Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)

[evandyk]

I think the two highways more properly belong with the province because they are there to service many people in neighbouring cities, so this is mostly positive, but sadly I think it makes it much less likely we'll get tolls on them any time soon.

 

[smably]

It makes good sense for the province to pay the costs associated with the Gardiner and DVP, considering that 40% of trips are non-Toronto residents. The financial relief is welcome, but I'm less optimistic about the impacts of putting an urban highway under the purview of the MTO, which often acts as if pedestrians and cyclists don't exist, e.g.,:

In Scarborough, the city installed excellent bike lanes on Conlins Road, an important crossing that links the Meadoway with University of Toronto’s Scarborough campus. However, the separated lanes, protected with concrete barriers, end when Conlins crosses the 401 as the MTO would not let the city protect the lanes there. There aren’t even any on- or off-ramps here but the MTO’s one-size-fits-all approach still applies.

Further east, at the Sheppard Avenue and Port Union Road crossing, the city will be installing separated lanes on either side of the 401, but not over it, because of the MTO.

Avenue Road was indeed recently redone, with some extra space that can barely be considered a bike lane between the curb and edge lines — nothing like proper lanes the city of Toronto would create. But even these all end abruptly at the highway ramps and there are four “Cyclists Dismount” signs posted. The MTO also prioritized a concrete median to protect the cars from each other — not pedestrians and cyclists.

I can pretty much guarantee that Love Park wouldn't exist if the province had owned the Gardiner.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It makes good sense for the province to pay the costs associated with the Gardiner and DVP, considering that 40% of trips are non-Toronto residents. The financial relief is welcome, but I'm less optimistic about the impacts of putting an urban highway under the purview of the MTO, which often acts as if pedestrians and cyclists don't exist, e.g.,:

I can pretty much guarantee that Love Park wouldn't exist if the province had owned the Gardiner.

MTO has gotten a lot better about pedestrians, etc. lately - though that's a relative thing. A lot of their highway interchange rebuilds have actually included real multi-use paths, etc.

Hespeler Rd in Cambridge got a MUP:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

They took a lane off the Sheppard overpass to add a widened sidewalk in North York over the 404: (unfortunately no streetview of this one yet, but it's there)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Major Mackenzie overpass over the 400 is also getting a MUP on the south side, but again, no streetview yet:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[smably]

Hespeler Rd in Cambridge got a MUP:

That's a big improvement over the previous design, which didn't even have so much as a sidewalk.

Unfortunately the MTO carbrains still felt the need to add a "cyclists dismount" sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/QqZKoChfhHSoPfvv9

 

[Leo_Chan]

Hespeler Rd in Cambridge got a MUP:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

So nice of those pedestrians to pose for Street View.

Although if you rotate the camera 180 degrees you'll see the island is unpaved when the photo was taken.

 

[innsertnamehere]

So nice of those pedestrians to pose for Street View.

Although if you rotate the camera 180 degrees you'll see the island is unpaved when the photo was taken.

Well yea - it's under construction at the time. I drove through that interchange a few weeks ago and it's since been completed.

 

[turini2]

From an urbanist perspective, the Gardiner being rebuilt is a terrible decision. If it gets uploaded, wave goodbye to streetscape improvements and any potential of tolling in the medium term.

From a wily political perspective, I can see why the province uploading the DVP and Gardiner could be good thing. Ford (and his allies in Council) get to claim "we saved the Gardiner", as well as supporting their construction industry and auto lobby pals.
Chow doesn't have to have the fight in council over it (not a guaranteed victory), no longer has to spend $1bn+ on rebuilding the Gardiner (potentially money that could be spent elsewhere), and potentially gets a "hall pass" for something else with Ford. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

From a wily political perspective, I can see why the province uploading the DVP and Gardiner could be good thing. Ford (and his allies in Council) get to claim "we saved the Gardiner", as well as supporting their construction industry and auto lobby pals.
Chow doesn't have to have the fight in council over it (not a guaranteed victory), no longer has to spend $1bn+ on rebuilding the Gardiner (potentially money that could be spent elsewhere), and potentially gets a "hall pass" for something else with Ford. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

If it comes down to this I think it’s important we make our voices heard, the province is not to be trusted with the Gardiner. It will be a short term relief but definitely a long term loss, in that the Gardiner will only grow instead of shrink.

