Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)

[blacksquirrels]

looks better to me.

Myth: If you take down the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, the current levels of traffic will have nowhere to go. | Waterfront Toronto

The Reality: Many cities have removed elevated expressways from their downtowns without replacing the roadway capacity. Common sense would suggest that if you remove an expressway, that traffic must go somewhere, with the result that the same number of cars trying to squish into fewer lanes, or...

www.waterfrontoronto.ca

It Would Be a Mistake for Toronto Not to Tear Down Its Urban Expressway

Removing an elevated city highway doesn’t always make traffic worse—some cars just disappear.

www.bloomberg.com

Remove jcfo booklet

TORONTO’S GREAT STREETTHE LAKE SHORE BOULEVARD CORRIDOR Competition to Develop Innovative Design Options for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard R…

www.slideshare.net

 

[innsertnamehere]

honestly i'd be supportive of cutting Lakeshore to 4 lanes between Cherry and Yonge if the Gardiner is maintained. It's way over capacity as it is and doing that would result in a much easier access to the waterfront for pedestrians.

 

[drum118]

honestly i'd be supportive of cutting Lakeshore to 4 lanes between Cherry and Yonge if the Gardiner is maintained. It's way over capacity as it is and doing that would result in a much easier access to the waterfront for pedestrians.

How are you going to do that when the Gardiner support will not allow you to that nor the current on ramps for it??

 

[rbt]

How are you going to do that when the Gardiner support will not allow you to that nor the current on ramps for it??

Remove all ramps between Bathurst and the Don River

 

[Rainforest]

Remove all ramps between Bathurst and the Don River

Actually, why not? At least between Yonge and the Don River.

Thinking of a configuration where most of Lakeshore East traffic is directed through Gardiner, while the surface level has a small road similar to QQ East, and that small road is not directly connected to Lakeshore W or E.

Maybe, too late for that.

 

[drum118]

Actually, why not? At least between Yonge and the Don River.

Thinking of a configuration where most of Lakeshore East traffic is directed through Gardiner, while the surface level has a small road similar to QQ East, and that small road is not directly connected to Lakeshore W or E.

Maybe, too late for that.

You have the Spadina on Ramp, the soon to be remove Bay on Ramp, the Jarvis off ramp that will be remove once the Yonge ramp open and the close Jarvis on ramp.

Even removing those ramps will not get you to a true 4 lane road period because of the support structure now.

 

[Haljackey]

There's some talk about the Gardiner on SkyScraperCity which those checking this tread may be interested in checking out- https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/cdn-canada-road-infrastructure.489565/page-281

-----

As time has passed, I have changed my opinion on the project and now support a full tear down. But, like what is actually happening now, its kinda too late to go this route now that all the gears are churning for the hybrid project. I say it should finish as planned, but I guess once this new structure ages then will be the time to tear it down for good.

 

[whydidimakethis]

I wouldn't be opposed to a sunken freeway east of Jarvis. Something like A15 in Montreal and the 401 ext. in Windsor. It could be only two lanes in each direction below grade straddled by another 2-3 one way Lakeshore lanes on each side. Parts of it can decked either initially or later on if it is cost prohibitive. All cross streets would not be impeded and could cross directly over the sunken freeway. Once it reaches the Don, it can rise back up to the surface and cross it with Lakeshore, kinda like how Lakeshore crosses the Humber. There would be very little to no enterance or exit ramps.

A smaller scale version of this:

Edit: I think this is more pedestrian friendly than a boulevard.

 

[Haljackey]

I wouldn't be opposed to a sunken freeway east of Jarvis. Something like A15 in Montreal and the 401 ext. in Windsor. It could be only two lanes in each direction below grade straddled by another 2-3 one way Lakeshore lanes on each side. Parts of it can decked either initially or later on if it is cost prohibitive. All cross streets would not be impeded and could cross directly over the sunken freeway. Once it reaches the Don, it can rise back up to the surface and cross it with Lakeshore, kinda like how Lakeshore crosses the Humber. There would be very little to no enterance or exit ramps.

