Roads: Post on TO Viaduct "proposal"

[BurlOak]

Storey about the expressway is that something has to be done with it because its falling apart. Refurbishing it up in my opinion is a waste of time. Too many pillars to fix up and it gives that caged in look between the financial and waterfront districts. The viaduct or tunnels are better solutions for a freeway road access. I think the viaduct the cheaper way to go. And won't disturb the traffic flow while its being built.

Refurbishing makes sense so that the entire expressway reaches the end of its life at the same time. This way the viaduct could be built in one shot from Dufferin to DVP.
Unfortunately, we are refurbishing the better, western part of the Gardiner. So now we have to find a way to make the east side just as long.

 

[cd concept]

The Millau viaduct only took three years too build on some difficult terrain. The highest point sores 1,125 feet into the sky. And the length is about 2,46 kilometers long. I'm not saying this viaduct's road has to sore over a 1,000 in to the sky. The most it would be is twice a high as the Gardener expressway raod stands. Making it easy for inclines and decent to major intersection like Spadina Ave. And I think its going to cost a lot cheaper than the Millau viaduct at 600 million US dollars. I give this a thumbs up!

 

[EnviroTO]

If Toronto builds an elevated viaduct for street traffic it will cement our status as "not a world class city". Boston spent a fortune on the big dig to take an elevated freeway and put it underground and while the budget is hard to swallow the end results most people agree with. I don't know who would prefer to stand under a bridge over standing under open skies. Most of the support comes from people who think of how it would look from a distance or as part of a skyline, but that is completely superficial and doesn't represent the quality of life on the streets which is far more important to tourists. If you focus on skyline and tourist hot spots you end up with people proposing slogans for your city like "Come visit. You'll know urine San Francisco".

 

[salsa]

If Toronto builds an elevated viaduct for street traffic it will cement our status as "not a world class city". Boston spent a fortune on the big dig to take an elevated freeway and put it underground and while the budget is hard to swallow the end results most people agree with. I don't know who would prefer to stand under a bridge over standing under open skies. Most of the support comes from people who think of how it would look from a distance or as part of a skyline, but that is completely superficial and doesn't represent the quality of life on the streets which is far more important to tourists. If you focus on skyline and tourist hot spots you end up with people proposing slogans for your city like "Come visit. You'll know urine San Francisco".

Well said. I also wonder if anyone even considered what the on/off ramps would look like for such a tall elevated structure. Or if there's any room in the rail corridor for the giant support pillars.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Millau viaduct only took three years too build on some difficult terrain. The highest point sores 1,125 feet into the sky. And the length is about 2,46 kilometers long. I'm not saying this viaduct's road has to sore over a 1,000 in to the sky. The most it would be is twice a high as the Gardener expressway raod stands. Making it easy for inclines and decent to major intersection like Spadina Ave. And I think its going to cost a lot cheaper than the Millau viaduct at 600 million US dollars. I give this a thumbs up!

Millau is built over a river valley with pretty much no infrastructure underneath, nor on and off ramps. To compare it to building a viaduct structure over an extant railway corridor, operational train station and accommodating ramps in tight urban environment? Really?

AoD

 

[cd concept]

The difference between the viaduct and the Gardener is what's supporting it underneath. To many pillars supporting the Gardener creating that caged look between the two districts. Creating a low leveled cable stay bridge like the Millau viaduct style with pillars at a minimum of a few hundred feet apart. Wouldn't interfere with the two districts because its more open underneath with it's pillars far apart.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The difference between the viaduct and the Gardener is what's supporting it underneath. To many pillars supporting the Gardener creating that caged look between the two districts. Creating a low leveled cable stay bridge like the Millau viaduct style with pillars at a minimum of a few hundred feet apart. Wouldn't interfere with the two districts because its more open underneath with it's pillars far apart.

To create a low level cable stage bridge Millau style will require either far more frequent towers, or towers that go at least in the 100-metre range. Not to mention, in order to achieve the airiness of Millau, you'd have to raise the existing Gardiner far higher off the ground - which will mean that you need a longer "run" leading to and from the elevated portion than currently exist. How do you propose building these towers in the existing railway corridor or the current Gardiner alignment? I haven't even gotten to the issue of on and off ramps. Using Millau cost comparator given our context is unrealistic - and if we are paying that much, you might as well bury it altogether.

If you want a Millau style *anything*, I'd pin my hopes on the potential replacement for the Gardiner/DVP connector redesign.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

The Millau viaduct only took three years too build on some difficult terrain. The highest point sores 1,125 feet into the sky. And the length is about 2,46 kilometers long. I'm not saying this viaduct's road has to sore over a 1,000 in to the sky. The most it would be is twice a high as the Gardener expressway raod stands. Making it easy for inclines and decent to major intersection like Spadina Ave. And I think its going to cost a lot cheaper than the Millau viaduct at 600 million US dollars. I give this a thumbs up!

