TOareaFan
Superstar
If you added the words......"instead of building transit" I would agree. The way it is worded now you seem to be saying we could survive without the DVP and Gardiner in the current situation....I don't think we could.
|
|
|
Highway Expansion
- Thread starter Whoaccio
- Start date
If you added the words......"instead of building transit" I would agree. The way it is worded now you seem to be saying we could survive without the DVP and Gardiner in the current situation....I don't think we could.
Minato ku
Active Member
Wrong Paris and London have highway
Outside the center, Paris is "full" of highways.
The inner city is surrounded by the busiest highway in Europe called Peripherique.
London does have less highway than Paris but the the urban area is surrounded by the M25.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
If we built something like this, plus a few strategic parking complexes, we could finally make a good case for shutting traffic off of King & Queen. In a nutshell, build two viaducts along Richmond & Adelaide, each one way expressways. Complex intersections could be avoided by just dropping traffic onto the one way street below. Then link it up with the Gardiner & a 400 extension. The entire thing could be financed through tolls and developing the land underneath the viaducts.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
^Do you want to build two one way viaducts above and below Richmond and Adelaide streets, and effectively let the two surface streets become service roads?
Even in 1955 they would have derided that as being too 1939.
Even in 1955 they would have derided that as being too 1939.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Thats probably how it would turn out in the financial core, but outside of that area it would be neat to widen the overall road and put in buildings under the roadways. So, i;m pulling numbers here, but widen the overall ROWs to 30m,
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
Wow.
*Whoosh!*
*Whoosh!*
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Whoaccio, I must be perfectly honest with you: that is the most awful transportation solution that I have ever seen.
I am going to assume that you probably got the idea from the elevated railway viaducts that grace Berlin and London, with their arcaded shops underneath, but, really, what we're seeing there today is the romanticization of a dirty industrial past rendered chic by the use of quiet electric trains. First off, don't forget that a railway system concentrates development and residential property values to a node, while a private car, by nature of its design, disperses those same forces. For these reasons, an elevated rail system would concentrate businesses and development along its corridor (despite the aesthetic negativities), while a freeway would just scatter it as far away as possible. Also, a railway or transit system serves people in the immediate neighbourhood equitably with people from outer areas, while the nature of urban freeways means that people who commute in from far away get preferential treatment because freeways are jammed first by people commuting in from further away restricting access to those living in the inner city neighbourhood.
Also don't forget that a freeway is more than just a social divider, it also spews noxious airborne pollution in the immediate area and is extremely loud and unpleasant. For these reasons, even cities that chose to build freeways through their inner city decided to sink them into trenches and create a buffer zone, rather than elevate them so that the fumes can be spewed at balcony level and the noise blared over a greater area. It's unlikely that any group other than the most marginalized in society would settle along Richmond or Adelaide, especially when the mufflers of roaring trucks and cars are ten feet away from their second floor balcony.
Finally, Richmond and Adelaide are three to four lanes, already. What purpose would it serve to elevate two into the air and keep two on the ground? At least with a three or four lane road you get the option of changing lanes; here you seem to be relegated to gridlock in the sky or gridlock on the ground. Don't forget that you need to dedicate a lane for either exiting the elevated portion and merging with the surface road, or vice versa. So, in effect, you now have a three lane road (no net change in the number of lanes over the present situation), but with the added inconvenience of having to merge frantically onto exit/entrance ramps.
Yeah, I'm sure you looked at google maps and that they had a setup like this in Tokyo, but ask yourself: 1) are the same private property values, both culturally and economically, at play in Toronto as they are in Tokyo? 2) Is the neighbourhood through which the elevated urban freeway in Tokyo traverses a sought after neighbourhood? 3) Is it possble that the residential neighbourhood evolved after the construction of the freeway? It is entirely possible that these freeways were built through industrial or low-grade commercial precincts and, due to the obstruction of the freeway, gradually became a lower class residential neighbourhood.
The last time anybody in the Western World proposed something like this was well before the Second World war when nobody knew about the effects of freeways in urban areas. This was also back in the day when women smeared Radium on their faces.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Yeah, like, this takes a lot of what the Gardiner's knocked for and compounds it.
I mean, you might as well suggest that Old City Hall be knocked down as well, while you're at it...
I mean, you might as well suggest that Old City Hall be knocked down as well, while you're at it...
dunkalunk
Senior Member
To build a mall of all things... don't remind me! (Kitchener)
This makes my suggestion to streamline and ETR the exit ramps of Allen Road to St. Clair almost sane.
I would love to turn Queen into a pedestrian street and LRT corridor as much as the next guy, but not like this.
