Northern Light
Superstar
The bulk of traffic to/from the DVP uses the Richmond/Adelaide/Eastern ramp system.
|
|
|
Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion
- Thread starter Haljackey
- Start date
The bulk of traffic to/from the DVP uses the Richmond/Adelaide/Eastern ramp system.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Not true, especially for destinations on the western side of downtown.
about 20% of traffic on the Gardiner east is “through traffic” that doesn’t get on or off in the downtown, but downtown is a major destination so that makes sense.
the Gardiner rebuild program is about $2 billion from what I recall over 10 years, which is quite expensive but it includes the eastern Gardiner replacement, multiple interchange realignments, and localized widenings around the Humber River. It’s also about 30 years of capital work compressed into 10 due to decades of underinvestment so it looks worse than it is. After the 10 year program the highway will return to costing a few million a year.
MTO has a total capital budget for the entire provincial freeway network, including expansion, of about $4 billion a year from what I remember, about 75% on maintenance and 25% on expansion. It’s pennies compared to what is spent on transit, with GTA capital spends alone probably exceeding $10 billion a year right now.
about 20% of traffic on the Gardiner east is “through traffic” that doesn’t get on or off in the downtown, but downtown is a major destination so that makes sense.
the Gardiner rebuild program is about $2 billion from what I recall over 10 years, which is quite expensive but it includes the eastern Gardiner replacement, multiple interchange realignments, and localized widenings around the Humber River. It’s also about 30 years of capital work compressed into 10 due to decades of underinvestment so it looks worse than it is. After the 10 year program the highway will return to costing a few million a year.
MTO has a total capital budget for the entire provincial freeway network, including expansion, of about $4 billion a year from what I remember, about 75% on maintenance and 25% on expansion. It’s pennies compared to what is spent on transit, with GTA capital spends alone probably exceeding $10 billion a year right now.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
@Northern Light isn't wrong, at least based on 2010 data:
Roads: Gardiner Expressway
Apologies if this was posted before, didn't see it, but 9 Ontario Liberal MP's have signed a letter advocating for removal: https://twitter.com/dmrider/status/606555535685517312
Richmond ramp handled 40% of DVP southbound volume.
The Gardiner/DVP is basically a highway analogue of the YUS. Anyways, I think the Gardiner East (Phase 1 of the overall plan) is worth $300M.
F.G. Gardiner Expressway Strategic Rehabilitation Plan | Top100Projects
The City of Toronto is taking a proactive approach to managing the rehabilitation of the Gardiner to keep the roadway in safe and operable condition. City staff have evaluated the procurement options and are recommending an AFP approach to rehabilitate the Gardiner in the most efficient way for ...
top100projects.ca
AoD
Northern Light
Superstar
.
Refer to p. 17.
18% of SB traffic on the DVP goes to the WB Gardiner in the AM Peak. (through traffic)
35% exits at one of DT off-ramps
40% exits at Richmond.
*****
In PM peak, only 14% of traffic from Gardiner EB flows to the DVP.
That is statistically insignificant and easily absorbable by LSB.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Total traffic levels would require an 8-10 lane LSB - I’d much prefer a 4 lane elevated Gardiner with a much smaller LSB for a pedestrian standpoint. LSB right now in the eastern Gardiner area is far too large for what it needs to be, it could easily be downgraded to a 4 lane arterial.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Are you saying that the remaining 14% of traffic that flows east to the DVP requires an 8-lane LSB? If so, how did you determine that?
Rainforest
Senior Member
We don't need to determine that; the Gardiner "remove" option was going to replace it with a 8-10 lane boulevard.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Indeed. I get the general push to reduce auto traffic in the densely populated areas, but then the best option seems to be tolling the roads and thus reducing the number of cars entering the area.
If the solution is to accommodate nearly all existing traffic, just using a boulevard instead of the elevated guideway .. then I don't see how a 8-lane road is greener, or a lesser barrier, than the highway it replaces.
ARG1
Senior Member
Frankly I personally think wide boulevards are worse than elevated viaducts. You can pedestrianize the area under a viaduct. Tbh, when you only factor in crossing the respective corridors, I personally find crossing the Union Station rail corridor to be a lot worse than the Gardiner. With the Gardiner all you have to do is cross a dark 3 lane road. Its not the most pleasant experience but its like a needle, you just cross the street and its over quickly. With the Union Station corridor, you walk through a long tunnel for like 1-2 minutes, and the repetitiveness makes the tunnel feel even longer than that. Frankly I'd argue that the worst part about the Gardiner isn't the Gardiner, but LSB underneath. Hypothetically if we got rid of LSB, and turned the area under the Gardiner into a linear park, while it won't be the nicest place in town it would be perfectly fine as a pedestrian, just maybe a bit loud but even then there are ways to mitigate noise such as sound barriers.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Part of it is psychological - say if you were to replace the existing University Avenue with an elevated structure along the lines of the Gardiner, one would still perceive it to be a greater barrier. The wider the structure, the worse the effect. Traffic impact aside, there is a reason why elevated expressways are often target for removal (and it isn't a North America only phenomenon) - simply because they just tend to be sucky for the urban experience.
And no one even try and bring up Bentway as a rebuttal - it is the highest/most elevated, most open stretch of the Gardiner - nothing like the rest of the expressway through the core, which is claustrophobic and hemmed in.
Now if I get to choose, I'd say maybe a 5-6 lane elevated replacement for the Gardiner East built to modern standards (single central supporting column) along with a realigned LSB would be a balance. But that's more expensive than the repair option.
AoD
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
Visually, elevated is the worst. But for the actual mobility, elevated might be a lesser hurdle, dependent on how it is built.
If you had a chance to see the new "greened" Hwy 7 in Vaughan .. 6 general lanes in each direction, plus 2 median BRT lanes, plus left turn lanes, and at some intersections, right-turn lanes as well, and as the icing on the cake, 2 bike lanes. They tried to make everyone happy, but ended up with a monstrous canyon that requires a cab ride just to cross from one side to the other.
EDIT: 6 general lanes in total (3 + 3), not in each direction; I mis-spoken. But still, one needs to pack a snack before starting to cross.
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
If you ignore the flurry of negative articles that came out since the start of this service, then sure. Whatever.
Rainforest
Senior Member
That's true. There was a lot of criticism, not about the concept but regarding the fact that it is overpriced and built with no easy way to expand the capacity.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's why I think a relatively narrow elevated expressway designed for through traffic, pushed as far north as possible, combined with a reasonably redesigned LSB is the best solution for Gardiner East if the goal is to retain the connection while maximizing the quality of the urban realm. Too late for that now, it will be what it is for the next 30 years or so.
AoD
innsertnamehere
Superstar
is that not what is happening?