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

[Tuck]

One of the best views of Toronto is the one you get driving into the city on the Gardiner from the Don Valley. A complete superficial defense, of course, but I stand by it =D.

The "disconnects the city from its waterfront" argument never held much sway with me since walking under the rail corridor is *way* worse and thats not going anywhere.

 

[Filip]

I don't see why it would be that difficult to comprehend.

A slightly less wide grand boulevard does not diminish carrying capacity that much (and the large boulevard showed as quite manageable.)

It is in fact partially off-set in the context of completing a local street grid.

The carrying capacity of two-way, all-day, RER on Lakeshore East and Stoufville far exceeds the volume of 2 lanes of road through downtown east or 2 existing lanes of the Gardiner in this area.

Add capacity from the Relief Line and your swimming in capacity.

Now compare than with freeing up even 7m of new land along the length of Jarvis to the DVP, you free up at least six hectares or 15 acres of development.

The yield on that in jobs + residents at anywhere near downtown densities is huge. That is very literal and very conservative, considering what is now land-locked (non-functional parcels that could be made functional by alignment shifts for a new road. It also discounts increased value on existing developed parcels due to increased desirability.

I'm not counting anything on the DVP ROW south of Richmond due to flooding issues and instead assuming we could get new parkland out of that area to the tune of another about 1.5ha or 4 acres.

This is extremely wishful thinking and only possible in a future where Toronto has the the public transit of a London or Paris - and even then, those cities outnumber our highway kms!

The Gardiner/DVP connection is critical and isn't going to go anywhere - not in my lifetime likely and I'm teetering on 30.

The new Gardiner East alignment will unlock plenty of developable parcels as it will be hovering over protected rail corridor lands for much of its distance with only Lakeshore beneath it elsewhere. There is no better option than the hybrid council voted for.

 

[DSC]

Lessons (??) from Mexico City:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...rde-vertical-gardens-pollution-climate-change

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Lessons (??) from Mexico City:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...rde-vertical-gardens-pollution-climate-change

If only the Gardiner is split in two like the example photos.

AoD

 

[ssiguy2]

The best and most affordable option was the one that was never proposed.

The city can`t afford a tunnel by itself, a grand blvd is nice but I don`t think it could realistically carry the capacity, and no matter how they design an elevated route it will still be a bit of an eyesore and act as a psychological barrier to the waterfront. The option?……….GIVE {or at least sell the city lands near the Gardiner at a greatly reduced rate} to the developers along the route which mostly owned by the city, have them build a trenched tunnel under condos they can build above it. It`s been done thousands of times in Toronto...…….it`s called a parking garage.

The only difference is that the height will have to be higher than a standard parking garage and instead of cars sitting there all day, they simply are travelling thru. The city would pay for any larger gaps between condos/office towers, building the end connection to the DVP, and be responsible for maintenance which they could pay for by selling the current Gardiner lands which will become available once the current elevated structure is torn down. The Gardiner will also be protected from the elements so will require less maintenance especially by a lower speed limit and the city gets it`s connection while the highway being `out of sight and out of mind`.

 

[BurlOak]

The best and most affordable option was the one that was never proposed.

The city can`t afford a tunnel by itself, a grand blvd is nice but I don`t think it could realistically carry the capacity, and no matter how they design an elevated route it will still be a bit of an eyesore and act as a psychological barrier to the waterfront. The option?……….GIVE {or at least sell the city lands near the Gardiner at a greatly reduced rate} to the developers along the route which mostly owned by the city, have them build a trenched tunnel under condos they can build above it. It`s been done thousands of times in Toronto...…….it`s called a parking garage.

The only difference is that the height will have to be higher than a standard parking garage and instead of cars sitting there all day, they simply are travelling thru. The city would pay for any larger gaps between condos/office towers, building the end connection to the DVP, and be responsible for maintenance which they could pay for by selling the current Gardiner lands which will become available once the current elevated structure is torn down. The Gardiner will also be protected from the elements so will require less maintenance especially by a lower speed limit and the city gets it`s connection while the highway being `out of sight and out of mind`.

The fatal mistake was that they looked at the Gardiner East in isolation.
It became unfeasible for the Gardiner to go over the Don River, then descend below grade, and then rise to meet the elevation at Jarvis. It would basically spend no time underground.
If the entire Gardiner was considered, then alternative options could have been considered.

 

[tstormers]

One of the things I keep thinking of when I hear people talk about the grand boulevard option is how the DVP will end into a stop light like the current Allen expressway does at Eglinton and the traffic backups that causes every day. I would love it tunneled, but that is wishful thinking. I do take the DVP/Gardiner combo about 2-3 times a week to work and transit the other days and fully believe the highway link needs to stay. I am glad that it will, but am sure the option that has been chosen could have been a bit better. the link of getting the Gardiner over the DVP and under the rail corridor is one of the biggest issues the connect has in its positioning.

Just my two nickels.

