News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Every once in a while James Alcock's transportation plans get dredged back up, resurrecting old plans like the 448 and 400 extensions, both of which would merely dump more traffic into the city centre (and into the Gardiner and DVP).

I'm quite happy merging this into the highways discussion.
 
The small road extension/widening in this proposal are totally workable. The only thing that really concerns me is the Lawrence Link. That would be an incredibly expensive project and I doubt that would be worth the money.

As for the highways in this plan, they're totally insane. That tunnelled expresway following the Weston rail corridor would be unbelievably expensive. Almost certainly the single most expensive undertaking in the history of the city. And where would these cars go once they hit the Gardiner, which is already over capacity? We'd be spending tens of billions of dollars on a project that would probably make the transportation situation even worse. I have the exact same criticism of highway 448. Where exactly will the cars go once the hit the DVP and eventually reach downtown? This is a recipe for disaster.
 
They would have to bury the Gardiner and tunnel more downtown highways. But they could at least add commuter rail down the middle of new highways.
 
Wrenkin said:
Some of the smaller proposals are achievable, like the Danforth / Gerrard connection, but something like Lawrence East would be very tricky, technically and with regard to local stakeholders.
Click to expand...
I'd think Lawrence East would make the most sense, completing the local grid in that area.

Danforth/Gerrard is just odd ... simply driving down Gerrard, which turns into Clonmore, and turning left up Warden and right on Danforth Road works quite well right now. I really don't see the need for it. You might have to wait a phase to turn left on Warden currently, but that's it. If it was really that important, you could get much the same effect by simply altering the Clonmore/Warden intersection, as there's little traffic on Warden south of Clonmore. But do you really want to turn Upper Gerrard into an artery to Scarborough? It's very residential, and is already pushing capacity at the Woodbine intersection. I'd think the last thing you'd want to be doing is pushing more traffic onto a major streetcar route.
 
The proposed 400 extension is reckless and irresponsible. The amount of traffic that highway would dump on west end streets like Bloor and onto the Gardiner would be significant. It would make congestion in the old city of Toronto a lot worse by adding more capacity for more suburbanites to drive downtown.
 
One Nut Kruk said:
*Bridle. How could Lawrence Ave E connect to Bayview? Wouldn't a massive bridge be needed or a steep tunnel through the ravine?
Click to expand...
You'd just need a bridge. Would be far less massive than the many bridges over the ravine further south. Access to Bayview would be through a connecting road west of Bayview ... much like it is now.
 
Theres a reason that citites have stopped building urban freeways. Can we please burn this plan? And don't show it to RoFo. He may get ideas :)
 
I'm actually a fan of SPUIfication of Black Creek Drive to Weston Road for various reasons.

1) It is actually an extension of Highway 400 (compared to the Allen which is a freeway spur)
2) Runs through a ravine; almost no development potential
3) Can be used for express bus services
4) Multiple diverging roads to better distribute traffic (compared to dumping it all at Eglinton)
5) Will give Toronto an excuse to fill in Allen Road south of the 401.
 
While I'm not opposed to some tinkering with Black Creek Drive - particuarly the Lawrence/BCD intersection - there are two big reasons why I'm wary:

1. It could dump more cars into the Keele/Rogers/St. Clair/Weston flustercuck. That's bad enough as it is.
2. It would put pressure on extending high-capacity roads south from the bottom of Black Creek Drive - I could see something as innoculous as having a new four-lane arterial extend along the rail corridor towards St. Clair and Davenport putting pressure on the Junction Triangle/Carleton Village area.
 
nfitz said:
You'd just need a bridge. Would be far less massive than the many bridges over the ravine further south. Access to Bayview would be through a connecting road west of Bayview ... much like it is now.
Click to expand...

How would this work? Bayview already has a bridge there. Would you perhaps run a sloping viaduct up under Bayview, behind Toronto French School? It would be a bit awkward for traffic coming from the East and continuing north on Bayview.
 
You run Lawrence east through Glendon College and over the valley at the east end of Glendon. The bridge would run north east and hit the other side at Park Lane south of the existing Lawrence. Lose a bit of Glendon and a couple of mansions on the other side. That's the easiest route with the shortest bridge and that's how they would have done it in the 1950's. Thankfully this will never happen. Just try widening Lawrence through the Bridal Path today let along putting in a bridge!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top