This isn't a scheme. It's a serious attempt to make a stub of a highway (the Allen) a more accessible, connected, and viable artery; to find a means of funding the construction of a well-needed subway line; to pay for infrastructure that will be essential if we ever decide to bury or remove the Gardiner (by providing an exit from it to the road grid in the core), and to see how an underground expressway would work in Toronto without adding tolls to an existing highway. The world is not going "car free" in its centres and certainly not in Toronto in the 21st century. Just appreciate the thought that went into producing this and actually read the comments on the maps, because there's value there, rather than dumping on a departure from the usual approaches. And please don't use the phrase "We at UT," as though everyone on here thinks the same way. Thankfully different people have different ideas. I'm not sure you appreciate the congestion problem in Toronto and how it's impacting quality of life, the need to find ways of funding transit that aren't going to bankrupt the city, and the reality that our highways are not doing their job of moving people and goods. Trying to solve the movement of people and goods in Toronto by adding public transit alone is ridiculous, especially when you have no means of paying for it. What's more, I don't like visible highways, so please don't state that somehow this is a push to run multiple additional expressways through the city. On the contrary, I'd like to see the elevated Gardiner buried or removed, at least east of Jarvis. You don't seem to know my ideas. To solve the commuter and pedestrian experience in Toronto takes bold action. I'm not expecting Boston's Big Dig here, but can we at least try something more than just primping up the underside of our elevated expressway and flapping gums about plans for a Downtown Relief Subway line that should've been built 30 years ago?
At no point did I suggest that you didn't put in serious effort in to your
scheme(s) .
On the contrary, I expressly suggested that your considerable efforts might be better invested in proposals that would gain greater traction.
The word scheme, by the way, isn't an insult, its short for schematic or drawing, which is exactly what you've offered.
***
Lest you imagine I'm somehow ill-informed on driving or an ideologue, I need a car for my work, have owned one and been driving for well over 20 years, and live just far enough from downtown, that not everything is a pedestrian paradise where I'm at.
For work, for reasons of ferrying ill/disabled relatives, for reasons of excursions (hiking/camping) amongst others, I have driven, countless times on every highway in the GTA and that vast majority of its roads.
I have commuted both by car and by transit, and am well aware of the lengthy commutes than exist, and many years ago, changed jobs in consideration of shortening mine (amongst other reasons).
***
While, I'll agree, in fairness, I shouldn't purport to speak for all of UT, and I rarely do anything of the sort. I do feel, in this case, that you'd be hard pressed to come up within even a handful of UT'ers who find your latest proposal realistic. That doesn't mean some wouldn't love if it were; nor that everyone imagines transit will create a commuters' nirvana for everyone. Rather, some mixture of the costs, technical challenges, and lack of broad public or political support means the idea is not, nor will it likely be a serious (as in likely to be implemented) proposal, in the foreseeable future.
***
There are real potential proposals to re-arrange elements of the road network, or to better manage the network we have (smart traffic lights) that are not only more likely to gain traction, but have fewer technical hurdles.
My questions was why not invest in pushing for those? You might actually see some of those ideas some to the fore, sooner, rather than later.
***
If you would like serious critiques on your proposal, I'll offer one right off the bat, at the north end you propose a DRL/Allen that has to pass underneath the Crosstown, the Spadina subway , a piped creek,
at a presumed depth that has you below the watertable, and at a grade that would require you to lower the Allen at least as far back as Lawrence............rather challenging from a construction perspective, hideously expensive, and creates very real issues for emergency exits and venting.
A cursory examination of your proposal does not illustrate how you propose to add traffic capacity at the southern end to accommodate a significant net new volume of vehicles.
Nor does it address the associated parking requirements would be a solid 15,000 +
It fails to recognize that Richmond and Adelaide have both experienced narrowing or capacity reductions recently, and there certainly is no room for widenings.
The Gardiner at the point of proposed intersection is also already over its rated capacity, and so presumably you would wish to widen it as well, and then you again have the attendant feeder road capacity issues.
You seem to propose the southern terminus would run through/under/over a national historic site (Fort York)..........which would not be allowed, even the Gardiner had to bend to avoid it.
Assuming an underground to overground connection, given the need to pass under the railway corridor, there is insufficient room for a feasible grade, moreso if you wish to allow truck traffic.
Assuming a full underground (ie. underground Gardiner) not only entails a budget that is beyond the imagination, but one where political and public support have both been lacking, and there is no polling data suggesting a shift of which I am aware.
****
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
It really isn't personal. I do appreciate your enthusiasm for bold ideas and willingness to put forward maps/cursory drawings.
I maintain that enthusiasm might be better placed with proposals that would gain some measure of consensus approval/endorsement.
But I will concede, that is your decision to make, not mine.
