Indeed, and those who wish to follow it can. I don't recall however at any point that any of the points you suggested as having been rested actually are.
Well, I did suggest that you were conveniently forgetting things earlier. But, I'm sure this isn't an example.
There is absolutely NO data to suggest it's so negative that it is an impossible task with disastrous consequences, but plenty to suggest it's positive and doable. There is also no suggestion that a University Avenue style route is impossible - just that it has negative consequences that will have to be balanced in the EA process.
Umm, ok. Well, I think solutions with negative consequences like a lack of capacity sort of rule themselves out, but...
I don't, but the organizations tasked with the creation of these reports have expertise beyond what you and I have. So naturally I will trust them more than your assertion that it will cost a lowly 100M. None of the reports I have in possession supporting the Gardiner to be kept has any figures on how much it will cost (not to mention serious technical problems with the presentation of their proposal which leads one to suspect the quality of the work in them in the first place).
You asked for a number, as if I had to have one, so I threw one out there for you. I did give it a range of up to $200 million
Not happy? I can revise my number: 200-250? 172-234?
I never said anything about equal - I said comparable. We know there are differences in the scope of the projects - and the price tag differences shows it (~40M vs. 300+M) No one is suggesting tearing down this stretch is going to cost just as little - but there is precedence in Toronto of tasks of this nature.
Well, no there isn't really. Precedence for tearing down an aerial highway, sure. But not successfully replacing it with a pedestrian-friendly surface road. I think the challenges posed by this section are far more complex than those faced by the Leslie St. stub. But there's years for them to discover that.
Indeed. Since you are a visual kind of guy, perhaps you should drag out an image of the underside of the Gardiner, with the same POV as the pic you've presented and let us see just how comparable it is?
Sure, I said I'd take some pics before - and I haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think it needs to be the exact same POV, we have the opportunity for different solutions that are tailor made to our situation - we don't need to lazily apply the Tokyo example directly
I wasn't the one saying I have the interests of cyclists and pedestrians in mind - you are. So please stop putting words into my mouth and own up to what you've said. Beyond that, if you are so confident in your position wrt to the "city at large", well, why get so upset on this forum?
Huh? Putting words in your mouth? What are you talking about?
You're trying to tell me that I don't have pedestrians or cyclists in mind, and I'm telling you that I do.
I'm not upset. I'm amused if anything, that's why I keep responding, and don't need to go in for the personal attacks. I think the topic is really fascinating - and is the starting point to a bunch of really interesting conversations
I think there are a lot of possibilities for the Gardiner that are a lot more interesting than tearing it down and replacing it with a regular boulevard - especially considering that we're not really hurting for boulevard options (Queen's Quay, Cheery St, etc). I wish we spent more time day dreaming about the future than arguing about minute details, though I'm just as guilty of that. Try as I might, it's hard for me to ignore someone trying to misrepresent my comments. I just HAVE to respond. Bad, bad.
I only learn from the best, TKTKTK - or was that Tit-for-Tat?
Cheer up Alvin!