PDA

View Full Version : Toronto Party Transportation Plan



denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-15, 10:49
I felt we need a new thread as this is a full plan


http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/images/composite_plan_map_2p73.gif

Subway
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/maps/miguelsyyap/ttcV5.png

Support for the Spadina and Yonge Subway northern extensions as proposed.
Completion of the Sheppard Subway east to the Scarborough Town Centre and west to Downsview
Construction of a U-shaped Downtown Relief Subway Line along Queen Street stretching to Eglinton Avenue and Jane Street in the west and Eglinton Avenue and Don Mills Road in the east
Extension of the Bloor Subway west to Sherway Gardens
Extension of the Bloor-Danforth Subway east, replacing the Scarborough Rapid Transit Line to the Scarborough Town Centre, and extended further to the Toronto Zoo (the Scarborough Subway).
Construction of an Eglinton Subway from Pearson International Airport to Kennedy station on the Bloor-Danforth Subway line in Scarborough


Roads
http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/images/roads_plan_v62r.gif

Two new tunnelled expressways within existing utility corridors:

Highway 400 Extension replacing Black Creek Drive and extended south in a tunnel under the Georgetown GO rail corridor to the Gardiner Expressway at Strachan Avenue, as a new airport link route.
Highway 448 along the wide Gatineau hydro corridor across Scarborough from the Don Valley Parkway south of Eglinton Avenue East to Highway 401 at Morningside Avenue, acting as a Gardiner Expressway eastern extension and relieving the heaviest traffic congestion on the Don Valley Parkway north of Eglinton Avenue East
Improvements to existing expressways:

Rename Allen Road as Allen Expressway and construct improved ramps to the Allen Expressway at Eglinton Avenue, Lawrence Avenue, Transit Road and Sheppard Avenue.
Eventual replacement of the elevated Gardiner Expressway with a new cable-stayed viaduct above the Lakeshore rail corridor and Union Station, and convert Lake Shore Boulevard into a grand tree-lined waterfront street

Filling in gaps in the arterial street system including minor road extensions and new bridges to make broken streets continuous for traffic, buses and bicycles
A Highway through lower Scarborough might be controversial

Bicycles and Others
http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/images/bicycles_iw6j.gif

Bicycles

A new 100-kilometre network of continuous well-lit off-road bicycle trails cleared of snow in the winter

Technologieshttp://www.gettorontomoving.ca/Technologies.html


New technologies to improve transport safety, convenience, efficiency and the environment including traffic management, lighting and subway efficiency.

Funding

Using private finance initiatives (PFI) to provide funding for construction.

For businesses concerned about transportation in Toronto and the future of Toronto in general, please follow this link: Save Your Business

Click on the image below to download the 20-page detailed report outlining the 'Get Toronto Moving' transportation


http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/Technologies.html

Toronto is blessed with being a lakefront city with a wonderful waterfront. However, the downtown part of this waterfront is not being utilized properly. New condominium towers, wide railway tracks on a berm and the ageing elevated Gardiner Expressway help to cut the city off from the waterfront.

Traffic gridlock has become part of the daily lives of many frustrated commuters who enter downtown Toronto, coming from the west and north-east areas of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). More than 200,000 vehicles use the Gardiner Expressway every day, though its original design capacity was only for 70,000. Additionally, traffic gridlock is increasingly becoming bi-directional during rush hour, due to people living in downtown and working in other areas of the GTA.

All four modes of transportation must be acknowledged during the revitalization process of the waterfront.

http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/images/waterfront.jpg
http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/images/viaduct_picture.jpg
http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/uploads/TWV_Map.gif
http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/images/twv_eastbound.gif

Thoughts? Praise? Criticism?

Rainforest
2010-Sep-15, 12:00
1. The cost of that plan is huge. We don't know how to fund the subway network alone. How are they going to fund both the extensive subway network and those expensive tunneled / cabled expressways?

