tolls.
What stops us from selling off this new freeway like the 407? Since we don't "NEED" this route at all then turning it over to a private company and off any government books shouldn't be a problem...
Or better yet lets do a trade
407 becomes free and the new tunneled expressway becomes owned by them (its a joke...)
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Are you proposing a tunnelled expressway from Eglinton to the Gardiner with no on-ramps and off-ramps? What about the ramps from/to the Gardiner which, as adma noted, would have to cut right across a corner of High Park?
Paleo
Active Member
Were we not talking about a Tunnel here? How would a tunnel take out 5000 properties?
Also any talk of right of way acquisition is south of Eglinton at the very least...From Eglinton to Lakeshore, in a bored tunnel, with almost no disruption.
I can see an at most maximum of 50 properties being affected...not 5000. And unlike a subway, a tollway can generate its revenue back in...Tolls.
What stops us from selling off this new freeway like the 407? Since we don't "NEED" this route at all then turning it over to a private company and off any government books shouldn't be a problem...
Or better yet lets do a trade
A highway tunnel would be even more ridiculously overpriced than digging a new downtown subway line and moves less people to boot. The idea is a huge waste of money. By the way genius, where do the cars go once they reach the Gardiner?
dunkalunk
Senior Member
In addition, what is the point of building a new highway that would pretty much paralell the west section of the DRL, the ARL, and frequent, electrified GO service?
MisterF
Senior Member
Hold on...are you suggesting that subways don't generate revenue? The subways are the most profitable part of the transit system. They subsidize the rest of the network.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Adma tends be over the top with everything.
That said I don't see any way we could manage to build this proposal today. Even if it is nice to think about what it would be like if the length of the Allen onto the south end of the 400. It's a non starter period.
That said I don't see any way we could manage to build this proposal today. Even if it is nice to think about what it would be like if the length of the Allen onto the south end of the 400. It's a non starter period.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
I think the length of this roadway is fine and should not be extended. However, it would be nice for someone to study the impact of small modifications to the roadway
hawc
Senior Member
If you look at the current configuration of roads there it would actually be quite easy and wouldn't impact the park at all. The road would come back above ground at the Queensway where you'd simply route the ramps over the railway tracks and connect with the Gardiner. The radiuses would be no tighter than those on the 407 or you'd have the option of simply rejoining the Lakeshore at that point if you wanted to stick to surface routes. This plan is by far the best solution so far offered.
Last edited:
hawc
Senior Member
A few other highways need extending too.
First of all, with all due respect to Jane Jacobs, the city has grown and we DO need to extend the Allen south down Bathurst (currently an eyesore anyway and no real loss) to the Gardiner.
Next we need to run a mid-town highway along Dundas from the 427 to what will be 400 extension AND the new Bathurst highway. I know some people will say you can't do this (Brooklyn Expressway blah blah) but you can, and we need to.
This will bring life back to the city. It will stop the exodus of businesses from the downtown core and it will connect us better with the suburbs that surround us.
In addition I propose making Queen West pedestrian/cyclist/streetcar only. NO CARS! And perhaps the same for Roncesvalles.
I don't see anyone else stepping forward with alternative plans. Just "Let's keep everything the same mentality."
Paleo
Active Member
A few other highways need extending too.
First of all, with all due respect to Jane Jacobs, the city has grown and we DO need to extend the Allen south down Bathurst (currently an eyesore anyway and no real loss) to the Gardiner.
Next we need to run a mid-town highway along Dundas from the 427 to what will be 400 extension AND the new Bathurst highway. I know some people will say you can't do this (Brooklyn Expressway blah blah) but you can, and we need to.
This will bring life back to the city. It will stop the exodus of businesses from the downtown core and it will connect us better with the suburbs that surround us.
In addition I propose making Queen West pedestrian/cyclist/streetcar only. NO CARS! And perhaps the same for Roncesvalles.
I don't see anyone else stepping forward with alternative plans. Just "Let's keep everything the same mentality."
That's not satire is it?
Inkarnate
Active Member
Hawc, are...are you feeling alright?