Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[CDL.TO]

The point of ring roads is they go around a city, not through the city centre.

And no one is proposing not having a "high capacity road". You don't need 100% grade separation to achieve high capacity.

 

[CDL.TO]

Witness the horror of crossing a 7-lane boulevard which replaced an elevated expressway:

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/602232654872780800/video/1

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Regardless
A large city needs ring roads or high capacity roads to get from end to end efficiently. We have the 400 series highways to cover north to south, but if the Gardiner is removed the east to west link is gone (401 is too far north). An 8 lane Boulevard is not considered a ring road. It's the city's fault that they designed the Gardiner as it is, but then again a city by a large body of water is pretty difficult to design around since you can't create a true ring road around the city. However, with no other alternative routings save tunneling underground and also a substandard transit, there really is no way around it. A "world class" city needs infrastructure and efficient ways around the city in all directions for both drivers and commuters. We barely provide that at best. It's much more than just saving 3-5 minutes. Also remember it's not just car traffic, it's truck traffic too. Are you as a potential streetside shopkeeper prepared for an influx of semis and commercial vehicles driving through and ruining your potential customer traffic? How long will it take for them to start complaining about diesel fumes and noise? Then again I am curious on how they came up with that 3-5 minute number. So ok you lose development potential in parts under the Gardiner. Too bad. The soap factory lands are a good compromise. You large city can't be all pretty. Look at Hong Kong and Tokyo. Sure they have beautiful areas but they also have ugly commercial lands and eyesore elevated roads. It's just for us we have both those areas in the same place. Imo if I had to pick either one though, I would choose the maintenance of the traffic flow commercial and private via a distinct and uninterrupted ring road link over aesthetics and land development

You have your right to that opinion, but a city that needs a ring road (e.g. Paris) has incoming traffic from all points of the compass. Toronto has no traffic from the south. The need to bypass the central city (the other reason for a ring road) cannot be done with the Gardiner, and we have the 401 & 407 for that. We have already moved our freight train yards north of the city. A true port, such as Montreal or Marseille, needs truck capacity from the Port to the warehouses. Toronto does not need that.

This leaves us with CBD commuters. You can argue they should not be inconvenienced, I can argue they should be in order for Toronto to become a better, more economically vibrant city. But, please, do not try to argue that Toronto needs a ring road. Toronto does not.

 

[cplchanb]

The point of ring roads is they go around a city, not through the city centre.

And no one is proposing not having a "high capacity road". You don't need 100% grade separation to achieve high capacity.

Understood
However as have mentioned before the routing is unfortunate but inevitable as there isn't really a better location without tearing down half the city. While my use of.the ring road term may not be the most suitable to describe the Gardiner the intention is the point out.the fact that there needs to be a a cross city road that is both high capacity and more importantly suitable for commercial traffic as well. A Boulevard is not suitable take heavy commercial traffic

 

[WislaHD]

So an 8-lane boulevard is not suitable for heavy commercial traffic, but the 5-lane Eglinton and Steeles Avenues are?

 

[rbt]

Witness the horror of crossing the 7-lane boulevard:

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/602232654872780800/video/1

I've crossed Moscow's 18 lane boulevard about 4 times in the last week. I find it nicer than Lake Shore under Gardiner largely because the street-light timing is similar (very long green for Lake Shore) but at least in Moscow you get a bit of sunlight.

Frankly, after being here for a bit, I wouldn't mind ground-level 8 to 12 lane boulevards nearly everywhere BUT with short light timings.

 

[Electrify]

I will say this: If Toronto does eliminate this portion of the Gardiner, it will be an interesting case. Either traffic will not get worse and will simply find itself absorbed, or we will become the first city to regret removing their urban highway.

Considering our insufficient transit and highway network, I'm betting on the latter. It will definitely change the dynamic of the rhetoric that all city highway removal is good, and play to the auto lobby's favour in defending highways in other cities - cities which do have excessive highway and transit infrastructure, slower population growth, and could benefit from removing parts of their highway network.

 

[nfitz]

I will say this: If Toronto does eliminate this portion of the Gardiner, it will be an interesting case. Either traffic will not get worse and will simply find itself absorbed, or we will become the first city to regret removing their urban highway.

Considering our insufficient transit and highway network, I'm betting on the latter. It will definitely change the dynamic of the rhetoric that all city highway removal is good, and play to the auto lobby's favour in defending highways in other cities - cities which do have excessive highway and transit infrastructure, slower population growth, and could benefit from removing parts of their highway network.

