Markster
Senior Member
Quoting, since the most relevant post ended up at the bottom of the page
|
|
|
Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Speaking as a software developer, this is pure fantasy. Self driving cars will be reserved to rural highways and freeways for decades, only for safety reasons. Yes, I know someone will quote that and say that self-driving cars cause fewer accidents, but that's irrelevant because the general public has a much higher safety standard that needs to be cleared for pre-programmed driving than spur-of-the-moment human reactions, and it'll take a decades-long cultural revolution to change that thinking.
If anything, the Gardiner and DVP will be used even more 10-20 years from now, because self-driving cars will probably only be allowed on freeways and outside of populated areas. On urban and suburban streets, you'll probably see a fully autonomous car flying above you before you see one driving beside you.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
This is the concept I have been purposing for ever............a trench. It could be built for next to nothing if private developers were allowed to build on top of a portion of the road if they subsequently build the road itself.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
This is not a trench. It is high quality landscaping at the edge space. It has nothing to do with your concept.
AoD
BurlOak
Senior Member
Its a trench with side slopes (one 1 side - right). I think the Gardiner is above and Lakeshore below - which is opposite to what ssiguy2 talked about.
The left side looks like its right up against a building - not sure if that the railway berm, or does it represent building construction (i.e. likely change from what is shown to a 50 story building).
It looks to me like a lower version of the Gardiner. With pedestrians on the lower level, it will be darker and much less inviting than the current situation.
The left side looks like its right up against a building - not sure if that the railway berm, or does it represent building construction (i.e. likely change from what is shown to a 50 story building).
It looks to me like a lower version of the Gardiner. With pedestrians on the lower level, it will be darker and much less inviting than the current situation.
Neil
Active Member
Perhaps we could build an elevated expressway but just 1cm off the ground. That way we would have the flexibility and openness of the boulevard option yet the costs of an elevated expressway. Y'know, a hybrid.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It's literally just landscaping the preexustng railway berm. No lowering is involved - there is a before illustration in the presentation that speaks to it.
AoD
ponyboy
Active Member
Read the report. I think all of this expensive landscaping will be under-appreciated, and probably not well maintained given our track record. Even with this landscaping, this path under the Gardiner and along Lake Shore Blvd will not be a preferred choice by most people because of noise and pollution. Most people will choose the Queens Quay Path or go north to another E-W corridor (Esplanade, Front, etc).
But if they want a path here, how about an enclosed corridor on the side where new buildings will be. Those developers could be required to build an enclosed 4-5m wide corridor on the edges of their buildings along that side of the road. The air quality would be improved and noise from the road could be reduced. Bright colors, funky paintings and other neat lighting features could be constructed along this weather protected corridor. Pedestrian/bicycle entrances to the buildings along this enclosed path would encourage a walking and bike-friendly community. If they want to spend more money, this corridor could be built on the 2nd or 3rd floor of the new buildings, and PATH-like bridges could allow users to go over the intersections, unimpeded by the north-south roads (Parliament, Sherbourne, and Jarvis).
No path would be needed on the other side of the Gardiner, and if possible, allowing it to be pushed as close as possible to the rail corridor, leaving more room for development and enclosed path.
from the report:
But if they want a path here, how about an enclosed corridor on the side where new buildings will be. Those developers could be required to build an enclosed 4-5m wide corridor on the edges of their buildings along that side of the road. The air quality would be improved and noise from the road could be reduced. Bright colors, funky paintings and other neat lighting features could be constructed along this weather protected corridor. Pedestrian/bicycle entrances to the buildings along this enclosed path would encourage a walking and bike-friendly community. If they want to spend more money, this corridor could be built on the 2nd or 3rd floor of the new buildings, and PATH-like bridges could allow users to go over the intersections, unimpeded by the north-south roads (Parliament, Sherbourne, and Jarvis).
No path would be needed on the other side of the Gardiner, and if possible, allowing it to be pushed as close as possible to the rail corridor, leaving more room for development and enclosed path.
from the report:
Attachments
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
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.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
I relly don't think we are going to see that for along time.
darth_freeman
Active Member
Good luck getting an engineer to sign off on that terrible idea. Maybe in 30 years.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
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
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
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.
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.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Meanwhile...
Once So Chic and Swooshy, Freeways Are Falling Out of Favor
Several cities face pressure to tear down the 1960s-era mega-roads and reinstate pedestrian-friendly streets. Jane Jacobs told you so!
See link.
Once So Chic and Swooshy, Freeways Are Falling Out of Favor
Several cities face pressure to tear down the 1960s-era mega-roads and reinstate pedestrian-friendly streets. Jane Jacobs told you so!
See link.