dunkalunk
Senior Member
What do you think? I'd give it maybe 20 years when we have a DRL, electified GO service and the cost to maintain the elevated structure of the Gardiner becomes to great.
Last edited:
|
|
|
Roads Poll: Will Front Street ever be connected to the Gardiner?
- Thread starter dunkalunk
- Start date
Markster
Senior Member
Wait--
are you describing:
1) The Front St Extension, or
2) The Front St Extension and tearing down the Gardiner east of that
are you describing:
1) The Front St Extension, or
2) The Front St Extension and tearing down the Gardiner east of that
dunkalunk
Senior Member
Preferably, just ramps directly to front and bathurst, but any of the above iterations. I always thought that the Front Street extension all the way to dufferin was an unwarranted 4-lane surface highway, however direct ramps would be a different story.
Platform 27
Active Member
The Front Street extension as proposed then has been pretty much killed as a geometrically-possible option by the GO Strachan grade separation lowering the tracks.
rbt
Senior Member
How's that? The connections to Gardiner were to be bridges; and the bit at the railway could be too.
A combination of the pedestrian bridge connecting Fort York to to King Street, development of the railway triangle at Strachan, and lowering of the railway line does eliminate pretty much every option.
Thank goodness. $100M/km for 5000pphpd is pretty low value given the price of moving people in that corridor in other ways.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I figure a configuration such as this may be feasible:
Front Street would be reconfigured into a 4 lane boulevard from Bathurst to Spadina, and a 3 Lane One-Way Street from Spadina to Jarvis. The street would narrow at Union Station as to not undo the streetscaping work done between York and Bay.
Wellington Street would exist in its current One-Way configuration, but would be realigned to meet up with the intersection of Front and Spadina. A parking structure with ground retail could also be built at this intersection to divert traffic off of city streets and to serve as overflow for the Rogers Centre/Convention Centre.
The construction of the ramps could coincide with the construction of the DRL to ensure that all of the disruption on Front and Wellington could be limited to the construction period. (I envision the DRL either using Wellington or Front)
Once it is decided that the Gardiner would be torn down (or not), it would not be too difficult to align the eastbound Gardiner lanes so they flowed directly into the Front Street ramps and modify the eastbound loop ramp so it served as an offramp only to Strachan.
Thoughts?
Front Street would be reconfigured into a 4 lane boulevard from Bathurst to Spadina, and a 3 Lane One-Way Street from Spadina to Jarvis. The street would narrow at Union Station as to not undo the streetscaping work done between York and Bay.
Wellington Street would exist in its current One-Way configuration, but would be realigned to meet up with the intersection of Front and Spadina. A parking structure with ground retail could also be built at this intersection to divert traffic off of city streets and to serve as overflow for the Rogers Centre/Convention Centre.
The construction of the ramps could coincide with the construction of the DRL to ensure that all of the disruption on Front and Wellington could be limited to the construction period. (I envision the DRL either using Wellington or Front)
Once it is decided that the Gardiner would be torn down (or not), it would not be too difficult to align the eastbound Gardiner lanes so they flowed directly into the Front Street ramps and modify the eastbound loop ramp so it served as an offramp only to Strachan.
Thoughts?
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I wasn't aware that that rail triangle was being developed, nor about the pedestrian overpass. Links?
EDIT: Here's the one for the Ordnance Street Development
This option would still be technically possible, as my proposal it would only eat up potential parkland.
This is just pie-in-the-sky thinking, but what about building something similar to the Toronto Viaduct between Strachan and Bathurst?
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
Discussion for the Fort York pedestrian bridge involves splitting it into two parts with a park in the triangle and having the developer of 10 Ordinance, whomever that will be, integrate it/connect it to Ordinance. Nothing is far enough along for links but there will probably be a pretty solid design for the bridge/park within a year.
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I figure a configuration such as this may be feasible:
Front Street would be reconfigured into a 4 lane boulevard from Bathurst to Spadina, and a 3 Lane One-Way Street from Spadina to Jarvis. The street would narrow at Union Station as to not undo the streetscaping work done between York and Bay.
