Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[k10ery]

Salsa, nobody is proposing a bike lane of any kind along the new Gardiner boulevard, are they? So what is the point of your pictures?

 

[junctionist]

Salsa, nobody is proposing a bike lane of any kind along the new Gardiner boulevard, are they? So what is the point of your pictures?

We're not yet at the stage where we can discuss whether it'll have a bike path. The point is to build a boulevard for cars. If there's enough room, a bike path could be built if it won't affect the capacity of the boulevard.

 

[salsa]

Salsa, nobody is proposing a bike lane of any kind along the new Gardiner boulevard, are they? So what is the point of your pictures?

My point is that it's actually possible to get rid of a highway and have a nice outcome in the end, contrary to your "horrible" rant. As for the bike lane, it's not that important but what the heck that blue thing I see?

 

[GrayLake]

I feel that an important part of the calculation of the impact on commute times is often left out. The boulevard option allows for more potential residents in the port lands with a short commute to downtown (hopefully through transit). This benefits everyone as if these residents were to settle in the suburbs instead, it would generate additional congestion.

 

[Electrify]

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

That I didn't have a problem with. It was a short spur east of the highway network. The stretch we are talking about is what connects the main portion of the city's west-east highway to its main north-south route.

 

[Electrify]

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!

How many of the other cities only built the absolute minimum of their highway network? How many of the other cities are the fastest growing on the continent? How many of the other cities have invested in competitive rapid transit solutions over the past couple of decades? How many of the other cities are rated as having the worst commutes in the world, especially for non-downtown destinations?

I can keep going.

 

[Electrify]

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.

Then where is it in this debate? Why are those in favour of demolition able to easily point to countless US cities about how great their teardowns went, and no one us countering with the congestion and economic damage they caused?

 

[nfitz]

That I didn't have a problem with. It was a short spur east of the highway network. The stretch we are talking about is what connects the main portion of the city's west-east highway to its main north-south route.

Which is not only the piece that has the least traffic, it's also the only piece that has an 8-lane cross-section rather than a 6-lane one. It's grossly over-designed. And has very little use to anyone commuting downtown - mostly benefiting those who are using the DVP/Gardiner to pass from one part of the city to another.

Which are the users we want to discourage from trying to drive downtown.

 

[CDL.TO]

Then where is it in this debate? Why are those in favour of demolition able to easily point to countless US cities about how great their teardowns went, and no one us countering with the congestion and economic damage they caused?

I think that's a fair question.

I would guess that boulevard supporters work harder to dig up and promote examples from elsewhere because inherently they're the ones who are fighting against the status quo and therefore need to convince people to make a change.

But overall, I'd say that even though changes elsewhere HAVE resulted in traffic impacts and, yes, a few minutes delay, but that on the whole more people believe that it's been worth it than the opposite. That a few extra traffic lights did slow down the ability for trucks to get to their destinations does result in many complaints, but that the economy hasn't actually suffered as a result and the cities are in the aggregate better off for it.

 

[howl]

Where is all the TTC growth going to come from? If the downtown relief line is not built, then the number of people taking TTC downtown cannot possibly grow that much. The number of people using GO will probably grow a lot more because of the GO electrification plans.

I have a hard time believing that the number of people driving downtown will ever go down. Many people who drive downtown have no choice because they come from an area with poor or no transit service, or they live downtown and work in the suburbs, or they are going through downtown without stopping and would otherwise use the 401. Like it or not, there are lots of people who drive downtown and reducing the capacity of the Gardiner/Lake Shore combination by nearly 50% will cause 24/7 traffic jams. The urban planning department is incompetent and I can't take them very seriously.

Since driving is the "preferred" alternative people will drive until the roads get too crowded and it becomes quicker to take transit. Roads always operate near the saturation point at peak periods no matter what changes are made to them. The transit system just has to be robust enough to take everyone who's tried of sitting in traffic.

 

[Armour]

Just how busy is the Gardiner Expressway at Jarvis? Not very from the looks of it...

