[balenciaga]

+1

Look at the breakdown of Ottawa's most recent funding for transit vs Toronto's Transit City:

Toronto: $8.15 billion
Federal: $0.3 billion ($114/citizen)
Provincial: $7.85 billion ($3002/citizen)
Municipal: $0 ($0/citizen)

Ottawa: $2.15 billion
Federal: $0.6 billion ($679/citizen)
Provincial: $0.6 billion ($679/citizen)
Municipal: $0.95 billion ($1075/citizen)

Yes, Ottawa got more federal funding, but I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone in Ottawa would trade that $600 million for the $2.65 billion that would have come Ottawa's way if it got the same Provincial deal as Toronto.

No matter how you shake it, Toronto got a pretty sweet deal compared to other cities in Ontario.

Have you thought the possibility that Toronto contribute a lot more in tax revenue to the Province than its share of population too?
I am sure if Toronto succeeds from Ontario and becomes a province, it will be better off financially.

 

[gweed123]

Have you thought the possibility that Toronto contribute a lot more in tax revenue to the Province than its share of population too?
I am sure if Toronto succeeds from Ontario and becomes a province, it will be better off financially.

Most cities do. Toronto isn't unique in that fashion at all. It's not like Ottawa is a drain on provincial revenues.

 

[rbt]

I am sure if Toronto succeeds from Ontario and becomes a province, it will be better off financially.

Not a chance.

Any gains by getting rid of the poorer parts of the province would be offset by equalization. A Province of Toronto would still be (indirectly) contributing billions to the other parts of the former Ontario via the federal government.

If Toronto demanded a split I also believe the current debt would be divided based on ability to pay it back and not on a per capita basis.

 

[gweed123]

Yup, that's pretty much it, although I would keep Wellington Street completely separate from Clarence Square because of complications in movement caused by running Wellington against the existing one-way traffic.

The space immediately east of Clarence Square could then be used for an additional parking garage with direct access to the DRL. I imagine something that is 6 stories above grade and 3 below would be appropriate. Gardiner Traffic would turn left on Spadina and enter the garage from Clarence Square and exit onto Wellington Street. There would also be some opportunity to make the ground floor retail and the edges of the 2nd to 4th floors office space. The building's core would continue to be the parking structure.

View attachment 9898

Good call. I'll make that change to my map.

I wonder what the cost comparison would be with this plan compared to either a) the tunnel option, or b) maintaining the existing Gardiner. I'd imagine this would be more expensive in the short term than keeping the Gardiner, but the difference in maintenance costs would make it even pretty quickly.

 

[Paolo]

Like this...

i like that, i always thought the dvp should have the ontario "crown"

 

[Electrify]

If the Gardiner is to be taken down, we should be thinking about what Lake Shore will look like. I think that despite some hopes, the corridor will remain one to facilitate movement, with our without the Gardiner. If it is gone, I think it will look more like an suburban road lined with tower in the park condos like those in the inner suburbs, rather than an avenue like St. Clair or a boulevard like University.

There are many different ways to handle cross traffic than with standard intersections. Wikipedia has numerous examples, and something like this may work (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstreet) with pedestrian bridges to allow people to cross

 

[gweed123]

If the Gardiner is to be taken down, we should be thinking about what Lake Shore will look like. I think that despite some hopes, the corridor will remain one to facilitate movement, with our without the Gardiner. If it is gone, I think it will look more like an suburban road lined with tower in the park condos like those in the inner suburbs, rather than an avenue like St. Clair or a boulevard like University.

There are many different ways to handle cross traffic than with standard intersections. Wikipedia has numerous examples, and something like this may work (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstreet) with pedestrian bridges to allow people to cross

I hope it would look somewhat like the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston, although probably with a lot less of a median. A University Ave look would work well too though.

If this was being done 10 years ago, I think there could have been a lot more leeway in terms of design. But the road is pretty well hemmed in now.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It would look like that 10 lane grand avenue in Dubai lined with supertalls.

 

[Electrify]

It would look like that 10 lane grand avenue in Dubai lined with supertalls.

Oh God I hope not! I'm thinking like some kind of traditional parkway, like Lake Shore east of of the DVP. If we start building right along Lake Shore right away, it really won't be able to handle the traffic influx.

 

[dunkalunk]

I think we ought to strive for something like a mix between the Embarcadero and Chicago's Michigan Avenue, albeit with more lanes.

I also like the superstreet idea in sections such as Spadina Ave and Jarvis Street where there is a high volume of left-turning vehicles. The majority of crossings really should be regular intersections in order to aid crossing of the street.

 

[balenciaga]

I think we ought to strive for something like a mix between the Embarcadero and Chicago's Michigan Avenue, albeit with more lanes.

I also like the superstreet idea in sections such as Spadina Ave and Jarvis Street where there is a high volume of left-turning vehicles. The majority of crossings really should be regular intersections in order to aid crossing of the street.

