|
|
|
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Nice pics of my money being burnt on absolute nonsense. Cheers, guys! 
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Does anyone know what the giant concrete embankment being built on the upper left portion of the photo above is for? Could that be the new ramp for the Lakeshore exit?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Gardiner East realignment hasn't started construction yet, I believe that is some sort of servicing facility to the west don lands, unrelated to the Gardiner.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I'm as big of an opponent to this backwards, anti-evidence, horrendous waste of money as they come but having studied the Hybrid plan closely, I'm looking at the bight side. Removing the Gardiner from the Keating Channel alone will have an extraordinarily positive effect on the waterfront. They'll finish removing every part of the Gardiner still left east of the Don River and the snaking monstrosity of ramps and 8 lanes of elevated tabletop near the river will also disappear and 2 sets of taller and narrower elevated 2 lane expressways will take their place, closer to the rail corridor, out of the way and mostly out of sight from those enjoying the waterfront. It's as close to "demolishing the Gardiner" as we'll get in our lifetimes.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Nice pics of a renewal of a key part of the city’s (dramatically undersized) transportation infrastructure. Thank goodness...David Miller was sent packing and we didn’t install a ridiculous boulevard.Nice pics of my money being burnt on absolute nonsense. Cheers, guys!
To-MAY-to. To-MAH-to.
iI have employees who commute four hours a day. I admire them, and I have total disdain for those who got us into this mess. Politicians from about 1985 onwards form a queue here please.
drum118
Superstar
You should be sent packing. If Miller stay in office another term we would be seeing a lot more on the transit side than we will see in the next 20 years. Those 30,000 cars would travel that nice boulevard as well seeing more development where the eye sore is today and when the new money pit gets built. If other cities can remove these eye sore and improve the area for everyone, no reason we can't.
Miller wasn't sent packing, he chose to run for 8 years only and left on his term.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
cc46
Active Member
W. K Lis, finite or not, production should be slowed, alternatives should be encouraged and roads and gas and diesel vehicles should be reduced in favour of public transit and alternative energy vehicles.
drum118
Superstar
At the meeting I was at on Wednesday, the City stated that they have heard that Transit needs to be push as the #1 mode of transportation and pushing parking standards down to 20% at best on the Waterfront.
I have been pushing parking standards from 0-25% as our infrastructure can't support another 1.5 million cars by 2040 as well depleting our natural resources.
As someone who has worked with Waterfront Toronto on all transit projects as well a number of urban protects since 2004, what was plan for the Waterfront doesn't come close to what taking place to the point density is now ten times more than plan and still climbing. Transit is no where seen compare to what plan and approved by 2008/10 since all levels are not investing in it, as well TTC is still old school thinking and visions.
We are seeing the shifting of the Financial District to the south since the people are living there that work in the district. A great number don't own cars at all.
I have been pushing parking standards from 0-25% as our infrastructure can't support another 1.5 million cars by 2040 as well depleting our natural resources.
As someone who has worked with Waterfront Toronto on all transit projects as well a number of urban protects since 2004, what was plan for the Waterfront doesn't come close to what taking place to the point density is now ten times more than plan and still climbing. Transit is no where seen compare to what plan and approved by 2008/10 since all levels are not investing in it, as well TTC is still old school thinking and visions.
We are seeing the shifting of the Financial District to the south since the people are living there that work in the district. A great number don't own cars at all.
TransitBart
Senior Member
There should be.a special place in hell reserved for all the Toronto City councillors who kept kicking the east waterfront LRT down the road. I don’t accept the arguments wining about money. They were paid to make the decisions. Every ward got a few bits and pieces. Each councillor was happy. They fulfilled their local neighbourhood mandate. And they failed the city as a whole.
Il carnevale è finito. (The carnival is over.) City Hall do your job.
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
As per the agreement with the province, (and by agreement I mean forced hand, cities dont have a say in Provincial policy) the city is no longer allowed to have its own transit projects outside of the province, it must get approval from the province.
Max Sterling
New Member
I've always wondered with the ramp connecting the DVP to the Gardiner, why couldn't they make it go over the railway tracks instead? Make it more compact and go over land that is already utilized and perhaps free up more land for other things. Seems like it would make more sense to do that than what they ultimately chose to do.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Your travelling level along DVP, and then have to climb to get over the rail tracks.
First off, it takes about 160m to switch from level to 4% grade (highest recommended for freeway) . (Based on assuming K=40, corresponding to 90 design speed, and 80 posted). The grade varies from 0 to 4% over this length, so essentially you can do the math that the first 80m has flat grade, and next 80m has 4%.
Next, you have to clear the railway tracks. The highway clearance is 4.5m. The beam structure of the bridge is 1.5m to 2.0m thick. The railway clearance is 7.2m, The ramp structure for the new DVP to Gardiner ramp would be at least 2.0m (the spans would be much larger than what the railway bridge has). Thus, the new highway ramp would have to rise ~15.5m to clear the tracks.
Thus, to clear this, you need about 470m (15.5 / 4% + 80m)
There is only about 380m between Eastern and the RR.
If clearing a roadway bridge, the clearance is 5.0m instead of 7.2m, so the length needed to clear this is a touch less (420m), so it is theoretically possible if you start elevation much earlier and go over top of Gerrard, Dundas, Queen, Eastern and the Railway.
Max Sterling
New Member
So if its possible why not do it? Seems like that would be the best solution where you're building the ramp over land that's already being used and therefore you're taking up less space that could be used for other things. Unless the cost is significantly higher, it seems like that would be the best place to put the ramp as wasn't one of the complaints was that the space could be better used for residential/commercial/recreational use or something?
Also with the tear the it down, build a grand boulevard option, did it involve having highway traffic interacting with pedestrians and cyclists or were they completely separated because if they were going to be sharing the same space then there's no way that that wouldn't cause massive traffic headaches the same way that you currently see in the rest of the downtown core with cars and pedestrians trying to get where they're going.
Still never understood why they don't turn all downtown intersections into scramble ones where cars and pedestrians are separated and aren't in each other's way so that traffic can flow abit better and pedestrians are protected more.