Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[ssiguy2]

If they go with the boulevard plan, which I hope they do, I do not think bike paths would be advisable or even necessary.

There will be huge bike ways along the water's edge just a couple blocks away and would slow traffic and cause a lot of bike/car accidents. There is nothing wrong with a more free flowing roadway and bikes would inhibit this. Also a fair amount of the traffic along the route will be commercial meaning larger trucks and that brings up safety issues.

Not every street has to be a bike friendly one and definitely not a boulevard that runs only 1.5 km and yet will connect 2 busy freeways. That is the last sort of street the city should encourage bicyclists to use.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Toronto has this idea that bike lanes should only ever be on the road surface.

If the bike lanes were on the sidewalk, there would be no issue.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Yeah, I can personally attest that even during peak period, I've almost never seen Gardiner east of Jarvis go all the way to congestion collapse.

The reason for this isn't lack of demand, it's because there are other choke points in the road network that make it physically impossible. In the AM, southbound DVP is most congested at Eglinton so the throughput south of that point is limited. Likewise the traffic lights on Lakeshore east of the Don limit the westbound flow of cars, and on-ramps/Lakeshore closer to downtown restrict the number of vehicles that can get on the Gardiner. Finally, congestion EB on the western Gardiner (and the narrowing to 2 lanes downtown) restrict the flow eastbound.

If the DVP were to be hypothetically widened to 4 lanes north of Eglinton (not that I advocate this) or the Gardiner was 3 lanes EB past the York/Bay/Yonge exit, you would find that peak traffic volumes downstream would increase and the eastern Gardiner would become less empty.

 

[Electrify]

It's palatable, and I'm okay if they go with a hybrid or even can be persuaded again to the Gardiner Tunnel option (if it ever came to that someday, with a good plan) but I do now lean towards the teardown option, especially if there's greatly improved transit first.

FWIW, if a DRL and some form of rapid transit was put on Don Mills (RRT, LRT, BRT, etc), I would be completely be behind a teardown. Likely one of the main reasons why this stretch of the Gardiner is so quiet is because transit pretty good getting into lower downtown from the east and northeast. But I don't think it is good enough to remove it yet.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

If they go with the boulevard plan, which I hope they do, I do not think bike paths would be advisable or even necessary.

There will be huge bike ways along the water's edge just a couple blocks away and would slow traffic and cause a lot of bike/car accidents. There is nothing wrong with a more free flowing roadway and bikes would inhibit this. Also a fair amount of the traffic along the route will be commercial meaning larger trucks and that brings up safety issues.

Not every street has to be a bike friendly one and definitely not a boulevard that runs only 1.5 km and yet will connect 2 busy freeways. That is the last sort of street the city should encourage bicyclists to use.

I'd completely agree with this, given the new tunnel to Corktown Commons allows Don Trail bikers a way to get east into downtown easily. Martin Goodman Trail, Lake Shore bike paths east of the Don and the bridge at the Don are great connections. Better intersections at Don Roadway and Cherry to connect to MGT and bikers would be very pleased, I think.

 

[the lemur]

Toronto has this idea that bike lanes should only ever be on the road surface.

If the bike lanes were on the sidewalk, there would be no issue.

I'd qualify that by saying they shouldn't be ON the sidewalk but next to it, preferably with some grade separation, and placed between the footpath and any on-street parking (or otherwise next to the curb lane of traffic).

As to ssiguy2's contention that bike lanes would slow traffic and/or result in 'a lot of accidents', that indeed assumes on-road bike lanes. If they can't be fully separated from the road in a boulevard solution - which would be a prime opportunity for Toronto to demonstrate that it can design bike infrastructure without ridiculous compromises, then the next best thing would be safe crossing points to get to waterfront bikeways.

 

[aquateam]

Which is not only the piece that has the least traffic, it's also the only piece that has an 8-lane cross-section rather than a 6-lane one. It's grossly over-designed. And has very little use to anyone commuting downtown - mostly benefiting those who are using the DVP/Gardiner to pass from one part of the city to another.

Which are the users we want to discourage from trying to drive downtown.

Doesn't the hybrid/"maintain*" option involve reducing it to 6 lanes anyway?

Not sure if anyone posted the public health report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-80375.pdf

I haven't fully read it over, but a couple things I noted: It claims the Remove offers more public space and "natural habitat" - is this true (I thought it would technically be less)? As well, it claims the Remove option is better for health due to smaller climate change impacts and less air pollution. I would've thought there'd be more air pollution, considering more vehicles would have to stop/re-accelerate while on the surface.

