just east of the creek
Senior Member
As I was headed down the DVP late last night and jumping on the Gardner (at a steady 90 klicks with lots of traffic in all directions - so after 10 p.m.), I was indulging in a bit of what if in regards to the future of the G. What if the G was trenched from the east side of the DVP to the Ex with enhanced river valley access to the mouth of the Don, a lovely boulevard above, housing, and streetcars….but $$$$. How about if we tolled from the 401 southbound through the DVP and the G west to the 427. Good idea if Doug goes for it, but we are still left with the G in place. How about if we just pulled down the G? That would be certainly popular in some quarters. And less so in others. And I think it’s far too simplistic to just blame the 905ers, the outer Toronto burbs and the ’elites’ (whoever they may be, after Galen that is) for the existence of the G. Yes commuters, yes business in general (how are you getting your fresh Ontario Asparagus to the St Lawrence Market in a timely fashion?)(or your tourists for that matter), yes car owners, yes…yes..yes. There will be pushback from all of those groups and more. And the region does not have the transit system to replace the access. Maybe the Lakeshore line yes. But to replace these volumes…? And the other regions - not close. And in the city, say the north west and the northeast - coming, but still much work to be done.
And perhaps it was decided to pull down the G. Is that the only measure taken locally?Or do you wrap that decision in a package of congestion charges for the ‘downtown’ area, increased parking rates or parking taxation, acceleration of separated transit and bicycle infrastructure and service (underlined with a Capital S), absolute transit priority…in part to deal with the spillover of traffic from the congested G replacement.And let’s not forget about the increasing public anxiety about safety on public transit and in public spaces. A real concern for many.
And would Doug let you do that? I think not. I think he would step in and overrule the city. Maybe, just maybe, the province would upload the G. Better for the cities financial structure, perhaps not so favourable a result for the long term relationship of the G and the city. But I think the reality of the situation is the province would block the removal of the G full stop. And then we would be back to where we are today.
Currently I think that pulling down the G is a pipe dream, a bit like HSR through the booming metropolis of Sharbot Lake. Most of us think that there would be a lot of advantages to pulling down the G on certain levels, almost regardless of the plan proposed. In an ideal political environment , say a provincial election, would you get announcements and promises to ‘study’ the idea. Yes, sure, perhaps, if there are more votes to gain in a certain constituency then to lose. But actually saying yes, putting up billions to invest in the replacement infrastructures in a timely fashion, I’m not so sure.
I would just add that the CIBC buildings are very impressive when viewed from the G westbound. Looking forwards to the twinning of the towers.
And perhaps it was decided to pull down the G. Is that the only measure taken locally?Or do you wrap that decision in a package of congestion charges for the ‘downtown’ area, increased parking rates or parking taxation, acceleration of separated transit and bicycle infrastructure and service (underlined with a Capital S), absolute transit priority…in part to deal with the spillover of traffic from the congested G replacement.And let’s not forget about the increasing public anxiety about safety on public transit and in public spaces. A real concern for many.
And would Doug let you do that? I think not. I think he would step in and overrule the city. Maybe, just maybe, the province would upload the G. Better for the cities financial structure, perhaps not so favourable a result for the long term relationship of the G and the city. But I think the reality of the situation is the province would block the removal of the G full stop. And then we would be back to where we are today.
Currently I think that pulling down the G is a pipe dream, a bit like HSR through the booming metropolis of Sharbot Lake. Most of us think that there would be a lot of advantages to pulling down the G on certain levels, almost regardless of the plan proposed. In an ideal political environment , say a provincial election, would you get announcements and promises to ‘study’ the idea. Yes, sure, perhaps, if there are more votes to gain in a certain constituency then to lose. But actually saying yes, putting up billions to invest in the replacement infrastructures in a timely fashion, I’m not so sure.
I would just add that the CIBC buildings are very impressive when viewed from the G westbound. Looking forwards to the twinning of the towers.
