News   Nov 28, 2024
Wallace Emerson Community Centre Growing Beside Galleria on the Park
 458     0 
News   Nov 28, 2024
27-Storey Tower on Queen West Proposed North of Future King-Liberty GO
 924     2 
News   Nov 28, 2024
Drone Flights Capture Sub-Grade Construction at Cielo Condos
 748     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Out of curiosity, was any consideration given to having the boulevard option, but with some of the lanes passing underneath the cross streets? The best example I can think of is Commonwealth Ave at Massachusetts Ave in Boston: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bo...2!3m1!1s0x89e37a04df31a709:0xfcd07acdffcb9a0d

The surface lanes are for left and right turns only, while the underpass lanes are for thru lanes. This would solve the traffic light issue, and would actually improve the pedestrian environment, because to cross Lake Shore you'd only have to cross the turning lanes. You'd go over top of the thru lanes.
 
Electrify said:
Except that the 401 is beyond capacity as we speak.
Click to expand...

Who cares? I mean, obviously you care, but in the context of removing or retaining the Gardiner from DVP to Jarvis, the people who are going from 401/404 to 427/QEW are already not cutting down DVP and along the Gardiner, or they would be in today's traffic numbers. So, if there was something that made it even less likely for them to do that, that's good, no? Because they're already not doing that? OTOH, if you build a shiny new ramp, maybe with all the fanfare they decide to start using that route and you get a bunch more traffic -- not saying they will, but they might start using that route -- and then we have a new reason for drivers to whinge about other drivers using their route from the Beaches to South Etobicoke.

Roads are 'beyond capacity' because we keep building free roads. The 407 is not beyond capacity, but car drivers complain about it as well, because it costs them money to use. When I'm elected dictator of GTA roads, I'll price the bloody things properly (as, e.g., the autoroutes in France) and we'll be able to stop having arguments about how we need to build more roads because people keep living a 1/2 hour car ride from the other parts of their life, and that 1/2 hour is now 40 minutes and the drive sucks because there's all these other cars on the road.
 
gweed123 said:
Out of curiosity, was any consideration given to having the boulevard option, but with some of the lanes passing underneath the cross streets? The best example I can think of is Commonwealth Ave at Massachusetts Ave in Boston: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bo...2!3m1!1s0x89e37a04df31a709:0xfcd07acdffcb9a0d

The surface lanes are for left and right turns only, while the underpass lanes are for thru lanes. This would solve the traffic light issue, and would actually improve the pedestrian environment, because to cross Lake Shore you'd only have to cross the turning lanes. You'd go over top of the thru lanes.
Click to expand...

It was discussed a few pages ago. I emailed a few Councillors about the idea and received good feedback from one.

An example of how it may look is the A4 in London or more locally, Mt. Pleasant and Crescent Road.

The idea would be to have through-lanes and service-lanes like the following diagram:

serviceroad.jpg


The Main Road (the through-lanes) would go under the intersection as an underpass and emerge on the other side. The Service road (the service-lanes) would split and interact with the intersection. Cars may choose to take the through lane, or if they are local-bound traffic, can join the service lane and get out at the intersection.

We have 8-lanes of traffic, we have the room and enough lanes to do this. Through-traffic and traffic lights become non-issues, it even mitigates some of the concerns of condo driveways some pro-hybrid people had with the boulevard option.
 
gweed123 said:
Out of curiosity, was any consideration given to having the boulevard option, but with some of the lanes passing underneath the cross streets? The best example I can think of is Commonwealth Ave at Massachusetts Ave in Boston: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bo...2!3m1!1s0x89e37a04df31a709:0xfcd07acdffcb9a0d

The surface lanes are for left and right turns only, while the underpass lanes are for thru lanes. This would solve the traffic light issue, and would actually improve the pedestrian environment, because to cross Lake Shore you'd only have to cross the turning lanes. You'd go over top of the thru lanes.
Click to expand...

That was brought up a few pages back. It's not even an option under consideration.
 
WislaHD said:
It was discussed a few pages ago. I emailed a few Councillors about the idea and received good feedback from one.

An example of how it may look is the A4 in London or more locally, Mt. Pleasant and Crescent Road.

The Main Road (the through-lanes) would go under the intersection as an underpass and emerge on the other side. The Service road (the service-lanes) would split and interact with the intersection. Cars may choose to take the through lane, or if they are local-bound traffic, can join the service lane and get out at the intersection.

We have 8-lanes of traffic, we have the room and enough lanes to do this. Through-traffic and traffic lights become non-issues, it even mitigates some of the concerns of condo driveways some pro-hybrid people had with the boulevard option.
Click to expand...

