News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

DarnDirtyApe said:
Since the real peak number for eastern Gardiner is actually 4,663 (east of Sherbourne) we can see that even a 2 lane highway would be overcapacity at that juncture.
Click to expand...
About half of that is heading off the ramp at Lakeshore East - so they'd never be on the 2-lane hybrid, which has no ramp to Lakeshore East. Even then, 4,700 for a downtown expressway at peak hour, with a design capacity of 4,000 is hardly poor.

So if we build the hybrid, we'll have about 2,250 on the hybrid ramp, and 3,405 on the piece of Lakeshore East where Gardiner is already taken down at Carlaw. Perhaps we should knock down the DVP connection and build an expressway to Leslie Street instead - it has more demand than the connection to the DVP.

DarnDirtyApe said:
To me the high number on Lakeshore at Carlaw implies that the 'stub' should not have been taken down.
Click to expand...
And yet travel times are far better SINCE the stub was taken down! Unless there's an accident or construction it works relatively well. If travelling from the Beaches to Etobicoke, it's the piece of Gardiner from Rogers to Humber that kills you, not the existing piece of Lakeshore where the Gardiner has already been removed.

I think it says everything that someone pushing to to keep the Gardiner now, also believes we shouldn't have taken down the previous bit!
 
Last edited:
How are travel times better? I haven't been around that long. I will note that development around there has been virtually non-existent but that might be because it smells like poo.

I wouldn't say that I believe it should have been kept, just pointing out that people are being inconsistent when it comes to matching traffic volumes with type of roadway. I'm sure people would flip if staff recommended turning the DVP into an at-grade boulevard south of Bloor but it seems to have lower volumes than the eastern Gardiner does. I hardly ever use that part of the DVP so it would be no skin off my nose...
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
I wouldn't say that I believe it should have been kept, just pointing out that people are being inconsistent when it comes to matching traffic volumes with type of roadway. I'm sure people would flip if staff recommended turning the DVP into an at-grade boulevard south of Bloor but it seems to have lower volumes than the eastern Gardiner does. I hardly ever use that part of the DVP so it would be no skin off my nose...
Click to expand...

DVP as a boulevard would be just fine south of Bloor with respect to traffic volumes. There just isn't much point because due to the terrain you cannot really develop adjacent to it, so you might as well just keep it as a freeway/parkway.

Now DVP north of Eglinton...something has to be done there to improve the interchange with 401.
 
Clearly no matter what they decide {I support the teardown/blvd} there is going to be a lot of people disappointed.

This new idea of a tunnel is both absurd and expensive but there is an alternative. What about a trenched Gardiner?


Much like the rail corridor they could trench the highway but if it was only 2 lanes in each direction from the DVP to Jarvis the city could give away land to developers for their condos/offices etc but on the proviso that they build overtop of the highway. In other words all the condos that are going to be built anyway would completely cover the highway..............out of sight out of mind.

There are many such examples in the world where highways go thru buildings or buildings are built on top of highways. The trenching option gets the highway out of sight, allows the city to develop more land and can sell the current corridor to help pay for it, trenching is vastly cheaper and easier to build than a tunnel, requires no expensive air ventilation systems, and at road crossovers {ie Cherry} they could have cafes right on Cherry Street covering the view.

You would essentially end up having an invisible Gardiner and most of the cost could be covered by the developers, you would free up even more land, have higher tax revenue, and upkeep would be cheaper than either a blvd or elevated structure as it would not have to deal with the road destroying weather. You would be able to build it away from the Waterfront just as the current condos are, and a blv Lakeshore could still be built but be thinner and more pedestrian friendly than a wide blvd.
 
nfitz said:
Is this some kind of sutble joke that I don't get? Richmond/Adelaide gutted Corktown. It's a disgrace.
Click to expand...

I don't think Corktown is a disgrace. And besides, it's been a half century since it was gutted. There area has improved immensely. And again, the Eastern/Richmond/Adelaide viaduct didn't stop West Don Lands development, or seemingly detract from it being a praiseworthy neighbourhood.

ssiguy2 said:
Clearly no matter what they decide {I support the teardown/blvd} there is going to be a lot of people disappointed.

This new idea of a tunnel is both absurd and expensive but there is an alternative. What about a trenched Gardiner?
Click to expand...

I agree that a tunnel, particularly at this point in time, is a silly concept. But I don't think a trench is all that great. Unlike an elevated structure, it would actually divide things significantly. Plus it'd be costly...what is a trench but a tunnel without a roof?
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
How are travel times better?
Click to expand...
You don't get as much bottlenecking with traffic trying to merge from the Gardiner onto Lakeshore east of Leslie. For traffic exiting at Carlaw, it's much more direct. For traffic heading onto Leslie ... well perhaps the old layout did work a bit better ... but for those getting on westbound at Leslie (or from Lakeshore), it's an infinite improvement.

Now perhaps there was an improve option they could have done that would have worked even better ... but the current situation is far better than it was before they knocked it down. And much cheaper to maintain. But who would suggest that we'd need an expressway for only 3,000 cars at the peak hour?
 
As I posted in the Rob Ford thread, Worms spoke to him and if he comes to council, he won't vote for either option.
 
Toronto elitists DESPISE people from outside the city core. It's getting like Manhattan more and more every day. Of course they want the Gardiner torn down. They would love to make it as unpalatable as possible for people coming in from the outside. Once it's torn-down, their buddies in the development industry can buy the land cheap and build more frigging condos...
 
nfitz said:
You don't get as much bottlenecking with traffic trying to merge from the Gardiner onto Lakeshore east of Leslie. For traffic exiting at Carlaw, it's much more direct. For traffic heading onto Leslie ... well perhaps the old layout did work a bit better ... but for those getting on westbound at Leslie (or from Lakeshore), it's an infinite improvement.

Now perhaps there was an improve option they could have done that would have worked even better ... but the current situation is far better than it was before they knocked it down. And much cheaper to maintain. But who would suggest that we'd need an expressway for only 3,000 cars at the peak hour?
Click to expand...

I heard someone talk about comparing apples and oranges today. If we are counting individual drivers, than how much is being spent on these drivers.

Cost for 100 years - $1B divided by 100 years, divide by 365 days divide by 100,000 AADT and you get 27 cents. Is the Gardiner worth saving for 27 cents.

Or the other way of looking at it, those 100,000 drivers (including trucks and transit buses) will save 5 minutes per trip.
5 minutes x 100,000 AADT x 365 x 100 / 60 minutes per hour / 24 hours per day / 365 days per year = 34,700 years.

Thus, keeping the Gardiner will save about 35,000 years of travel time for vehicles. If the average vehicle has 2 persons (cars may be less, but buses more), then People will save about 70,000 years of time if the Gardiner is retained.

Mind boggling numbers showing that removing the Gardiner is a terrible move.
 
Don Valley said:
Toronto elitists DESPISE people from outside the city core. It's getting like Manhattan more and more every day. Of course they want the Gardiner torn down. They would love to make it as unpalatable as possible for people coming in from the outside. Once it's torn-down, their buddies in the development industry can buy the land cheap and build more frigging condos...
Click to expand...

Who exactly are these Toronto Elitists? I would think that John Tory falls into this precarious description as well as anyone, and he's voting to keep the Gardiner.
 
For the future maintenance costs of the Gardiner, were its past maintenance costs used and merely extrapolated over 100yrs? The reason I ask is that surely future maintenance will be significantly lower/less frequent for no other reason than the advancements in construction/engineering (e.g use of composites, better concrete, protected steel etc). Or am I wrong on that, and the road deck will be built exactly the same as it was originally?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top