Toronto Lower Simcoe Ramp | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

[Markster]

I had the opportunity to visit Seoul and Tokyo recently. In addition to outstanding transit systems both mega cities had urban thoroughfares, very wide streets with 6+ lanes, where vehicles could go fast (60km+). In Tokyo there are multiple highways that wind through the core of the city.

The Gardiner is an essential part of our infrastructure. Perhaps as we build out the DRL and other transit projects it will become less essential. Until then, the argument to remove it would strand many commuters and make our City much less efficient.

This is where I bring up that Tokyo has many elevated expressways, but most importantly, they are correctly sized elevated expressways. They are 2 lanes each direction.

The Gardiner East plans need to desperately be revised to match the highway build size with the actual capacity required. The current Gardiner East is vastly overbuilt, and a replacement should be 2+2 between Jarvis and Eastern.

 

[tecturemuse]

I had the opportunity to visit Seoul and Tokyo recently. In addition to outstanding transit systems both mega cities had urban thoroughfares, very wide streets with 6+ lanes, where vehicles could go fast (60km+). In Tokyo there are multiple highways that wind through the core of the city.

When I consider arguments to remove the Gardiner, these thoughts come to mind:
1. The Gardiner-DVP is the only expressway into Toronto's core.
2. Our core was built years ago and does not have a network of wide urban thoroughfares, either east/west or north/south that can accommodate large volumes of traffic. Our narrow main streets (Bloor, College, Dundas, Queen, King, Dufferin, Bathurst, Bay, Yonge, Jarvis, etc, etc) are a beautiful feature of our City.
3. We have a limited public transit network (with virtually no redundancy).

The Gardiner is an essential part of our infrastructure. Perhaps as we build out the DRL and other transit projects it will become less essential. Until then, the argument to remove it would strand many commuters and make our City much less efficient.

Yes, the way elevated roadways and train tracks were blended into the urban fabric is something I really admired about Japanese cities. Often I didn't notice at first that stores were underneath these structures because they were well-lit and designed to integrate into the neighbourhood context. However, it must be said that Japan and other Asian countries have a strong walking culture, mainly due to high population, superior transit connectivity, and small supply of land space. Walking underneath these roadways and train tracks is unavoidable, so they added stores and utilize those spaces underneath to make it more usable for the surrounding community. Thus, the elevated structures are not seen as bad infrastructure.

With regard to Toronto and the Gardiner, the rebuild/tearing down argument is a political gongshow that is seen as a distant dream currently. It's great that the City opted to rebuild this ramp to exit at Lower Simcoe, as clearly demonstrated by the awesome before/after shots posted on this thread. But the rest of the Gardiner is staying for now, so I can only hope that the spaces where the Gardiner isn't directly on top of Lakeshore Blvd can be developed into something that'll connect the waterfront to the rest of the city. Success stories like Underpass Park and hopefully the Bentway can show the City, developers, and pedestrians that the spaces underneath the Gardiner can be utilized better and look much better too. Even using some of the the space underneath the new Lower Simcoe off ramp would be great.

Until there is better transit options and connectivity, the Gardiner (west of Jarvis) will be seen as a necessity in its current capacity until transit is so good that it will make more sense to not drive. The east Gardiner rebuild, as Markster pointed out above, is another story as its capacity is way more than the traffic is actually carries.

This website has lots of pictures of how Japan has utilized the spaces underneath their elevated roadways and train tracks for anyone interested: http://web-japan.org/trends/11_food/jfd170601.html

 

[TOareaFan]

I think what we need to do are projects like these, where we get rid of all the overbuilt parts of the Gardiner and reduce its footprint while keeping all its traffic off of surface streets.

Problem with that is that it is mostly ramps that have the big footprint....take enough of those away and you have the worst scenario (IMO)....an elevated road taking people through the city....not to the city.

 

[darth_freeman]

This is where I bring up that Tokyo has many elevated expressways, but most importantly, they are correctly sized elevated expressways. They are 2 lanes each direction.