Wellington Street would exist in its current One-Way configuration, but would be realigned to meet up with the intersection of Front and Spadina. A parking structure with ground retail could also be built at this intersection to divert traffic off of city streets and to serve as overflow for the Rogers Centre/Convention Centre.
The construction of the ramps could coincide with the construction of the DRL to ensure that all of the disruption on Front and Wellington could be limited to the construction period. (I envision the DRL either using Wellington or Front)
Once it is decided that the Gardiner would be torn down (or not), it would not be too difficult to align the eastbound Gardiner lanes so they flowed directly into the Front Street ramps and modify the eastbound loop ramp so it served as an offramp only to Strachan.
Thoughts?
One problem. The plot of land you propose for the Wellington realignment already has a condo development/proposal on it (300 Front or Fly Condos is the name). In fact one of those condos is currently under construction. I doubt the developer would be pleased that you decided to build a street, let alone a parking structure on their condo property.
Neil
Active Member
I think there should be a connection there, but I would simplify the configuration and purpose. 2-lanes westbound only. Make it easier for traffic to leave the downtown in the afternoon and lessen the congestion at Spadina onto the Gardiner. Ultimately I would bring the Gardiner down to ground with westbound lanes north of the Ex and eastbound lanes south of the Ex. The Front St. connection would be a step towards to this goal.
Platform 27
Active Member
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I guess it would be possible to route Wellington to Front at the hydro substation beside the CBC Building when it gets relocated underground, but that is really just grabbing at loose threads at that point. It was worth a shot 
Now we DEFINITELY need a DRL.
Now we DEFINITELY need a DRL.accura407
Car is King
This is probably the wrong thread for this but what the hell...
I was always under the impression that the Gardiner could not be in a trench because the land south of Front St is on essentially garbage. Yet the other day when i was on the go train, I saw a condo under construction and noticed the sheer depth of the base for preparation! I thought most condo's south of Front St stored cars above ground (Like in City Place...You can see the parking garage from the railtracks) yet in this case its at least 3-4 stories below Simcoe St that they are digging.
If they can dig that deep for a condo foundation, why can't we put the Gardiner expressway in a trench? If it is landscaped right, nobody will even notice its there... Expressways in Montreal and Calgary do trenches quite well and you really have to look hard to see there is an expressway otherwise they are nicely integrated into street level. Also the streets could go over the trench as a land bridge like the Windsor-Essex Parkway under construction.
Also in regards to the thread, the idea of dumping all Gardiner traffic onto Spadina and with no earlier exit is unsustainable and a disaster in development. A front street extension is important to serve the areas east of Bathurst. You can't build an entire CityPlace development with 10's of thousands of new people and expect there to not be a new interchange on an expressway. Spadina cannot handle all this.
If you want to put a small toll on the front street ramp that is fine by me. We could probably recover the costs and make profit on it within a decade.
I was always under the impression that the Gardiner could not be in a trench because the land south of Front St is on essentially garbage. Yet the other day when i was on the go train, I saw a condo under construction and noticed the sheer depth of the base for preparation! I thought most condo's south of Front St stored cars above ground (Like in City Place...You can see the parking garage from the railtracks) yet in this case its at least 3-4 stories below Simcoe St that they are digging.
If they can dig that deep for a condo foundation, why can't we put the Gardiner expressway in a trench? If it is landscaped right, nobody will even notice its there... Expressways in Montreal and Calgary do trenches quite well and you really have to look hard to see there is an expressway otherwise they are nicely integrated into street level. Also the streets could go over the trench as a land bridge like the Windsor-Essex Parkway under construction.
Also in regards to the thread, the idea of dumping all Gardiner traffic onto Spadina and with no earlier exit is unsustainable and a disaster in development. A front street extension is important to serve the areas east of Bathurst. You can't build an entire CityPlace development with 10's of thousands of new people and expect there to not be a new interchange on an expressway. Spadina cannot handle all this.
If you want to put a small toll on the front street ramp that is fine by me. We could probably recover the costs and make profit on it within a decade.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
How about a ramp connecting the Gardiner to the King/Queen/Queensway/Roncy intersection.