[innsertnamehere]

moving this here..

I don't, and the initial comment to which you responded didn't come from me.



Removing the DVP.........eventually..........and again, don't confuse tomorrow, or next year with 4 decades hence........

Is entirely do-able and unto itself, would leave the Gardiner in place (hence not zero highways).

***

Also, Vancouver has zero highways into its central core. It seems to be doing ok.

Edit to add: Can we please let this thread get back on-topic now?

Alas, Vancouver does not, but instead it has five or six 6-lane arterials as well as a sort-of-highway in the form of the Lions Gate Bridge, and about a dozen other 4-lane roads providing access. And Vancouver's core is notably way, way smaller than Toronto's with employment and residential areas more dispersed around. As dense as it looks, the amount of people living in Downtown Vancouver is equal to only about 3 Cityplace's. Toronto's core adds an entire Downtown Vancouver in population every 2-3 years.

Toronto's 4+ lane arterial grid in and out of the core old city is, what, Lake Shore West, Queen St, Dundas, and College (all three of which are barely 4-lanes as the curb lanes are continuously blocked), Spadina, Avenue, Davenport, Mount Pleasant, Bayview, and Lakeshore east? Of which only Lakeshore and Avenue are 6 lanes, and which Avenue is likely to be dropped very soon (and likely for good reason)?

Cars are best when they aren't touching pedestrian spaces. The DVP and Gardiner are excellent at that.

Vancouver trades a downtown freeway for several dozen arterial traffic sewers. I can tell you from experience that those roads are not very pleasant to be on.

 

[Northern Light]

Vancouver trades a downtown freeway for several dozen arterial traffic sewers. I can tell you from experience that those roads are not very pleasant to be on.

I agree, they are not............but having access to Vancouver's plans, I think you'll find many of those sewers are heading for road diets and ameliorated streetscapes.

Beyond current expansion plans for Skytrain, they need to get it into North Van in order to drop back the funnel that comes in from that direction.

I expect that will happen in the next 10-15 years, but we shall see.

 

[nfitz]

Alas, Vancouver does not, but instead it has five or six 6-lane arterials as well as a sort-of-highway in the form of the Lions Gate Bridge

Well, there's no traffic lights on Lions Gate Bridge (Highway 99), but this is the entrance road to it in Vancouver. It's not exactly The Gardiner! Kind of looks more like Lakeshore, under the Gardiner!

Cars are best when they aren't touching pedestrian spaces. The DVP and Gardiner are excellent at that.

So you are saying that Vancouver should build an elevated Gardiner-like expressway over what's shown in the image?

 

[DirectionNorth]

Well, there's no traffic lights on Lions Gate Bridge (Highway 99), but this is the entrance road to it in Vancouver. It's not exactly The Gardiner! Kind of looks more like Lakeshore, under the Gardiner!
View attachment 370009

So you are saying that Vancouver should build an elevated Gardiner-like expressway over what's shown in the image?

As terrible as the Gardiner is, it's the off-ramps and Lakeshore that are worst for the pedestrian realm.

 

[nfitz]

As terrible as the Gardiner is, it's the off-ramps and Lakeshore that are worst for the pedestrian realm.

Perhaps that's why when they replaced the Seattle version of the Gardiner (Highway 99) with a tunnel, they didn't put in any interchanges for the entire length! So keep the Gardiner, and remove all the interchanges from Spadina to the Don.

That would end a lot of congestion, as well as improving streetscapes.

 

[Deadpool X]

Removing exits from Gardiner will make all downtown bound traffic exit from one point. Area next to the that will be a traffic nightmare for at least a km in every direction while some other far off places in downtown will become a lot better. Someone's gain is someone's pain in this case. Congestion surcharge might be a better option. And before that having GO trains run on weekends and counter peak on all lines.

 

[Steve X]

Removing exits from Gardiner will make all downtown bound traffic exit from one point. Area next to the that will be a traffic nightmare for at least a km in every direction while some other far off places in downtown will become a lot better. Someone's gain is someone's pain in this case. Congestion surcharge might be a better option. And before that having GO trains run on weekends and counter peak on all lines.

You might as well build a huge parking lot right before downtown, end the Gardiner there and force everyone to hop on a new subway line into downtown.

 

[H4F33Z]

You might as well build a huge parking lot right before downtown, end the Gardiner there and force everyone to hop on a new subway line into downtown.

Hey, I think that was GO Transit's original vision

 

[innsertnamehere]

Perhaps that's why when they replaced the Seattle version of the Gardiner (Highway 99) with a tunnel, they didn't put in any interchanges for the entire length! So keep the Gardiner, and remove all the interchanges from Spadina to the Don.

