Toronto Lower Simcoe Ramp | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

[sikandar]

The only way this will work is if there’s two left-turn lanes for York. Even then, I think this will be messy.

Aside from that, they should build a drop-off/pick-up lane on Harbour with stairs/escalators connecting to the PATH bridge. This would be perfect for Union/ACC crowds in heavy traffic without their taxi/Uber/ride making the half-hour investment to turn onto York.

Jan 23, 2018 13:20
View attachment 133162
New road lane markings

 

[smallspy]

interesting disappearance / merge of right (3rd) lane from the ramp at a blind curve
(left side from the picture looking west)
don't see the point of having it when the exit starts as 2 lanes

View attachment 133202

It allows for a higher throughput of vehicles through the intersection.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ADRM]

I can't recall if there's now a thread for the new park, specifically, but a couple details from Cressy's latest newsletter:
- This and the Rees St. park will have a budget of $11M each.
- This park is slated to be complete by 2020 (construction slated to begin in 2019) and the Rees park by 2021 (construction slated to begin in 2020).

There's also now an online survey that'll ostensibly inform the design of both parks, which you can see here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/york-rees-cressy

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I can't recall if there's now a thread for the new park, specifically, but a couple details from Cressy's latest newsletter:
- This and the Rees St. park will have a budget of $11M each.
- This park is slated to be complete by 2020 (construction slated to begin in 2019) and the Rees park by 2021 (construction slated to begin in 2020).

There's also now an online survey that'll ostensibly inform the design of both parks, which you can see here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/york-rees-cressy

Not the York Park, but there is one for 318 Queens Quay:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/new-park-318-queens-quay-city-of-toronto.27453/page-7

11M really isn't that much - Berczy Park (which I believe is significantly smaller) cost 7M. Hope the donation will bring it significantly over that amount.

AoD

 

[44 North]

It allows for a higher throughput of vehicles through the intersection.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I can't really see how that's even possible. If every driver knew how to properly accommodate zipper merges, maybe. But due to our level of both courtesy and incompetence, not to mention driver inability to replicate the physics of natural flow, I'm inclined to believe this 'greater throughput' won't work. Perhaps even resulting in a net negative effect. Look at any lane reduction elsewhere...they're always a mess and don't work as optimally as they could or should.

And I thought this was settled awhile ago that it's a layby/shoulder. Surprised it's not. Does seem weird to add an extra lane for only 100m.

 

[Panontario]

I can't really see how that's even possible. If every driver knew how to properly accommodate zipper merges, maybe. But due to our level of both courtesy and incompetence, not to mention driver inability to replicate the physics of natural flow, I'm inclined to believe this 'greater throughput' won't work. Perhaps even resulting in a net negative effect. Look at any lane reduction elsewhere...they're always a mess and don't work as optimally as they could or should.

And I thought this was settled awhile ago that it's a layby/shoulder. Surprised it's not. Does seem weird to add an extra lane for only 100m.

I 100% agree with you on all your points. My only hypothesis is that the extra lane West of Lower Simcoe is meant to channel right turn onto Lower Simcoe. And same lane East of Lower Simcoe is meant to accept cars turning right from Lower Simcoe. I hope that the lane was never meant to be a through lane, and only used to service cars turning to and from Lower Simcoe (even though there are no restrictions for a through traffic).

 

[44 North]

I 100% agree with you on all your points. My only hypothesis is that the extra lane West of Lower Simcoe is meant to channel right turn onto Lower Simcoe. And same lane East of Lower Simcoe is meant to accept cars turning right from Lower Simcoe. I hope that the lane was never meant to be a through lane, and only used to service cars turning to and from Lower Simcoe (even though there are no restrictions for a through traffic).

Hm, would have to see a diagram. But am wondering if these are meant as a sort of queue-jump for intercity buses. Sort of a mini version of what we have for GO on the DVP. Tried looking for docs related to the project but the City's page isn't hosting any for some reason. If it is solely for GO/Greyhound perhaps there could be benefit. When it's all backlogged it could easily save a minute or two and improve reliability, which for a commuter service seconds count.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It does increase throughput, ask any traffic engineer. It causes a bit of a logjam on the other side of the intersection but overall improves vehicle throughput. The merging has time to work itself out once the light has gone red again and no additional vehicles are coming from the ramp.

 

[pav]

And then there was street lights ...

 

[W. K. Lis]

The TTC ran "ghost trains" on the Line 1 extension into Vaughan. Will the Transportation Services run "ghost motor vehicles" on the new ramp? lol!

 

[Fred.S]

The TTC ran "ghost trains" on the Line 1 extension into Vaughan. Will the Transportation Services run "ghost motor vehicles" on the new ramp? lol!

That's a good question actually. I don't really now much about building elevated highways and ramps. Any highway engineers here? Do they do some sort of stress testing? Load the ramp up to max weight and somehow measure compression on the supports or something?

 

[innsertnamehere]

not a highway engineer, but no, not from my understanding. They do a visual check to ensure all bolts, welds, etc. are done properly, but don't place 2000 tons of material to test load bearing requirements.

 

[TransitBart]

Remember. There have been construction vehicles on the ramp. To some extent, the ramp has been in use since the deck was built. Building the deck itself, imposes the first and constant static load.

 

[BurlOak]

That's a good question actually. I don't really now much about building elevated highways and ramps. Any highway engineers here? Do they do some sort of stress testing? Load the ramp up to max weight and somehow measure compression on the supports or something?

Is this a highway engineer question or a bridge engineer question.

If the question is how much does a pier column compress under the weight of a truck, I would put that at about 0.1mm. The asphalt (or ballast if your talking train) deflects much more locally under the weight of the wheels than the actual bridge support compress.
The bearing compresses more, depending on the type. High load bearings (probably not the case here), deflection about a similar amount (0.1mm), while rubber bearings (which also typically contain steel plates inside) would deflect about 2mm (5mm max in a real aggressive design).

At the midway point between supports, and beam will deflect maybe Span/600 - so the Gardiner has spans of about 80' (26m), maximum deflection would be about 40mm.

Things deflect under self weight of girders and deck and asphalt, so the design already compensates for these as they are permanently there.

 

[Isotack]

not a highway engineer, but no, not from my understanding. They do a visual check to ensure all bolts, welds, etc. are done properly, but don't place 2000 tons of material to test load bearing requirements.

Unless the Liberals build a bridge over the Nipigon River... that worked out well...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/nipigon-river-bridge-closed-transcanada-1.3397831