innsertnamehere
Superstar
... Its an expansion of the union loop to releive capacity when QQE gets built.
|
|
|
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I am pro-transit, take the GO everyday, and have used carsharing/bikesharing services. Would like the balance of car-vs-transit balance tipped a little more towards better and faster transit. But honestly, even myself, I think tearing down the Gardiner is sheer lunancy.
The statistics that claims only a tiny fraction of commuters would be impacted, may be right -- but many drive into downtown only once a month (like myself). The stress levels over the extra 10-15 minutes is much higher, and some of us may not even bother coming into Toronto anyway, for that rare drive. A lot are commuters, but some are also occasional commuters making a special trip. Think of how many big business deals won't be closed on time, how many people will decide not to live downtown, how many people will give up commuting from CityPlace to Markham, how many people will skip attending events, how many people will skip the last minute job interview because it's too painful to drive (and no quick transit), etc. I've been there, in that position. Now I work downtown Toronto. Lose a taxpayer, lose a business owner, harder to recruit high tech people, etc. All the missed opportunities add up over a year, and can make a city regret not building a Gardiner Tunnel. Toronto is stuck with an automobile mentality and we are alas -- almagamated -- for better or for worse. The downtown-vs-suburbs will be far more polarized if we tear down the Gardiner with no replacement. Smarttrack will help quite some, but even so, tearing down the Gardiner sounds like sheer lunancy -- it's Toronto's only complete "ring road" encircling downtown. Most big cities, even transit-happy European ones, Paris and London, have ring roads!
So -- personally -- I prefer either the fancy-viaduct plans (e.g. greenbelt park that protects viaduct) or bury plans (e.g. underground tollway). The value of downtown living would go up, and the maintenance costs will go down (no salting needed), and eventually pay for itself, in conjunctions to other value adds (tolls, better economy in area). The problem is these plans (greenbelt roof or burying) seems a little pie in the sky, but let's see what happens to Gardiner decision-making after Smarttrack gets built.
IMHO -- bury and toll it. An expensive Big Dig, perhaps constructed during the good economic times hopefully before the new Gardiner refurbishment collapses. We keep our ring expressway, but out of sight, with the benefits above ground. Tolls, while painful for those of us on budget, will keep the traffic faster and manageable for those moments of speedy auto need. And we could always use Lakeshore (which would become a sunny boulevard) if we aren't in a hurry and don't want to use tolls.
But wait until after well after Smarttrack and full Lakeshore/Kitchener/etc GO electricificaton is completed, please. No sense in starting a construction quagmire before then.
The statistics that claims only a tiny fraction of commuters would be impacted, may be right -- but many drive into downtown only once a month (like myself). The stress levels over the extra 10-15 minutes is much higher, and some of us may not even bother coming into Toronto anyway, for that rare drive. A lot are commuters, but some are also occasional commuters making a special trip. Think of how many big business deals won't be closed on time, how many people will decide not to live downtown, how many people will give up commuting from CityPlace to Markham, how many people will skip attending events, how many people will skip the last minute job interview because it's too painful to drive (and no quick transit), etc. I've been there, in that position. Now I work downtown Toronto. Lose a taxpayer, lose a business owner, harder to recruit high tech people, etc. All the missed opportunities add up over a year, and can make a city regret not building a Gardiner Tunnel. Toronto is stuck with an automobile mentality and we are alas -- almagamated -- for better or for worse. The downtown-vs-suburbs will be far more polarized if we tear down the Gardiner with no replacement. Smarttrack will help quite some, but even so, tearing down the Gardiner sounds like sheer lunancy -- it's Toronto's only complete "ring road" encircling downtown. Most big cities, even transit-happy European ones, Paris and London, have ring roads!
So -- personally -- I prefer either the fancy-viaduct plans (e.g. greenbelt park that protects viaduct) or bury plans (e.g. underground tollway). The value of downtown living would go up, and the maintenance costs will go down (no salting needed), and eventually pay for itself, in conjunctions to other value adds (tolls, better economy in area). The problem is these plans (greenbelt roof or burying) seems a little pie in the sky, but let's see what happens to Gardiner decision-making after Smarttrack gets built.