That bridge is 2.46 km long and 30m wide, for a deck area of 75,000 m2. Using todays exchange rate of 1.41 and the 394M euro cost, it works out to $7500 /m2 of deck area. It is also only 4 lanes, where the Gardiner would be 4 to 8 lanes.

Although not as high, there are some complications to having piers straddle the rail corridor, so I will assume this is a saw off.

The Gardiner is 5.5 km long from the Ex to the DVP. I will assume a constant width of 6 lanes, plus shoulders would give a deck area about 2.6 times as much. If we add an allowance for ramps, it would be say 3 times as much - or about $1.6B to $1.8B.

If you add in the LRT plans and walking/bike paths and I would say that $2.5B to $3.5B is more likely - which is a good reason to built it only as a highway and use the rail corridor from transit.

 

[cd concept]

If you've seen the video on YouTube called Millau bridge national geographic megastructure. It would impress you how they put up this viaduct even with all the obstacles they had to endure. Then to have the project cost 600 million US is amazing. Buy the way if you look at the roadway there are 4 usable lanes plus two large shoulders on each side of the bridge for emergency reasons. Making this bridge width a total of six lanes.

 

[ssiguy2]

Well in the ideal world a tunnel is best but that will be one very expensive proposal and Toronto doesn't have the money.

Why don't they just tear down the Gardiner but in it's place simply build a "rood" over the rail tracks? This can be used as a new Lakeshore Express. It would hide the rail tracks, get rid of Lakeshore and the Gardiner. ANYTHING is better than what is there now but I have always thought Lakeshore was a bigger barrier to the Waterfront than the Gardiner.

They could sell all that land from tearing down the Gardiner to developers which would help off set the price of the rail "roof".

 

[cd concept]

When you build a highway over the railway tracks. What are the methods going to be used to support the highway over the tracks?. If your going to use the the same methods as the Gardener expressway with lots of pillars that could become very expensive. A major column every couple of hundred feet held by cables could support the freeway. Leaving space underneath for parkland etc. This way developers can pay for uses of the land above the railway. Two developers all ready have proposals for that. I can't understand what's the fuss about a cable stayed style bridge. Its actually quick to build. Making it quick to get rid of the Gardener expressway, and building a university avenue style street for the lake shore road underneath.

 

[BurlOak]

When you build a highway over the railway tracks. What are the methods going to be used to support the highway over the tracks?. If your going to use the the same methods as the Gardener expressway with lots of pillars that could become very expensive. A major column every couple of hundred feet held by cables could support the freeway.

The pier cap (transverse to the tracks) could span 20m to 30m, so in some places they would have a pier column on either side of the rail corridor, while approaching Union station there would be a pier column between the tracks. The bridge span (along the length of the tracks) would be probably about 400m (not feet), with a couple of 600m spans from Spadina to Yonge.

Its actually quick to build. Making it quick to get rid of the Gardener expressway, and building a university avenue style street for the lake shore road underneath.

. . . . . which would no longer be underneath anything.

 

[cd concept]

The pier cap (transverse to the tracks) could span 20m to 30m, so in some places they would have a pier !column on either side of the rail corridor, while approaching Union station there would be a pier column between the tracks. The bridge span (along the length of the tracks) would be probably about 400m (not feet), with a couple of 600m spans from Spadina to Yonge.



. . . . . which would no longer be underneath anything.

That's right that Gardener would be gone creating some breathing space between buildings.

 

[agoraflaneur]

In an ideal world, I would throw my support behind a tunnel project. It would free up land, not be weather dependent, be completely hidden, and still allow for quick movement. The rail corridor could have a park built over it in phases, thus allowing for views, which was one of the most attractive elements of the viaduct proposal in my view.

It seems to me that such a huge structure would likely have an interesting effect at first in its novelty, but I could easily see it becoming monotonous and oppressive looming over the entire downtown like a huge fence.

I do have a question, though: is it possible to save significantly on the cost of tunnelling if it were to be done in concert with a DRL? I am no engineer, but I always wondered if we couldn't combine the two projects in some way and possibly realize scale savings. But maybe the complications of such a complex project would actually increase costs.

 

[44 North]

I could easily see it becoming monotonous and oppressive looming over the entire downtown like a huge fence.

Agreed.

I do have a question, though: is it possible to save significantly on the cost of tunnelling if it were to be done in concert with a DRL? I am no engineer, but I always wondered if we couldn't combine the two projects in some way and possibly realize scale savings. But maybe the complications of such a complex project would actually increase costs.

It'd definitely make sense. Incorporating any rapid transit with a new/replacement highway through downtown seems like a no-brainer. In it, on it, below it, dangling from the road deck like the Wuppertal...that should always be part of any plan. If the eastern Gardiner is rebuilt, the City should use part of its ROW to run a transit line from Yonge to Cherry...in place of a Queens Quay East streetcar. I'm sure the City has already parceled/sold most of the land in the East Bayfront; but now would be a good time for them to acquire any needed land for a new ROW.