News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

MetroMan said:
A new hybrid option will be brought to Council this Fall that is different than the contentious proposal that barely made it through a divided City Council. It's going to be a lot closer to the original hybrid option that runs along the rail corridor, freeing up the land around the Keating Channel for Waterfront Toronto redevelopment. It's a good compromise if we have to retain the Gardiner at all.

eQpikDl.jpg


While I'd much rather prefer we remove the Gardiner, I'm optimistic that we can make it work with it up. Downtown — particularly around South Core — condos and office towers are hemming in the Gardiner and rail corridor. Bridges running alongside the rail corridor connecting buildings have successfully concealed the railway and made the area around it feel urban. We can do the same along the Gardiner, creating a sort of above ground PATH like Calgary's +15 skywalk network. The Gardiner would be hiding behind.

The remaining challenge is making the pedestrian crossings less gloomy and intimidating. That can be accomplished by landscaping right up to the expressway with trees and welcoming outdoor spaces, making the crossing much shorter. Lighting those spaces under the Gardiner with interesting ceilings and pillars where pedestrians cross, would round out the pedestrian friendly measures.

Since we're not going to build a tunnel into the ground, I'd be content to turning the existing elevated Gardiner and Lakeshore running under it into a "tunnel" of sorts with buildings on either side.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood why they don’t build a new elevated portion over the Railway starting in east downtown and tighten the curve…. Why not put the highway above the ugly railroad? I marked this in blue in the attached…. That way this NEW section can be built before they tear anything else down and get Toronto moving again by connecting the new portion above the rails to the existing elevated Dvp and Gardiner sections … what am I missing?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8593.jpeg
    IMG_8593.jpeg
    774.2 KB · Views: 24
416InTrouble said:
I’ve never understood why they don’t build a new elevated portion over the Railway starting in east downtown and tighten the curve…. Why not put the highway above the ugly railroad? I marked this in blue in the attached…. That way this NEW section can be built before they tear anything else down and get Toronto moving again by connecting the new portion above the rails to the existing elevated Dvp and Gardiner sections … what am I missing?
Click to expand...
IMG_8593.jpeg
 
Any activities over Metrolinx corridor requires flagging protection/working at night. It’ll be a pain to coordinate construction activities and any future maintenance/inspection work around rail traffic.

Not saying is impossible for the City/MTO and Metrolinx to work together and sign some project specific agreement/easement but it is a bunch of paperwork/coordination that apparently no one wants to do.
 
416InTrouble said:
View attachment 669754
Click to expand...

First off, where is the room to put in the bent support on the side of the existing corridor to support the main bean to support this idea??

Second, no room to put in centre bents without removing tracks 100% and DOA by Metrolinx right off the bat,

Three is o have Beams sitting on side bents will have be assemble in one piece to be lifted by a number of cranes, but most of all, the underside if the beam has to be 35 feet above the track.

Four: Given the span, the weight of 6-8 lanes of traffic, the depth of the beam could be 15 feet or more and leave that to the engineers who may have a better idea.

Five: Given the length of the supporting beam, where do assembly these monster beams??

Six: You need to move the ramps to/from the DVP further north due to the increase of height as well make various changes to the Gardiner to get to the new height that will require the closing of the Gardiner up to a year.

Seven: Metrolinx will require strict protection over the corridor at all times that will not interfere with train movement or nighttime work.

As far as I am concern, time to remove the eastern section regardless if means an extra 5-10 minute trave time on the ground and save everyone money not have to pay taxes to cover the yearly cost to maintain it as well built the plan new one. Only 25-35,000 vehicles use that section in the first place.
 
A solution that frees up some local space, but complicates any future upgrades to the rail corridor .. may not be environmentally friendly, if we look at the big picture.

Given the importance of this rail corridor for public transit.
 
drum118 said:
First off, where is the room to put in the bent support on the side of the existing corridor to support the main bean to support this idea??

Second, no room to put in centre bents without removing tracks 100% and DOA by Metrolinx right off the bat,

Three is o have Beams sitting on side bents will have be assemble in one piece to be lifted by a number of cranes, but most of all, the underside if the beam has to be 35 feet above the track.

Four: Given the span, the weight of 6-8 lanes of traffic, the depth of the beam could be 15 feet or more and leave that to the engineers who may have a better idea.

Five: Given the length of the supporting beam, where do assembly these monster beams??

Six: You need to move the ramps to/from the DVP further north due to the increase of height as well make various changes to the Gardiner to get to the new height that will require the closing of the Gardiner up to a year.

Seven: Metrolinx will require strict protection over the corridor at all times that will not interfere with train movement or nighttime work.

As far as I am concern, time to remove the eastern section regardless if means an extra 5-10 minute trave time on the ground and save everyone money not have to pay taxes to cover the yearly cost to maintain it as well built the plan new one. Only 25-35,000 vehicles use that section in the first place.
Click to expand...
Ha! Saying that will only add 5-10 mins is akin to how the city said their study for taking down the Logan ramp would only add 6 minutes and yet the REALITY is that it’s added 60 minutes of commute time for us folks who live in the east end and are now forced to drive thru the city to catch the in ramp at Jarvis. No thanks.
 
416InTrouble said:
Ha! Saying that will only add 5-10 mins is akin to how the city said their study for taking down the Logan ramp would only add 6 minutes and yet the REALITY is that it’s added 60 minutes of commute time for us folks who live in the east end and are now forced to drive thru the city to catch the in ramp at Jarvis. No thanks.
Click to expand...
That's quite a reality you live in.
 
Jonny5 said:
That's quite a reality you live in.
Click to expand...
The logan ramp removal may not have added 60 minutes but certainly far more than 5 minutes for drivers, especially during rush hour. The Jarvis on-ramp was already at capacity before the logan ramp removal which means backups for it are huge.

The lakeshore Don River bridge construction doesn't help either. It will get a bit better after that is done next year.. but the Cherry ramps are probably still almost 10 years from being built, realistically, so east enders are going to have to get used to it.

I do feel for them as the east end of the city was already one of, if not the hardest area to access in the City by car. There are not a lot of roads in or out of that area. The issues with the demolition were inevitable, the problem is that the City demolished the ramps with no real plans to replace them for at least a decade. It's a long time to wait for that part of the City.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The logan ramp removal may not have added 60 minutes but certainly far more than 5 minutes for drivers, especially during rush hour.
Click to expand...
If I've been dumb enough to drive Lakeshore, I've certainly seen it add 45-minutes on some days. The estimates on Google maps are way too short, as it gets confused about the Lakeshore traffic in the left-lane going past the mess, and the traffic in the right, not moving. And the traffic moving at speed overhead.

But in reality it doesn't add that much time for people in the east end - as we now know not to go on Lakeshore, and instead get on at Pottery Road/Bloor or Don Mills Road,

Once construction is finished in 2030 or so, the old Lakeshore route probably won't even add 5 minutes.
 
A new section of Lakeshore east of the DVP was open last night. 2 lanes on the north and south side while they rework the middle section now. The new WB bridge was not open.
 
Province still needs to officially upload both expressways. I thought back in February they were close to doing so.

Hopefully in time for next City budget cycle.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top