2. Any new expressway within 416 will bring only a marginal improvement at best, or likely none at all. The cars will get into the downtown core faster, but where will they go next? The streets in the old parts of the town are not designed for the today's level of car ownership. Basically, all those new highways will do is shifting the points of heaviest gridlock closer to the core.

Building new highways within 416 is not cost-effective. If this kind of money is available, they should be used to build subways, or LRT in the outer parts of 416.

jn_12
2010-Sep-15, 13:13
Wouldn't the additional transit lines offset the need for more highways?

GraphicMatt
2010-Sep-15, 13:17
This is a classic conservative gambit - attempt to build more highways by proposing more transit. Boring and irrelevant.

EnviroTO
2010-Sep-15, 13:41
In Tokyo, a small town in Asia, they have small freeways with only 2 lanes in each direction which take up little space and charge tolls. They have a lot of transit though. I'm not suggesting that transit could solve all of Toronto's transportation problems.... no wait, I am suggesting that.

Why do we need more freeways in this city? Where will these new travellers park and how will the already full downtown streets be widened to handle an increase in cars? Any proposal for more lanes of freeway into the city doesn't deal with the fact most downtown streets can't handle much more than they already do, and in that way make no sense at all.

Woodbridge_Heights
2010-Sep-15, 13:48
The Viaduct plan alone is a complete non starter. I cannot see how they are going to squeeze the on/off ramps for York/Yonge, particularly given the new development in those areas. Electrify and deck over the tracks through Union, and make all trains be electic (or dual mode).

W. K. Lis
2010-Sep-15, 13:58
More expressways means more parking lots. No thanks.

gweed123
2010-Sep-15, 13:58
This is a classic conservative gambit - attempt to build more highways by proposing more transit. Boring and irrelevant.

The highway funding is naturally then announced first, and once construction has began, the entire plan is "re-evaluated", with the transit components being "deferred until more funding can be made available".

The only time the 'in tandum' approach seems to work is when the transit and highway are physically intertwined in the same project (ex: Allen Expressway and Spadina Subway).

Bruce
2010-Sep-15, 16:46
This is a joke, right? Could somebody please explain the difference between an elevated freeway and a viaduct? And, if you want to bury a freeway, why not bury the Gardiner and Rosco Rossi along with it? Sell the space above to condo developers to help finance it, it's already lined with condo towers anyway.

Prometheus The Supremo
2010-Sep-15, 17:14
since those maps don't pay attention to what actually exists (just a bunch of lines drawn on a map), i thought i'd show everyone my map for toronto subway expansion:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/04/NYC_subway-4D.svg/555px-NYC_subway-4D.svg.png

picard102
2010-Sep-15, 18:11
Why on earth would you think it's a good idea to extend the Allen north?

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-15, 19:15
Why on earth would you think it's a good idea to extend the Allen north?

This is not my plan. I just thought with the way these people kept being refrenced, we should give them their own thread.

Prometheus The Supremo
2010-Sep-15, 19:23
This is a classic conservative gambit - attempt to build more highways by proposing more transit. Boring and irrelevant.

it's like a pill with a poison center and a vitamin exterior.

GenerationW
2010-Sep-15, 19:25
A Highway through lower Scarborough might be controversial

Try impossible.

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-15, 20:03
Try impossible.

I don't even know were the hydro corridor is.

But I guess the suburbs like Oshawa, Pickering et al would support it.

ShonTron
2010-Sep-15, 20:21
The only things that make any sense in this era are some of the proposed arterial road connections. The lack of access from Weston/Wilson/Albion to Islington/Rexdale is one gap that would make sense to close, perhaps even the Keele Street jog removal or the reconnection of Dawes Road across the former CN East Toronto yard. But that's about it.

Electrify
2010-Sep-15, 22:31
I mentioned this in the Rossi thread, but fixing the 400 south ramp to the 401 west would be the best way to relieve traffic from that corridor.

Other backlogs in Toronto which need addressing include the southbound 404 over the 401, and various transfer points between the express and collectors on the 401.