This makes my suggestion to streamline and ETR the exit ramps of Allen Road to St. Clair almost sane.
I would love to turn Queen into a pedestrian street and LRT corridor as much as the next guy, but not like this.
Last edited:
Whoaccio
Senior Member
There are plenty of business' that will fight tooth and nail to prevent rail anything from going through their area. In Vancouver, Cambie St. business' are sewing RAVCO for lost business. In Toronto we have the ever annoying 'SOS' while a better example would be the anti Blue22 crowd. Maybe the most extreme example would be that woman in Durham who felt her quality of life was being disturbed a bihourly bus. This all comes down to externalities. At what point do the societal gains trump the local disturbances? The rail corridor, for example, has disconnected the waterfront, arguably more so than the Gardiner for decades now. It encourages suburban sprawl, disadvantages local residents at the expense of 905ers and enables trips that would not otherwise occur. Despite that, most reasonable people would agree that it has been a benefit to Toronto and the downtown in specific. So, in this specific case, yes I think it is quite fair to say the immediate area would see a decline in value. What of other areas though? Would Queen be able to abandon the charade of pretending to be a transportation corridor and focus on creating enticing spaces for pedestrians and speed up streetcar service? Would providing access to the downtown from the North-West of the city improve the attractiveness of downtown to do business?
The idea that downtown Toronto will make due in 2030 or 2080 with out a major expansion of road capacity seems, well, implausible. If, theoretically, we decided to build more high capacity roads it would have negative externalities. How do these stack up against the cost of doing nothing though? Simply saying 'London has no freeways' will not change the basic fact that Toronto competes with jurisdictions with profound freeway connection. If no one else, we compete with Mississauga. I dunno, maybe that is a good thing. We could build a Canary Wharf or La Defense out in the boonies and not have to bother making severe alterations to the downtown. Do we want to turn into Venice? It is a beautiful city, but its only industry is tourism.
As it relates to what I suggested, I could be (probably am) dead wrong in all of these categories. I don't care about that. What I do care about is creating a method of evaluating options which is intrinsically biased against modernizing or changing anything. No matter where we turn, our options for city building are getting curtailed in drastic ways. We can't build an airport link because of local opposition. 80% of the city is zoned against any serious redevelopment under the official plan, resulting in rising housing prices and monster homes. We can't build subways in important locations because local concerns damn the endeavor to unrealistic cost parameters. We couldn't shutdown Yonge nowadays to build the subway. We couldn't expropriate the corridor for the Bloor line. What we can do is build Transit City, potentially the most bland and uninspired attempt to solve structural issues to date. Most bizarre is the proposal for the Gardiner. In the heady days of August, I thought it was a grand idea. While still not against the idea entirely, it does seem like more of a step sideways (that might have been Chuck's description, not sure). We know traffic volume will increase, yet we are, at best, spending money to keep current capacity. Bizarre.
(On specifics of that doodle, don't take it too seriously. I suck an MsPaint and just churned that out to give a rough impression. Two lane, three lane. Viaduct, tunnel. 30m, 40m. Whatever. I don't have an intrinsic preference for anything. Maybe we should try to turn Richmond & Adelaide into University-style avenues? No matter what way you split hairs, any way to increase road capacity in the core will run into the same issues. Its the way we evaluate these issues that I care about. Do we place emphasis on preservation or creative destruction? Prosperity or aesthetics? Economics or urban philosophies? )
The idea that downtown Toronto will make due in 2030 or 2080 with out a major expansion of road capacity seems, well, implausible. If, theoretically, we decided to build more high capacity roads it would have negative externalities. How do these stack up against the cost of doing nothing though? Simply saying 'London has no freeways' will not change the basic fact that Toronto competes with jurisdictions with profound freeway connection. If no one else, we compete with Mississauga. I dunno, maybe that is a good thing. We could build a Canary Wharf or La Defense out in the boonies and not have to bother making severe alterations to the downtown. Do we want to turn into Venice? It is a beautiful city, but its only industry is tourism.
As it relates to what I suggested, I could be (probably am) dead wrong in all of these categories. I don't care about that. What I do care about is creating a method of evaluating options which is intrinsically biased against modernizing or changing anything. No matter where we turn, our options for city building are getting curtailed in drastic ways. We can't build an airport link because of local opposition. 80% of the city is zoned against any serious redevelopment under the official plan, resulting in rising housing prices and monster homes. We can't build subways in important locations because local concerns damn the endeavor to unrealistic cost parameters. We couldn't shutdown Yonge nowadays to build the subway. We couldn't expropriate the corridor for the Bloor line. What we can do is build Transit City, potentially the most bland and uninspired attempt to solve structural issues to date. Most bizarre is the proposal for the Gardiner. In the heady days of August, I thought it was a grand idea. While still not against the idea entirely, it does seem like more of a step sideways (that might have been Chuck's description, not sure). We know traffic volume will increase, yet we are, at best, spending money to keep current capacity. Bizarre.