 

[Leo_Chan]

One of the things I keep thinking of when I hear people talk about the grand boulevard option is how the DVP will end into a stop light like the current Allen expressway does at Eglinton and the traffic backups that causes every day. I would love it tunneled, but that is wishful thinking. I do take the DVP/Gardiner combo about 2-3 times a week to work and transit the other days and fully believe the highway link needs to stay. I am glad that it will, but am sure the option that has been chosen could have been a bit better. the link of getting the Gardiner over the DVP and under the rail corridor is one of the biggest issues the connect has in its positioning.

Just my two nickels.

Is that really the case though? I thought the DVP would have ramps to and from the boulevard from the west, so cars don’t have to turn left to go DVP northbound? This is unlike Allen Expressway as it just stops, with no logical way to continue south. The DVP and boulevard would be different as there isn’t really anything south of Lakeshore Blvd to go to that requires a DVP extension that a normal 4 lane road can’t handle.

 

[44 North]

The fatal mistake was that they looked at the Gardiner East in isolation.
It became unfeasible for the Gardiner to go over the Don River, then descend below grade, and then rise to meet the elevation at Jarvis. It would basically spend no time underground.
If the entire Gardiner was considered, then alternative options could have been considered.

Wonder if long before this, did we ever thoroughly look at tunneling the Gardiner. Feel like we must have over the decades but can't say I've ever seen any info on it other than maybe a quick cost estimate. And wonder if they considered having the portal actually being east of the river, so DVP near Queen or Eastern. Seems like the makings of a deathtrap if the river ever flooded, but with a concrete dike leading up to it could it have worked? Was such a thing considered?

Ok so it seems tunnel visions go back to the 80s, with comments identical to we see today. The Fung plan in the early 2000s was minor burial, City Roads was a longer tunnel. But can't see anything for putting the portal east of the river.

 

[dowlingm]

Given the rock squeeze near the lake, tunnelling was going to be a geotechnical challenge (look how much fun the Port Authority had driving a “simple” pedestrian tunnel a couple of hundred meters to YTZ), not to mention the issue of whether works to push the DVP underground to go under the Don could safely begin prior to the completion of the Don Spillway. Maintaining access to the current on/off ramps and the Port Lands would make for tricky portal construction conditions - if traffic could endure being squeezed to one lane each way for everything for long enough to get that done, is the volume really enough to justify a megaproject?

The notion that building condos above the highway is just like parking garages is laughable unless the idea is to ban all hazmat and limit speeds in the tunnel to those found in your usual parking garage.

 

[44 North]

Given the rock squeeze near the lake, tunnelling was going to be a geotechnical challenge (look how much fun the Port Authority had driving a “simple” pedestrian tunnel a couple of hundred meters to YTZ), not to mention the issue of whether works to push the DVP underground to go under the Don could safely begin prior to the completion of the Don Spillway. Maintaining access to the current on/off ramps and the Port Lands would make for tricky portal construction conditions - if traffic could endure being squeezed to one lane each way for everything for long enough to get that done, is the volume really enough to justify a megaproject?

Any large project in this city south of approx. Dundas is a challenge - be it rock squeeze, old infill/landfill, or both in this instance. The Fung and City Roads plans seemed legit and not too extreme.

As for the hypothetical of going under the Don, naturally DVP would be (temporarily) truncated at Richmond/Adelaide. There's a deep bedrock chasm in the area to begin with so by default it'd be a mucky, high-insurance process. But with DVP's ROW opened-up between Lake Shore and Eastern that affords certain opportunities not normally available. Say, staging construction and temporary diversion of the river. Not unlike York Mills station construction, but on a much larger scale. Not necessarily in this order:

-tunnel east of the river with a planned flume above
-once complete divert river in a new temporary bend overtop this structure
-tunnel sections west of and below (now diverted) river
-once subgrade DVP on/offramp complete remove diversion dike and put river back

 

[nirvanafc]

So is the hybrid plan fully funded yet? When is construction expected to start? The EA says "construction period is estimated to occur between 2018 and 2025", but obviously they haven't started yet. And are they going to close both Gardiner and Lake Shore Boulevard during the 6 years of construction?

 

[hw621]

^from what it reads it only seems that construction will start within those years, not necessarily be done within six years.

 

[tstormers]

So is the hybrid plan fully funded yet? When is construction expected to start? The EA says "construction period is estimated to occur between 2018 and 2025", but obviously they haven't started yet. And are they going to close both Gardiner and Lake Shore Boulevard during the 6 years of construction?

They definitely will not close both together. but they are planning to start within the next 3 years in other words 2022 it should either have started or beginning. They will stage it as much as possible, but I would hate to live on the east end driving into the city. And unfortunately I am one of those people.

Lakeshore and Don Roadway will also be affected during this time...

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

When construction will only start in a couple of years it is unlikely that the city will be able to finance it. A major downturn is coming after all those years of cheap money. At the end the story will be the same as in Montréal. At the moment the tear down their express highway after decades of discussions!