News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     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
 5.4K     0 

The Queen Elizabeth Way originally had traffic signals at several level intersections. Many with no traffic signals at all.

By the 1950s, it became obvious that the QEW was inefficient as a non-controlled access highway. While there were some interchanges along the highway, there were many at-grade intersections and most of the busier intersections had traffic signals installed. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the at-grade intersections were closed off along the QEW and replaced by overpasses and proper interchanges. Service roads were constructed along the highway to provide access to adjacent properties. The highway was widened to six lanes from Toronto to Burlington to accommodate the ever-increasing traffic volumes. The section of the QEW from Highway 427 to the Humber River was reconstructed as an 8 to 10-lane freeway in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with a short collector-express lane system from Kipling Avenue easterly to RoyalYork Road. By the end of the 1970s, all of the at-grade intersections along the QEW were gone, including the infamous Stoney Creek Traffic Circle at the junction of Highway 20 (Centennial Parkway). After nearly 40 years, the QEW was finally a fully controlled-access freeway.
Click to expand...
https://www.thekingshighway.ca/Queen_Elizabeth_Way.htm
 
Northern Light said:
Good question, and what implication, if any, does that have for 'The Bentway' ?

****

On a related note (unknown implications of the upload)....

I'm hearing rumblings from concerned City staff.....

- Current ramps to Gardiner/DVP non-compliant with MTO standards, how will MTO resolve this?

- MTO has 'zone of control' of 400M from the centreline of any highway; how will the impact the City in terms of ability to install sidewalks, cycle tracks, traffic lights or anything else near within said 'zone'?

- Some here (UT) have advocating for removing certain ramps; this will presumably no longer by within the City's purview.

***

Also raised, MTO does not allow billboards such as those next to the Gardiner; whose on the hook if they have to come down?

***

Further, MTO does not allow residential anywhere near as close to its highways as has already been built next to the Gardiner railings., How will that be resolved?

***

Lots of different questions from different people about different impacts.

One would like to think at least some of this has been thought through...........but I wonder if enough of it has.....
Click to expand...
I feel like ford panicked at the idea of Toronto maybe tearing it down and pushed this through without those concerns
 
turini2 said:
Maybe when the City was in charge of the project, but the MTOs reputation for urbanism, exceptional urban design and landscaping is... not great
Click to expand...
MTO has been getting better lately, but still places vehicle capacity above all else. They have been accepting multi-modal designs on thier projects much more lately in the past however.

They are also much, much better funded than the City is. I have much more faith that the Gardiner will be properly maintained in MTO's hands than in the City's.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I've given my guesses in bold responses above..
Click to expand...
What is the scope of MTO's "control" in the 400m zone of control. Just quickly looking on google maps, this seems to cover almost the entire downtown waterfront from Humber Bay to the Don River. Say for example the city wants to make changes to the transit signal priority for the 509 Queens Quay street car. Does that now have to be approved by MTO?
 
Whiskeyjack said:
What is the scope of MTO's "control" in the 400m zone of control. Just quickly looking on google maps, this seems to cover almost the entire downtown waterfront from Humber Bay to the Don River. Say for example the city wants to make changes to the transit signal priority for the 509 Queens Quay street car. Does that now have to be approved by MTO?
Click to expand...

In theory, the MTO has a veto over any alteration to a street deemed to lead to or affect its highway.

That could mean, yes, that any traffic light would have to be approved by them or any cycle track, or any stop sign or any crosswalk or any road diet etc etc.

Now, the MTO is not generally in the habit of using that authority on side streets it sees as inconsequential, but certainly any road that crosses over or interchanges w/their highway will be their business in some way at some level.

Thus the importance of ironing out what will happen with any existing infrastructure that is contrary to MTO guidelines/standards; the impact on any currently proposed changes to the Gardiner and to the DVP/Eastern connection; as well as things on the City's wish list, such as alterations to the Bayview/Bloor offramp, and/or possible closure of the Queen or Dundas on ramps.

All of that should be spelled out in writing prior to any transfer.
 
I guess I would just be worried about a future world where the waterfront east LRT is built, the City decides to give the whole stretch of street cars running on the waterfront transit signal priority, but the MTO decides that this would slow down car traffic on Queens Quay, which would affect car traffic on the Gardiner, and they block it.

Also hard to see MTO allowing anything like the Lakeshore ActiveTO closures
 
Northern Light said:
I'm hearing rumblings from concerned City staff.....
- Current ramps to Gardiner/DVP non-compliant with MTO standards, how will MTO resolve this?
Click to expand...
I am all for entirely removing the on-ramps to the DVP on Dundas and Queen Street. These routes are now popular with cyclists and pedestrians and neither should have to dodge cars serving across their path as their drivers desperately try to get out of town. It would also reduce the commuter car traffic on both Queen and Dundas. The city can use the MTO noncompliance and exorbitant remedial cost to justify the deletion of the ramps. The car traffic can still access the DVP at Lakeshore, Eastern, Bayview, Bloor and Don Mills.
 
Last edited:
I'd assume the province will respect the hybrid option. It's not like there much options, considering Lesile off ramps is now Lesile barns. And Logan is no longer an option. Province will probably have to waste more money to go with an option other than what the city of Toronto voted on.

Chow should have given away Black Creek and Allen expressway.
 
RapidTransit said:
I'd assume the province will respect the hybrid option. It's not like there much options, considering Lesile off ramps is now Lesile barns. And Logan is no longer an option. Province will probably have to waste more money to go with an option other than what the city of Toronto voted on.

Chow should have given away Black Creek and Allen expressway.
Click to expand...
The Leslie on-ramps were torn down 30 years ago, I think you mean the Logan on-ramps?
 
leslievillecyclist said:
The Leslie on-ramps were torn down 30 years ago, I think you mean the Logan on-ramps?
Click to expand...
And when were the Logan on-ramps torn down? Because they're not in any Google Streetview image.

What would the streetcar yard have to do with the on ramps, anyway? It is well off set from the actual street.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I suspect MTO will accept non-compliance and try to correct where possible. MTO will accept substandard designs on their own freeway networks where impacts would be too great to address, so I don't see why the Gardiner / DVP would be different. I do imagine MTO will look to make a number of changes to the highways though, particularly the DVP
Click to expand...
I agree with this and other matters of grandfathering (can we even say that anymore?). I can think of a number provincial highway configurations, that can't be within design standards - past or present - that were built simply because there was no reasonable alternative.

Northern Light said:
Also raised, MTO does not allow billboards such as those next to the Gardiner; whose on the hook if they have to come down?
Click to expand...
From what I have seen around the province, I don't know if the MTO has changed their sign policy or just stopped caring.

Northern Light said:
One would like to think at least some of this has been thought through...........but I wonder if enough of it has.....
Click to expand...
I also suspect not. This was no doubt cooked up in The Centre (Premier's office) and likely sent down to the MTO at the last minute, possibly only in broad strokes. I suspect there were a large number of MTO workers bees** that day who said 'wait . . . we're doing what?'

We also don't know timelines. Obviously, things like winter maintenance contracts are already in place along with the required general MTO highway maintenance contract, policing, and on and on. Even with a transition period, you need people to actually transition.

** I'll amend that to include a number of city staffers as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top