Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Panzerfaust]

Yeah, dude, we're such idiots for wasting our time discussing topics of interest to us; rather than just trolling around posting cartoons.

When did I say you're stupid? I certainly understand why you're arguing, I was just poking fun at the tendency for most threads on this forum to explode into 30 or 40 page debates about things you're never going to change by yelling at each other. It's clear that both sides of this argument have their minds made up. At this point, it's like going up to a sixty year old Catholic priest who has been a Catholic his whole life and trying to convince him God doesn't exist. I never said stop arguing, just that you could probably do well with a detente of sorts because you're just wasting energy right now.

But hey, if you want to be all SERIOUS BUSINESS and prove my point that you all have to chill out a little, go ahead.

 

[TKTKTK]

You can thank the government kowtowing to the car lobby and building miles of suburban freeways back in the 1960s for that.

?

Well, I don't understand your point. Private/Public transit predates the automobile.

 

[TKTKTK]

When did I say you're stupid? I certainly understand why you're arguing, I was just poking fun at the tendency for most threads on this forum to explode into 30 or 40 page debates about things you're never going to change by yelling at each other. It's clear that both sides of this argument have their minds made up. At this point, it's like going up to a sixty year old Catholic priest who has been a Catholic his whole life and trying to convince him God doesn't exist. I never said stop arguing, just that you could probably do well with a detente of sorts because you're just wasting energy right now.

But hey, if you want to be all SERIOUS BUSINESS and prove my point that you all have to chill out a little, go ahead.

I'm not wasting energy. I'm thinking about a subject I'm interested in. Replies are making me think about the subject in a different way, and interesting me in new ways.

If you're not interested, take a hike. Don't try to piss on someone else's fun.

 

[Panzerfaust]

If you're not interested, take a hike. Don't try to piss on someone else's fun.

Gladly. I bid you adieu, angry internet man.

*leaves thread*

 

[TKTKTK]

Gladly. I bid you adieu, angry internet man.

*leaves thread*

Angry? What makes you think I'm angry? I just thought your contribution was pointless (which is ironic given it was meant to point out the futility in us arguing).

 

[nfitz]

Every friggin' city on earth 'got it' 50 years ago and started widening roads as buildings were torn down and neighborhoods turned over. Toronto never did, and now we are going to pay the price, literally.

??????????????????????????????

What the f*? Are you on acid or something? If by cities you mean Cleveland and Pittsburgh, perhaps.

But in the major cities I've spent time in the last few years, all seem to have had much more serious traffic issues than Toronto. Manhattan, London, Paris, Seoul - and then there is Bangkok - there's nothing like Bangkok in rush hour.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TKTKTK:

I do enjoy how you're arguing for decreasing options, even while fooling yourself into thinking you're increasing them.

I am arguing for a trade off between decreasing the ease of travel for some while increasing the ease of travel for others, as well as providing a superior urban environment. If you think having the Gardiner there produces the latter, more so than if it isn't, then you really are the one fooling yourself.

See AOD's description for why the area is currently undeveloped. Note how the Gardiner doesn't play a role.

Graphic Matt didn't say the area is undeveloped because of the Gardiner. He argued that its' presence reduced the desirability of the future development sites - and he isn't wrong there. You shouldn't misrepresent what others said for your own ends.

AoD

 

[Dichotomy]

I'll trust statistics over anecdotal evidence from a private citizen, thank you very much. Then you extol how Moscow allows more road capacity, forgetting that things are so bad there they even set aside a lane for Kremlin Big Wigs in a tunnel.

Statistics? I'll bet you read that Sao Paulo has the 'largest private fleet of helicopters in the world,' right? Considering Sao Paulo is the 3rd largest city in the world, that isn't a major acheivement. As I said, the first time I got off a plane in Sao Paulo, I expected to see a Jetsons sky. I was rather disappointed.

Many cities *did* pave over their neighbourhoods. Now they regret it. You even ranted about how it was necessary for neighbourhoods to be "turned over".

Ranted? Do some research yourself, instead of foaming at the mouth. I frequently drive to the bluffs from downtown and I have noted that on at least one side of Danforth or the other every building has been replaced in the past 75 years, as is normal for a city growing and expanding. As this naturally occured, the city could have set back those buildings 10-15 feet to allow for 6 laning across the spine of the city. This has NOTHING to do with paving over cities.

