[dunkalunk]

What would people say to something like this for the Gardiner/Waterfront?


Link to Google Map

The main differences between my plan and other plans are:
-No major boulevard on the Gardiner's footprint to the south of Fort York, reconnecting it to the waterfront.
-De facto loops at Front and Spadina for restricted left turns;
-One-waying of Wellington and Front from Church to Spadina,
-Directional ramps between the Gardiner and the Queensway at High Park
-Reduction of lanes on the Gardiner from 6 to 4 from Parkdale to Spadina for use as and bypass shoulders for buses and emergency vehicles, and to encourage traffic onto Lake Shore.

I wouldn't consider it wise to do anything with the Gardiner until the DRL and the east Waterfront LRT are in place.

It might also be worthwhile to explore the option of electronic tolls on both the Gardiner and the DVP. Many major cities have tolls on their downtown highways, why not Toronto?

 

[TKTKTK]

What would people say to something like this for the Gardiner/Waterfront?


Link to Google Map

You can't use Draper street as an 'access loop'. What would be the point of getting rid of the Gardiner just to destroy even nicer areas?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

While we are in the practice of making maps here's mine:



link

This proposal would allow for Lakeshore blvd to be rejoined and potentially rebuilt into a grand blvd (ala University) by bridging the Humber bay and tunnelling from roughly Dufferin. Right now the Lakeshore is split (particularly in the core) by the Gardiner and is a mish mash of a street. By tunnelling and reconstructing the Lakeshore where the Gardiner formerly stood we can improve traffic flows (lights, crossings, etc) and free up streets such as harbour street to return to a more urban design (right now Harbour st is no more a piggy back on the Lakeshore that a road in it's own right. I wonder how many people realize that they are on Harbour st while assuming that they are on Lakeshore). Ideally ramps from the underground Gardiner would mainly flow into side ramps along the Lakeshore.

I'm sure I will get some flack for the bridge proposal. But it could be an attractive addition to the skyline. At roughly a 4 km span I think that the bridge could be built without having to put a pylon in the lake. 2 support towers at each end should do the trick.

 

[dunkalunk]

You can't use Draper street as an 'access loop'. What would be the point of getting rid of the Gardiner just to destroy even nicer areas?

Point taken, but left turns still should be prohibited at Spadina and Front if the front extension ever gets built. What alternates people use is entirely up to them. Unless turns were restricted further, or wellington was turned into a westbound one way street, people would use this to get to the waterfront.

I still think the Blue Jays Way loop is a good idea, as there is room for it and can be easily separated from local drop-off traffic.

 

[nfitz]

What would people say to something like this for the Gardiner/Waterfront?

As this is centred around diverting the Gardiner onto the officially cancelled Front Street Extension, I'd say it's not even worth debating.

 

[TKTKTK]

Point taken, but left turns still should be prohibited at Spadina and Front if the front extension ever gets built. What alternates people use is entirely up to them. Unless turns were restricted further, or wellington was turned into a westbound one way street, people would use this to get to the waterfront.

You could just move the traffic a short block over to Portland. It's a bit more of a hike, but it's worth it to not allow lefts at Spadina.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This was getting a bit boring (Really, TKTKTK, most traffic flows past Richmond on the DVP? Really?), so I decided to pull up the Waterfront Toronto (or WATERFRONToronto, according to their logo) website and download some of their reports.

Read it here: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//4523f39243dee.pdf

They do traffic simulations at peak periods (a.m. and p.m.) under three scenarios. I'm using the a.m. peak numbers below. The p.m. numbers are lower.

The scenarios they use are really interesting:

1) Replacement Approach: Rebuild the Gardiner. Put it underground from Strachan to Spadina. Make it ten lanes wide (combo of at-grade & underground) between Spadina and Jarvis. Build it elevated but over the railways embankment from Jarvis to Cherry.

Adds about 1.5 minutes to travel time Eastbound from Humber to DVP/Dundas. Saves 30 seconds Westbound.

2) Transformation Approach: The "Beautify the underside" approach. Relocate Lake Shore so it doesn't run underneath the highway, then build structures underneath the Gardiner - "treating the Gardiner as series of buildings and spaces with a roof carrying traffic."

Adds about 2 minutes Eastbound. Adds 1 Westbound.

3) "Great Street Approach": Keep it as is to Spadina, then start transitioning to an at-grade road. At Simcoe, the highway becomes two five-lane one-way streets. At Jarvis, this turns into the 'grand boulevard'' with ten lanes.

