Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[adma]

To some extent it is happening now, as more growth is occuring outside the 416 area than within.

And more growth is occurring outside the City of Paris than within.

Maybe not so much w/New York or London--but, then, it depends on how you define, "within". (In NYC's case, you might as well be pointing to more growth in the Atlanta or Charlotte CMAs, or something.)

 

[adma]

I live in Sherbourne/Wellesley area, for the record. I walked my dog through the knee deep snow that morning and my partner and I decided it was too arduous (none of the sidewalks had been ploughed by 11 a.m., BTW) to walk to the subway. Judging by the total lack of pedestrian traffic, I would say our thoughts were in the majority that Sunday.

Yeah, but was it--or more to the point, would it have been--in favour of cars?

You seem to be conveniently discounting "the weather, stupid". Don't you understand that the same weather conditions that offer one disincentive to walk can also offer one disincentive to drive--maybe even more so, especially when it comes to the densely-serviced inner city? Who wants to risk slipping and sliding and cracking up the car? And why would it be any different in Toronto than in Mississauga?

If there was a lack of pedestrian traffic that Sunday, it's simply because people chose to cocoon instead--and I'll betcha it was matched by a relative lack of automobile traffic, too. Bad wintery weather cuts everyone back.

 

[Glen]

However, this does NOT automatically support the assertion that increase in the number of households will result in an increase of the per unit subsidy from the commercial sector.

What assertion is that?

In fact, with the shift of the property tax share towards the residential sector, this scenario is unlikely.

Wake me up when residential taxes cover 'citizen centered services'.

 

[junctionist]

They don't have to since the municipal government generates revenue through user fees and the renting of properties among other things.

 

[Glen]

They don't have to since the municipal government generates revenue through user fees and the renting of properties among other things.

Check again. The shortfall is still there.

 

[urbanfan89]

Check again. The shortfall is still there.

Hang on here...if residents are subsidized, then aren't all the 905 bedroom communities supposed to be money hogs? But you keep extolling of OMG T3H 905 IZ T3H 1337!1!!!!

 

[RedRocket191]

OMG T3H 905 IZ T3H 1337!1!!!!

I understood every word of that, and that's sad.

 

[Dichotomy]

It's very true. Grant Park is grand and all, but there's a good 30 blocks of downtown Chicago waterfront that looks like this:

That's not at a fringe location either, it's in the area of the John Hancock Building and North Michigan Ave. Yes, the tall buildings are behind Lakeshore Drive, but it's a moot point because Toronto's tall buildings are behind Queen's Quay. And Queen's Quay is a lot more attactive than the above picture. There's no part of central Toronto's waterfront that doesn't have, or won't have, marinas, promenades, and parks.


Another nice rant, but it doesn't address what I typed. I guess you don't have any proof that tearing down waterfront freeways makes property values crash.


You've unwittingly refuted your own argument again! You're making my job easy. Those cities are harder to get around by car and have superior transit systems. Clearly mass transit is the answer for urban mobility. By the way, Toronto more closely resembles European cities with its transit ridership than most North American cities.

There isn't a city on earth that doesn't have a mix of transit and freeways. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how bad traffic downtown will get if the Gardiner is torn down until it is gone. Then, of course, it will be too late.
You keep on ignoring my major point. TORONTO HAS NO ALTERNATE ROUTES IN THE CORE. PERIOD. There is no decent north south routes or east west.

Clearly you don't drive, or you are new to the city.

 

[nfitz]

??? There are no plans to remove routes into the core. We'll still have the Gardiner and DVP going into the core. The issue is that you lose a through route. Try driving from Eglinton/DVP to Mimico, or Mimico to the Beaches, and you'll be impacted. Sure, the DVP won't connect to York street - but there's a reason most of the traffic already gets off at Richmond/Adelaide!

 

[Dichotomy]

The government didn't put those arguments out. You did. Nice rant anyways.

I wouldn't trust the so-called free market either. They're the ones who created funny home mortgage instruments that are damaging the world economy much worse than any amount of bureaucracy can.

