dunkalunk
Senior Member
Where would you put the portals? I dont see where there would be space to do so.
|
|
|
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I've given the design of the viaduct itself some more thought.
Total Length: ~1100m
Main Span: ~460m
Height: ~150m
Deck Width: ~30m; 5 lanes with bus bypass/emergency shoulders.
The towers would be located where the placemarks are.
Based on bridges of similar design, a conservative estimate of total cost would be in the neighbourhood of $800M
The decking-over of the rail corridor would be a completely separate project with separate funding that could be carried out at a later time. At no point would the park touch the bridge structure.
Rev Cycles at the corner of Front and Bathurst would need to be demolished to not impact the historic Bathurst Street Truss, but I would hardly call that demolition a loss.
Total Length: ~1100m
Main Span: ~460m
Height: ~150m
Deck Width: ~30m; 5 lanes with bus bypass/emergency shoulders.
The towers would be located where the placemarks are.
Based on bridges of similar design, a conservative estimate of total cost would be in the neighbourhood of $800M
The decking-over of the rail corridor would be a completely separate project with separate funding that could be carried out at a later time. At no point would the park touch the bridge structure.
Rev Cycles at the corner of Front and Bathurst would need to be demolished to not impact the historic Bathurst Street Truss, but I would hardly call that demolition a loss.
jamincan
Active Member
I think there might be a condominium planned for that corner? I know that Rock Oasis (shares the building with Rev Cycles) had to move from that location and I believe that was the reason given.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
Indeed there is. I'm not able to find much more info on it though. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to take 5m of frontage to put in a proper left turn lane.
Last edited:
I would put the portals in the street. Right before Clarence Square, I would have the 3 left lanes descend into the tunnel, with the right line being either the tunnel or straight through to connect to Spadina. The boulevard west of Spadina would start off with 1 lane coming off Spadina, and then the 3 lanes would come up in the roadway and join with it, creating a 3 or 4 lane half of the boulevard.
The tunnel would require some pretty sharp turns, but traffic would be flowing at street speed, not highway speed at that point anyway, so sharper turns aren't as bad when you're doing 50 km/h (although most times it will probably be around 20 km/h) anyway.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I like it, although I think the tunnel would only need to be 2 lanes wide as in my plan, the viaduct would be be a 4 lane roadway and the third lane would only be needed to accommodate turning movements. It may also make sense to tunnel Front under the intersection as well in order to improve traffic movement at that intersection.
Also, upon further investigation it may still be possible to bring Wellington to Front at-grade. According to this post, the footprint of the Fly Condos still leave room for a 2-3 lane roadway, unless there is another project in this area I'm unaware of. In any case, it should make cut and cover construction much easier.
Last edited:
I like it, although I think the tunnel would only need to be 2 lanes wide as in my plan, the viaduct would be be a 4 lane roadway and the third lane would only be needed to accommodate turning movements. It may also make sense to tunnel Front under the intersection as well in order to improve traffic movement at that intersection.
Also, upon further investigation it may still be possible to bring Wellington to Front at-grade. According to this post, the footprint of the Fly Condos still leave room for a 2-3 lane roadway, unless there is another project in this area I'm unaware of. In any case, it should make cut and cover construction much easier.
Good digging (pun intended)! Yeah, if it can be done at-grade, go for it. I just think that a series of turns in order to connect Wellington to Front wouldn't be advisable, as it would create a pretty significant choke point. Either at-grade or a short cut and cover tunnel I think would be the way to go. And yes, tunnelling Front underneath too would definitely help. Front & Spadina (really all of Spadina south of King) is pretty messy, so the more intersections you can avoid, the better.
I do worry about the 4 lane viaduct though, because that would mean a reduction in lanes from 3 to 2 when it transitions from the Gardiner. Both Front and Wellington through downtown can accommodate 3 one-way lanes plus a bike lane without much trouble. No sense in creating an artificial choke point with the viaduct and Front Blvd (I'm using that term to distinguish it from the one-way Front St).