Maybe not as bad as the Chicago parking meter deal but still a pretty bad one in my opinion.

 

[T3G]

From an urbanist perspective, the Gardiner being rebuilt is a terrible decision. If it gets uploaded, wave goodbye to streetscape improvements and any potential of tolling in the medium term.

From a wily political perspective, I can see why the province uploading the DVP and Gardiner could be good thing. Ford (and his allies in Council) get to claim "we saved the Gardiner", as well as supporting their construction industry and auto lobby pals.
Chow doesn't have to have the fight in council over it (not a guaranteed victory), no longer has to spend $1bn+ on rebuilding the Gardiner (potentially money that could be spent elsewhere), and potentially gets a "hall pass" for something else with Ford. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

IMO there can be no streetscape improvements while the Gardiner exists. I see no tangible improvement in having an ultra wide stroad to replace the inhuman wasteland under the Gardiner presently. And our transit is nowhere near the level it should be to be able to nix the Gardiner in its entirety.

It should always have been tunneled. Why were all post war urban planners on drugs?

 

[Dan416]

So if the province takes over the Gardiner and DVP will they be given numbers? I guess since the QEW doesn’t have one it’s not technically needed.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

And our transit is nowhere near the level it should be to be able to nix the Gardiner in its entirety.

True, but we’re realistically talking about a teardown in maybe 20 years, at which point we should see significant improvement in west end transit access. Even if we won’t have seen a major decline in Gardiner usage at that point, we will at least have higher quality and higher capacity alternatives if/when it’s closed down.

I see no tangible improvement in having an ultra wide stroad to replace the inhuman wasteland under the Gardiner presently.

Widening would (theoretically) improve throughput, but a trip down QEW + Lakeshore Blvd to get downtown will be slower than the Gardiner even in no traffic. GO would finally have the edge in speed over personal vehicles, which could be the tipping point for a huge modal shift.

I think this would be an ultimate goal, reduce the quality of service for personal vehicles while improving transit. As opposed to smaller goal of making Lakeshore Blvd beautiful and more ped friendly.

 

[nfitz]

So if the province takes over the Gardiner and DVP will they be given numbers? I guess since the QEW doesn’t have one it’s not technically needed.

I'd assume the DVP would be the 404. The interchanges are already numbered that way. On the other hand, it doesn't meet 400-series standards; nor does the Gardiner east of the Humber.

 

[just east of the creek]

True, but we’re realistically talking about a teardown in maybe 20 years, at which point we should see significant improvement in west end transit access. Even if we won’t have seen a major decline in Gardiner usage at that point, we will at least have higher quality and higher capacity alternatives if/when it’s closed down.


Widening would (theoretically) improve throughput, but a trip down QEW + Lakeshore Blvd to get downtown will be slower than the Gardiner even in no traffic. GO would finally have the edge in speed over personal vehicles, which could be the tipping point for a huge modal shift.

I think this would be an ultimate goal, reduce the quality of service for personal vehicles while improving transit. As opposed to smaller goal of making Lakeshore Blvd beautiful and more ped friendly.

We could accelerate this shift by tolling/congestion charge. i would be in favour and I quite often drive into the city using part of the Gardiner depending on destination.

 

[rdaner]

How about a low toll, say $3.25 like the TTC. Honestly the only thing that I really care about is the realignment north at Keeting Channel to free up development land.

 

[turini2]

IMO there can be no streetscape improvements while the Gardiner exists.

To clarify what I meant - at least if the City of Toronto rebuilds the Gardiner, they'd be some consideration of pedestrians and cyclists, especially on Lake Shore Blvd - as well as the various "under the Gardiner" improvements being considered. If the MTO is in charge, forget about it.

Point taken though - from an urbanist perspective, it needs to go.