Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[rdaner]

The debate about the removal of the Gardiner has raised a strongly connected issue to my mind: how does this affect the Adelaide/Richmond ramps over the Don and also the potential of modifying the lower end of the DVP along the Don River. Are there any thoughts of what burying the lower 500 metres of the DVP to open up the river and the lands around it (e.g. Charles River in Boston and Cambridge) and what effect of eliminating the overhead on/off ramps. Though I realise it is not really in the scope of this debate (yet) the effect would be significant and could potentially transform the planning of this entire area into one of the most desirable downtown.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Seoul is just one of dozens of cities that have removed an expressway. But no matter how good or bad the transit is, the arguments from pro-highway people are always the same. They see the existing road and all the traffic it carries, and can't comprehend the idea that you can tear down the highway and everything will be fine. They will say that the cars will have to go somewhere, that traffic doesn't just disappear, that side streets will be flooded with traffic, that not everyone takes transit, that we are not like [insert other city here], that congestion is bad enough already, and what about the trucks etc. The detractors were proven wrong in every single city, but alas we hear the exact same arguments being made here in Toronto, for a piece of highway that carries even less traffic than most of the demolished expressways.

By that logic we should just remove all highways, but reality is a little more complicated than that. Nobody is saying that the sky will fall.

 

[arcum]

Seoul is just one of dozens of cities that have removed an expressway. But no matter how good or bad the transit is, the arguments from pro-highway people are always the same. They see the existing road and all the traffic it carries, and can't comprehend the idea that you can tear down the highway and everything will be fine. They will say that the cars will have to go somewhere, that traffic doesn't just disappear, that side streets will be flooded with traffic, that not everyone takes transit, that we are not like [insert other city here], that congestion is bad enough already, and what about the trucks etc. The detractors were proven wrong in every single city, but alas we hear the exact same arguments being made here in Toronto, for a piece of highway that carries even less traffic than most of the demolished expressways.

No one's saying you can't remove a highway, just that it will have consequences.

The studies show that traffic "evaporates" once the expressway is removed. What this means is people move on to transit (longer time spent commuting), or don't commute at all. Neither of those two are good for the economy.

Hence the reason we have highways in the first place - to accelerate the movement of goods and services across a region.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

No one's saying you can't remove a highway, just that it will have consequences.

The studies show that traffic "evaporates" once the expressway is removed. What this means is people move on to transit (longer time spent commuting), or don't commute at all. Neither of those two are good for the economy.

Hence the reason we have highways in the first place - to accelerate the movement of goods and services across a region.

Again -- there has never to my knowledge been a study done that has found a drop in regional GDP due to the removal of a highway. Can you link to one?

 

[sixrings]

By that logic we should just remove all highways, but reality is a little more complicated than that. Nobody is saying that the sky will fall.

I think the point is Highways which are under used and could be sitting on land good for redevelopment should be considered to be removed. For instance the 401 is always full so it would not fit the first criteria. I would argue that it also does not fit the second criteria either as I do not see how the land would be much good for redevelopment. People like to live close to the 401 because of the 401 but if it was not there then people wouldnt want to move there. However the Allen Expressway is a highway that ends in a dead end. It is hard to get on and it randomly turns into dufferin north of Sheppard. The Allen sits ontop of land which is right beside a number of subway stops and close to Yorkdale mall. The Allen would fit both criteria and should be considered to be removed similar to the Gardiner east section.

 

[salsa]

By that logic we should just remove all highways, but reality is a little more complicated than that. Nobody is saying that the sky will fall.

By your logic, even the Scarborough expressway stub should not have been removed based on some of your arguments.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You're probably right, although I wonder if people would really rather have no highway than a toll highway. People are weird that way...




I'm talking east of Knox where there are just two lanes in each direction despite a generous ROW. Then east of Coxwell the speed limit drops to 50 and trucks are forced on to Coxwell/Eastern/Kingston. Finally with off-peak street parking on Woodbine it's often one lane southbound and two northbound. I would call that intentional narrowing and traffic calming as I cannot drive on the bike path. It's understandable that local residents don't want cars racing through the area, but unfortunately Toronto's perpetual underinvestment in infrastructure means few alternatives for getting around that part of town.

Once condos go up on the "new" Lakeshore Blvd. and residents complain that they're living on a pseudo-highway I can see calls for on-street parking, bike lanes and various traffic calming measures. A limited access highway is really the only sure way to prevent "urbanist creep".

So, 4 lanes then. Same as west of Knox.

If you buy a place in ICE, you're pretty aware there's a Gardiner near by. If you buy QQ, you get a warning about Redpath. If you buy a condo on Lake Shore, the road will already be there before your condo is built.

 

[44 North]

The debate about the removal of the Gardiner has raised a strongly connected issue to my mind: how does this affect the Adelaide/Richmond ramps over the Don and also the potential of modifying the lower end of the DVP along the Don River.

I'm surprised more don't bring up Richmond/Adelaide/Eastern. West Don Lands is absolutely fantastic, and I wouldn't say the elevated highway ruined the neighbourhood or stymied its development. And I guess ditto for Corktown.

