News   May 06, 2024
Amexon Nominated for BILD Green Builder of the Year for Residences at Central Park
 490     1 
News   May 06, 2024
Four High-Rises and Public Park Proposed South of Whitby GO
 1K     0 
News   May 06, 2024
News Roundup for May 6, 2024
 679     1 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Tearing down the Gardiner will only divert the traffic to Lake Shore Boulevard. It will add more traffic to Lake Shore Boulevard. That will mean crossing several lanes of heavy, heavy, congested traffic. How can this be an improvement?

If they think this is an improvement, then do not tear it down until after Transit City and the Downtown Relief Line are up and running. Not before.
 
The DRL would have limited impact on this.

How many people coming in from Etobicoke, Mississauga, and points west, would exchange the QEW/Gardiner for the DRL? Likewise, those coming down from North York, Markham, Richmond Hill, etc., are hardly going to switch from the 404/DVP to the DRL.

I support the DRL, btw, but I don't think it has much relevance here.
 
I think the hope here is that somewhere down the line we'll have a strong enough rapid transit system that it will take some people out of cars that would have traveled on the DVP/Lakeshore, thereby decreasing the level of traffic on the Champs Lakeshore. Obviously it would take a significant number of conversions but who knows how transit will be viewed once MoveOntario kicks in.
 
Removing the portion from the DVP to Jarvis will make little difference to traffic in the area. This portion is lightly used and removing it will make as much difference as removing the former eastern portion. Namely little or no difference.
 
David Miller met a small group of cycling enthusiasts, when he was first running for mayor. I recall that he favoured taking the Gardiner down, one section at a time, beginning on the east end. It's a good approach. Watch for growing public support. He timed it well, with the waterfront initiatives finally moving ahead.
 
MetroMan said:
Seems to work (very well) here:
...and here:

ramblas-780715.jpg
Click to expand...

I call shenanigans. Anyone who's physically been to Barcelona knows that the Ramblas are only one or two lanes in each direction, and the traffic that moves along them absolutely crawls. It's also not much wider than a single direction of Lake Shore's present configuration.

Rather than crossing under the high-speed traffic, we're going to move it to grade, give it more lanes, and then solve the nightmare with some shrubs? That sounds like such a typically Torontonian way to plan that I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen.
 
^ I'm also worried that this will be botched in some way. I hope we know what we're doing, we certainly can't afford pointless waste. Are there specific plans/renderings for this?
 
TKTKTK said:
Rather than crossing under the high-speed traffic, we're going to move it to grade, give it more lanes, and then solve the nightmare with some shrubs? That sounds like such a typically Torontonian way to plan that I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

If eastbound people are forced off at York, to make their trips into downtown, they will not be high speed traffic, as they will be turning to go up York, Yonge, etc. Hopefully another northbound route wuld be added to aid in dispersing traffic.Westbound/southbound DVP traffic would ideally come in along Richmond, Eastern and whatever else. Those travelling through to the DVP (which I think are fairly limited in number) will be a small proportion of traffic and slowed to whatever speed limit is set.

In fact it might be possible to reduce the traffic in the demolished area, as motorists could be presented different options to complete their trips that do not require the Lakeshore.
 
Earlscourt_Lad said:
If eastbound people are forced off at York, to make their trips into downtown, they will not be high speed traffic, as they will be turning to go up York, Yonge, etc. Hopefully another northbound route wuld be added to aid in dispersing traffic.Westbound/southbound DVP traffic would ideally come in along Richmond, Eastern and whatever else. Those travelling through to the DVP (which I think are fairly limited in number) will be a small proportion of traffic and slowed to whatever speed limit is set.
Click to expand...

The majority of drivers going southbound on the DVP do no get off at either the Richmond/Eastern exit, or the Lake Shore eastbound exit - they continue around onto the Gardiner. It isn't a small number of drivers either, hang out on the Queen St. bridge and you'll get a sense of just how many there are.

The northbound traffic isn't a concern (they can't go very fast because of the restricted space,) but eastbound and westbound traffic (whether along Richmond, Adelaide, or Lake Shore) absolutely flies along. I see no reason to think that'll stop when we add more lanes and more capacity.

In fact it might be possible to reduce the traffic in the demolished area, as motorists could be presented different options to complete their trips that do not require the Lakeshore.
Click to expand...

There is no other East/West route through the city. Adelaide and Richmond don't have the capacity to handle more traffic - especially with all the construction centered around them right now.
 
This is great news (although demolishing it at Yonge was Miller's original idea, and demolishing it whole from Spadina would be even better).

I am not quite sure that PDF is what is planned (although we may know more by the end of the day). I am certainly not in favour of building an elevated highway on top of the rail lines, if for no other reason than cost. Do we really need to spend millions to shave a few minutes off for a small number of cars (as been stated above, the DVP to Gardiner route is quite light most of the time)?

Bring the Gardiner down and fix the Lakeshore. It will be a dramatic aesthetic improvement, by all measures (pedestrian and vehicle, neighbourhood and city).
 
I will echo my concern of having a "boulevard" replace that stretch of the Gardiner. Remember that the main impediment to getting to the lake is not the overhead freeway, as unsightly as it is, but the six lanes of Lakeshore avenue that drivers treat as a surface highway.

The best thing to do is, unfortunately, also the most expensive option, but it doesn't have to be a monumental Big Dig operation. A simple cut and cover trench will do. It doesn't have to be wide, either. If you treat Lakeshore like a service road, with an entrance/exit pair at Jarvis and Spadina you can run an "express" tunnel with no on or offramps between these two streets. Because thru-traffic isn't a substantial component of the Gardiner, this would only have to be a single four lane tunnel. The above ground Lakeshore portion would be a more manageable 6 lanes, as well.
 
How often is that rail crossing used on Lakeshore near Parliament? I say leave it up, and reconfigure the exits and entrances at Jarvis. It is much nicer not having to cross a highway.
 
I'd love to see any part of the Gardiner go, but this will be seen as a half-measure that will please neither urbanists or car people. My cynical prediction is, most councillors will hate the idea or, as usual, point to cost. And Miller won't take a political risk to make it happen.
 
Hipster Duck said:
I will echo my concern of having a "boulevard" replace that stretch of the Gardiner. Remember that the main impediment to getting to the lake is not the overhead freeway, as unsightly as it is, but the six lanes of Lakeshore avenue that drivers treat as a surface highway.
Click to expand...

Well, that and developments like Harbour Square and Pier 27. :p
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top