News   Nov 07, 2024
Data Centre, Hyatt Hotels Planned at SteelesTech Campus at Highway 404
 135     0 
News   Nov 07, 2024
News Roundup for November 7, 2024
 414     0 
News   Nov 07, 2024
Vineyard Getaway
 423     1 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

BMO said:
i'm surprised that no one has tried to put forward the option of maybe putting the Gardiner underground lol that's the first thing I thought of to please both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

Because it's just not going to happen. There's no money for it. I have always been curious though whether this could be done with tolls. It would be a good way of paying for it and essentially adding a congestion charge at the same time. Too bad there's no appetite for it in this city.
 
^Yes, but one could always dream!

My current dream is that they would buy one of those boring drills that are 4 floors in diameter and bore two holes all the way from the west to the east. That would be enough to fit tonnes of stuff in (two floors of traffic, and one of other stuff, or potentially a small third floor of transit traffic per tunnel :eek:). They could then take that land and put it in the same corporation as all the land holdings, which would - over 30 years, sell off the land to developers (except for some parkland and bicycle paths). Putting those together - I wonder how much it would cost (net)? Of course I know it is only a dream....
 
^ Alternatively, I don't get why they don't construct a Gardiner tunnel simultaneously with their 'grand avenue'. Toll the tunnel to help pay for it. Keep the grand avenue free. This way instead of a ten lane monstrosity, we could build a six or eight lane avenue and bike paths and wider sidewalks, etc. I would even go further and bury the railway tracks at the same time, freeing up more land. Unfortunately, we really limits ourselves in this town by our lack of imagination.
 
BMO said:
i'm surprised that no one has tried to put forward the option of maybe putting the Gardiner underground lol that's the first thing I thought of to please both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

It's been thought of, debated, and squashed many times over. While it's not the worst idea, the money really could be better spent elsewhere, especially since it really isn't that much of a hindrance to the waterfront.
 
kEiThZ said:
^ Alternatively, I don't get why they don't construct a Gardiner tunnel simultaneously with their 'grand avenue'. Toll the tunnel to help pay for it. Keep the grand avenue free. This way instead of a ten lane monstrosity, we could build a six or eight lane avenue and bike paths and wider sidewalks, etc. I would even go further and bury the railway tracks at the same time, freeing up more land. Unfortunately, we really limits ourselves in this town by our lack of imagination.
Click to expand...

yea true I think if anything the railway should be put underground, last march i went to Barcelona by train from Madrid, and like to get to the Barcelona station we had to go underground for a good portion of th trip it is really wuite amazing how the trains actually go under alot of the city to reach the station. The parts in Toronto that woul dneed to be covered up would actually be quite miniscule in comparison, probably from about dufferin to the DVP, but yea I think the Gardiner being done would be more useful and more needed.
 
I remain skeptical that this should be done before most of the transit projects slated for the east are completed. As it stands right now, a lot of east-end commuters would be getting screwed. Inadequate transit and essentially the DVP/Gardiner into the core. That highway should go but in due time, once the alternatives are up and running.
 
kEiThZ said:
I remain skeptical that this should be done before most of the transit projects slated for the east are completed. As it stands right now, a lot of east-end commuters would be getting screwed. Inadequate transit and essentially the DVP/Gardiner into the core. That highway should go but in due time, once the alternatives are up and running.
Click to expand...

The whole "not until we have better transit" argument is something that comes up as a response to a lot of more radical proposals: tearing down the Gardiner, congestion charges, narrowing roads, adding tolls, removing parking, etc. And while there's a kind of rationality to that, it doesn't seem to hold much water.

Traffic isn't inelastic. If you take away conditions that allow for high traffic, a chunk of it will just go away.

Plus, sure, it'd be great if the city could build transit projects preemptively, in anticipation of increased demand from road closures or whatever, but this will never ever happen.
 
I'd like to see this happen for the most part. I'd like to see them "start" by tolling the Gardener at least, maybe (and I say very skeptically maybe) the DVP too. In the end it should be replaced by a good mass transit system, but for now I have doubts the project will go through.
 
Since the political will is there for a DRL study now, should the DRL be part of a Gardiner take-down study?

Also, nobody is really getting screwed by the Gardiner takedown: It's reported it will only add 2 minutes to travel times.
 
kEiThZ said:
I remain skeptical that this should be done before most of the transit projects slated for the east are completed. As it stands right now, a lot of east-end commuters would be getting screwed. Inadequate transit and essentially the DVP/Gardiner into the core. That highway should go but in due time, once the alternatives are up and running.
Click to expand...

All the transit plans are in place other than how lower Cherry St and the Queens Quay E will connect to the Cherry St N. The missing DRL is not in the picture at this time nor is GO Cherry St station.

Cherry St N construction starts in 2010 with a possible of a preview this summer. Queens Quay E will see construction in 2011 along with QQ W and Union Station.

QQ E will stop west of Parliament St as a loop.

Final Plans of both QQ lines as well Union Station, will be presented to the public on March 25 and 28 at Westin Harbour. March 25 is at 6pm as a high over view with the amount of info that will be presented. Sat is at 10:00 am as a drop-in for a one on one for all plans.

There are other LRT's lines plan for the Portland, but 15-25 years down the line as the Portland is redeveloped.

There should be an Lake Shore LRT line from Woodbine to Humber.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Traffic isn't inelastic. If you take away conditions that allow for high traffic, a chunk of it will just go away.
Click to expand...

It'll go away...right onto all the streets. I don't buy that traffic is perfectly elastic in our case. Our alternatives are still not to the point that we have alternatives that would make driving perfectly elastic by presenting good transit as an alternative.

Plus, sure, it'd be great if the city could build transit projects preemptively, in anticipation of increased demand from road closures or whatever, but this will never ever happen.
Click to expand...


Why not? Isn't that the point of all this regional planning stuff? So that for once we can actually do something correctly, methodically and efficiently.

I'd say that once Transit City is complete at least and all the planned GO upgrades are complete most of the city will have few excuses to drive to core. Any time before that, I'd be more than willing to dare Miller to go ahead. If he takes down that ramp before its due he might just get inner surburbanites voting again. Not necessarily for him. Let's see how well that '2 minutes extra only' promise works out with angry voters if he trades in the ramp for a 'grand avenue' sooner rather than later.

I am all for taking down the whole Gardiner once our alternatives are in place. Before then, quite frankly, as a suburbanite this kind of 'damn the bastards' approach to commuting and transport planning smacks of snobbery by the south of bloor crowd.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top