Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[DarnDirtyApe]

We do, actually. It's crumbling so badly (apparently because of the way it was built causing the salt to corrode everything, as per the G&M article on Gardiner) that it needs to be rebuilt or torn down. Ergo, we're having a conversation about this piece of road.

I'd say we're doing a pretty great job of building out the east waterfront at a much higher pace than I ever thought possible -- there are people living just east of Yonge, working just east of Jarvis, and lounging at a park just east of Sherbourne. They're starting to build up to Parliament -- the next step is just east of Parliament slip -- which, lo and behold is the part of the 'underused waterfront' that will remain underused if you get your way and we build a roadway instead of a city.

Too bad the truth is that we could simply rebuild it and still get 99% of the same redevelopment anyway, as per recent history on the west side of town. We're talking about 10 acres that would be freed up with "remove"; the Port Lands (which don't include anything north of Keating) is 1,000 acres.

 

[44 North]

I'd argue that a grade-separated highway is better than two streets that run through the redeveloping east side of downtown and then abruptly dump traffic onto already congested streets in the west end (Spadina and Bathurst). There are a ton of potential redevelopment sites on those two streets - probably more potential than around the Don and the existing urban fabric is there already.

Also, the soon to be extended cycle tracks - which are great - take away a lane of traffic from each street...

Yes. Both Richmond and Adelaide are already developing and becoming 'Avenues' in their own right. Their ability to absorb crosstown traffic is decreasing, and will be much less in the future. And I was always under the impression the City was purusing making those roads two-way to make them more pedestrian/development friendly.

 

[11th]

Perhaps the removal side can come up with a solution that doesn't require an elevated structure (save for ramps), while still provide a control-accessed link between Gardiner and DVP?

On another note, I find it ironic those on the east side who complain of potentially lengthened commute would probably have opposed the Scarborough Expressway running through their neighbourhood - which would've brought "much needed" traffic onto the underused section.

 

[christiesplits]

Is there any organization that is countering the "pro-hybrid" side, organized by industry titans under "Don't Cut Me Off?"

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Except that in this case the "remove" option creates a "single exit" (aside from Richmond of course) which is the end of the highway and the first traffic light on Lakeshore. Now the cars that previously stayed on the highway are now forced to hit all five "exit points" even though they are through traffic. The cars will be more dispersed but only because the traffic lights are bottlenecks, not because routes are actually dispersed.

Why must the through traffic be stuck at the exit points?

Surely there are more efficient ways to construct a boulevard.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Why must the through traffic be stuck at the exit points?

Surely there are more efficient ways to construct a boulevard.

It's possible to step down road capacity gradually to match demand - Highway 410/10 is a good example. In that case the freeway ends where traffic levels are the lowest to begin with, and it transitions smoothly into a rural 4 lane highway for a few KM, then there are a few traffic lights with little cross traffic and long green times in the dominant direction. In contrast, in this case we're taking a busy highway (the DVP), adding in eastern Lakeshore traffic and funneling everything into a busy urban street with an intersection at Cherry street where you'll have a lot of pedestrians, left turning cars, etc. That's a big step down in road capacity so it seems that it's a likely spot for frequent backups.

They could intentionally lower capacity on the DVP and eastern Lakeshore to reduce the bottleneck but that would increase overall travel times even more.

There are at-grade streets around the world that effectively have express and collector lanes but that that still doesn't account for intersections and pedestrian crossings.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Is there any organization that is countering the "pro-hybrid" side, organized by industry titans under "Don't Cut Me Off?"

http://codeblueto.com/

 

[Towered]

If we get rid of the Gardiner, then Vimy Circle can still become a reality...

 

[Armour]

I'm curious. Are there any people on here that are contacting the City Councillors that are both undecided and supportive of the hybrid option, to attempt to make them reconsider their stance and choose the remove option?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

It's possible to step down road capacity gradually to match demand - Highway 410/10 is a good example. In that case the freeway ends where traffic levels are the lowest to begin with, and it transitions smoothly into a rural 4 lane highway for a few KM, then there are a few traffic lights with little cross traffic and long green times in the dominant direction. In contrast, in this case we're taking a busy highway (the DVP), adding in eastern Lakeshore traffic and funneling everything into a busy urban street with an intersection at Cherry street where you'll have a lot of pedestrians, left turning cars, etc. That's a big step down in road capacity so it seems that it's a likely spot for frequent backups.

They could intentionally lower capacity on the DVP and eastern Lakeshore to reduce the bottleneck but that would increase overall travel times even more.

There are at-grade streets around the world that effectively have express and collector lanes but that that still doesn't account for intersections and pedestrian crossings.

Well, I would like to see an innovative solution like this proposed:

I've also been wondering if this is a good place for Toronto's first example of the "service streets" design. Here's a diagram, I can't find anything better but they're common in Europe and I think SF as well. Basically, all non-through-traffic is relegated to slower "service streets" on the sides.

Or some other creative configuration that addresses concerns of through traffic, service roads and pedestrian crossings.

That kind of compromise would be worthy of the 'Hybrid' moniker.

 

[howl]

What about this 'hybrid' option:

 

[Electrify]

Was actually thinking of such a semi trench option. Of course, the hardest thing about such an option would be the steep grade for through streets to elevate themselves enough between the train tracks and Lake Shore.

FWIW I think I am going to retire from this thread for a bit. Yes, I think we should keep the highway, and I don't think its removal will be as great an experience as other cities experienced. But at the same time, I don't see this as my hill to die on either.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

What about this 'hybrid' option:

Washington, DC did this with some of their circles. Absolute travesty. The underpass worked like crap, the side streets were horrible.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

http://www.fau.usp.br/cursos/gradua....23-itdp-life_And_Death_Of_Urban_Highways.pdf

Wandering around on Twitter.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Has there been any discussion on roundabouts rather than traffic lights at each of these intersections?

I doubt a roundabout would work for a road of this size.