Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[44 North]

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.

Cold? Rainy? Windy? Dirty? Oh, c’mon. The area will be happening – regardless of whether the Gardiner is removed. Downtown waterfront, that’s actually planned for pedestrians (instead of the disjointed mess west of Yonge), in the largest city in Canada? There’s no question it will be the place to be and used year-round. People will be sitting next to the Don drinking coffee in winter.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

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.

Why would this area of Toronto be any less nice than other areas?

 

[CapitalSeven]

Look again eagle eyes. No it doesn't.

View attachment 44210

Now I see where you got that impression. Something went badly wrong in that rendering - I guess they were working in a hurry. If you look carefully it seems to be two lanes one direction at the DVP end and 4 lanes 2 directions on the Lakeshore. Magic! I suspect it got cut and pasted from somewhere else.

By "No DVP/Gardiner direct expressway connection" they apparently mean that the Gardiner would end about Church and the DVP would start just before the Don, with a boulevard connection. But I see, given the wonky rendering, how it could be misread.

 

[BurlOak]

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.

Not sure what you get, but it looks like a curve radius of about 300m - which is for a 90km/h speed limit.
It looks like over 400m from Eastern to the railway (along the curve). At 4% (which is ok for 100km/h design speed), that gives you 16m (minus 2m for bridge depth) over the railway tracks. 14m is quite a bit larger than the required 7m clearance.
Are they planning on double decking the Lakeshore line in that area? That is the only way it wouldn't work.

 

[CapitalSeven]

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.

It's often been observed that the road supports along the Keating Channel all in a row are rather stately, and the hybrid rendering seen from across the channel confirms this. Keep a few, build an orangerie out of them, and sip drinks among the citrus.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Not sure what you get, but it looks like a curve radius of about 300m - which is for a 90km/h speed limit.
It looks like over 400m from Eastern to the railway (along the curve). At 4% (which is ok for 100km/h design speed), that gives you 16m (minus 2m for bridge depth) over the railway tracks. 14m is quite a bit larger than the required 7m clearance.
Are they planning on double decking the Lakeshore line in that area? That is the only way it wouldn't work.

Exactly. By all means such an alinement should be entirely feasible. AFAIK there wouldn't be any major roadblocks to such. It would require that some pillars be built onto GO owned lands but since its not actually interfering with train operations I don't see why the province would oppose it especially if the relatively insignificant maintenance building is replaced at cost to the city. The 'Wislon railyard' is insignificant as well, being much to small to store GO trains. Currently its only lightly used to store TTR equipment which can be stored elsewhere.

 

[hawc]

Nice!

 

[wopchop]

Exactly. By all means such an alinement should be entirely feasible. AFAIK there wouldn't be any major roadblocks to such. It would require that some pillars be built onto GO owned lands but since its not actually interfering with train operations I don't see why the province would oppose it especially if the relatively insignificant maintenance building is replaced at cost to the city. The 'Wislon railyard' is insignificant as well, being much to small to store GO trains. Currently its only lightly used to store TTR equipment which can be stored elsewhere.

Your alignment does create a worse on-ramp setup for westbound Lakeshore to Gardner. The presentation of the Hybrid options puts everything in one corridor, whereas yours would have your new alignment, and then an on-ramp south of it in another corridor.

Other problems; Your alignment is more costly. You would have to demolish the old Gardner, re-align Lakeshore boulevard AND build the new alignment. This would increase the timeline and the cost.

ETA:

All that being said, I do like your alignment.

 

[averagegeek]

Not sure what you get, but it looks like a curve radius of about 300m - which is for a 90km/h speed limit.
It looks like over 400m from Eastern to the railway (along the curve). At 4% (which is ok for 100km/h design speed), that gives you 16m (minus 2m for bridge depth) over the railway tracks. 14m is quite a bit larger than the required 7m clearance.
Are they planning on double decking the Lakeshore line in that area? That is the only way it wouldn't work.

The pdf that was given to the media (page 26) says that can't be built because there is a city storm water facility and ramp speed wouldn't be safe.

 

[LNahid2000]

lol I'm watching CityNews and some uninformed lady on there was saying that if they choose the remove option, it will take an extra 30 to 45 minutes to get across the city.

 

[hawc]

CP24 just reported they're tearing down the west Gardiner not the East Gardiner. LOL.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Dear me, that is some incompetence from the media...

 

[UD2]

if they remove the DVP connection to the Gardiner, it will most likely take 20 or longer to get to the core by driving. bad idea.

we don't have enough infrastructure in Toronto as it is, it is not time to be removing it. The up front cost of removal is only slightly less than building the hybrid alternative.

 

[salsa]

Denzil Minan Wong chimed in, thinks a piece of car infrastructure is a 100 year investment (i.e the hybrid option). Opposes tearing it down, to the surprise of no one. "I did not get elected to increase congestion ".

 

[CapitalSeven]

Except that it's basically keeping a 50 year old piece of infrastructure that is already falling apart and patching it up for another 25, yet costing more than tearing it down. But subway tunnels last 100 years, so this must too. Gawd he's dumb. Well, not so much dumb as a liar.