[Hanlansboy]

Why not double deck the 401 and run subways on it as well? Hey, the Yonge subway is at capacity. Let's build a double decker highway with an 3rd deck for express subways right above it!

No need for scarcasim, it's a tool of a weak mind, just trying to come up with an alternative without destroying any chance of improving our horrendous commute times.

 

[ehlow]

No need for scarcasim, it's a tool of a weak mind, just trying to come up with an alternative without destroying any chance of improving our horrendous commute times.

Alright criticism accepted. I apologize, I will probably try to tone back my sarcasm in general.

In terms of reducing suburban commute times into downtown, I personally think the best shot at that is significantly improving the GO system, and integrating it better with local transit, not building more highways on top of other highways.

 

[drum118]

Why not double deck the 401 and run subways on it as well? Hey, the Yonge subway is at capacity. Let's build a double decker highway with an 3rd deck for express subways right above it!

No need for scarcasim, it's a tool of a weak mind, just trying to come up with an alternative without destroying any chance of improving our horrendous commute times.

No need to double deck the 401 to run transit on it.

I asked MTO years ago about transit on the 401 especially west of 427 for the expansion program using an elevated line down the middle of it. When question on this and could it be done, I said yes not only going west, but the whole section going east to Pickering.

The line would have to be low at the airport, but it would be elevated anywhere between 25m to 40m to clear the highest overpass as well maintaining a level line for most of it.

Stations would be at major transit lines crossing it as well where they would better service the community.

Like most things with MTO about having transit on the highways, they where to review this option and put it on shelf that is cover with dust related to transit.

The only thing a upper level highway would be good for is traffic bypass Toronto 100% with no on/off ramps to it other than the ends of it.

 

[Electrify]

No need to double deck the 401 to run transit on it.

I asked MTO years ago about transit on the 401 especially west of 427 for the expansion program using an elevated line down the middle of it. When question on this and could it be done, I said yes not only going west, but the whole section going east to Pickering.

The line would have to be low at the airport, but it would be elevated anywhere between 25m to 40m to clear the highest overpass as well maintaining a level line for most of it.

Stations would be at major transit lines crossing it as well where they would better service the community.

Like most things with MTO about having transit on the highways, they where to review this option and put it on shelf that is cover with dust related to transit.

The only thing a upper level highway would be good for is traffic bypass Toronto 100% with no on/off ramps to it other than the ends of it.

Funny that there is more talk about building rapid transit along the 407 than the 401, despite the latter running through densities and connections which can better support it. Hell, even GO emphasizes "frequent service" on the 407 on their maps, even though I believe service is in fact a little more frequent along the 401 (the 407 buses all run into York University, which is one of GO's single biggest trip generators next to downtown, which may explain why they want to emphasize 407 routes over the 401).

 

[innsertnamehere]

because there is space to actually build a transitway on the 407. The 401 runs parallel to the sheppard LRT and sheppard subway as well, but that is sort of crappy for regional travel.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Deputy mayor hosts meeting about gridlock, congestion

http://www.cp24.com/news/deputy-mayor-hosts-meeting-about-gridlock-congestion-1.1708046

 

[W. K. Lis]

Tear the Gardiner down. Back To The Future II shows 2015 that we don't need roads.

[video=youtube_share;HqdJkFM3pSM]http://youtu.be/HqdJkFM3pSM[/video]

 

[W. K. Lis]

Back to something serious.

Gardiner Expressway: Developer First Gulf comes up with new compromise

City committee defers a decision on the fate of the eastern expressway, in part to explore a developer’s proposal that would realign its connection to the Don Valley Parkway.


From The Star, at this link:

The red line represents the proposed realignment of the Gardiner Expressway's eastern end, to connect it to the Don Valley Parkway. The long loop east of Cherry St. and extended ramp to Lake Shore Blvd. would come down.

Toronto’s public works committee is exploring a surprise proposal by a private developer to maintain a section of the elevated Gardiner Expressway east of Jarvis St.

That proposal, by David Gerofsky, CEO of First Gulf, would see the section of the expressway east of Jarvis realigned and moved to just south of the railway corridor, where it would continue east and loop up to connect to the Don Valley Parkway.

The current elevated section east of Cherry St. would be taken down and replaced with a grade-level boulevard. Both moves would free up development space.

Committee members at a meeting Tuesday asked staff to explore the option and voted to defer a decision on a city staff report, which recommended removing the section altogether, a proposal that resulted from a months-long environmental assessment by the city and Waterfront Toronto.

“Waterfront Toronto approached (the EA) from the outset with wanting to take the Gardiner down,†said Councillor Peter Milczyn. “All the urban design aspects of that I’m good with.â€

But “the issue about the delays and additional congestion — that was never fully addressed,†said Milczyn, who is not a committee member but attended the meeting to support the realignment.

“Here you have an example of a credible proposal that helps us get a great boulevard, helps open up the waterfront, the Port Lands, and still maintains capacity and connectivity,†he said. “And it wasn’t reviewed through the EA. I think it’s something we should do.â€

The environmental assessment considered several options, including maintaining the crumbling section of the road, replacing it with a new expressway or removing it in favour of a ground-level boulevard. Realigning the elevated expressway was never on the table.