IMHO -- bury and toll it. An expensive Big Dig, perhaps constructed during the good economic times hopefully before the new Gardiner refurbishment collapses. We keep our ring expressway, but out of sight, with the benefits above ground. Tolls, while painful for those of us on budget, will keep the traffic faster and manageable for those moments of speedy auto need. And we could always use Lakeshore (which would become a sunny boulevard) if we aren't in a hurry and don't want to use tolls.
But wait until after well after Smarttrack and full Lakeshore/Kitchener/etc GO electricificaton is completed, please. No sense in starting a construction quagmire before then.
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
Downtown will be fine with all-day GO service and the DRL. That sort of transit expansion would replace the lost transportation capacity and bring in suburbanites and those living just outside the downtown core--the same people who drive today.
TOareaFan
Superstar
There is much to question/discuss about your post but I have just left two bits above.....does not doing what is suggested in the second bit fix the problem I have bolded in the first bit? Ie...if you wait until those projects are completed....can we do without the Gardiner.
I have long felt that after those projects are implemented we should toll the hell out of the Gardiner....but tying your comments together maybe they fit a pre-requisite you have for tearing it down.
44 North
Senior Member
Burying the Gardiner is a silly idea. IMO it's as pie-in-the-sky as the plans to put a park above it. I don't know why so many support such an expense. Perhaps 2-3km right in the core...but even then it doesn't seem worth it. As it stands, the focus of the Gardiner is east of Jarvis, with the options being:
Maintain the elevated expressway
Improve the urban fabric while maintaining the existing expressway
Replace with a new above or below grade expressway
Remove the elevated expressway and build a new boulevard
For the last ~6mths the hot topic is to specifically replace and realign the section between Cherry and the DVP to open up land for development at the old Unilever factory in the 'East Don Lands'.
Personally I think Replace is the best option. What I'd love to see, as I've posted earlier, is for an elevated rapid transit streetcar line to be built in conjunction with this replacement. Not as some crazy multi-leveled structure (although that would be cool). But merely an expressway and EL side by side.
'Improve' is an interesting one. I think there are simple fixes which could really help how the expressway presents itself - both for drivers using Lake Shore, or pedestrians. This doesn't have to be costly eco-art installations; but rather simple things like lighting, brightly coloured paint, and landscaping. However, if the consensus is to rejig the section east of Cherry to the DVP, I figure why not go all the way and replace the section between Jarvis and Cherry as well.
My problem with the report is that the Remove option makes the "boulevard" into a joke. They actually show on-street parking in the image. How can a 6-lane expressway and 6-lane highway turn into a 5 lane street? As long as sidewalks and cycling paths are kept well away from the roadway, there's no reason the Remove option can't keep Lake Shore as the pseudo-highway it currently is. The roadway allowance is enormous, and I can't comprehend why the City is insistent that the narrow marginalized strip between the Gardiner and rail corridor be developed. Even with the elevated structure removed, it shouldn't be developed.
And London doesn't have a ring expressway...it's a road system with traffic lights - just as Lake Shore would be with the Gardiner removed.
BurlOak
Senior Member
It was interesting that the studied the East Gardiner for I don't know how many years, and they did not come up with the revised alignment that was preferred by all Mayoralty candidates this year. What does that tell you about the study.
44 North
Senior Member
Here's my attempt at a doodling what an elevated streetcar would look like through this stretch. Dorky as it may be, I think it does a good job of showing a rapid transit alternative to a streetcar on Queens Quay. Obviously the original image is from the Gardiner EA.
Attachments
BurlOak
Senior Member
That looks like Doug Fords monorail. This is Toronto - we don't do elevated here.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Fair enough.
Furthermore, can such route be useful as a part of DRL? 4 km of relatively easy construction, although it will be a bit of a challenge to connect to Union and CBD.
44 North
Senior Member
The Unilever site was still pumping out soap in the Robert Fung / early-WT days, so I can understand why rejigging the route wasn't on the radar. Back then it seemed tunneling the Gardiner was the biggest priority. I'll rephrase your question with a more optimistic spin: what does that tell you about an evolving, dynamic, and in-demand metropolis
quid pro quo. An elevated highway in exchange for an elevated RT line.