(On specifics of that doodle, don't take it too seriously. I suck an MsPaint and just churned that out to give a rough impression. Two lane, three lane. Viaduct, tunnel. 30m, 40m. Whatever. I don't have an intrinsic preference for anything. Maybe we should try to turn Richmond & Adelaide into University-style avenues? No matter what way you split hairs, any way to increase road capacity in the core will run into the same issues. Its the way we evaluate these issues that I care about. Do we place emphasis on preservation or creative destruction? Prosperity or aesthetics? Economics or urban philosophies? )
urbanfan89
Active Member
A few points:
1) The population is not going to grow ad infinitum. At some time this century, southern Ontario's population will peak and then start declining. Demand for travel will certainly not grow ad infinitum, so we don't need to continually pave over it.
2) The Weston corridor can either fit two railway tracks and an expressway. But it can also fit SIX railway tracks, two of which can be used as DRL heavy rail and four of which can turn into a massive rail corridor. Transportation planning has studied this subject to death, and building a freeway down the corridor is a clear loss from the moving-bums-on-seats point of view.
3) If we put more rails on Weston, then property values will shoot up around the corridor and tax revenue per square foot is much higher. If we pave over the corridor, then tax revenue per square foot would be much lower (plus the city will pay more for the costly road maintenance). This scheme stinks as a make-work project for the construction project.
4) We don't have to either "build roads, and lots of roads" or "do nothing".
5) Mississauga and other 905 suburbs are now doing whatever they can to raise enough money to pay for all the bloated, sprawl-compatible infrastructure. It's those areas which did not go on a freeway-building binge in the 1970s which will have the last laugh once the maintenance bills come in.
1) The population is not going to grow ad infinitum. At some time this century, southern Ontario's population will peak and then start declining. Demand for travel will certainly not grow ad infinitum, so we don't need to continually pave over it.
2) The Weston corridor can either fit two railway tracks and an expressway. But it can also fit SIX railway tracks, two of which can be used as DRL heavy rail and four of which can turn into a massive rail corridor. Transportation planning has studied this subject to death, and building a freeway down the corridor is a clear loss from the moving-bums-on-seats point of view.
3) If we put more rails on Weston, then property values will shoot up around the corridor and tax revenue per square foot is much higher. If we pave over the corridor, then tax revenue per square foot would be much lower (plus the city will pay more for the costly road maintenance). This scheme stinks as a make-work project for the construction project.
4) We don't have to either "build roads, and lots of roads" or "do nothing".
5) Mississauga and other 905 suburbs are now doing whatever they can to raise enough money to pay for all the bloated, sprawl-compatible infrastructure. It's those areas which did not go on a freeway-building binge in the 1970s which will have the last laugh once the maintenance bills come in.
smuncky
Senior Member
Thats probably how it would turn out in the financial core, but outside of that area it would be neat to widen the overall road and put in buildings under the roadways. So, i;m pulling numbers here, but widen the overall ROWs to 30m,
here is a rendering that might convey the message a bit better.
MisterF
Senior Member
Why does it seem implausible? You don't have any evidence to back up that view. London also competes with jurisdictions with profound freeway connections, including its own suburbs. Canary Wharf isn't exactly out in the boonies, it's basically London's equivalent to Toronto's port lands. But the centre of London is still very much the central area, which is growing despite its lack of highways. It's not turning into a one-horse tourist town like you seem to infer with your last couple sentences. Neither are Paris and Milan - all three are the economic powerhouses of their respective countries.
Downtown Toronto will make do just fine in 2030 or 2080 without any significant highway expansion...as long as there's significant transit expansion. There hasn't been any significant highway expansion in several decades and downtown has grown substantially in that time.
To put it another way, can you think of a city whose downtown has stagnated specifically because it doesn't have enough freeways?
Last edited:
wyliepoon
Senior Member
Mark Osbaldeston's book Unbuilt Toronto covered in Chapter 19 the 1963 Plan for Downtown Toronto which suggested building tunnels to accommodate downtown traffic, while turning the streets into pedestrian malls. There's a rendering on page 141 showing what looks like Bay Street turned into a pedestrian mall with a vehicular tunnel underneath it.