Adds 5 minutes Eastbound & Westbound.

They also simulated with 8 lanes on Lake Shore East of Jarvis (as opposed to 10 - which I think became the plan the mayor was touting last year) and found the difference was negligible.

Now, this is from 2004 and stuff has changed since then. (It looks like they're still assuming they'll be an FSE) But I thought it was interesting.

 

[TKTKTK]

This was getting a bit boring (Really, TKTKTK, most traffic flows past Richmond on the DVP? Really?), so I decided to pull up the Waterfront Toronto (or WATERFRONToronto, according to their logo) website and download some of their reports.

Read it here: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//4523f39243dee.pdf

Sorry Matt, didn't mean to bore you. You can take a hike anytime you'd like though, don't stick around for my benefit.

Anyway, was there something in their report that challenged the observation that most traffic flows past the Bloor or Richmond off-ramps? Additionally, you honestly believe their time estimates? We've already covered this. Taking the Lake Shore as it is now, without additional traffic clogging it, already adds more than 5 minutes to your travel time. The light cycles are nearly 3-4 minutes at each intersection.


Traffic Backgrounder (2008)

I will never understand how replacing a sparsely used 6-7 lane road with an 8-10 lane road carrying (potentially) 120,000 cars/day benefits anyone.

 

[dunkalunk]

As this is centred around diverting the Gardiner onto the officially cancelled Front Street Extension, I'd say it's not even worth debating.

The front street extension has been on the books for the past 30 years. I don't think its unreasonable to think of it coming up again. Also, any tearing down of the Gardiner would require a front street extension. What's shown on my map is just as much of a Gardiner extension as it is a Front Street extension. There's hope.

 

[dunkalunk]

While we are in the practice of making maps here's mine:

link

This proposal would allow for Lakeshore blvd to be rejoined and potentially rebuilt into a grand blvd (ala University) by bridging the Humber bay and tunnelling from roughly Dufferin. Right now the Lakeshore is split (particularly in the core) by the Gardiner and is a mish mash of a street. By tunnelling and reconstructing the Lakeshore where the Gardiner formerly stood we can improve traffic flows (lights, crossings, etc) and free up streets such as harbour street to return to a more urban design (right now Harbour st is no more a piggy back on the Lakeshore that a road in it's own right. I wonder how many people realize that they are on Harbour st while assuming that they are on Lakeshore). Ideally ramps from the underground Gardiner would mainly flow into side ramps along the Lakeshore.

When I think of tunnelling under the Gardiner, I think of Boston's Big Dig;
Lengthy, disruptive, hyper-inflated infrastructure project.

When I think of tearing down the Gardiner and improving Lake Shore Blvd, I think of New York's West side highway or San Fran's Embarcadero;
Both vibrant, public urban spaces.

Car ownership is on a decline and transit ridership in on the rise, despite low(er than usual) gas prices, increase in fares, and minimal improvements to transit infrastructure. Urban places need to be designed around people, and not the motor vehicle.

I'm sure I will get some flack for the bridge proposal. But it could be an attractive addition to the skyline. At roughly a 4 km span I think that the bridge could be built without having to put a pylon in the lake. 2 support towers at each end should do the trick.

Flack.

I don't see how a bridge across Humber Bay is warranted. and a 4km span? That's insanity! Sure it could be done with some engineering magic and nanotubes, but that money could be better spent on the DRL, Airport Rail Link, electrifying and grade separating our rail network, green infrastructure, promoting transit use through competitive travel times, providing safe bike routes, nuclear power, ect. ect.

 

[afransen]

A bridge over Humber Bay wouldn't have to be very sophisticated. It could be a causeway, even.

 

[dunkalunk]

But why would you build it?

 

[adma]

I don't see how a bridge across Humber Bay is warranted. and a 4km span? That's insanity!

Especially since the existing longest span is only 2 kms long...

 

[nfitz]

The front street extension has been on the books for the past 30 years. I don't think its unreasonable to think of it coming up again.

In 2×30 years perhaps. And then another 20 to start? Say 2089. That I could believe.

 

[Automation Gallery]

In 2×30 years perhaps. And then another 20 to start? Say 2089. That I could believe.

I still dont understand till this day what all the negativity and red tape was about, of building this new road west from Bathurst to Dufferin St.