In which case you'd be the VERY first to rant about how the city doesn't care about pedestrian safety and air pollution.

The city doesn't, in fact. If it did, it would do something about moving traffic, instead of putting up artificial roadblocks everywhere (like the 2 additional traffic lights added to Jarvis in the past year), which result in more idling traffic and pissed off drivers who floor their BMWs when they are fed up with the BS. Do you realize how narrow the lanes on Jarvis are - and how dangerous they are for cyclists?


First, I can't bike because it would take a whole day to get there. Second, see my point above. Third, the fact that the city is short-sighted...well...you can thank Mike Harris for choking funding and giving everyone cash rebates when public services were starving.

I'm no fan of Harris, but the city's problems go back to the '20s and '30s when most other cities recognized the rise of the automobile and started planning for it.

I question your habit of bringing up anecdotal stories. One of my high school friends got into a car accident on the Gardiner a few days ago. Obviously this is evidence the city doesn't give a damn about engineering.

Apparently, you haven't read a book or magazine EVER. From Socrates to Susan Levy - EVERY writer adds their own personal input. True enough, some people's input are myopic and narrow-minded, while others have a longer term vision of things.
Just because you don't like what I am saying, doesn't make my observations wrong. I didn't just move to this city yesterday, y'know.

 

[Dichotomy]

I guess it would have been cool if we had done widening where we could to accommodate bike lanes in more places. So your point isn't totally without merit. Too many traffic lanes, though, have an overall negative effect on street-facing businesses, though. Hell, just compare 'narrow' Queen Street in Toronto to the five-lane one-way-street that is Main Street in Hamilton.

There ARE cases of extremely-wide multi-lane streets that aren't hostile to pedestrians, but I'd argue that they're the exception rather than the rule.

Also, on the issue of new Toronto residents having parking spaces and cars. Sure. I moved to downtown a year ago and I have a parking space and a car. It's great to have for trips out of town and when I need to buy furniture or bulk item groceries. I like my car; I like driving.

But I didn't move to the city hoping to drive around everywhere like I did when I lived in Oakville. I moved to the city because I enjoy walking places and talking transit and just leaving my car in its spot for days (sometimes weeks) on end. Maybe I'm completely off-base, but I don't feel like an anomaly: I think more and more people are either ditching their car altogether or, like me, using the car occasionally, rather than daily.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: if they were to take that part of the Gardiner down, I would absolutely walk down Sherbourne or Parliament Street to the waterfront. You, though, would probably rather drive.

This does not need to be an 'us' versus 'them' discussion. Of course not EVERY street should have been widened to 6 lanes. Parliament St and Queen St certainly have their charms; however, Jarvis and the Gardiner (as two examples) should be expanded to allow some thoroughfare. Every street cannot (or should not) be a promenade. That isn't how a city functions.
For everyone's safety, certain roads (like Parliament) should be 40 km zones with lots of traffic lights to slow traffic, but then other streets (like Jarvis) should be 60 km/hr zones with priority given to traffic.
That isnt too much to ask in a city expected to add 1 million people in the next 10-15 years.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Apparently, you haven't read a book or magazine EVER. From Socrates to Susan Levy - EVERY writer adds their own personal input. True enough, some people's input are myopic and narrow-minded, while others have a longer term vision of things.
Just because you don't like what I am saying, doesn't make my observations wrong. I didn't just move to this city yesterday, y'know.

Perhaps you should follow this maxim and re-evaluate your postings on the forum so far!

Oh BTW, as someone who has been on various forums, you should realize that using bold, all-caps for an entire paragraph is considered bad form.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:
I am arguing for a trade off between decreasing the ease of travel for some while increasing the ease of travel for others, as well as providing a superior urban environment. If you think having the Gardiner there produces the latter, more so than if it isn't, then you really are the one fooling yourself.

I think the Gardiner provides a different urban environment. "Superior" is relative. Removing the Gardiner will not improve the life of cyclists or pedestrians; especially if its replaced by a higher-volume, larger road way (like Lake Shore East of the DVP).

But we've argued that point back and forth so many times already.

Graphic Matt didn't say the area is undeveloped because of the Gardiner. He argued that its' presence reduced the desirability of the future development sites - and he isn't wrong there. You shouldn't misrepresent what others said for your own ends.

