Agreed, there’s a general overall opposition to the implementation of tolls, even amongst supposed progressives looking for revenue (why else has the Prov ruled them out?). And yes, they can also cause drivers to take alternate surface routes.
Naturally a major part of expressways is to make the trip faster for ‘them car drivers’. But another key component that many seem to ignore is that it gets cars and trucks off the surface roads – for the benefit of local communities. People don’t want dump trucks and semis tearing through neighbourhoods leaving mayhem in their wake? Have them drive above or below ground. This logic is very similar to the reasoning for grade-separating our rail corridors.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that if we remove the section of Gardiner from Don Roadway to Jarvis and replace it with a robust surface route, rogue dump trucks and semis will be tearing through Riverdale or St. Lawrence? Because... they're going where? And from where? That's the single worst grasping at straws yet in this debate.
I was out by Windemere yesterday. Walking below the Gardiner and rail corridor? A breeze. Crossing a boulevard-ized Lake Shore highway? Long wait for pedestrian signal, two-stage crossing, and short countdown when it finally was our turn. Which is more of an impediment for pedestrians – seamlessly walking under a highway, or waiting and hurriedly walking across a highway?
It could be very true that it takes less time to cross Lake Shore at Sherbourne, Parliament or Cherry now then it will with a boulevard. Or it could be more, if we decide to further inconvenience car drivers with signal changes. But to compare the experience at Sherbourne, Cherry or Parliament now with Windemere now is apples and oranges, and it will not get better with the Maintain* (sorry, 'new' hybrid that follows old route) option. Under the Hybrid option, Cherry pedestrians will be crossing a busier Lake Shore with new on- and off-ramps to dodge, as the Leslie stump is torn down. The experience at Parliament, Sherbourne, and Jarvis will be exactly the same as current (albeit with a shiny new overhead Gardiner to admire and more traffic on Lake Shore coming from the Beaches), crossing under the rail berm, over Lake Shore and under Gardiner. Assuming the planners give a fig about pedestrians and bikes, it might be better ambience, but it will be a busier crossing under the same elevated expressway.
Under the 'Remove' option, Lake Shore will be a busier crossing, with a central median for pausing.
But there will be no Gardiner. So, compared to Windemere, your crossing is of one major route, not two, and your time crossing will be less. Compared to the current alignment, it should be comparable but with better ambience. My point -- and I do have one -- is that no one who is concerned about pedestrians first (or at all) would choose the Hybrid option, as it is both worse than the Remove and worse than current.
And IMO it’s a bit flawed for him to use Bill Davis’ quotes, because those concerned the building of new expressways. This isn’t a new expressway, it’s an existing one. On top of that, it’s the shortening and reduction in size of an existing one. As well, a new and important part of the Remove option is not about ‘opening up’ our waterfront for the public. It’s about parcelling it, selling it, and privatizing it for development. The public's access to the Keating Channel would be more or less the same as it is now with the Remove option.
I must admit I don't get your 'shortening' argument -- you're talking about the Leslie stump, I guess? But it's coming down in either option, so I'm not sure how that buttresses your argument. And, c'mon. If you can't see the difference between opening up 12 acres to development, civic renewal, new housing and offices, etc. and leaving it as a rancid cesspool and junkyard, that's just weird.