 

[nfitz]

I'm talking east of Knox where there are just two lanes in each direction despite a generous ROW. Then east of Coxwell the speed limit drops to 50 and trucks are forced on to Coxwell/Eastern/Kingston. Finally with off-peak street parking on Woodbine it's often one lane southbound and two northbound. I would call that intentional narrowing and traffic calming as I cannot drive on the bike path. It's understandable that local residents don't want cars racing through the area, but unfortunately Toronto's perpetual underinvestment in infrastructure means few alternatives for getting around that part of town.

Probably has more to do with there's less cars there. Heading westbound a lot of cars turn at Carlaw and Leslie (well, when it's open). I don't see congestion heading westbound, east of Leslie. Heading eastbound, there's not that much congestion west of Knox ... and if it is, it's because traffic has backed up in the 6-lane section.

Looking at the PM peak map - http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toro...ces/Road safety/Files/pdf/2013volumemappm.pdf there's 3,405 cars eastbound on Lakeshore approaching Carlaw, but only 2,820 east of Leslie.

Hmm ... also interesting to see that while that there's only 2,252 cars an hour in PM peak using the Gardiner to DVP connection (east to north). Uh, wait a minute ... there's 3,405 on Lakeshore, 1,143 on Eastern, and we are building a hybrid for 2,252 cars an hour?

I'm surprised more don't bring up Richmond/Adelaide/Eastern. West Don Lands is absolutely fantastic, and I wouldn't say the elevated highway ruined the neighbourhood or stymied its development. And I guess ditto for Corktown.

Is this some kind of sutble joke that I don't get? Richmond/Adelaide gutted Corktown. It's a disgrace.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Probably has more to do with there's less cars there. Heading westbound a lot of cars turn at Carlaw and Leslie (well, when it's open). I don't see congestion heading westbound, east of Leslie. Heading eastbound, there's not that much congestion west of Knox ... and if it is, it's because traffic has backed up in the 6-lane section.

Looking at the PM peak map - http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toro...ces/Road safety/Files/pdf/2013volumemappm.pdf there's 3,405 cars eastbound on Lakeshore approaching Carlaw, but only 2,820 east of Leslie.

Hmm ... also interesting to see that while that there's only 326 cars an hour in PM peak using the Gardiner to DVP connection (east to north). Uh, wait a minute ... there's 3,405 on Lakeshore, 1,143 on Eastern, and we are building a hybrid for 326 cars an hour?

That 326 number is for Don Roadway; look at Insert B. Gardiner to DVP is 2293 and Lakeshore is 2011. The combined number is 4252 east of Parliament. Of course, this was for 2010-2012 and there has been much resident turnover in the east end. I would not be surprised to see traffic growing at a rate faster than population growth.

It's interesting; none of the numbers are really that big. Even DVP NB past Riverdale is only 3280 which is less than the eastern Gardiner. Perhaps we should turn the DVP into a boulevard south of Eglinton as volumes are lower than the eastern Gardiner.

I think the main issue here is that since the eastern Gardiner is 4 lanes wide (admittedly overbuilt) it "looks" like it's unpopular. The reality is that it's just as busy or busier than other stretches of highway.

 

[nfitz]

That 326 number is for Don Roadway; look at Insert B. Gardiner to DVP is 2293 and Lakeshore is 2011.

Ah, that makes more sense though. Still pathetically low. Capacity for a 2-lane high-speed ramp is about 4,000 an hour. So why not reduce the speed and put it back in the original hybrid location.

Still, we are okay with 3,405 on 6-lane Lakeshore East at Carlaw now and 2,280 on 4-lane Lakeshore East approaching Coxwell, but we need an expressway for 2,293? Meanwhile Adelaide Street has 1,444 and Bloor East has 2,166

 

[WislaHD]

So last week, an undecided councillor ran an online poll for his constituents on the Gardiner question. Obviously Jim Karygiannis did not take his polling results seriously, because this afternoon he announced a brand new Gardiner option--a $2.5 billion tunnel under the Don--to be brought forward in council this week.

Ah, the Seattle disaster approach.

Well, hopefully some like Rob Ford endorse this option and bring hybrid votes away.

 

[gweed123]

Ah, the Seattle disaster approach.

Well, hopefully some like Rob Ford endorse this option and bring hybrid votes away.

Wouldn't they get voted on separately? I don't think the voting would be set up in such a way so that it's "which of these 3 options do you prefer?".

 

[arcum]

Again -- there has never to my knowledge been a study done that has found a drop in regional GDP due to the removal of a highway. Can you link to one?

I think you're onto something here. We should just remove all our highways!

But seriously, the only thing that causes the GDP to ever decrease is a recession...

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Ah, that makes more sense though. Still pathetically low. Capacity for a 2-lane high-speed ramp is about 4,000 an hour. So why not reduce the speed and put it back in the original hybrid location.

Still, we are okay with 3,405 on 6-lane Lakeshore East at Carlaw now and 2,280 on 4-lane Lakeshore East approaching Coxwell, but we need an expressway for 2,293? Meanwhile Adelaide Street has 1,444 and Bloor East has 2,166

City staff discarded the true hybrid option for various reasons - take it up with them. I should point out that 2,000 per hour is the capacity of a standard highway lane, not a high-speed ramp.

Since the real peak number for eastern Gardiner is actually 4,663 (east of Sherbourne) we can see that even a 2 lane highway would be overcapacity at that juncture.

To me the high number on Lakeshore at Carlaw implies that the 'stub' should not have been taken down. There's no "evaporation" that has happened because people don't have any alternatives...