A smaller scale version of this:
View attachment 458989

Edit: I think this is more pedestrian friendly than a boulevard.

I can imagine some issues with drainage if the freeway is sunken like this. You'd need pumps to raise the water and dump it into the lake. If you're going sunken freeway, you may as well just do a cut-and-cover project similar to subway projects that don't use a tunnel boring machine. Also going from elevated to sunken would make for a huge time-frame for construction, not to mention cost. The disruption to traffic while this transformation is underway could take several years.

I don't think the soil conditions would permit this anyway without significant prep work. Much of this area is infill, and the soil is softer / looser / less compacted here vs further inland.

 

[DSCToronto]

This on Infrastructure Agenda gives some 'interesting' facts and background. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ie/comm/communicationfile-166270.pdf

One thing being that the Jarvis to Cherry section is 'completed". Though the top surface was certainly completed and was a huge cost, for reasons I cannot understand, they did NOT repair the bents in that section and some of them need concrete 'rehabilitation". Not as expensive as the road surface but hardly $0.

 

[rbt]

This on Infrastructure Agenda gives some 'interesting' facts and background. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ie/comm/communicationfile-166270.pdf

One thing being that the Jarvis to Cherry section is 'completed". Though the top surface was certainly completed and was a huge cost, for reasons I cannot understand, they did NOT repair the bents in that section and some of them need concrete 'rehabilitation". Not as expensive as the road surface but hardly $0.

View attachment 461245

Those are future spending values.

Since it is complete, there is no future spending.

 

[Northern Light]

Those are future spending values.

Since it is complete, there is no future spending.

@DSC knows that.

What he's asserting is that the project is not in fact complete, as there is outstanding work to do on the bents (supporting concrete columns) should this section remain (not be demolished); that that work has not been accounted for, which skews the relative costs of the hybrid option vs the boulevard one. Whether or not that shift is material; or enough to change any votes, its fair to say that the figures as presented could be read as misleading.

 

[rbt]

@DSC knows that.

What he's asserting is that the project is not in fact complete, as there is outstanding work to do on the bents (supporting concrete columns) should this section remain (not be demolished); that that work has not been accounted for, which skews the relative costs of the hybrid option vs the boulevard one. Whether or not that shift is material; or enough to change any votes, its fair to say that the figures as presented could be read as misleading.

True. Misinterpreted their comment.

So those columns imply: That spending is not currently funded, and that work will not be completed by 2032.

Either that, or Toronto Works has learned from TTC style accounting where necessary but "out-of-budget" items are hidden until it's either an emergency or a favourable political event occurs like a federal spending package looking for projects.

 

[DSCToronto]

True. Misinterpreted their comment.

So those columns imply: That spending is not currently funded, and that work will not be completed by 2032.

Either that, or Toronto Works has learned from TTC style accounting where necessary but "out-of-budget" items are hidden until it's either an emergency or a favourable political event occurs like a federal spending package looking for projects.

Yes, the TTC are masters at putting forward a project without noting that IF it is approved there will be lots of other projects that will become essential! That is the kind of thing Councillors and Board members OUGHT to be looking for, but seldom seem to do so.

 

[jmi22]

it's far from bankrupting the city, don't be dramatic.

As large as the Gardiner capital program is, it's pennies compared to the capital spending the city is spending on transit. The Bloor-Yonge Capacity expansion alone is basically equal to the entire Gardiner capital program. The TTC 10-year capital plan is roughly 15 times the size of the Gardiner program.

The only reason the Gardiner is "50%" of the transportation budget is because of accounting purposes where most major transportation expenses are separated out, which is really mostly transit.

As others have pointed out, the way in which you presented those numbers from a purely financial standpoint is misleading. However, the greater misrepresentation is that you fail to mention that the Gardiner carries a fraction of the people the TTC/GO does, in a manner which is polluting some some of the densest areas in Canada will stifling full development from taking off along the waterfront.