Where did you stand on the removal of the piece of Gardiner already gone?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I will say this: If Toronto does eliminate this portion of the Gardiner, it will be an interesting case. Either traffic will not get worse and will simply find itself absorbed, or we will become the first city to regret removing their urban highway.

Considering our insufficient transit and highway network, I'm betting on the latter. It will definitely change the dynamic of the rhetoric that all city highway removal is good, and play to the auto lobby's favour in defending highways in other cities - cities which do have excessive highway and transit infrastructure, slower population growth, and could benefit from removing parts of their highway network.

So, every other example shows down is down. But this time, because Toronto is unique when it comes to gravity, I'm sure that when I release this cannonball, it will rise. And then other cities will use Toronto's unique gravitational pull to argue down is up, to their detriment. But not Toronto's. Think of the other cities!

 

[CDL.TO]

A Boulevard is not suitable take heavy commercial traffic

And why would that be? I see plenty of heavy trucks on the wide roads out in the 905. The roads around the airport, such as Derry and Dixie, carry far more trucks than Lake Shore ever will and with fewer lanes. Why would what works elsewhere not work on this 1.7km stretch of road?

 

[CDL.TO]

I will say this: If Toronto does eliminate this portion of the Gardiner, it will be an interesting case. Either traffic will not get worse and will simply find itself absorbed, or we will become the first city to regret removing their urban highway.

Considering our insufficient transit and highway network, I'm betting on the latter. It will definitely change the dynamic of the rhetoric that all city highway removal is good, and play to the auto lobby's favour in defending highways in other cities - cities which do have excessive highway and transit infrastructure, slower population growth, and could benefit from removing parts of their highway network.

That stuff already exists. It's not hard to find auto lobby information and local newspaper reporting stating that the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway and Central Freeway have been disasters for traffic. Go have a quick Google. I haven't see anything about the West Side Highway, but it probably exists too. I know Paris's closure of expressways on the banks of the Seine have been criticized as well.

But keep in mind that the CAA has also published stuff saying that the removal of the Gardiner stump out to Leslie St back in the early 2000s has been a traffic disaster.

In reality, I think consensus is highly unlikely, even 30 years later.

 

[CDL.TO]

On a side note, my support for removal is completely based on a belief that the new boulevard should be automobile-focussed and designed to move traffic efficiently. I believe a wide boulevard CAN move traffic efficiently, contribute to a better urban environment, and provide an opportunity to create a new landscape that can be iconic for this city. I don't think that this is an unreasonable belief, as many places have managed to achieve this balance.

If someone starts going on about the need to make this new boulevard a new Queen West or the need to put a streetcar in the middle, I'll be the first to state my opposition. Jen Keesmaat (or whoever, but let's be honest, her more than anyone) needs to understand the need for making this new boulevard efficient for drivers. That's where the true compromise lies (or, if you will, where the true hybrid lies).

 

[doady]

This i the real story I think,. Remove advocates don't care about the numbers. They just hate cars.

And before you start going after me with ad hominem attacks: I live downtown, I commute by bike, my car often sits in its parking spot for a week or more before I get into it. I'm just trying to talk sense here.

Right. To replace the Gardiner with an 8-lane boulevard to "hate cars".

That's sums up you Rob Ford, pro-car types right there. You just see things in black and white. It's just "ME! ME! ME !" That's all you care about.

 

[Rainforest]

Right. To replace the Gardiner with an 8-lane boulevard to "hate cars".

That's sums up you Rob Ford, pro-car types right there. You just see things in black and white. It's just "ME! ME! ME !" That's all you care about.

It doesn't look like you read the post you are responding to.

 

[Rainforest]

On a side note, my support for removal is completely based on a belief that the new boulevard should be automobile-focussed and designed to move traffic efficiently. I believe a wide boulevard CAN move traffic efficiently, contribute to a better urban environment, and provide an opportunity to create a new landscape that can be iconic for this city. I don't think that this is an unreasonable belief, as many places have managed to achieve this balance.

If someone starts going on about the need to make this new boulevard a new Queen West or the need to put a streetcar in the middle, I'll be the first to state my opposition. Jen Keesmaat (or whoever, but let's be honest, her more than anyone) needs to understand the need for making this new boulevard efficient for drivers. That's where the true compromise lies (or, if you will, where the true hybrid lies).

I am perfectly fine with a surface boulevard. I just don't understand why our planners insist on adding highrises on its sides.

Of course, density brings some benefits in terms of more efficient utilities, and development charges on top of that. But it is not like there is no other streets in that area to add density.

Highrises can be built along Queens Quay, along Cherry St., along the new street south of DVP, and along Lakeshore east of the Don Mouth. But why are they needed along the 3 km long boulevard with the highest traffic volume in the area?