[TheTigerMaster]

if they remove the DVP connection to the Gardiner, it will most likely take 20 or longer to get to the core by driving. bad idea.

we don't have enough infrastructure in Toronto as it is, it is not time to be removing it. The up front cost of removal is only slightly less than building the hybrid alternative.

Are you being sarcastic, or did you just not read the thread?

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Your alignment does create a worse on-ramp setup for westbound Lakeshore to Gardner. The presentation of the Hybrid options puts everything in one corridor, whereas yours would have your new alignment, and then an on-ramp south of it in another corridor.

Other problems; Your alignment is more costly. You would have to demolish the old Gardner, re-align Lakeshore boulevard AND build the new alignment. This would increase the timeline and the cost.

ETA:

All that being said, I do like your alignment.

Lakeshore ramps would have to be built further west. But fair enough about the cost issue, if there's one thing the city is lacking in its money. Though I think opening up the waterfront would be worth those extra costs.

 

[Dan416]

I do not like the hybrid option. Either remove it or move it as vegeta_skyline suggests.

 

[nfitz]

if they remove the DVP connection to the Gardiner, it will most likely take 20 or longer to get to the core by driving. bad idea.

What's your basis for that, given studies by experts say otherwise?

And why would you take the Gardiner to get to the core from the DVP? It's faster to take Richmond/Adelaide.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

Take it down and in 5 years no one will notice it missing beyond the people who will now use the reclaimed land.

 

[WislaHD]

So remove option ultimately ends up costing about $150 Million to $200 Million.

The hybrid option costs $900 Million. The hybrid option saves a small amount of commuters 2 to 3 minutes.

The logical option is clear.

Not to mention all the future property tax revenues from the freed up lands.

 

[salsa]

What's your basis for that, given studies by experts say otherwise?

And why would you take the Gardiner to get to the core from the DVP? It's faster to take Richmond/Adelaide.

What a sharp contrast between the fact based thinking of the "tear it down" team, and the noises coming from the car people.

 

[WislaHD]

So is anyone worried that with the Hybrid option, we are recreating the situation of Liberty Village and Humber Bay Shores for the new proposed community in Keating (and to a lesser extent, Portlands)?

Meaning very few road access points and no viable transit option alternative.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Oh, don't worry they are going to build an LRT one of these days...

I'm very worried that the signal phase for those intersections is going to slow down east-west traffic more than forecast. They'll have a long left turn phase and long north/south walk countdown. The current Lakeshore intersections are already pretty slow...

Guys, don't forget the midges! The area is a former swamp so it's never really that pleasant even in July and August.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm very worried that the signal phase for those intersections is going to slow down east-west traffic more than forecast. They'll have a long left turn phase and long north/south walk countdown. The current Lakeshore intersections are already pretty slow...

That's where intelligent signalling and the like comes in. During rush the boulevard should act like more like a parkway than regular street.

Guys, don't forget the midges! The area is a former swamp so it's never really that pleasant even in July and August.

Incidentally waterworks is part and parcel of what the greater WT project is going to deal with.

hawc - re: No Gardiner direct ramp connection

Of course there wouldn't be - the Gardiner as moved all the way to Jarvis, so unless the ramp extends all the way from the end of DVP to Jarvis, you'd never have an expressway connector.

AoD

 

[salsa]

That's where intelligent signalling and the like comes in. During rush the boulevard should act like more like a parkway than regular street.

The slides specifically mentioned "adjustments to traffic signal operations/phasing" (p22) which helped reduce the extra travel time of the remove alternative compared to last year's numbers. I don't get why some people on this forum continue to make stuff up when all the facts are in the presentation.

 

[rbt]

Since when does 120,000 people a day count as "underutilized"?

Underutilized is relative to the built capacity. More importantly, it can never reach the built capacity due to constraints both east and west of the portion being looked at; near zero growth rate.

Something can be 100% capacity and only serve 1 person per year, or well under capacity and serve 1 million people per day.

Utilization is a %age, not a fixed number.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

The slides specifically mentioned "adjustments to traffic signal operations/phasing" (p22) which helped reduce the extra travel time of the remove alternative compared to last year's numbers. I don't get why some people on this forum continue to make stuff up when all the facts are in the presentation.

For one thing, total lack of faith in city staff to manage the issue properly. They don't have a very good track record in this regard...

 

[TOareaFan]

Underutilized is relative to the built capacity. More importantly, it can never reach the built capacity due to constraints both east and west of the portion being looked at; near zero growth rate.

this is correct but I think the public debate on this matter needs to tone down the rhetoric on both sides. For the record, I am pretty neutral on these options so I am not trying to sway the debate one way or the other but.....

....repeatedly over the past few days I have seen (here and other places) the pro-tear down folks describe those 120k people a day as "a few drivers"....in the sentence "why would we spend and extra 500 million to save a few drivers 2 - 3 minutes" It is hardly the fault of those drivers, or current planners, that while 120k people a day is a large number it is not near the capacity of the road that was built decades ago.

Whenever we are discussing transit projects and the need to end congestion, we often here about how time is money and that the cumulative lost time that people/goods/services spent on our roads costs us +/-$6B a year in lost productivity (the number often moves around but that is the common refrain).....well if 120k vehicles are spending 3 minutes more each way per work day is that not 120k X 3 X 2 X 5 X 52 = 187,200,000 minutes (3,120,000 hours/130,000 days/356 years) of lost productivity per year? What is the cost of that?

Like I said, I am pretty neutral on this but watching the debate unfold it seems to be falling into the old "war on cars V why are drivers so important" pattern and if (as seems to be the case when we talk about investing in transit) we feel that productivity lost to congestion figure is real and important then we need to recognize that while 3 minutes on each individual drive is a low number....the cumulative effect is not. I think, also, if the 3 minutes is the measure and we believe that is worth the cost....when we measure the "cost" to get to that 3 minutes we recognize that (I believe) that is subject to other major expenditures (eg DRL) being made along with whatever we do with the east end of the Gardiner.

I will revert to being an interested spectator on this issue.

 

[44 North]

Oh, don't worry they are going to build an LRT one of these days...

I'm very worried that the signal phase for those intersections is going to slow down east-west traffic more than forecast. They'll have a long left turn phase and long north/south walk countdown. The current Lakeshore intersections are already pretty slow...

I believe it will be slowed more than forecast. Keep in mind that a new part of the discussion is the 12 or so acres of freed-up land that will be developed. Not only would Lake Shore's speed limit have to be lowered to become more of an avenue if there's to be new condos fronting onto the street, but the signal phases may very well start favouring N/S traffic and the added pedestrians for the wider road.

Perhaps that new development was considered in their study...but maybe it wasn't. Look at the Scarboro Subway debate. The City made the S(L)RT plan seem awful. I think the same thing may be happening here. Skewing stats, favouring certain data, omitting info... Perhaps the 2-3 mins time being bandied about is for mid-August when traffic is light, and excluded any new development. After I saw what they did to the SLRT, I think it's possible.

Re: the streetcar...this is one reason I'd like to see the QQE / East Bayfront LRT instead use Lake Shore, and be bundled with the REMOVE or HYBRID option. Not only could this save costs, but with the Gardiner removed they have enough space to put in an elevated guideway to have the streetcar run at RT speeds between Union and Cherry.