First Gulf would like to see the eastern Gardiner come down so that it has access to the old Unilever site on Lake Shore Blvd. at the base of the Don Valley. The developer is proposing to build 15 million square feet of office space there, enough to house 70,000 workers.

In return, First Gulf would allow the city to extend Broadview Ave. through the Unilever property south to the Port Lands, providing for the future expansion of the streetcar line, which is under study as part of a master transportation plan of the area. The developer would also build a GO station there.

Gerofsky hired the well-respected Toronto consulting firm BA Group to come up with the realignment proposal, which is also supported by former TTC chair and mayoral candidate Karen Stintz.

Several community members told the committee that removing the elevated highway was vital to developing the waterfront, a view shared by Waterfront Toronto and city staff.

But industry representatives expressed concerns about the estimated five to 10 minutes of extra travel time that would result from bringing down the eastern Gardiner.

Andrew Judge, manager of logistics and customer service for Redpath Sugar on Queens Quay, told the committee the Gardiner was a “critical route†for delivery trucks and that even a 20-minute delay would significantly affect the supply chain.

Paula Fletcher, one of many councillors who voiced concerns about congestion, supported a study of the proposed realignment.

Fletcher said the Gardiner EA was conducted in a bubble, without consideration of other traffic factors, including a pilot project this summer for dedicated bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide Sts., and the TTC’s new streetcar facility at Leslie St. and Lake Shore Blvd. E.

John Campbell, CEO of Waterfront Toronto, said he wasn’t disappointed the committee has delayed a decision until 2015.

“Let’s make sure we get all the facts,†said Campbell. “I think the councillors are sensing that traffic congestion seems to be the core issue.

“So let’s look at ways of mitigating it both for the remove option, and at the same time have a look at the maintain-replace knd of hybrid†option floated by First Gulf, he said.

 

[Grimace]

I thought that alignment was previously deemed unworkable or too expensive for some reason. If not then I think it is worth consideration because the main benefit of removing the Gardiner is gaining the developable lands next to the water, though the traffic times in the EA remain a mystery to me. How 4 traffic lights well spaced apart can add 10 minutes onto a 1.6 minute trip I still do not understand.

 

[ssiguy2]

So this novel idea is to demolish an elevated highway so you can build a new elevated highway?

If you are just going to have an elevated road at the end of the day then just fix the current one. What kind of intellectual midget came up with this new proposal?

 

[ksun]

So this novel idea is to demolish an elevated highway so you can build a new elevated highway?

If you are just going to have an elevated road at the end of the day then just fix the current one. What kind of intellectual midget came up with this new proposal?

I agree. I fail to see how that helps to open our downtown waterfront making it more accessible
It also proves that First Gulf doesn't care about the waterfront. It only cares about getting access to the land between Cherry and DVP to build their office buildings.
The whole damn thing should come down, first east of Jarvis, and then east of Spadina.

 

[drum118]

So this novel idea is to demolish an elevated highway so you can build a new elevated highway?

If you are just going to have an elevated road at the end of the day then just fix the current one. What kind of intellectual midget came up with this new proposal?

They are say east of Cherry St comes down with the rest staying. If you look at the area today, the Gardiner turns south around Cherry St.

Plans going back a few years call for this new alinement with the Gardiner gone. The existing Lake Shore Blvd would swing north east of the Don to meet this proposed plan.

During a number of EA non public meetings, the idea was put forth to retain a small section of the Gardiner as piece of history, but more a viewing platform to get a view of the area and the waterfront.

One reason why Waterfront Toronto is willing to wait until 2015 since they want this plan in the first place.

As for traffic times, it will vary depending on the time of the day as well how much traffic remains after the Gardiner comes down. Same as the eastern section that came down a decade ago.

Redpath will see less than 5 minutes added to their truck travel time at all hours of the day.

Gulf most likely want ramps to their site now for the DVP

 

[BMO]

Funny how the marketplace seems to deem greater value and importance on access and maintaining it to the Gardiner. Hey if Great Gulf will be paying for it and adding a GO station and extending Broadview avenue, I say it's a win-win. It opens up more land for the waterfront.

 

[TonyV]

The city can negotiate, I presume, for elimination of the elevated roadway, in these parts. I see no benefits for any parties with the GG present proposal. GG may realize that the lack of an elevated roadway is more attractive, potentially, to their development(s).

 

[mrxbombastic]

If the Gardiner is to be kept up (which I think is an act of repeating failed history) then this plan from First Gulf makes sense on first glance. I would support it under the condition that to recoup the costs associated, new tolls were introduced on the Gardiner with the city keeping ownership OR the Gardiner was leased to a private company mandated to rebuild this section in a better form who would find the appropriate toll themselves.

While the calls of traffic chaos are a little hyperbolic there are some genuine concerns over the impacts to congestion which I appreciate. The new boulevard under the Remove option would likely lessen the demand for that section of the throughway given its less optimal nature and hence traffic volumes would fall relativistically.

Side note: given than Karen Stintz was putting forward this idea as well, could it be possible that FG might be putting some funds towards her campaign in support of this. That would be a big help for a candidate who likely has a lot of fundraising leg work to do.