News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.4K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 399     0 

Roads: Keep the Gardiner, fix it, or get rid of it? (2005-2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
My window overlooks the Gardiner at Spadina, and I agree with you Grimace, on all accounts.

I feel that if Lakeshore and the Gardiner were merged into a boulevard - with a bidirectional bike route and scenic pedestrian path on the north side - traffic flow could be improved, maintenance costs could be brought down, and the visual experience of the area could be enhanced.

The ramps to get on to the highway clearly create gridlock, they don't alleviate it. Meanwhile we have a very unpleasant barrier dividing the neighbourhood.

I'd much rather have something like this where I live:

03-30-05-02%20Beautiful%20road%20trees%20in%20perspective%20of%20Champse-Elysees%20Boulevard.jpg
 
I've come to the view (not that my view comes from any particular expertise in the area) that the Gardiner should come down at Spadina. Looking at all the Southcore development, it is a real shame that this area is hampered by an elevated expressway that rips through it. While the rail corridor is as big or bigger a barrier between the city proper and the waterfront, it is the Gardiner that cuts through a developing neighbourhood. This might be justified if the Gardiner east of Spadina was a key component of getting rush hour traffic in and out of the City, but I really don't think it is.

As someone who overlooks the Gardiner from my office (but who admittedly has no training in traffic studies), my observation (consistent with what some others have said in this thread) is that the main use of the elevated expressway east of Spadina is not to assist peak traffic into and out of the city at rush hour, but instead to permit the relatively unimpeded flow of through traffic at rush hour. If anything, the raised Gardiner serves as an impediment to people getting into and out of the City due to the limited access ramps.

Main rush hour traffic into the City gets off at Spadina, York, Bay and Yonge. The current plan as I understand it is to have all traffic come down at Spadina and Simcoe. The Spadina ramp with forced left turn is a mess. I was recently backed up here at 9:30 a.m. on a Saturday. I would be concerned about congestion on the Simcoe ramp if that is the sole exit for York, Bay and Yonge. But more than that, it makes clear that the sole purpose of the Gardiner east of Simcoe will be to serve through traffic or the Jarvis exit. This is a small amount of traffic, and does not justify an elevated expressway through what is soon to be a core part of the city. The Lakeshore/Gardiner east of Jarvis is essentially a double decker expressway serving traffic that could easily manage on 3 lanes each way with stoplights at Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry.

Much better to have everyone come down at Spadina with a major avenue thereafter and properly managed lights and turns without the complications caused by ramps, such as the difficulty getting into a left hand turn lane for Yonge (as an example).

The amount of traffic being sent into Southcore would have been much improved with the Front Street Extension, but even without that I think there is a definite possibility that getting rid of the Gardiner east of Spadina will help car commuters in the core.

Add a left lane on Lakeshore at the Spadina exit and allow vehicles to continue straight through instead of the forced left. Motorists then have access to York, Simcoe, even Rees to get into the core. With that configuration I can see a measurable decline in traffic at the York-Bay-Yonge ramp
 
You mean western section?

He's talking about the stupid Airport train powered by polluting diesel locomotives that's about to be built despite opposition to it. This airport link could just as easily be electrified, or just be served by the Eglington line of the LRT being built.
 
but nothing would be ready by 2015, and the Pan ams. No worries, the big move has it being electrified in the new $37 billion plan. if you want it electrified, you need to call your MPP and tell them to support the big move, and the new transit taxes that come with it.

Not like the trains will emeit that much anyways. they very small locomotives compared to current GO trains, and they run off of one small locomotive instead of two huge ones. Think of it as a Big truck driving by every 6.5 minutes.. loud, but only slightly polluting. Trust me, the hundreds of dump trucks driving by to build the new line will make much more pollution than the line itself.
 
He's talking about the stupid Airport train powered by polluting diesel locomotives that's about to be built despite opposition to it.
Surely a diesel engine is a diesel engine, and calling it a polluting diesel engine, is trying to add some strange spin.

I don't think most people oppose the airport train, other than a few NIMBYs in Weston. I think more people would prefer it stop in more places, than are worried about the technology of it being a polluting diesel train versus a polluting electric train.

This airport link could just as easily be electrified ...
I'm just baffled by this. How could something that is so much more complex and far more expensive, be just as easy? It's not like we have a vast network of electrified rail already ...
 