Also, it's funny how you think the city should encourage more industry (i.e. interfering with the free markets) to move back into the core when *NO OTHER MAJOR CITY HAS FACTORIES IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE* thanks to free markets. This isn't 1950 with high tariff walls, transport costs, and a lack of cheap labour in China.


And I'm sure property values will skyrocket to Tokyo-in-1989 levels if we just paved over half the city for more highways.


So what successful city does not have traffic issues?

Where did I suggest factories should locate downtown? Other posters have asserted that it is 'good riddance' to those high paying jobs. I think it is a pity, frankly. Of course I realize those jobs aren't coming back. I am just not as thrilled as other people who think concierges and Starbucks employees are going to fill the gap. Understand, too, that Ryerson and U of T are government supported, which means they are a drain on resources: it is our tax dollars that pay those professors and caretakers salaries. That is a shell game, for sure.

Anyway, clearly I am pissing into the wind with this argument because car phobics think that once the Gardiner comes down we are all going to hold hands and sing campfire songs. Other cities that have removed (older) expressways had alternate roads in reserve.
As I said (and you have ignored): if you show me a way to widen Jarvis, King, Queen, Dundas, Bathurst and Dufferin to 6 lanes, then I will blow up the Gardiner myself.

 

[Dichotomy]

Yeah, but was it--or more to the point, would it have been--in favour of cars?

You seem to be conveniently discounting "the weather, stupid". Don't you understand that the same weather conditions that offer one disincentive to walk can also offer one disincentive to drive--maybe even more so, especially when it comes to the densely-serviced inner city? Who wants to risk slipping and sliding and cracking up the car? And why would it be any different in Toronto than in Mississauga?

If there was a lack of pedestrian traffic that Sunday, it's simply because people chose to cocoon instead--and I'll betcha it was matched by a relative lack of automobile traffic, too. Bad wintery weather cuts everyone back.

Holy out-of-context-Batman: I was responding to Urbanboom's (ridiculous) assertion that inclement weather is somehow better to walk in than drive.

As to your remarks: having lived in Collingwood for 11 years, I would drive t through any blizzard this city can throw at me, including last winter (which would constitute a 'normal' winter for Collingwood/Orillia.)

 

[Dichotomy]

??? There are no plans to remove routes into the core. We'll still have the Gardiner and DVP going into the core. The issue is that you lose a through route. Try driving from Eglinton/DVP to Mimico, or Mimico to the Beaches, and you'll be impacted. Sure, the DVP won't connect to York street - but there's a reason most of the traffic already gets off at Richmond/Adelaide!

We only need to look at the mess Eglinton/Allen is on any given day of the week or evening to see the potential folly this could be. Allen 'Road' is totally blocked to north of Lawrence, even on a Sunday afternoon. Is that what what our level of expectation has been reduced to in this city today? We're going to put 50,000 people in the Portlands, add probably 2,500 cars to that area of the city, then take away their ability to connect with the rest of the world? Good grief!

Is that what passes for logic in this city?

 

[Glen]

Hang on here...if residents are subsidized, then aren't all the 905 bedroom communities supposed to be money hogs? But you keep extolling of OMG T3H 905 IZ T3H 1337!1!!!!

I was going to break it down for you but, clearly, you will not understand.

 

[urbanfan89]

We only need to look at the mess Eglinton/Allen is on any given day of the week or evening to see the potential folly this could be. Allen 'Road' is totally blocked to north of Lawrence, even on a Sunday afternoon. Is that what what our level of expectation has been reduced to in this city today? We're going to put 50,000 people in the Portlands, add probably 2,500 cars to that area of the city, then take away their ability to connect with the rest of the world? Good grief!

Is that what passes for logic in this city?

So what is your solution for the Allen Road?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If it's not going to be extended (and it's not), the Allen should at least have a proper interchange built with Eglinton...or just remove the entire thing.

Not sure what your point is there, but pardon me, your elitism is showing, sir.
A cement plant or dockyard would benefit this city more than more condos. Do we really need more condos?

How elitist of me, desiring potentially hundreds of assorted jobs on a portlands site, from part-time baristas to offices full of overpaid lawyers and software geeks, instead of a dozen cement plant jobs.

Yes, we need more condos, if only to keep construction workers and architects and the like employed.