What I like about this plan too is that the viaduct and the reconfiguration of Front & Wellington can be done completely independently from any work on the Gardiner. The only work that would require even touching the Gardiner while it is in operation would be connecting the viaduct. Certainly easier than a Big Dig type of arrangement where a highway tunnel is being dug directly underneath an active expressway.
Once the Front/Wellington option is open, the Gardiner can be torn down and Lake Shore can be redesigned into a boulevard without having to worry about the network being overloaded (yes, Front/Wellington would bare more traffic than usual because Lake Shore would have reduced capacity, but that would only be temporary). Under this arrangement, Lake Shore would be for through traffic, and Front/Wellington would be for CBD-bound traffic.
Last edited:
dunkalunk
Senior Member
The transition from 6 lanes to 4 would actually happen at the Lake Shore Boulevard Interchange. People would be encouraged to take the higher capacity 6 or 8 lane Lake Shore Boulevard or be encouraged to take GO into Downtown. I mostly wanted to reduce the impact on the existing downtown street network and on adjacent property on front between Bathurst and Spadina. If the decision is made however, there is little reason why the viaduct can't be constructed as 6 lanes.
To pay for the construction and upkeep of the viaduct and other supporting transportation infrastructure (GO Tunnel, DRL, ect.), it is my hope that a combination of road tolls on the Gardiner and DVP and parking levies would be implemented. Additional tolls could also be placed on the viaduct section.
The existing cross-section of the Gardiner Expressway is 6 lanes with no median. I believe that the outermost lane on the existing structure could be put to better use as an emergency shoulder/bus bypass lane. Imagine the psychological impact of being stuck in traffic on the expressway and being passed by a bus every two minutes by a GO bus. No modifications would be needed to the existing Gardiner structure if general traffic lanes are reduced.
To pay for the construction and upkeep of the viaduct and other supporting transportation infrastructure (GO Tunnel, DRL, ect.), it is my hope that a combination of road tolls on the Gardiner and DVP and parking levies would be implemented. Additional tolls could also be placed on the viaduct section.
The existing cross-section of the Gardiner Expressway is 6 lanes with no median. I believe that the outermost lane on the existing structure could be put to better use as an emergency shoulder/bus bypass lane. Imagine the psychological impact of being stuck in traffic on the expressway and being passed by a bus every two minutes by a GO bus. No modifications would be needed to the existing Gardiner structure if general traffic lanes are reduced.
RC8
Senior Member
We do not need any more large 1 way streets in downtown Toronto.
We also shouldn't drastically alter our city to accommodate automobile traffic at all. Connecting the Gardiner to Front is all well and good, so long as we bring it down and turn it into a boulevard intersecting all major streets. The highway itself is not beyond capacity, but we ought to spread out the volume between different access points to avoid congestion.
People will still move moderately fast through it. Only those who want to travel across all of Toronto will suffer, and it's silly to have people do that through downtown anyway.
The majority of solutions proposed in this thread fully ignore the potential of streets like Front and Wellington to turn into some of our finest streets. As population increases in the core we should be looking to widen sidewalks and add bikelanes, and not to try and accommodate suburban drivers.
We also shouldn't drastically alter our city to accommodate automobile traffic at all. Connecting the Gardiner to Front is all well and good, so long as we bring it down and turn it into a boulevard intersecting all major streets. The highway itself is not beyond capacity, but we ought to spread out the volume between different access points to avoid congestion.
People will still move moderately fast through it. Only those who want to travel across all of Toronto will suffer, and it's silly to have people do that through downtown anyway.
The majority of solutions proposed in this thread fully ignore the potential of streets like Front and Wellington to turn into some of our finest streets. As population increases in the core we should be looking to widen sidewalks and add bikelanes, and not to try and accommodate suburban drivers.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I would actually argue that one-way streets would give us the opportunity to widen sidewalks and install protected bike infrastructure. As it stands, Front Street is currently 5 lanes wide when you include left turn lanes. Reducing it to three would allow more space. Lights could also be timed to 40-50 km/h within the city to discourage speeding along these routes. Connecting Wellington to Front in the west would also not preclude the addition of this kind of infrastructure.