If access to the waterfront is of the main concern, then taking it down in the west would be of the most benefit. West of Union, the railway becomes trenched, meaning that it is far less of a barrier, at least from a visual point of view. East of Union, where current proposals for its demolition are focused, the railway is elevated and I find creates a much more unpleasant barrier to the south than the highway does. At least the Gardiner is a full viaduct, so to the west and east it remains open, while going under the railway means you are going through a claustrophobic tunnel.

That said, I don't mind walking under either structures, but I do find walking under the railway less pedestrian oriented than the Gardiner.
 
If access to the waterfront is of the main concern, then taking it down in the west would be of the most benefit. West of Union, the railway becomes trenched, meaning that it is far less of a barrier, at least from a visual point of view. East of Union, where current proposals for its demolition are focused, the railway is elevated and I find creates a much more unpleasant barrier to the south than the highway does. At least the Gardiner is a full viaduct, so to the west and east it remains open, while going under the railway means you are going through a claustrophobic tunnel.

That said, I don't mind walking under either structures, but I do find walking under the railway less pedestrian oriented than the Gardiner.

but the railway doesn't have ramps. Sometimes it is the ramps that makes walking an unpleasant experience. I find walking under the railway tunnel at lower Jarvis a lot easier than the Gardner at Bay or York.
 
Surely a diesel engine is a diesel engine, and calling it a polluting diesel engine, is trying to add some strange spin.

I don't think most people oppose the airport train, other than a few NIMBYs in Weston. I think more people would prefer it stop in more places, than are worried about the technology of it being a polluting diesel train versus a polluting electric train.

I'm just baffled by this. How could something that is so much more complex and far more expensive, be just as easy? It's not like we have a vast network of electrified rail already ...

It's not a strange spin. Diesel trains mean pollution to varying degrees depending on how much service is provided; electric trains mean potentially no pollution at any service level. Electrification cannot be much of a challenge because the expertise is available around the world from the past 100+ years that they have been in use. That should especially be true in this age of large international engineering firms.
 
electric trains mean potentially no pollution at any service level.

Did you know pollution from Gardiner would be essentially unchanged even if every vehicle was electric? For our stop & go highways, the largest pollution contributor by a wide margin is brake dust.

Yes, electric is better (when the Wind and Nukes are generating it) but pollution is not zero, particularlay if you delay the project by 5 or 10 years waiting for the "perfect" electric solution to be built.

Waiting for "perfect" is why many things in Toronto get delayed. Sometimes this works out well (waterfront plans are much better than the 80's version) and sometimes it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
We don't have to worry about delays to the opening of the airport train service because construction on all the infrastructure needed is well underway and the trains that the government bought are convertible to run on electricity. Nevertheless, it's important to have a plan and commitment to electrification because high service levels of diesel trains mean a lot of pollution.
 
We don't have to worry about delays to the opening of the airport train service because construction on all the infrastructure needed is well underway and the trains that the government bought are convertible to run on electricity. Nevertheless, it's important to have a plan and commitment to electrification because high service levels of diesel trains mean a lot of pollution.

The other day my commute home was

Bus to subway.... LRT airport link to Newark... LRT to terminal....Airplane... Ferry... Shuttle Bus... Subway... walk home from Eglinton West.... Transit Nerds dream :)

Anyways the rail link to Newark was electric fast and quite in comparison to diesel.. A long part of it at the beginning was tunneled. My only question was why use these type of trains (electric go style) when they could use Toronto LRT style.. But it was very nice..
 
Anyways the rail link to Newark was electric fast and quite in comparison to diesel.. A long part of it at the beginning was tunneled. My only question was why use these type of trains (electric go style) when they could use Toronto LRT style.. But it was very nice..

Are you talking about the Amtrak train with the connection via that monorail people mover? "Fast" is a deception only. GO trains have a higher average speed.
 
Are you talking about the Amtrak train with the connection via that monorail people mover? "Fast" is a deception only. GO trains have a higher average speed.

wasn't Amtrak but new Jersey transit... I cant remember... btw it was 12$ a lot cheaper then our imaginary rail link...
 
wasn't Amtrak but new Jersey transit... I cant remember... btw it was 12$ a lot cheaper then our imaginary rail link...

Yeah, Jersy transit charges the fare and Amtrak runs the train. 3/2 person wide brown seats and a conductor stopped by to punch your tickets?

The actual speed of the trains is quite a bit lower than it appears though I haven't looked or been through there since the hurricain required the tracks to be rebuilt through the swamp section.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top