I would also consider removing some stops from either the Eglinton or Sheppard line to improve speeds for crosstown commutes, as well as make transit more competitive against highways during off-peak periods.

Justin10000
2010-Sep-15, 23:38
I agree with Graphic Matt. Look at the vehicle that is proposed to replace the streetcars: Phileas Trolleybuses. I'll bet those will cost at least 1.5-2 million a piece. Propose some fancy, and expensive transit dream, and build roads instead after determining the transit part is simply to expensive.

bigtony22127
2010-Sep-16, 01:33
The Transit Plan is beautiful!! I wish we had that system.

As for the new highways cutting across the city, you've got to be kidding!

JWBF
2010-Sep-16, 18:35
The Transit Plan is beautiful!! I wish we had that system.

As for the new highways cutting across the city, you've got to be kidding!

A highway of course would be silly (but you have to picture the year of the plan), an expressway/arterial road across the city though would still be doable, but with the development of Toronto decades after the original proposal it would not be practical.

However, resuming the original idea of extending the Allen down to the Gardener, and being the DVP West, I think is still a good idea.

As much as we need a better transit system we also need access at more points of the city for commuters, as an example.

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-16, 22:35
I have to admit, the bridge thing and Highway 448 look really appealing.

Second_in_pie
2010-Sep-16, 23:25
I have to admit, the bridge thing and Highway 448 look really appealing.I may have said it before, but I stand by the fact that the bridge/viaduct would be far, far better out in Humber Bay, if and when that area gets developed further (I give it 20 or 30 years to be a big line of residential towers.) You could viaduct the Gardiner/rail line from about Roncesvales or Parkside to Park Lawn road, making the whole Humber Bay area much more accesible to the surrounding community, as well as High Park. Maybe not a huge priority now, but a much better use of the bridge idea than putting it through downtown.

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-16, 23:39
I may have said it before, but I stand by the fact that the bridge/viaduct would be far, far better out in Humber Bay, if and when that area gets developed further (I give it 20 or 30 years to be a big line of residential towers.) You could viaduct the Gardiner/rail line from about Roncesvales or Parkside to Park Lawn road, making the whole Humber Bay area much more accesible to the surrounding community, as well as High Park. Maybe not a huge priority now, but a much better use of the bridge idea than putting it through downtown.

It woulld look awesome over the river!


Not a fan of the 448?

Second_in_pie
2010-Sep-17, 00:00
It woulld look awesome over the river!


Not a fan of the 448?Certainly not. We don't need more highways.

Woodbridge_Heights
2010-Sep-17, 01:24
I may have said it before, but I stand by the fact that the bridge/viaduct would be far, far better out in Humber Bay, if and when that area gets developed further (I give it 20 or 30 years to be a big line of residential towers.) You could viaduct the Gardiner/rail line from about Roncesvales or Parkside to Park Lawn road, making the whole Humber Bay area much more accesible to the surrounding community, as well as High Park. Maybe not a huge priority now, but a much better use of the bridge idea than putting it through downtown.

+1

I've always thought the same. A nice architecturally interesting bridge (like the new one in Boston) right from the parklawn area to just before the EX and take all those nasty cars out of people's backyards.

W. K. Lis
2010-Sep-17, 12:19
We do not need more highways. We do need more and better public transit. We need more heavy rail subways. We need more light rail subways. We need more light rail. We need more streetcars. We need more buses. We need timed transfers. We need more frequent headways. We need better public transit in the 416 and in the 905.

GraphicMatt
2010-Sep-17, 12:27
The Toronto Party Transportation Plan contains no mention of platform screen doors.

That the world is round has been widely known since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks.

picard102
2010-Sep-17, 12:38
Keep your attitude to yourself. Keep to the facts. That is what intelligent people do.

You've yet to provide suitable facts to back up your ideas in the thread dedicated to your "invention". Maybe you shouldn't throw stones at glass houses.