Isn't the author of this report, Dr. David McKeown, the same Chief Medical Officer who suggested reducing speed limits by 10 km/hr for a public health benefit? If I were with the CAA I'd say he's a Lieutenant in the War On The Car.

Really, I think that public health benefits are fuzzy and impossible to quantify. The main health benefit of the Remove option is it will discourage people to drive, and thus spend more time standing on buses in traffic instead of sitting in their cars in traffic.

I feel that an important part of the calculation of the impact on commute times is often left out. The boulevard option allows for more potential residents in the port lands with a short commute to downtown (hopefully through transit). This benefits everyone as if these residents were to settle in the suburbs instead, it would generate additional congestion.

This is a good point.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2015/05/26/gardiner-tear-down/

Toronto Public Health advocates for the removal option. Matt Galloway interviews the director of healthy public policy, Monica Campbell, about the health benefits of the removal option.

 

[44 North]

Isn't the author of this report, Dr. David McKeown, the same Chief Medical Officer who suggested reducing speed limits by 10 km/hr for a public health benefit? If I were with the CAA I'd say he's a Lieutenant in the War On The Car.

Really, I think that public health benefits are fuzzy and impossible to quantify. The main health benefit of the Remove option is it will discourage people to drive, and thus spend more time standing on buses in traffic instead of sitting in their cars in traffic.

I'm actually quite a supporter of lower speed limits. Not just for localized neighbourhood safety, but for my view that a lower average speed on our roads/urban highways can actually improve their flow. I'm not trying to make a direct correlation between, say, fluid dynamics and laminar flow. But the way I see it is that higher speed limits (or rather, existing limits but combined with our very high volumes) causes more rolling phantom traffic jams, hard braking, fender benders, etc than if our limits were lowered to 80. Unlike most GTA drivers who seem to think tailgating then braking hard (creating a 10km wave of brake lights in their wake) is getting them to their destinations faster, I believe a steady 80 with an ample buffer can be just as fast in peak periods. Simply put: slow and steady wins the race (not always, but you get my drift).

 

[salsa]

I'm surprised only 27 people voted in the poll. If you haven't already, here's the link: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...-eastern-Gardiner-Expressway-(east-of-Jarvis)

So far this is the result:

 

[CapitalSeven]

"Doesn't the hybrid/"maintain*" option involve reducing it to 6 lanes anyway?"

I think only insofar as painting a shoulder. No real improvements.

 

[salsa]

Matt Elliot has a vote projection for next week's council vote. So far the results are:

18 - hybrid
10 - boulevard
17 - unknown

However Sarah Doucette (previously unknown) has just declared her support for the boulevard, so the current tally should now be 18-11-16. However the hybrid supporters only need another five votes to win, assuming none of the projected hybrid votes turn out to me incorrect.

Here's the list of councillors: http://t.co/7CZs8x1Lyf

Vote map:

green = boulevard, red = hybrid, orange = unknown

 

[ttk77]

Matt Elliot has a vote projection for next week's council vote. So far the results are:

18 - hybrid
10 - boulevard
17 - unknown

However Sarah Doucette (previously unknown) has just declared her support for the boulevard, so the current tally should now be 18-11-16. However the hybrid supporters only need another five votes to win, assuming none of the projected hybrid supporters change their vote.

Interesting that the north-west quadrant, the area least likely to be impacted by the decision, is leaning the heaviest towards the hybrid option.

 

[cplchanb]

As it can be clearly seen, most of the greens are from the core, where the chances of them using the Gardiner is lower vs the reds
who are from the suburbs and would more likely use 401/DVP/427 and then the Gardiner to get downtown. so its shaping to be a battle of people who dont use against people who do

 

[salsa]

As it can be clearly seen, most of the greens are from the core, where the chances of them using the Gardiner is lower vs the reds
who are from the suburbs and would more likely use 401/DVP/427 and then the Gardiner to get downtown. so its shaping to be a battle of people who dont use against people who do

There are many ways to parse the vote map. It could also indicate urban vs suburban, progressive vs right wing councillors, Tory allies vs opposition. Many big council votes follow the same patters, and unfortunately the suburban majority always has to shoot down progressive initiatives such as bike lanes, LRT in Scarb, etc. Here's another example: