News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 2.2K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.6K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
News Roundup for June 14, 2024
 819     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

LNahid2000 said:
The "one car ahead" type of drivers don't do this kind of math. Logic isn't going to work for them.
Click to expand...
Those lot, won't even know about the changed speed limit then, until after it is built, and they see the sign.

The big story is no change on travel time. Though looking at the media, neither is reported (even in the Sun) and the big story is that it now costs more than $1 billion. Well, there's a solution to that ... :)
 
smuncky said:
With the current make up of council, what are the chances that the least worst option will be picked? Not going to hold my breath on this one.
Click to expand...

The option that gets picked will be the one that Denzil-Minan-Wong prefers based entirely on this one single, narrow-minded criteria:

Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.54.40 AM2.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.54.40 AM2.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.54.40 AM2.png
    120.5 KB · Views: 640
Hybrid proposal - before and after:


Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.29 AM.png


Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.48 AM.png








Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.02 AM.png


Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.04 AM.png







Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.33 AM.png
Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.44 AM.png






Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.14 AM.png


Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.31 AM.png






Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.43 AM.png


Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.53 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.02 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.02 AM.png
    671.2 KB · Views: 725
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.29 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.29 AM.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 719
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.48 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.50.48 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,033
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.04 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.04 AM.png
    664.2 KB · Views: 705
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.33 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.33 AM.png
    380.7 KB · Views: 719
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.44 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.51.44 AM.png
    390.4 KB · Views: 706
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.14 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.14 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 725
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.31 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.31 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 701
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.43 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.43 AM.png
    869 KB · Views: 703
  • Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.53 AM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-20 at 10.52.53 AM.png
    869.4 KB · Views: 683
DonValleyRainbow said:
Why does option 3 have a separate bridge for the Waterfront Trail over the Don River, whereas the other two do not? Option 3 also eliminates the connection to the Lower Don Trail?
Click to expand...

Hadn't noticed that before. Possibly an oversight. But it looks to me like all three options have that ped/cycle bridge removed. What is shown (only in the third option) is the railway bridge. This line carries a long spur into the Port Lands, and regardless of what option is chosen will have to remain - so I'm not sure why they'd exclude it from the renders. But I'd hate to see the loss of the ped/cycle bridge just north of it.
 
nfitz said:
The full 20 MB presentation is at: http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/Strategic Communications/Newsroom/Files/Gardiner_media_presentation.pdf

Here are the 3 Hybrid options - looks like Hybrid 1 is the previous one:

View attachment 64356
Click to expand...

I think Hybrid 3 is starting to look like a good Hybrid option. The only suggestion I have on it is why is Lake Shore not staying with the Gardiner. If they kept it under the revised Gardiner they could shift the parkland to south of Lake Shore so it is not cut off from the new community that will be developed.
 
Hybrid 3 is the only logical choice. It reduces the impact on the lake of this monster the most, while not costing significantly more than the others. Council would be insane to pick 1 or 2, if we have to keep this stupid waste of money at all. Would have been forward thinking to save several hundred millions by tearing it down and using that money for one of our badly needed transit projects instead, but hey, this is Toronto.
 
Towered said:
Hybrid 3 is the only logical choice. It reduces the impact on the lake of this monster the most, while not costing significantly more than the others. Council would be insane to pick 1 or 2, if we have to keep this stupid waste of money at all. Would have been forward thinking to save several hundred millions by tearing it down and using that money for one of our badly needed transit projects instead, but hey, this is Toronto.
Click to expand...
Agree but in the spirit that Council would be insane to pick 1 or 2, I would note you're dealing with people like Mammoliti, Pasternak, Shiner and Karygiannis, so 1 or 2 it is. It looks like drivers could go a lot faster on 1 than 3, which will be a key consideration for the suburban majority on Council.
 
In many ways I think the city is making a mountain out of molehill.

Why don't they just take the hybrid #3 option except run it at grade? Why don't they just give a developer the entire stretch of land from just west of Cherry to the Don and tell them to build commercial and/or residential as much as they like. The proviso would be that they build the new Gardiner section UNDERNEATH the building they propose. The highway doesn't even have be tunnelled as it can run like a regular freeway but the buildings would totally cover them.

They could be lovely buildings that are very pedestrian friendly and all the while there would be a freeway going thru the building that you would never even know about. It could gently decline under Cherry and then rise back to meet the current elevated Gardiner.

Out of site, out of mind. Much cheaper to build as the developer would be the one building on top of the road and building the road itself. You go for a coffee, watch the crowds, and never even know you were 20 meters from a 4 lane freeway.

Think of it this way...............the new development that will cover the GO tracks with the green overhead area proposed {can't for the life of me remember it's name} connecting those 200 meter plus building but instead of covering the tracks, it would cover the Gardiner with buildings. This is done every single day in Toronto..............it's called a garage but instead of parked cars it has moving ones.

The developer is happy as they get prime location land, the businesses are happy because they get to keep the Gardiner, the city is happy because the developer pays for most of the new alighnment, residents are happy because they get rid of the unsightly elevated Gardiner, urban wonks are happy because it becomes a new mixed-use pedestrian friendly development, and tax payers are happy because the road actually sends money to the city thru the gained property tax revenue and being covered maintenance will be vastly cheaper.

It's a complete no-brainer where everyone comes out on top.
 
Hybrid 2 and 3 have the exact same amount of develop-able land. Is it worth the extra money (I think current construction cost was $100M more). With #2, they could put some buildings between the Gardiner and Railway, with pedestrian bridges to the south. The worthwhile part of the park is around the new pond. We may as well get as much development land as possible.
 
BurlOak said:
Hybrid 2 and 3 have the exact same amount of develop-able land. Is it worth the extra money (I think current construction cost was $100M more). With #2, they could put some buildings between the Gardiner and Railway, with pedestrian bridges to the south. The worthwhile part of the park is around the new pond. We may as well get as much development land as possible.
Click to expand...

The amount of developable land is just one criteria. According to the slides, hybrid 3 has other benefits such as:
- Shorter traffic detours during construction
- Less land is impacted by the proximity of the highway
- Less disruptive to sediment management activities in the Don river
- Less overhead expressway over Lakeshore Blvd
- Highway is further away from the Keating Channel and Don Mouth area
- Better visual connection over the mouth of the Don River
 
I know this is just a rehash of the original Gardiner debate, but I still don't fully get why anti-car/Gardiner people want it torn down so badly. Do you really want more traffic along our surface network, through our prime waterfront, and lengthy light cycles to keep this traffic moving? Wouldn't it be more optimal to keep the cars off the surface network as best we can (which a grade-separated and connected Gardiner-DVP would do better than removal)? If anything we should be narrowing Lake Shore through EBF and LDL, or removing it outright. Not widening it into some 'grande boulevard' and clogging it with traffic. I dunno, I guess I just view an elevated highway like the Gardiner as more urban. And wide traffic-friendly arterials as suburban.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top