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-17, 15:42
Guys let's keep it on topic here, no need to get at each others throats

howl
2010-Sep-17, 15:57
The transit plan shown in the original post is great, but it would only make sense if Toronto had the density of Manhattan, London or Tokyo. If we are contemplating rebuilding all the stable lower density neighbourhoods, like the Annex and Riverdale, with high-rise towers then this plan makes sense. If we want to retain the City’s existing character then a much more modest plan is needed.

MisterF
2010-Sep-17, 19:55
Oh no, not the cable stayed viaduct again. Just a few problems... it woudn't fit in the rail corridor (it's something like 10-12 lanes wide), the foundations for the towers wouldn't fit next to the existing tracks, and there's no room for interchanges. Something tells me people living in the towers next to the corridor wouldn't take too kindly to a brand new freeway right outside their windows. And then there's the whole concept of putting a giant cable stayed bridge that doesn't actually cross anything right through the middle of downtown...

Paleo
2010-Sep-17, 20:46
What? No one ridiculing the subway to the zoo?

Can someone tell me what the point of hooking up the 400 to the Gardiner would be? Are the traffic backups at Spadina, York, et al not long enough at the moment? Can the local roads handle more cars?

adma
2010-Sep-17, 23:10
+1

I've always thought the same. A nice architecturally interesting bridge (like the new one in Boston) right from the parklawn area to just before the EX and take all those nasty cars out of people's backyards.

Stick to Woodbridge, yokel.

Woodbridge_Heights
2010-Sep-18, 01:06
Stick to Woodbridge, yokel.

Such a well thought out reasoned response. Thank you for your contribution.

Of course I'm a yokel because I don't share your viewpoint...

GraphicMatt
2010-Sep-18, 01:19
To be fair, I think he was saying you're a yokel because you live in Woodbridge.

nfitz
2010-Sep-18, 01:47
But perhaps he's from Urban Woodbridge:
http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/medium/34500239.jpg (http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/34500239.jpg)

If you live and work in Urban Woodbridge ... well you probably spend a lot of time in this parking lot ...

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-18, 09:55
Such a well thought out reasoned response. Thank you for your contribution.

Of course I'm a yokel because I don't share your viewpoint...

Woodbridge Heights, I love you man, don't go....

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-18, 10:08
The transit plan shown in the original post is great, but it would only make sense if Toronto had the density of Manhattan, London or Tokyo. If we are contemplating rebuilding all the stable lower density neighbourhoods, like the Annex and Riverdale, with high-rise towers then this plan makes sense. If we want to retain the City’s existing character then a much more modest plan is needed.

I agree. I want TO to add 1 million more residents.

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-18, 17:06
Do you think Rob \ford can get any of this done?

GraphicMatt
2010-Sep-18, 17:08
No.

Electrify
2010-Sep-18, 20:07
You know, looking at this map, I think Highway 448 is not that bad. While I can see increased congestion where it meets the DVP, it could produce some relief from the 404/DVP/401 interchange where about a dozen lanes merge into 3. Most of Scarborough is already very car oriented, so I can't see how this highway would further encourage car oriented development. Finally it looks as if it could be built with little if any destruction to private property.

Fortunately with the improvements to GO in the coming decade(s), it may render such a highway obsolete. However if any new highway were to be built in Toronto, one could make a good case for this one.

W. K. Lis
2010-Sep-18, 20:12
This Toronto Party is more a Suburban Toronto Party. The Toronto Party is party that is anti-streetcar and pro-car, than party that represents all of Toronto and what the future may bring to it. It sure does not represent people I know.

adma
2010-Sep-18, 20:36
Such a well thought out reasoned response. Thank you for your contribution.

Of course I'm a yokel because I don't share your viewpoint...

Well, given the logistics of building a Humber Bay viaduct, whether financial or environmental or through land acquisition or whatever, you'd more likely compound the offense to said residents/activists/whomever who want those nasty cars out of their backyards.

And if you don't "get it", well...yeah. Stick to Woodbridge.