Additionally, there are fewer conflict points on a one-way road intersection then there are with a two-way. I would not normally advocate for grade separation of an intersection, but there is currently nothing to the south of Front between Spadina and Bathurst worth worrying about.
Whether a one-way road is an urban highway or an urban street comes down to it's design, and I'm sure that any front street extension would take that into account.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Richmond Street and Adelaide Street became one-way streets, but are used as expressways or the rapid movement of motor vehicles. Businesses along those streets are harmed because the vehicles do not stop long enough for the usual single-occupants (the driver) to see business establishment signs long enough to read them.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
This argument can't really be made against realigning Front and Wellington as one-way roads as Wellington is already one-way and the bulk of the development on those streets is highrise office and condo. They are not small-box commercial streets like King or Queen. I wouldn't propose the conversion of two-way roads to one-way anywhere else in Toronto; I would call Wellington and Front the exception to this rule.
And if the streets were converted to one-way and narrowed to 3-4 lanes from what is currently 5 there would be room to add on-street parking, widened sidewalks, and sheltered bike lanes, all of which would serve to calm traffic.
And as a reminder, people will only travel as fast as road geometry and light timing will allow them to travel. There are ways in which one-way roads can be designed (not like Richmond/Adelaide) that will ensure that.
And if the streets were converted to one-way and narrowed to 3-4 lanes from what is currently 5 there would be room to add on-street parking, widened sidewalks, and sheltered bike lanes, all of which would serve to calm traffic.
And as a reminder, people will only travel as fast as road geometry and light timing will allow them to travel. There are ways in which one-way roads can be designed (not like Richmond/Adelaide) that will ensure that.
This is exactly the argument I would use as well. Yes, on streets where there are lots of small retail establishments (the traditional Main Street), turning it into a one-way can be potentially damaging. But like you said, Wellington is already a one-way, and I would argue that the majority of the businesses along Front get their business from pedestrian traffic, not vehicle traffic.
Ever seen the crowds on Front St before or after a Jays game? Sidewalk space is a luxury. By reducing Front to 3 one-way traffic lanes, plus a bike lane, plus parking in selected spots (like in front of the MCC for the Chip Trucks), you can create wider sidewalks.
Turning it into a one-way isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's how the street is designed that can be potentially damaging. The same is true for any street design for that matter.
And to respond to your post earlier, I like the idea of putting in an HOV lane up until around the boulevard. Reduce the Gardiner to 4 lanes + 2 HOV lanes from just west of the Humber to Front Blvd.
Last edited:
pman
Senior Member
I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't do anything to accommodate more car traffic. But what about taking the existing plan here to connect with Front and demolishing the Gardiner between the proposed connection and the Richmond/Adelaide ramps at the DVP? Without increasing car traffic capacity on Lakeshore Blvd, Front, Wellington, Richmond or Adelaide. Congestion could be managed by a combination of meaningful road tolls on the Gardiner/DVP, significantly higher taxes on core parking spaces, and increased GO train frequency. Suburbanites would scream but I'm not sure Toronto needs to continue to blight its core so people can whisk from Oakville to Oshawa via downtown Toronto.
Yup, I agree. Basically, in order to feed directly into downtown, you would have the DVP/Richmond-Adelaide coming in from the east, and the Gardiner/Front-Wellington coming in from the west. Then, for through traffic, you would have a boulevardized (I don't think that's actually a word, but oh well) Lake Shore Blvd, to shift it from being "that road underneath the Gardiner" to actually being a nice road to both drive and walk along.
I think this type of plan is just making use of exiting road infrastructure, improving other existing road infrastructure (Lake Shore), and building a minimal amount of new infrastructure (the Gardiner Viaduct and Front Blvd).
I think the impact of the DVP from Eastern to the Richmond-Adelaide offramp is pretty minimal. It's the multi-layered DVP-Gardiner interchange that can be completely redesigned if the Gardiner is removed and Lake Shore is turned into a true boulevard. It can be redesigned to actually acknowledge that the Don River is there, instead of just being a ditch that it passes over.