[video=youtube;DU8-pFqr5m4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU8-pFqr5m4[/video]

 

[44 North]

Not sure if anyone posted the public health report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-80375.pdf

I haven't fully read it over, but a couple things I noted: It claims the Remove offers more public space and "natural habitat" - is this true (I thought it would technically be less)? As well, it claims the Remove option is better for health due to smaller climate change impacts and less air pollution. I would've thought there'd be more air pollution, considering more vehicles would have to stop/re-accelerate while on the surface.

 

[mdrejhon]

Just how busy is the Gardiner Expressway at Jarvis? Not very from the looks of it...

Yeah, I can personally attest that even during peak period, I've almost never seen Gardiner east of Jarvis go all the way to congestion collapse. But everytime I head west and pass Jarvis - BAM, I brake for the parking lot of stopped cars, and it's all backed up all the way to Exhibition. But have almost always gone full highway speed no matter which hour of day of any day of the week, during the small section of Gardiner east of Jarvis. Good to see 24 hour YouTube timelapse evidence.

If *any* section of Gardiner had to be reduced or torn down, it's definitely this small section east of Jarvis, as proposed by the teardown plan. If Remove occurs, it must be done with good due diligence, with concurrent transit expansion going on -- such as GO RER completion and new transit station(s) plus maximally utilizing the possible benefits of boulvard option.

The number of people total, in all cars cars, passing THAT section of Gardier during the whole PEAK HOUR, ALL FIT ON ONE SINGLE GO TRAIN. Certainly, not everyone can catch the GO train, but I'm really trying to illustrate HOW FEW people use that stretch of Gardiner DURING RUSH HOUR. Just ONE trainful worth! The people going over Gardiner in that section of Gardiner during peak period, isn't THAT much.

Much hoopla ado about nothing, now that I'm convinced teardown is better -- I formerly thought keeping a "RING ROAD LOOP" was the best idea, but after learning more that the teardown only involves this one small section, and how the Gardiner-DVP never really acted as a purpose of ring road like in other cities, I now really think the benefits of teardown greatly outweighs the keep option.

Toronto isn't the city of the 9-day rush hour (1 kilometer per day), of the China National Highway 110 Traffic Jam, or even cities such as Mumbai whose has gridlock massively much worse than Toronto's. Within 15 years, among the worst commutes will become much better if all the current approved transit expansions (both under construction and the new GO RER expansions), will prevent such chaos.

 

[44 North]

Yeah, I can personally attest that even during peak period, I've almost never seen Gardiner east of Jarvis go all the way to congestion collapse. But everytime I head west and pass Jarvis - BAM, I brake for the parking lot of stopped cars, and it's all backed up all the way to Exhibition. But have almost always gone full highway speed no matter which hour of day of any day of the week, during the small section of Gardiner east of Jarvis. Good to see 24 hour YouTube timelapse evidence.

If *any* section of Gardiner had to be reduced or torn down, it's definitely this small section east of Jarvis, as proposed by the teardown plan. If Remove occurs, it must be done with good due diligence, with concurrent transit expansion going on -- such as GO RER completion and new transit station(s) plus maximally utilizing the possible benefits of boulvard option.

It's no question the section is 'overbuilt', which is something everyone can agree on. But if we cut this section's width and lane number in half, I think it would look a lot busier. And not just thirty years down the line when the Port Lands and Villiers Island start filling in, but with the current usage.

And is an elevated transportation structure really that bad? We already have proof that a much larger, much busier section doesn't prevent development. We have skyscrapers literally within spitting distance of the Gardiner. If we slimmed her down, improved the planning behind on/offramps, improved the aesthetics - it really isn't that bad. I'm sure the Hybrid will be tweaked in the coming weeks, and although I think it's a palatable idea now, it will be even more acceptable and worthy of the monicker "Hybrid".

 

[mdrejhon]

It's palatable, and I'm okay if they go with a hybrid or even can be persuaded again to the Gardiner Tunnel option (if it ever came to that someday, with a good plan) but I do now lean towards the teardown option, especially if there's greatly improved transit first.