Tuscani01 said:
That was brought up a few pages back. It's not even an option under consideration.
Click to expand...

Sorry, must have missed that part of the discussion. It's a shame this isn't even being explored. I think it would really help mitigate a lot of the issues with the boulevard option. That change may even be enough to get a few of the 'on the fence' votes over to the boulevard side, seeing as how much of the opposition is centred around the traffic lights and slower travel time.
 
gweed123 said:
Sorry, must have missed that part of the discussion. It's a shame this isn't even being explored. I think it would really help mitigate a lot of the issues with the boulevard option. That change may even be enough to get a few of the 'on the fence' votes over to the boulevard side, seeing as how much of the opposition is centred around the traffic lights and slower travel time.
Click to expand...

That's my issue with this whole debate. There are many more options to consider than simply remove it, or maintain it. We should be looking at what remove means using various options. (ie. Fly-unders, express/collector divisions, simple 8 lane boulevard etc), and what maintain would look like under various options (ie. maintain with ramps, maintain with no ramps, maintain with public space plan on underside, maintain as status quo etc.)

The whole idea that we are making a decision without any real idea of what these ideas will translate to in terms of the urban realm is ridiculous. We could easily get more votes for the remove option if that option was tied to including fly-unders for express traffic.
 
WislaHD said:
It was discussed a few pages ago. I emailed a few Councillors about the idea and received good feedback from one.

An example of how it may look is the A4 in London or more locally, Mt. Pleasant and Crescent Road.

The idea would be to have through-lanes and service-lanes like the following diagram:

serviceroad.jpg


The Main Road (the through-lanes) would go under the intersection as an underpass and emerge on the other side. The Service road (the service-lanes) would split and interact with the intersection. Cars may choose to take the through lane, or if they are local-bound traffic, can join the service lane and get out at the intersection.

We have 8-lanes of traffic, we have the room and enough lanes to do this. Through-traffic and traffic lights become non-issues, it even mitigates some of the concerns of condo driveways some pro-hybrid people had with the boulevard option.
Click to expand...

City staff didn't like the idea of having all of those ramps, plus if you are going below grade you might as well just build a tunnel already but staff didn't like that option either. I think that a tolled tunnel plus at-grade street would be the best solution, but what do I know...

The whole reason we are having this debate about sub-optimal solutions is because staff discarded all the alternatives.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Great idea. Did the Councilor merely like the idea, or were they actually interested in bringing this to Council?
Click to expand...

Interested in bringing up in council. He actually brought up first that he disliked both the Hybrid and the Remove options, that the current hybrid is totally unlike the original hybrid that he supported, and wanted an alternative (besides tunneling). I replied with essentially what I wrote last page and got a favorable response.

I don't know if he wants to actually champion such an idea or not, but I'll withhold his name until after Wednesday in case he does. He is one of the 'on-the-fence' councilors though.
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
City staff didn't like the idea of having all of those ramps, plus if you are going below grade you might as well just build a tunnel already but staff didn't like that option either. I think that a tolled tunnel plus at-grade street would be the best solution, but what do I know...

The whole reason we are having this debate about sub-optimal solutions is because staff discarded all the alternatives.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need that many ramps though. Ideally, you would only have the same ramp proposed for the maintain option (at Cherry street). Putting in ramps at every intersection would completely defeat the purpose of this idea.

This idea is more of a hybrid that the hybrid option council is voting on. You get a reconfigured Lakeshore, the removal of the Gardiner, plus a convenient connection to the DVP without the cost of rebuilding the Gardiner or tunneling it for the entire length between Jarvis and Cherry. It eliminates any concerns about having to cross an 8 lane Lakeshore Boulevard, or having to go under a maintained Gardiner Expressway. Pedestrians crossing would never have to step under anything to get to the lake. (Besides the rail corridor)
 
Last edited:
So instead of spending shitloads of money on the 'hybrid option', he wants us to spend considerably more on a tunnel!?
 
Tuscani01 said:
The whole idea that we are making a decision without any real idea of what these ideas will translate to in terms of the urban realm is ridiculous. We could easily get more votes for the remove option if that option was tied to including fly-unders for express traffic.
Click to expand...
You'd probably get most of the "hybrid" votes if those fly-unders are included with the boulevard option. Most of those who support the hybrid do so because it retains a non-stop link between DVP and Gardiner.
 
11th said:
You'd probably get most of the "hybrid" votes if those fly-unders are included with the boulevard option. Most of those who support the hybrid do so because it retains a non-stop link between DVP and Gardiner.
Click to expand...

I thought the boulevard option had ramps between the DVP and Gardiner? Like in the middle image here.

I believe the main point of opposition are the traffic lights and concerns for through-traffic not bound for downtown.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top