[Tuscani01]

I don't understand why having a ramp design speed of 50km/h is considered unworkable. How is that unworkable? Many ramps along the 401 have 40km/h suggested speed limits, and that is on a highway with a speed limit of 100. The Gardiner and DVP have a speed limit of 90km/h, so a much lower reduction in speed.

Who was the one that decided the ramp wasn't feasible at 50km/h? The existing ramp has a suggested speed limit of 60km/h already anyway!

If the 407 Eastbound is able to make a complete U-Turn to connect with the 401 Westbound, why is a 90 degree turn such an issue here? (By the way, the speed on this ramp goes down to 30km/h, from 100!

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5923104,-79.8072888,649m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Staff decided it... starting to notice a pattern of behaviour here? They just delete options that they don't want or consider to be infeasible.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Staff decided it... starting to notice a pattern of behaviour here? They just delete options that they don't want or consider to be infeasible.

Bull.

 

[Electrify]

I'm going to ask a very uncomfortable question, perhaps even open a Pandora's Box:

One of the most common lines about urban highways is that you can never build to meet capacity, as widening and building new roads will quickly fill up with new traffic. Los Angeles is regularly brought up as a case example on this. However on my Twitter feed recently I have been shown numerous pictures of the Gardiner, during rush hour, wide open. This isn't a highway in the middle of nowhere, this is a link which connects downtown to the northern and eastern suburbs, as well as completes a ring road around the city.

So does this mean that in fact we can widen and expand roads to eventually meet and even exceed demand, like the Gardiner apparently does?

 

[salsa]

Marcus Gee on Tory's advocacy of the hybrid solution:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-part-of-gardiner-expressway/article24430139/

While I don't agree with him, I will say it's refreshing to have a Mayor who actually weighs the evidence and comes to a conclusion. I expect the debate at Council will be 90% interesting and persuasive, and 10% Mammo/DMW.

When does Tory put a fork in DMW if he continues to be a sly prick? End of the summer?

Just two years ago Tory had a completely different opinion on the Gardiner, saying that it should be tory down or buried, that it's an investment that should be done for our children "even if the cost is huge". I don't understand why he changed so much from the old days on literally everything.

[video=youtube;RE1IAdiEWZw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE1IAdiEWZw[/video]

 

[Adjei]

He's now a politician, what do you expect. They are the kings of flip flopping.

 

[44 North]

Burying it is not a possibility. If one wants to keep the highway grade-separated, elevated is naturally the next best thing to burying.

So in other words, it's not a flip flop. His initial support was still for a grade-separated route. And since we now know it's not possible to do it that way, he'll support something that's very similar.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Just two years ago Tory had a completely different opinion on the Gardiner, saying that it should be tory down or buried, that it's an investment that should be done for our children "even if the cost is huge". I don't understand why he changed so much from the old days on literally everything.

Because he's not blue-skying now. He's choosing between Plan A and Plan B. Thank God, as it means we won't have another Toronto-eque 'search for Plan C' for ten years.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm going to ask a very uncomfortable question, perhaps even open a Pandora's Box:

One of the most common lines about urban highways is that you can never build to meet capacity, as widening and building new roads will quickly fill up with new traffic. Los Angeles is regularly brought up as a case example on this. However on my Twitter feed recently I have been shown numerous pictures of the Gardiner, during rush hour, wide open. This isn't a highway in the middle of nowhere, this is a link which connects downtown to the northern and eastern suburbs, as well as completes a ring road around the city.

So does this mean that in fact we can widen and expand roads to eventually meet and even exceed demand, like the Gardiner apparently does?

I think it actually means this part of the Gardiner was built to take the Scarborough Expressway traffic, and because it does not have that influx, it's a 'reverse pinch point' -- westbound Gardiner traffic mostly stops at CBD (Spadina/Yonge) and Southbound DVP mostly exits at Richmond. Ergo, this piece is totally overbuilt for the traffic it handles. This is my argument for the Remove - the thing is overbuilt and can come down.

 

[muller877]

I think it actually means this part of the Gardiner was built to take the Scarborough Expressway traffic, and because it does not have that influx, it's a 'reverse pinch point' -- westbound Gardiner traffic mostly stops at CBD (Spadina/Yonge) and Southbound DVP mostly exits at Richmond. Ergo, this piece is totally overbuilt for the traffic it handles. This is my argument for the Remove - the thing is overbuilt and can come down.