Prometheus The Supremo
2010-Sep-18, 20:38
the T-party. who's our version of glen beck?

Woodbridge_Heights
2010-Sep-18, 20:56
Well, given the logistics of building a Humber Bay viaduct, whether financial or environmental or through land acquisition or whatever, you'd more likely compound the offense to said residents/activists/whomever who want those nasty cars out of their backyards.

And if you don't "get it", well...yeah. Stick to Woodbridge.

I only said I supported the idea, and logistically well...

I doubt land acquisition would be excessive. There's nothing but parkland (Marilyn Bell park?) on the east end. The West end is where there is some trouble as it's beginning to be redeveloped. However I don't think we can expect the Canada Bread factory to remain at it's current location in the mid term so there may be the opportunity to reserve some land in and around that area for an approach there.

For resident's I wonder what would appeal to them more a highway in their backyard or a bridge in their views of the lake. Personally (assuming the bridge were well designed and architecturally intersting) I would think that the removal of the highway from the area far outweighs the visual incursion of a bridge in Humber Bay.

Second_in_pie
2010-Sep-18, 21:33
^^ Not to mention that the bridge would most probably still be under the condo skyline which would block resident's view anyways.

I'd think that the bridge would only be 2 or 3 times as high as the Gardiner and rail corridor are now. Starting at Roncesvales and then slowly rising up to peak at the Humber River, then ending at around Park Lawn could do great things for the area. It would allow High Park to open straight up into the Bay, while also allowing for a more integrated neighborhood around Windermere/S. Kingsway, where there's a lot of condo development right now. And without the Gardiner cramping up space, it might allow developers more room along the west side of the bay before the turnoff at Park Lawn, and also bridging the gaps between the lake and the neighborhood. Also quite importantly, it would allow for the mouth of the Humber to be naturalized (whatever the word is.)

adma
2010-Sep-18, 21:47
For resident's I wonder what would appeal to them more a highway in their backyard or a bridge in their views of the lake. Personally (assuming the bridge were well designed and architecturally intersting) I would think that the removal of the highway from the area far outweighs the visual incursion of a bridge in Humber Bay.

Yet the funny thing is--how fatally "in their backyard" is the Gardiner, in the end? We're not talking about a Cross-Bronx community-cleaving ditch, after all--not even in Parkdale, relatively speaking; and the railway and other "utilities", power lines et al, preexisted the highway, so it isn't like there hasn't always been a "barrier" of sorts here. (And it certainly hasn't stood in the way of condo development alongside in Swansea--which, I suppose, hasn't been marketed as if the Gardiner were going away anytime soon.)

My feeling is, those who are NIMBY/enviro-hyperactive over eliminating the Gardiner in their backyard would rather eliminate it holus bolus and say screw-you to commuters; and only the most hyperactive "anti-lefty" scaremongerers would claim that's in store under a Smitherman/Pantalone mayoralty. I mean, it isn't like there aren't problems begging to be remedied within the present status quo, whether from a transport-planning or urban-aesthetic POV--but they're better remedied incrementally through such things as the decking-over/reconfiguration of the Jameson snarl. Ultimately, the constituency that loathes the Gardiner so much that they're willing to advocate even a "well designed and architecturally interesting" bridge across Humber Bay doesn't extend far beyond wide-eyed message-boarders with little real clue as to ground-level conditions (physically *and* sociologically) in Toronto. Anyone else would roll their eyes at such a overwrought, heavy-handed retro-Robert-Moses boondoggle--even those who loathe the Gardiner as it stands. Like, if you think the fooferaw the Rossi tunnel proposal has sparked is loud, well...

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-19, 00:05
You know, looking at this map, I think Highway 448 is not that bad. While I can see increased congestion where it meets the DVP, it could produce some relief from the 404/DVP/401 interchange where about a dozen lanes merge into 3. Most of Scarborough is already very car oriented, so I can't see how this highway would further encourage car oriented development. Finally it looks as if it could be built with little if any destruction to private property.