That would end a lot of congestion, as well as improving streetscapes.

alas if only Toronto had a second 12 lane highway running into the core other than the Gardiner

Alaska Way was always more of a local distributer with only a handful of small exits into the core, I-5 has always been the primary vehicular access to the core.

I'm not saying Vancouver should or shouldn't build a freeway into it's core, just that they still have a substantial amount of auto capacity into the core overall through it's arterial road network.

My general comment is that many on this board seem satisfied to just remove auto capacity ad infinitum until there is effectively 0 room for cars in the core whatsoever, which I just think is impractical. I'm not of the opinion we need to become the next Dallas, but I do believe there is value in having relatively efficient automotive connections across cities. Those connections can be tolled, and be relatively small in size, but there is real utility in ensuring that the connections are there.

Small interventions made to add bicycle lanes are often quite practical and appropriate, and when designed properly don't actually decrease automotive capacity that much (A 2 lane road with turn lanes isn't actually much lower capacity than a 4-lane road without turn lanes, for example), and a lot of roads in Toronto's core are vastly overbuilt for cars, but generally speaking infrastructure like the Gardiner and DVP are key transportation links that need to stay.

 

[nfitz]

Alaska Way was always more of a local distributer with only a handful of small exits into the core, I-5 has always been the primary vehicular access to the core.

That's true - I always forget about I-5 ... if I'm driving, I end up on Eastlake (and often Denny), or more often take a bus to Westlake (or more recently the new station at Huskey Stadium). Looking forward to try out the new Link extension after Covid, as I tend to stay in the Maple Leaf area. I only use I-5 (or 99) to get through Seattle!

 

[whydidimakethis]

My general comment is that many on this board seem satisfied to just remove auto capacity ad infinitum until there is effectively 0 room for cars in the core whatsoever, which I just think is impractical. I'm not of the opinion we need to become the next Dallas, but I do believe there is value in having relatively efficient automotive connections across cities. Those connections can be tolled, and be relatively small in size, but there is real utility in ensuring that the connections are there.

Small interventions made to add bicycle lanes are often quite practical and appropriate, and when designed properly don't actually decrease automotive capacity that much (A 2 lane road with turn lanes isn't actually much lower capacity than a 4-lane road without turn lanes, for example), and a lot of roads in Toronto's core are vastly overbuilt for cars, but generally speaking infrastructure like the Gardiner and DVP are key transportation links that need to stay.

That's kind of the point. People want their streets back to them, and being shoved onto narrow sidewalks with cars rushing by isn't exactly ideal. But I do still believe that it is important to distinguish between these modes. The most efficient way of getting to any downtown should not be a car, but that shouldn't mean having car access should be totally removed.

 

[whydidimakethis]

A 2 lane road with turn lanes isn't actually much lower capacity than a 4-lane road without turn lanes, for example),

According to Streetmix the typical Toronto 4 lane road (left) actually has less capacity than a 3 lane design (right) (with bike lanes), using the exact same amount of space. Even the bottom example still isn't that crazy different in terms of capacity, but the streetscape is vastly improved.

 

[Deadpool X]

It would be helpful to turn a lot more roads into one way streets like Richmond and Adelaide. Those roads have a wide bike lane and still the car traffic moves fast because there is no stopped or turning vehicles blocking the only driving lane. You can reduce another lane and make wider sidewalks and it would still be more efficient for cars as well as bikes.

Sherbourne on the other hand is very slow for road traffic and bikers get a narrower lane.

 

[turini2]

It would be helpful to turn a lot more roads into one way streets like Richmond and Adelaide. Those roads have a wide bike lane and still the car traffic moves fast because there is no stopped or turning vehicles blocking the only driving lane. You can reduce another lane and make wider sidewalks and it would still be more efficient for cars as well as bikes.

Sherbourne on the other hand is very slow for road traffic and bikers get a narrower lane.

Conversely - traffic engineers believe that network capacity might be higher with two way streets! Points from an interesting Bloomberg article below:

• Livability: vehicles stop less on one-way streets, which is hard for bikers and pedestrians.
• Navigation: one-way street networks are confusing for drivers, which leads to more vehicle-miles traveled; they also make it tough for bus riders to locate stops for a return trip.
• Safety: speeds tend to be higher on one-way streets, and some studies suggest drivers pay less attention on them because there's no conflicting traffic flow.
• Economics: local businesses believe that two-way streets increase visibility.

 

[Allandale25]

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/10539868-poll-shows-905ers-don-t-support-hwy-413-as-markham-council-joins-vaughan-king-in-opposition-to-new-road/