FNTS
Active Member
Dang, you caught me. It wasn't easy either with all the climbing gear I had to bring to climb on top of it first
|
|
|
Dang, you caught me. It wasn't easy either with all the climbing gear I had to bring to climb on top of it first
bobbob911
Active Member
To me the "pedestrian experience" is simply, how hard is it to cross the road? From that point of view, an 8-lane super-Lakeshore is harder than the existing Lakeshore. The pedestrian experience would be worse, IMO. Further, there are plenty of ways to massively improve the pedestrian experience while still maintaining an elevated highway above.
Not as wide, they are downtown 4-lane roads, but it again gets back to what people actually find objectionable about the Gardiner as it relates to the pedestrian experience below. If you object to a lack of light and trees, etc - then the Chicago example is an appropriate analogy.
Last edited:
bobbob911
Active Member
Again, you don't improve the city by punishing drivers - you improve the city by building better alternatives.
Further, you don't make proper decisions about city infrastructure based on what is cheapest to maintain - you make decisions based on what the needs are, both now and in the future.
FNTS
Active Member
Well, you actually DO improve the city by punishing drivers, that's what congestion charges do, for instance. And how does tearing down the Gardiner impede building better transit alternatives? Construction of the DRL is still a priority. There's even the possibility of adding transit to the new Lakeshore.
And the decision won't be made based on only one criterium. There are many variables, all are being considered, and for most of them removing the Gardiner is the best option. Don't just take my word for it:
http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/default/files//media/Preliminary Evaluation Results Matrix_0.pdf
Last edited:
bobbob911
Active Member
Let me rephrase, you can't punish drivers until there is a better solution in place. And Toronto has a long way to go until that's a reality.
That PDF is laughable. What does cycling have to do with it, for example - Are they going to put bike lanes on the new super-Lakeshore?!
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You've just managed to undermine your own definition of "pedestrian experience" - if it was just crossing the existing Lakeshore, how would one "massively improve" the pedestrian experience short of cutting lanes?
It's not a simple lack of light and trees - it is a complex combination of ramp placement, landscaping, natural light, finishing and unrelenting, overbearing weight of the structure above. Personally I find the western section to be superior given the height of the Gardiner relative to the ground - the eastern section is noticeably inferior in this regard.
How is it "punishment" when the greatest majority of trips into downtown area are not made by drivers on the Gardiner - but ride on public transit (TTC/GO) in the first place? The solution is already in place - and had been for a long, long time.
AoD
Last edited:
FNTS
Active Member
bobbob911
Active Member
Improve the signalling, improve the walk-experience across the ramps, build pedestrian walkways over the lakeshore, add some high quality lighting, etc etc. There are lots of ways to make crossing that road easier and safer.
FNTS - good luck with the idea that a newly built lakeshore will look anything like that
FNTS
Active Member
Even if it just looks like this (another option being studied) it will be a huge improvement from what currently exists:
Palma
Senior Member
This too looks nice and probably more like will be done, though I still think there are too many lanes. They should take 2 lanes out in both directions for bikes. Plus I think sidewalks should be made wider
bobbob911
Active Member
Even if it just looks like this (another option being studied) it will be a huge improvement from what currently exists:
Disagree - that may *look* prettier but it's far less functional IMO.
ehlow
Senior Member
The renderings for the 9-lane Lakeshore option do look surprisingly good, probably because they put big trees in the middle to visually split the road up.
The renderings for the "improved" option are funny. All they did was put up some christmas lights under the highway lol.
The renderings for the "improved" option are funny. All they did was put up some christmas lights under the highway lol.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
In what ways?
bobbob911
Active Member
Simple - far less road capacity, and a longer walk for pedestrians to cross the street.
FNTS
Active Member
How is the walk longer if the width of the corridor is still the same? The two extra car lanes will be carved out of the big median currently in place to sustain the pillars and the on and off ramps, which you still have to cross today.