Fortunately with the improvements to GO in the coming decade(s), it may render such a highway obsolete. However if any new highway were to be built in Toronto, one could make a good case for this one.

True. Plus the fact Durham will demand this makes it a good idea from a conservative prespective.

GraphicMatt
2010-Sep-19, 00:40
^^ Not to mention that the bridge would most probably still be under the condo skyline which would block resident's view anyways.

Buildings aren't barriers. The Gardiner discussion is about having more than just a nice view of the lake. It's about access.

I am (I guess) a card-carrying member of the War on Cars but I wouldn't advocate doing much with the western part of the Gardiner beyond trying to figure out how to bury it. Yes, it was probably a mistake to put it where it is, but it's there. Unlike in the east, development has happened around it in most places.

Hipster Duck
2010-Sep-19, 02:00
Do you think Rob \ford can get any of this done?

Rob Ford will not be able to get anything done, including the stuff he wants. That's what happens when you're an oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing jackass in council for 15 years and then you wake up, find out that you're the mayor, and have to get things passed in a weak mayoral system where you have no friends.

nfitz
2010-Sep-19, 02:08
Rob Ford will not be able to get anything done, including the stuff he wants.Sure he can. He can appoint all the TTC commissioners. He can appoint all the executive committee. He won't be all powerful, but he'll be able to do stuff. Like cancel contracts.

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-19, 09:33
Rob Ford will not be able to get anything done, including the stuff he wants. That's what happens when you're an oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing jackass in council for 15 years and then you wake up, find out that you're the mayor, and have to get things passed in a weak mayoral system where you have no friends.

Good Call......

adma
2010-Sep-19, 10:11
I am (I guess) a card-carrying member of the War on Cars but I wouldn't advocate doing much with the western part of the Gardiner beyond trying to figure out how to bury it. Yes, it was probably a mistake to put it where it is, but it's there. Unlike in the east, development has happened around it in most places.

Except presently around Windermere, it's a stretch to claim that "development has happened around it"--after all, it occupies a de facto utilities corridor and most everything to the south is waterfront parkland and ancillary uses. (Remember that the building of the Gardiner in the 50s was part alibi to create waterfront parkland from the ghost of Sunnyside and Parkdale's southern reaches.)

Perhaps the "utilities corridor" element should be considered; even more so than downtown, it's a case where the Gardiner augmented an existing barrier rather than creating one anew. Rebuild the Gardiner out into Humber Bay, and you still have a railway etc to contend with. And as my above expropriation point paradoxically indicates, maybe (as with Toronto Islands) the 50s tendency t/w sterile parkland over "urbanity" has more to answer for than the Gardiner in and of itself...

W. K. Lis
2010-Sep-19, 11:39
Dowling Avenue, looking south over the railway bridge into the residences between Lake Shore and the railway. You can see the hydro towers in the distance, where were buried in the 1950's.

https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource/fo1231/f1231_it1638.jpg

Today, south of that bridge, is the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Blvd.. The Toronto Party wants to destroy other residences for their "improvements".

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-19, 20:36
Dowling Avenue, looking south over the railway bridge into the residences between Lake Shore and the railway. You can see the hydro towers in the distance, where were buried in the 1950's.

https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource/fo1231/f1231_it1638.jpg

Today, south of that bridge, is the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Blvd.. The Toronto Party wants to destroy other residences for their "improvements".

wow.

Toronto does a pourus job of preserving history.

adma
2010-Sep-19, 22:33
Though that south-of-the-bridge stuff vanished in the 1950s, when it'd probably have vanished *anywhere* under similar circumstances. It isn't like it happened in the past generation or anything...

denfromoakvillemilton
2010-Sep-20, 00:42
Though that south-of-the-bridge stuff vanished in the 1950s, when it'd probably have vanished *anywhere* under similar circumstances. It isn't like it happened in the past generation or anything...

It would have been nice to have today though.