News   Aug 07, 2020
 2.6K     5 
News   Aug 07, 2020
 650     0 
News   Aug 07, 2020
 738     0 

Gardiner Expressway Hybrid Design

EastYorkTTCFan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
894
Location
East York
Which brings up a point of why would they even have to build it like a traditional freeway? Current freeways a waste of space and is inefficient. If it's designed for computer driven cars only, merge lanes can be shorter, lanes would be reversible, no signs are needed and lanes are be only 3m wide oppose to the 3.75m wide.
I relly don't think we are going to see that for along time.
 

darth_freeman

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
261
Reaction score
135
Location
Toronto
Which brings up a point of why would they even have to build it like a traditional freeway? Current freeways a waste of space and is inefficient. If it's designed for computer driven cars only, merge lanes can be shorter, lanes would be reversible, no signs are needed and lanes are be only 3m wide oppose to the 3.75m wide.
Good luck getting an engineer to sign off on that terrible idea. Maybe in 30 years.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
966
I relly don't think we are going to see that for along time.
I think we will on freeways (and only on freeways, because of the controlled environment) within the next 10-15 years, but it's still a terrible idea to plan with the assumption that this is going to happen.
 

EastYorkTTCFan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
894
Location
East York
I think we will on freeways (and only on freeways, because of the controlled environment) within the next 10-15 years, but it's still a terrible idea to plan with the assumption that this is going to happen.
Maybe but as of right now the only vehicle available to the general public that is capable of it right are Tesla vehicles. With only a few users of it it runs the danger of going the way that 3D Tv went with only a few people actually getting it to the point that broadcasters stopped using it.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
799
Again often the cheapest options are the best. Have Toronto give the needed land away to a developer and let them build on it what they want but the developer would be responsible for building the freeway that would be built under it. It would save the city a fortune and the city would make up much of the difference by the new land it could sell where the current Gardiner is already sitting. It would still provide a fast freeway thru the corridor but it would be out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

This has been done hundreds of times in Toronto itself..............they are called underground parking except instead of the cars sitting there they move thru it. Hardly rocket science. They city could offer a complete waiver to the developer for providing any parking spots at the condo itself.
 

Haljackey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
473
Reaction score
157
Location
London, Ontario
I don't think Gardiner East really relates to the article much. This part of the highway was built mostly on reclaimed and industrial land. There isn't much of an urban fabric to restore here compared to a Robert Moses project that built a highway right through a neighbourhood.

Yes waterfont development is a big deal and it will benefit from having the new Gardiner built further back from the lake front.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
966
I don't think Gardiner East really relates to the article much. This part of the highway was built mostly on reclaimed and industrial land.
It's also on the edge of the city and elevated. The freeway in Buffalo is a lot more analogous to the Spadina Expressway - part of it runs through a river valley, another part runs though a residential neighbourhood as a sunken freeway.

It's also very different in that the public transit alternative is already present. The freeway was built in the 1960s to move people from Buffalo's northern residential areas to downtown, but a partly-underground LRT line was built 20 years later to do the exact same thing.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
966
Though to be fair that's argument by semantics - the Lakeshore is where it is because?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The point is, the Gardiner is not a barrier. If we want to get rid of barriers to the waterfront, we need to get rid of actual barriers like Lakeshore Boulevard and the lack of transit, not fake barriers like an elevated road. We need to mitigate those fake barriers, and one way to mitigate it is to stop people from having to wait under it because they need to cross Lakeshore Boulevard.

Removing the Gardiner means making the actual barrier to the waterfront (one of them, at least) a lot faster, wider and busier.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
27,907
Reaction score
16,029
Location
Toronto
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The point is, the Gardiner is not a barrier. If we want to get rid of barriers to the waterfront, we need to get rid of actual barriers like Lakeshore Boulevard and the lack of transit, not fake barriers like an elevated road. We need to mitigate those fake barriers, and one way to mitigate it is to stop people from having to wait under it because they need to cross Lakeshore Boulevard.

Removing the Gardiner means making the actual barrier to the waterfront (one of them, at least) a lot faster, wider and busier.
You know exactly what I am getting at here. The point is there is no point considering Gardiner in and on itself, and if you don't think the elevated expressway on its' own is a barrier sans Lakeshore, consult the impact of the 2-lane York-Bay ramp teardown. Psychological barriers are real barriers.

Given the Gardiner East is bit of a fait accompli, perhaps I can expect you to support (wait, demand) schemes to narrow and slow down that particular roadway?

AoD
 
Last edited:

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
966
Given the Gardiner East is bit of a fait accompli, perhaps I can expect you to support (wait, demand) schemes to narrow and slow down that particular roadway?
Absolutely. I just don't see how a proposal that dumps 100,000+ cars per day onto surface streets (where they create more pollution and interact with pedestrians & bikes) is a good thing. You'd think that the crowd that loves Vision Zero would be happy to spend an extra few hundred million to separate those cars from vulnerable road users.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
27,907
Reaction score
16,029
Location
Toronto
Absolutely. I just don't see how a proposal that dumps 100,000+ cars per day onto surface streets (where they create more pollution and interact with pedestrians & bikes) is a good thing. You'd think that the crowd that loves Vision Zero would be happy to spend an extra few hundred million to separate those cars from vulnerable road users.
I am sure they would be happier if that 1B+ is spent on just said vulnerable road users instead of using them as an excuse, no?

AoD
 

Top