It is overbuilt. Most people agree on that. However if you combine Lakeshore and the Gardiner there is too much traffic for a non-expressway solution (without making it 10 or 12 lanes). 10 or 12 lanes is virtually impossible to allow good pedestrian movements while permitting a steady flow of traffic. (think of getting across the 8 lanes of University at Dundas and then adding twice the amount of traffic)

Ideally the Gardiner should only be 4 lanes wide, not the 6 is currently is. I don't know if they considered this less expensive rebuild option but the report wanted an answer of tearing down and that's why the ramps are designed the way they are and it is still 6 lanes.

 

[Electrify]

I think it actually means this part of the Gardiner was built to take the Scarborough Expressway traffic, and because it does not have that influx, it's a 'reverse pinch point' -- westbound Gardiner traffic mostly stops at CBD (Spadina/Yonge) and Southbound DVP mostly exits at Richmond. Ergo, this piece is totally overbuilt for the traffic it handles. This is my argument for the Remove - the thing is overbuilt and can come down.

You know, I do not understand why Richmond and Adelaide get the bulk of downtown bound traffic. When I had a car, on the rare occasion where I would drive downtown I would exit at the Yonge/Bay/York ramp rather than deal with street traffic from the DVP into the core. Many times I would take the Gardiner to places west of downtown as well.

This also begs the question, why isn't the Yonge/Bay/York ramp used more often? Perhaps transit is attractive enough to keep the road demand in this area under control? Yet even then, transit capacity is already maxed out and removing this infrastructure would likely put further strain on our congested subway and commuter rail network. And of course, the city cannot all be shops and pedestrians and parks. It does need cars and trucks to bring in goods, equipment, materials, etc. to make this urban wonderland function.

I'm sure I have changed my position on the Gardiner countless times in this thread, but where I stand is that if it does come down, it should be after we have constructed numerous transit projects to keep transit demand under control. Getting 15 minute GO service will definitely put us close, especially for those from Durham and eastern Scarborough, but I feel we too conveniently forget that people within Toronto drive and use these highways as well. If we cannot get more frequent service and stops on the Richmond Hill GO line, then we need a good DRL and at least a Don Mills BRT to counter demand from the northeast corridors. Also, removing this stretch further pushes an argument for a Danforth subway extension into northeast Scarborough, as there will be increased transit demand to downtown from this area, rather than a more local focus the LRT + transfer would provide.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

It is overbuilt. Most people agree on that. However if you combine Lakeshore and the Gardiner there is too much traffic for a non-expressway solution.

Again: No one who has actually done a study of the situation has said there is too much traffic for a non-expressway solution. No one, not even the study commissioned by the CAA. No one.

 

[CDL.TO]

Although water treatment facilities can be entirely underground (as we have buried 100ft deep storm water treatment silos dotting the waterfront, and under Sherbourne Common). I don't think this is a "water treatment plant" in the conventional sense. I believe it's mostly an area to catch sediment - presumably for easy removal/dredging, and so it doesn't fill in the harbour, channel, or new river mouth.

So it's related to the Don. Makes more sense then. Thanks.

 

[nfitz]

You know, I do not understand why Richmond and Adelaide get the bulk of downtown bound traffic. When I had a car, on the rare occasion where I would drive downtown I would exit at the Yonge/Bay/York ramp rather than deal with street traffic from the DVP into the core.

In rush hour!?! I thought Yonge/Bay/York were worse northbound in rush-hour, than Adelaide/Richmond were. Certainly when I walk, Yonge/Bay/York look like not much is moving, while trying to cross Adelaide/Richmond between lights is like trying to play Frogger.

 

[TOareaFan]

In rush hour!?! I thought Yonge/Bay/York were worse northbound in rush-hour, than Adelaide/Richmond were. Certainly when I walk, Yonge/Bay/York look like not much is moving, while trying to cross Adelaide/Richmond between lights is like trying to play Frogger.

York/Bay/Yonge ramp is horribly busy........I avoid it and on the odd occasion that I do use it, I allow for a 10 - 15 minute wait from the top of the ramp to, say, Bremner.