No DRL...but maybe a DLR. But in all seriousness, I don't think it could/should double as a DRL. I'd like the initial 4km to be the western arm of a Port Lands/waterfront light metro system - which is basically streetcars separate from traffic. It could connect to Cherry, and Leslie Barns...but the main spine of it would be an light RT line with a local-service amount of stations/stops.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Where would the City get funding to maintain Gardiner East?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Well that six lane highway apparently doesn't move very many people. I suppose that's why it could be replaced with a street.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
it moves 120,000 daily vehicles, the same amount that the Eglinton Crosstown is expected to carry. I can't remember Lakeshore numbers, but they are pretty low east of Jarvis. Most people just get on the Gardiner. That replacement 8 lane street, assuming no on street parking, would have a capacity of roughly 100,000 daily vehicles. The current 8 lane highway has a capacity of roughly 200,000 under normal traffic management schemes (current highway is way under capacity).
traffic planning for the Gardiner removal features significant transfer of vehicle traffic to Richmond / Adelaide as well as some transit adoption, to make up for the lost capacity.
I presume that if the road was only 6 lanes it would not have parking as well. If 8 lanes as depicted it would likely be able to handle off peak parking however.
Essentially, the existing highway system is way overbuilt, but the proposed replacement is likely straddling the line of capacity, with essentially 0 room for growth. Not that any can really occur as the surrounding roads are all at capacity.
traffic planning for the Gardiner removal features significant transfer of vehicle traffic to Richmond / Adelaide as well as some transit adoption, to make up for the lost capacity.
I presume that if the road was only 6 lanes it would not have parking as well. If 8 lanes as depicted it would likely be able to handle off peak parking however.
Essentially, the existing highway system is way overbuilt, but the proposed replacement is likely straddling the line of capacity, with essentially 0 room for growth. Not that any can really occur as the surrounding roads are all at capacity.
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
I'm intrigued with how they came up with that number. The new waterfront communities are supposed be a walking and transit nirvana, and the type of people who will live there are less inclined to drive in the first place. And yet, a short streetcar line that may take a couple of minutes longer to get to Union will somehow convince 2,300 people to drive in gridlocked hell because it's not elevated.
Edit: upon re-reading the statement, isn't a "dedicated transit right-of-way" exactly what Queens Quay will have? The report seems to say that a dedicated transit ROW is not possible on Lakeshore, therefore the projected demand will not materialize on that corridor, whereas on Queens Quay it would. I'm not sure you came to the right conclusion, unless your point is that a ROW on Lakeshore is actually possible if you simply [insert engineering feat here]. If that's the case, is it really worth the extra cost for the similar ridership that would be achieved on Queens Quay without said engineering feat? Considering that the East Bayfront and Portlands are quite close to the downtown core to begin with, I'm not convinced that a higher order rapid transit solution is really needed, nor will it result in huge time savings for a short transit line. Whatever few minutes it would save will be offset by the fact that most people will have to walk further to get to Lakeshore, and that stops would likely be further apart.
Also, I wouldn't characterize the streetcar as slow. Unlike every other streetcar in the city, this one will have real transit priority signals and a ROW on the side of the road, which should minimize the stopping at traffic lights. It wont be super fast, but it it also won't be anything like 510 Spadina.
muller877
Senior Member
With the growth in retail, residential, institutional and commercial in the East along Richmond and Adelaide are the models out of date with respect to the overflow being handled by these 2 streets? And then remove a lane for dedicated bike lanes?
5 years ago the roads had almost no life east of Jarvis and they were a long on/off ramp for the DVP. Now there is actually street life (and more to come). It is becoming a community. If trucks and commuters take over, what will happen. It use to be an exit of choice but now its easier to get of at Yonge to get to King & Bay.
And it's funny to hear that we can't afford maintenance on a road structure but we could afford a brand new monorail or elevated LRT or other idea. Hamilton can afford the maintenance on a truck diversion route (LINC) and we are 5 times the size and can't afford to maintain a route into the downtown?
The models that were developed 10 years ago also don't predict the future commercial hub at Unilever/portlands. If this ever takes off, there will be added traffic from the west via the Gardiner to this site. There always will be people driving in regardless of the amount of transit. So there would be added traffic to a road with essentially 0 room for growth.