The Gardiner East plans need to desperately be revised to match the highway build size with the actual capacity required. The current Gardiner East is vastly overbuilt, and a replacement should be 2+2 between Jarvis and Eastern.

Isn't the Gardiner East Hybrid 2+2?

 

[Panontario]

June 14:

June 15:

 

[amnesiajune]

Problem with that is that it is mostly ramps that have the big footprint....take enough of those away and you have the worst scenario (IMO)....an elevated road taking people through the city....not to the city.

The ramps are overbuilt though. This is a perfect example - there's no need for this ramp to be 800 meters long, when it can move just as many cars at a 300 meter length.

 

[BMO]

The ramps are overbuilt though. This is a perfect example - there's no need for this ramp to be 800 meters long, when it can move just as many cars at a 300 meter length.

What are you talking about? That's factually and empirically incorrect. The longer the off-ramp the less likely off-ramp queues will spill-over into the through traffic. Queues are based on the delay produced at the intersection at the bottom of the ramp. The average length of a vehicle is 7.5m long, thus the longer the off-ramp, the more storage capacity there is on the ramp for vehicles getting off. Whether it is warranted or not (i.e. length of the off-ramp being overbuilt or not) depends on the traffic impact study prepared for this project and what the recommendations were based on the models generated and traffic growth forecasted for the future scenario. Keep in mind when they build infrastructure it is not meant to only serve existing conditions, but also serve a future horizon of 5 or 10 years down the road based on planned and proposed developments in the area.

 

[amnesiajune]

What are you talking about? That's factually and empirically incorrect. The longer the off-ramp the less likely off-ramp queues will spill-over into the through traffic.

300 meters is the standard off-ramp length for 400-series highways. If it works for many of the major intersections on the 401, it'll work for the Gardiner too.

 

[BMO]

300 meters is the standard off-ramp length for 400-series highways. If it works for many of the major intersections on the 401, it'll work for the Gardiner too.

yes, but these things aren't a one size fits all. That's not planning. To plan is to identify if what you're building will work, and if not, what needs to be built instead. No self-respecting transportation planner/traffic engineer would simply say a 400 metre off-ramp is adequate just because it is an MTO standard without providing empirical evidence that it functions adequately for the area. MTO standards are not a binding standard, and are meant to be changed depending on the situation/need. To say they are overbuilding the ramp is disingenuous. I'm all for not expanding the Gardiner, and i'm not even opposed to saying they should have a shorter off-ramp, but that's for other reasons such as urban form, desire to shift focus on transit/active transportation. Not because it will help traffic move better. Put simply, it's not being overbuilt. But if you're going to replace one ramp with another why build another off-ramp that will only make things worse?

 

[centralblue]

300 meters is the standard off-ramp length for 400-series highways. If it works for many of the major intersections on the 401, it'll work for the Gardiner too.

And this off ramp is only 200m from where it starts its downward journey to end at lower simcoe. add another 140m to the point where the lane splits from through traffic. Seems this ramp would be pretty standard in length.

I am interested in seeing what kind of de-icing technology they use on the ramp.

 

[amnesiajune]

I am interested in seeing what kind of de-icing technology they use on the ramp.

Salt and prune juice?

 

[Toffy]

What are you talking about? That's factually and empirically incorrect. The longer the off-ramp the less likely off-ramp queues will spill-over into the through traffic. Queues are based on the delay produced at the intersection at the bottom of the ramp. The average length of a vehicle is 7.5m long, thus the longer the off-ramp, the more storage capacity there is on the ramp for vehicles getting off.

Pardon me if I misunderstood you, but you are suggesting the effectiveness of an off-ramp is entirely dependant on the amount of storage capacity it has?
Here I was thinking that we should be focused on the amount of vehicles that can actually get off of the ramp in a given traffic cycle, oy vey.

 

[drum118]

June 16

 

[ponyboy]

yesterday

 

[ponyboy]

a few pics of the new park from yesterday