Yes, and you pointed out that there's a development freeze on it, even though proposals have been previously made. Obviously the issue with that parcel is above and beyond the Gardiner (whose presense elsewhere hasn't seemed to impact new construction).

Removing the Gardiner isn't going to make a development-frozen, flood-endangered site more desirable. Unfreezing it, and flood protecting it might though.

 

[Dichotomy]

Actually for your imformation, I live near Eglinton and Laird, far away from downtown. I see the traffic and I completely understand it. What makes me confused, is your theory that for a city to work functionally it must be easy to drive in, which I disagree with. Most of the great cities in the world are not car-centric, but people-centric: London, NY, Paris, Tokyo, you name it.

I think that Toronto is at a halfway point: our freeway system is OK, but not extensive and our subway/transit system is OK, but not extensive. The reason that London can survive with no freeways is because their transit system is about 5 times more extensive than ours. I many ways I agree with you: we cannot afford to get rid of the Gardiner entirely - at least for now. But what I advocate is not the total dismantle of the entire highway, but the eastern section only - which is minimally used (and used only as a pass through Toronto, which is should not). If you live in Oakville, you shouldn't be taking the Gardiner/DVP to get to Montreal! The 427/401 is for that.

If Toronto is halfway, than I think we should take the London approch, rather than the urban freeway system. Toronto needs to spend money on infrastructure - that is given - but the choice remains is how we will spend that money. Do you really think that traffic would be such a huge issue if the
Sheppard subway were complete, the Yonge-University extended both ways, an Eglinton subway from the Airport to Kennedy built and the Downtown Relief Line built (hell, or even if 'Transit City' were built)? No, it wouldn't. I say we complete the missing subway links, rather than highway links. I think that it is already proven that public transportation, pedestrian traffic and human interaction add more to a city's dynamics and function than cars ever did.

Would it interest you to know that whenever the DVP was closed (or during peak times) I would drive up Glen Rd and through Moore/McRae to Eglinton to get to work? Or O'Connor. When a 60 year old highway (that was underbuilt to begin with) is expected to carry ALL the traffic for a growing city, something is amiss.
I avoid the DVP on a Sunday, too. I've gotten stuck in traffic on Xmas day, for Gawd's Sake.

You'll get no disagreement from me that since the Spadina Line was opened 30 years ago, this city has farted around for far too long. What I've said before is that we need a focused, 10 year plan where Queen's Park, Ottawa and Silly Hall get together and hammer out a detailed plan where both subways (screw LRTs, they are merely a temporary solution for the core) and highways are expanded. With the amount of wastage in city hall alone, both could be financed, it we went back to the old capital funding formula from the '70s/'80s.

 

[Dichotomy]

Two Words: Carrot, Stick.

If you take down the Gardiner, you piss off enough drivers so that they throw in the towel and take public transit. The TTC/GO then see massive ridership increases. All levels of government actually make make the proper investments into public transit.

You can't change habits without a punishment and a reward.

Well, that's your version of social engineering. This is a DEMOCRACY. By the Toronto's Star's own figures, 76% of the people in this city DRIVE to work and 16% take the TTC.

Yet you don't hear me wanting to 'punish' the poor slobs on the TTC, do you?

 

[Dichotomy]

Believe me, I know--in practice, it is. Though of course, it depends where you're going, and under what circumstances--but when it comes to a quick nip to a nearby Shoppers or the nearby Y, bad weather is terrific incentive to leave the car at home for a change. And in a more urban-philosophical sense, one might even say that inclement weather is a natural "localizer", i.e. it forces us to do things within a more compact, pedestrian-friendly radius.


Yeah, but given your speed-bump habits, if car ownership is like marriage, you're pretty much an unreconstructed spousal abuser, anyway...

Besides, Collingwood/Orillia isn't Toronto. And if you find Toronto's worse off for the fact, that's your problem.

But you'd have Toronto turned into a tiny, cottage town where everyone walks to the butcher and knows their neighbor. Is that reality? No, it is not. I've lived in big cities and small towns. Have you?

 

[Dichotomy]

^^
Thank You, Matt.

If you build expressways, the cars will come. And vise versa.

If you build transit, the riders will come. (And vise versa)

If you get rid of any.... they stop coming that way and find an other!

That's a spurious argument.

Let's not expand highways because too many people will use it? Is that what passes for logic around here?
Isn't that the job of government: TO SERVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?