BurlOak
Senior Member
I would probably put the highway 400 south tunnel extension to the Gardiner as a higher priority than the buried Gardiner.
Last edited:
|
|
|
Euphoria
Active Member
Or what about continuing the Allen Expressway south of Eglinton underground as a toll tunnel to connect with the Gardiner? I still think tunneling the Gardiner between around Strachan and the DVP is the way to go. I'd make that stretch a toll route. Really, if you could get off the highway between Strachan and Bathurst, you wouldn't have to deal with the tunnel at all. In the east, you could still get off the DVP at Richmond, or coming from the Beach, stick with Lake Shore.
Neil
Active Member
We'd have to build some more parking lots to go along with these underground parking lots.
pman
Senior Member
Extending Allen or 400 to downtown would mean significant off-ramp construction and a lot more cars on the streets once they exit the expressways. This would significantly degrade the already substandard pedestrian and cycling experience, add to pollution, and increase surface street congestion. Given the fact we've extended the Spadina subway into Vaughan, there's no justification for either project. Unless we've decided Dallas or Phoenix are good models.
Euphoria
Active Member
I've consistently said that construction of a toll expressway tunnel should be combined with construction of a subway line. I've proposed running it south from Eglinton West station and merging with the Gardiner west of Bathurst, where the DRL would swing east to the DVP. I've suggested tunneling under Richmond and Adelaide streets. Sorry, I know some of you are sick of hearing it, but I stand by this proposal, which would reduce surface traffic and add more options for commuters. You end up with more transit riders and fewer drivers because of the tolling and added subway connections, though you also get less congestion and quicker, more direct routes in and out of the city for those times when you're willing to pay the toll for convenience, such as the Friday trip to the cottage. There's a construction savings in combining highway with subway tunneling.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Fred Gardiner was Reeve for Forest Hill. The residents would support him later as Chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. He supported the building of a Lakeshore Expressway, which would later be named after him.
However, the same residents in that area of town would be against another expressway going through their neighborhood, the Allen Expressway. As long as the expressway was in some others part of town, they were for it. Not so if it went through theirs.
Always better to build expressways where there are no residents who will complain. See
However, the same residents in that area of town would be against another expressway going through their neighborhood, the Allen Expressway. As long as the expressway was in some others part of town, they were for it. Not so if it went through theirs.
Always better to build expressways where there are no residents who will complain. See
LNahid2000
Senior Member
And you've consistently ignored everyones ararguments as to why this is a bad idea.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Better idea:
What about filling in the Allen Expressway north of Eglinton and converting it to an arterial road.
Might even be profitable or recapture much of the capital cost, if we opened up the lands to development. Sustainable development along a subway line, greater long-term tax revenue.
44 North
Senior Member
A tunneled Gardiner was debunked long ago. It's not worth it, not feasible, and IMO really shouldn't be combined with a DRL. And from that map I've seen you post (with a 90km/h subterranean expwy making 90deg turns under the core)...that's not possible either. Sure a tunnel is better in many contexts, and was all the rage a decade ago. But an elevated structure is the next best thing.
Regardless, the debate is pretty much settled. We're keeping it elevated, removing and fixing the pedestrian-unfriendly 60s-era on/offramps (that are simply not conducive to a 21stC high-density urban environment), and realigning the expwy to maintain the DVP connection. And although anti-Gardiner people think this is a wasteful mistake, I believe otherwise. And believe the project's detractors may be pleasantly surprised with the outcome. The biggest enemy when crossing under the Gardiner isn't the Gardiner...it's Lake Shore Blvd! Why anyone wants to expand Lake Shore Blvd to a major arterial surface highway - then fill it with bumper-to-bumper traffic pouring in from both directions via the DVP and west Gardiner - is beyond me.
For amateur "fantasy" proposals relating to the eastern Gardiner/Lake Shore Blvd corridor, I'd suggest considering integrating the waterfront LRT into the plans. We're in an ultimate carte blanche position atm, with an expwy, highway, and even local roads (as part of Lower Yonge Precinct, East Bayfront Precinct, and Keating Precinct) all being rebuilt and redesigned. And the bonus is that we're fortunate enough to have all this perfectly coincide with the waterfront transit "Reset".
So instead of shoehorning a DRL into some fantasy tunneled Gardiner, I think it'd be wiser to look at the present reality of waterfront plans, and see what kind of fantasy proposal can work as part of the plans that are actually on the books. Could this be an elevated streetcar/LRT along Lake Shore or adhered to a portion of the rebuilt Gardiner? In-median LRT on Lake Shore? Or can we do away with Lake Shore altogether (so as to actually fix the real barrier to the waterfront)?
Euphoria
Active Member
Lake Shore would cease to be the major arterial you refer to if it didn't have any Gardiner ramps connected to it, which would be the case if the Gardiner was removed or relocated elsewhere. Lake Shore could be better than University Ave. It could be whatever we want it to be. Burying the Gardiner in the core, north of the train tracks with the DRL solves a multitude of problems. That you can't imagine Toronto without an elevated expressway running through it is your problem, not mine. Why cling to this rust belt image of the city? You can gussy up the monstrosity all you want. It will remain a blight. It reminds me of a boating trip I took in Hamilton Harbour. If I averted my eyes from U.S. Steel and Defasco, the bay looked fabulous. You're asking us to pretend the Gardiner isn't there when we walk or ride our bikes underneath it. Sorry, it's a shit sandwich I don't want to eat.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
I think basic decisions made 10-15 years ago regarding the East Bayfront area resulted in the unfortunate retention of the eastern Gardiner. If Lake Shore and Harbour street had been extended as a one-way pair (4-5 lanes each) from Yonge to past Cherry, the traffic could better have been handled than with a single 40-metre boulevard that would not be ideal from a traffic or pedestrian point of view.
jcam
Active Member
I'm going to cross-post my response a couple months back in the DRL thread...I liked what I said!
salsa
Senior Member
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Euphoria will ignore this post, and continue to insist that Toronto should bury the Gardiner, but is too small minded and cheap to do it. It's the same post over and over.I also like what you said. If only Euphoria would listen.
pstogios
Senior Member
Euphoria isn't the only one that considers the Gardiner a hideous blight on this city whose burial would open up vast opportunities to transform this city.