Lord, those buildings on Michigan trump all Toronto streets by 100 miles! It is just a different scale. We will never be as pretty as those

 

[ssiguy2]

Toronto would have a lot more options if they had had a comphrehensive plan on what to do with the Gardiner BEFORE they allowed all the development right up against it. That would, of course, required transportation planning which Toronto doesn't exactly excel at. Now due to this gross mismanagement and lack of vision Toronto's options are few.

I still think the best option is simply to sell it for a song to a private company and let them take care of it as long as part of the package includes tearing down the Spadina/Yonge to DVP and clearing it up in a set timetable. Toronto could, depending on how much they get for it, make a provision that it gets a certain amount of the proceeds ie 10% which they could put towards the ever elusive DRL.

 

[Neil]

If the Gardiner is to be taken down, we should be thinking about what Lake Shore will look like. I think that despite some hopes, the corridor will remain one to facilitate movement, with our without the Gardiner. If it is gone, I think it will look more like an suburban road lined with tower in the park condos like those in the inner suburbs, rather than an avenue like St. Clair or a boulevard like University.

There are many different ways to handle cross traffic than with standard intersections. Wikipedia has numerous examples, and something like this may work (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstreet) with pedestrian bridges to allow people to cross

I'm thinking the former west side highway in New York.

I've said my preference before in this website but this is my configuration:

- Begin far in the west at Ellis Ave and shrink Lake Shore Blvd. Dedicated left and right turn lanes but just 1 through lane in each direction. The purpose of this road is a local road and to serve the park. To this end a onramp from Parkside to eastbound Gardiner would be useful

- At Jameson the Gardiner is 3 lanes in each direction. At this point, the eastbound would go south of the Ex and the westbound would be north of the Ex. 6 lanes each direction, 60 km/h speed limit.

- Eastbound the Gardiner would lose 1 lane at Strachan, 1 at Bathurst and 1 at Spadina. From Spadina to Yonge, the eastbound would be 3 lanes and follow Harbour St., but pick up a 4th lane from Yonge to the DVP.

- From Cherry to the DVP, the route would be much closer to the rail corridor.

- Westbound the Gardiner would also be 4 lanes from DVP to Yonge and 3 to Spadina. West of Spadina it would be 4 lanes and follow the route of the existing Gardiner but be brought to grade. The only grade separation I would propose is to have Fort York Blvd go under this road and move street cars here instead of Fleet St.

- The other infrastructure added would be a a bridge from Front St. to join the west bound lanes west of Strachan. The bridge would be 2 lanes west and 1 lane east.

Its stag-able and build-able but would probably be 2-3 years of pain. In the end, the traffic would flow much better because there would be many more access points instead of having an expressway dumping traffic onto the local grid at less than a handful of exits.

Just like what happened with the west side highway.

 

[vz64]

So, the take-down EA will conitnue (from cbc)--

Gardiner takedown study approved by executive committee

Toronto council's executive committee has voted in favour of restarting a shelved environmental assessment of the possible dismantling of an eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway.

Coun. Mike Del Grande, the chair of the city's budget committee, introduced the motion Tuesday to take up the study into tearing down a stretch of the highway east of Jarvis Street. The original environmental assessment was abandoned in 2011.

"How much money do you spend on it without really analyzing or understanding whether it should stay up, should it stay down, should it be repaired, what should be done?" said Del Grande, who personally favours keeping the stretch of expressway intact.

"But to do nothing would be criminal."

The study would examine several options for the "takedown" of the Gardiner, a partially-elevated highway that was completed in 1965 and carries up to 200,000 vehicles per weekday. Staff estimate it would be six to nine years before dismantling can commence.

The executive committee voted in favour of the move to study options for the aging expressway amid heightened concerns about its safety and usability. A final vote in council is required before the study can be started.

City staff said as recently as December that the eastern portion of the expressway may not be fit for use within six years if repairs aren't carried out on the road surface.

Just keeping it operational in that time would cost at least $30 million to $35 million, not including additional millions for reinforcing the roadway. Moreover, the city has proposed spending an additional $505 million in repairs over the next 10 years to keep the Gardiner in good repair.

City staff have given increased scrutiny to the Gardiner in the wake of several incidents in which concrete fell from the structure and on to the roadway below.

Staff note provides new details on fate of study

The maintenance costs of the expressway contributed in part to the decision in July 2008 by the administration of former Mayor David Miller to start the environmental assessment.

But top bureaucrats from the city and Waterfront Toronto decided to put a hold on the assessment in Nov. 2010 after Mayor Rob Ford was elected "pending direction from the new council and administration," according to a staff briefing note released Tuesday.

Current public works and infrastructure committee chair Denzil Minnan-Wong then asked staff in March 2011 for a letter for him to introduce in committee to request a report on the effects of modifying the terms of the environmental assessment.

But when he was given the letter, he never tabled it, the briefing note said.

Sometime that year, $4.41 million in unused funds of the $7.69 million study was dedicated to other projects by Waterfront Toronto.

 

[ssiguy2]

"Six to nine years before dismantelling could commence"........that's bizarre. At those schedules it's little wonder that Toronto's transportation system is the same as it was 40 years ago.