|
|
|
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Hybrid Option - Over $900m
Remove Option - Around $300m
and the Remove Option has potential to generate $100-150m in public land sales on top of that.
Financially, only one option makes sense.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
FYI - the images from the presentation are pretty much the same as the ones presented to the media, available here:
http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/gardiner___presentation___for_media__final_1.pdf
AoD
http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/gardiner___presentation___for_media__final_1.pdf
AoD
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
So remove option ultimately ends up costing about $150 Million to $200 Million.
The hybrid option costs $900 Million. The hybrid option saves a small amount of commuters 2 to 3 minutes.
The logical option is clear.
Last edited by a moderator:
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
What? Are you actually Rob Ford?
You said this yesterday, and I said there would be a ramp connecting the two. Then you posted today's images of the curved ramp making the right turn at a light unnecessary. Then you posted this. Please look at the renderings. The remove option has a ramp/flyover providing a no-stop no-light connecting the southbound DVP to the Westbound Lakeshore.
hawc
Senior Member
^^^
Ha. I love how with the REMOVE option they're suddenly able to wedge in two high-rises between the tracks and Lakeshore Blvd. Yeah right.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Given the width of the ROW and consolidation of the Lakeshore lanes, it's probably no different from say the Delta-18 York stretch of Southcore.
AoD
hawc
Senior Member
Attachments
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Actually nope, take a look at p. 19 of the presentation:
2 lanes both ways. Exactly the same as the current Gardiner to DVP connector.
AoD
Attachments
Last edited:
hawc
Senior Member
Well, this rendering is a joke then. Because it shows 2 lanes not 4 and it shows both lanes heading in the same direction.
Also I've never seen a ramped section of highway with traffic going in opposite directions with no barrier between the two directions. There's not even a solid yellow line. It's a dashed white line.
Today I learned that renderings don't count for anything.
Attachments
Last edited:
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
I support a hybrid option, but not the proposed alinement.
There's no reason why the highway cannot take an alinement closer to the Lakeshore East GO line/Don Yard;
The two red lines seen above are identical - meaning the degree of curvature is essentially identical to the current alinement.
Notations A & B indicated the distance in which the roadway changes grade. These images depict the current change in grade:
I don't know exactly how high the Gardiner is by the third image but it would appear to be at least 50 feet above grade. The clearance below it is about twice as what would be required for a rail corridor. The distance between this point and the point at which it drops low enough to go under the Lakeshore East GO corridor is a mere 250m - noted by "B" on the map. Likewise the grade change of a the new roadway would have to be similar since the Lakeshore Eas GO corridor is at a higher grade. The location of this grade change is noted by "A" on the map and is in fact slighter longer at 300m. There would be no obstruction to the Don yard as the highway would pass over the current location of a maintenance building which can easily be relocated. This alinement may cost slightly more than the proposed hybrid alinement because it would probably require a few longer spans to cost the Don and the rail corridor. But otherwise is seems to me like it would be far more advantageous and I have a hard time believing the city has not considering such an alinement more seriously.
There's no reason why the highway cannot take an alinement closer to the Lakeshore East GO line/Don Yard;
The two red lines seen above are identical - meaning the degree of curvature is essentially identical to the current alinement.
Notations A & B indicated the distance in which the roadway changes grade. These images depict the current change in grade:
I don't know exactly how high the Gardiner is by the third image but it would appear to be at least 50 feet above grade. The clearance below it is about twice as what would be required for a rail corridor. The distance between this point and the point at which it drops low enough to go under the Lakeshore East GO corridor is a mere 250m - noted by "B" on the map. Likewise the grade change of a the new roadway would have to be similar since the Lakeshore Eas GO corridor is at a higher grade. The location of this grade change is noted by "A" on the map and is in fact slighter longer at 300m. There would be no obstruction to the Don yard as the highway would pass over the current location of a maintenance building which can easily be relocated. This alinement may cost slightly more than the proposed hybrid alinement because it would probably require a few longer spans to cost the Don and the rail corridor. But otherwise is seems to me like it would be far more advantageous and I have a hard time believing the city has not considering such an alinement more seriously.
44 North
Senior Member
But much of the development south of Lake Shore would’ve occurred regardless of whether the Gardiner was removed or not. The idea of development on the ~12 acres of freed-up land along Lake Shore seems to be a newish idea from the last year.
If the REMOVE option is chosen, I’m fine either way. What I do question is making Lake Shore into a slow-speed avenue with properties fronting onto it.
Well, this rendering is a joke then. Because it shows 2 lanes not 4 and it shows both lanes heading in these same direction.
Also I've never seen a ramped section of highway with traffic going in opposite directions with no barrier between the two directions. There's not even a solid yellow lined. It's a dashed white line.
Today I learned that renderings don't count for anything.
Hmm. Nice catch. I thought something seemed a bit odd. It appears to me it's a 2-lane road leading only to northbound DVP.
hawc
Senior Member
I'm actually fine with either option and I'll be directly affected by whatever they choose. I drive this route to work each morning.
I just hope they decide soon and move fast and don't take forever.
P.S. this area of Toronto is only nice for about 4 months a year. The rest of the time it's cold, rainy, windy and dirty. I love the pictures of people sipping drinks at the mouth of the Don. I hope I live to see that. And when I do it will only be July and August. All other months aren't that nice in this area of Toronto.
BurlOak
Senior Member
As far as our political system works (since we never have referenda), it was on the ballot. And neither of the top 2 candidates supported removing it.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's misleading - you are voting for the representative, not any one policy on a case by case basis. It's about as meaningful as saying that there shouldn't be a mayor because the turnout is less than 50% and that in essence, the majority chose none.
AoD
Last edited: