[salsa]

Thanks for the snide insult. I take the DVP-Gardiner combo when I know there won't be a bottleneck on the DVP(weekends, night time) because I can avoid all the traffic lights from coming through the north end of the city, and because the view from the Gardiner is stunning. Incidentally, when I plug high park north into google maps it recommends the gardiner combo. For the etobicoke/missisauga destinations I get the 401->427->QEW recommendation, but day-to-day conditions could make the DVP route faster (like if there's a problem on the 401).

The point is that it's a bit disingenous of you to say that it's impossible that reducing access to one east-west artery won't impact traffic on the other one, just because of a cherry-picked Origin-Destination pair.

And I voted for Remove, btw.

Apologies for my remarks. I'm not saying that removing the gardiner will have no effect on the 401, however I don't expect a huge difference than anyone would really notice. For most origin-destinations, there is little or no benefit for drivers to be changing their current routes if the Gardiner is removed.

 

[muller877]

I just ran Google Maps from Fairview Mall to the surface parking lot across from the ACC (where the Bus terminal is going to be located).

Via DVP - 20 min
Via Lakeshore - 23 min (can get this result if you add a intermediate stop on Lakeshore near Cherry St)
Via Richmond - 25 min

So 3 min slower at 2pm in the afternoon. If I'm not in a meeting I'll run the same test around 5 (or if someone else could do it please go ahead). I still say the city is way off when they say 2-3 minutes additional time. (right now you can get across on Lakeshore pretty quickly so I think it's a good test)

And this is without the additional traffic due to the tear-down and without all the condo's and offices that are planning to be built in the east.

You cannot compare the routes going North...due to the loop you have to do to get on the DVP ramp. So here are some more southerly times

at 6:15
Via DVP - 22 min
Via Lakeshore - 25 min
Via Front - 29 min

Leaving at 8:00 tomorrow morning (estimated from Google)

Via DVP - 18-40 min
Via Lakeshore - 20-45 min
Via Front - 24-50 min

Again, unless they can speed up Lakeshore with better timed lights it is already 2-3 minutes slower on Lakeshore.

Once you have more traffic you will need additional left/right turn advances. You will also have trucks which accelerate slower. You also have signal priority issues (one way can get priority but not both ways). I would love for someone to explain to me how they can keep only 2-3 minutes slower with the additional traffic and additional pedestrians over time going to work/condos south of Lakeshore

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I hope the grand boulevard will have a posted speed of 60km/h so I could go 70-75km/h in my souped up Honda to work

 

[junctionist]

Your VTEC will move you along in style along the grand boulevard.

 

[Electrify]

Looking at the area on a map, development potential seems kind of limited. Between Parliament and Jarvis, you have the rail tracks preventing any development to the north. While there is some potential to the south, most of it will face Queens Quay.

The most potential for development is between Parliament and the DVP, and this can be accomplished by a new ramp over the train tracks. I really see its removal as more symbolic than anything meaningful to city building.

 

[Grimace]

Looking at the area on a map, development potential seems kind of limited. Between Parliament and Jarvis, you have the rail tracks preventing any development to the north. While there is some potential to the south, most of it will face Queens Quay.

You think City staff are just making it up?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Looking at the area on a map, development potential seems kind of limited. Between Parliament and Jarvis, you have the rail tracks preventing any development to the north. While there is some potential to the south, most of it will face Queens Quay.

The most potential for development is between Parliament and the DVP, and this can be accomplished by a new ramp over the train tracks. I really see its removal as more symbolic than anything meaningful to city building.

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/3c-waterfront

Electrify -- please see the link to 3C's plans. They have extensive plans for the site. As has been discussed before, one of the major 'snags' for the keeping the elevated expressway while opening the soap plant site is that it drops a new ramp at Cherry from the Gardiner right into the middle of this site. So, Great Gulf is happy but Cityzen is screwed over. Oops.

 

[DSC]

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/3c-waterfront

Electrify -- please see the link to 3C's plans. They have extensive plans for the site. As has been discussed before, one of the major 'snags' for the keeping the elevated expressway while opening the soap plant site is that it drops a new ramp at Cherry from the Gardiner right into the middle of this site. So, Great Gulf is happy but Cityzen is screwed over. Oops.

I have heard that they and other developers along QQE are quite unhappy with the Mayor and are muttering about legal action if their plans are thwarted by the Gardiner remaining or being 'relocated".

 

[44 North]

I have heard that they and other developers along QQE are quite unhappy with the Mayor and are muttering about legal action if their plans are thwarted by the Gardiner remaining or being 'relocated".

I'm not sure if any potential legal action is about the Gardiner "remaining", I think it's more specific to just the planned offramp at Cherry. And considering those landowners supported the Fords and the attempted hijacking of WT, I believe they always expected the Gardiner would remain.

But on the topic of lawsuits in that area, I predict we will be seeing one regarding the broken promises for an East Bayfront streetcar.

 

[Electrify]

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/3c-waterfront

Electrify -- please see the link to 3C's plans. They have extensive plans for the site. As has been discussed before, one of the major 'snags' for the keeping the elevated expressway while opening the soap plant site is that it drops a new ramp at Cherry from the Gardiner right into the middle of this site. So, Great Gulf is happy but Cityzen is screwed over. Oops.

Then don't put in an interchange at Cherry St?

The boundaries of my post should have been from Cherry and not Parliament. But as I said, between these two roads the Gardiner can be torn down and replaced with an extended off ramp from the DVP above GO's Don Yard. This would free up the most land for development. The drawback would be those coming from points east of downtown who will lose pretty much all access to the Gardiner for downtown travel.

On that note, the image captured on Google Earth shows the westbound Gardiner choking up right at Jarvis. This also happens to be where it narrows from 4 to 3 lanes. I believe this is part of the hybrid solution, but by narrowing it to 3 lanes may help to control traffic flow and reduce the crunch in this area.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm not sure if any potential legal action is about the Gardiner "remaining", I think it's more specific to just the planned offramp at Cherry. And considering those landowners supported the Fords and the attempted hijacking of WT, I believe they always expected the Gardiner would remain.

1. You can't open the soap plant site and have the hybrid without a ramp somewhere. I guess you get off the Gardiner at Jarvis or not at all, eastbound, and get on the Gardiner westbound at Jarvis as well?

2. It wasn't LDL that the Fords were on about, it was the Portlands. Very big difference, including different owners. 3C seems to have expected the Gardiner to go, not remain, given their plans.

 

[44 North]

1. You can't open the soap plant site and have the hybrid without a ramp somewhere. I guess you get off the Gardiner at Jarvis or not at all, eastbound, and get on the Gardiner westbound at Jarvis as well?

You can exclude a ramp, it's just undesired. And I still think the plans are fluid and we might see something workable. But the Unilever proposal and hybrid compromise are relatively new to the Gardiner debate. My point was more about the plans for 3C which preceded it.

2. It wasn't LDL that the Fords were on about, it was the Portlands. Very big difference, including different owners. 3C seems to have expected the Gardiner to go, not remain, given their plans.

The Port Lands were longer term, and although I'm quite certain most of the landowners and stakeholders in the Port Lands wanted to do away with WaterfronToronto as well, I think the renders for there were more to serve as "wow factor" so as to get the public to support ceding control from WT. I believe the real crux of the takeover plan did in fact concern the 3C area. Recall Doug going on about the 5-star hotel at the mouth of the Don? And there's this great UT interview with Sam Crignano where he makes it readily apparent his opposition to "antiquated" streetcars. I'm still not certain about this, since there are a lot of parties involved and it was rather shortlived. But I believe it's correct. http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/interview-sam-crignano-cityzen-part-2

 

[DSC]

I'm not sure if any potential legal action is about the Gardiner "remaining", I think it's more specific to just the planned offramp at Cherry. And considering those landowners supported the Fords and the attempted hijacking of WT, I believe they always expected the Gardiner would remain.

But on the topic of lawsuits in that area, I predict we will be seeing one regarding the broken promises for an East Bayfront streetcar.

Yes, the ramps at Cherry are certainly high on people's 'don't like list" and I agree that lawsuits about the LRT are also possible/likely. It was 'promised' to Hines for sure and maybe others so ....

 

[ttk77]

Is something like this even possible? Could we finance a "big dig" through the sale and development of the land sitting on top of it?

http://www.blogto.com/city/2015/05/this_is_what_could_replace_the_gardiner_expressway/

 

[wopchop]

Is something like this even possible? Could we finance a "big dig" through the sale and development of the land sitting on top of it?

http://www.blogto.com/city/2015/05/this_is_what_could_replace_the_gardiner_expressway/

The Big Dig cost almost $24 billion dollars, and was shorter than the Gardner.