Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[WislaHD]

Heh, fair enough.

Personally I would like for there to be a will in this city to think and dream big when it comes to the Gardiner. I'd love to see it replaced with a new and majestic elevated express way befitting the world class city that Toronto aspires to be, I want a landmark. I personally enjoy driving through the heart of Toronto on the Gardiner between all the skyscrapers, and I am certain I am not alone in that regard. Driving into Toronto from the airport along the QEW/Gardiner is something tourists often remark on. The real issue however is that the Gardiner is falling apart, simply maintaining it isn't a long-term viable solution and implementing a grande boulevard is second-rate and lethargic.

Now obviously the costs of a massive venture such as a brand new elevated express way would have a prohibitive price-tag for the city and we would need outside help and that right there is where and why it is so important for us to think and dream big. If we showed the province and the rest of Canada that we are serious about a brand new elevated express way, then they will have to seriously consider it.

 

[RC8]

You know what else tourists remark on?

That it's incredible we f*ck*d up our waterfront by putting an elevated expressway through it and still have not removed it after all these years.

 

[TFC]

Heh, fair enough.

Personally I would like for there to be a will in this city to think and dream big when it comes to the Gardiner. I'd love to see it replaced with a new and majestic elevated express way befitting the world class city that Toronto aspires to be, I want a landmark. I personally enjoy driving through the heart of Toronto on the Gardiner between all the skyscrapers, and I am certain I am not alone in that regard. Driving into Toronto from the airport along the QEW/Gardiner is something tourists often remark on. The real issue however is that the Gardiner is falling apart, simply maintaining it isn't a long-term viable solution and implementing a grande boulevard is second-rate and lethargic.

Now obviously the costs of a massive venture such as a brand new elevated express way would have a prohibitive price-tag for the city and we would need outside help and that right there is where and why it is so important for us to think and dream big. If we showed the province and the rest of Canada that we are serious about a brand new elevated express way, then they will have to seriously consider it.

Then 30 or so years, the majestic brand new Gardiner will begin to crumble, city council will debate the issue for decades, and history will repeat itself.

I'm in favour of demolishing the eastern section of the Gardiner. With regard to the western section, some years in the future I hope to see an expanded rapid transit system along the waterfront, increased GO service (along with a satellite station near Bathurst) and an at grade road to accommodate any traffic displaced by the original Gardiner. I would also like to see disincentives implemented in the hopes of changing driving patterns. The longer we allow motorists to enter the downtown core without paying some sort of fee for the maintenance of the roadway and the traffic externalities incurred by the city, the longer we'll see everyone and their grandma driving downtown.
Real world class cities act on transportation issues.

 

[WislaHD]

A waterfront LRT is a given. In fact I wish it was prioritized over some other routes, but tough luck selling 'another downtown subway' over one for the burbs in this political climate and the DRL is an even greater priority.

I'm in favour of demolishing the eastern section of the Gardiner as well, from the reports I've seen posted in here it makes sense.

 

[LNahid2000]

The difference is that the Embarcadero Freeway was for local trips only. 100% of trips on the freeway began or ended on it, and it largely paralleled The I-80. The I-80 remains to service the majority of trips that the Embarcadero served, and thus it's demolition has had little effect. It is different for the Gardiner, which serves as a fairly busy throughfare and the trips it makes cannot easily be replaced with other routes. most of the traffic already on it will continue to use the route after its demolition.

I would be fully supportive of ripping up the Gardiner if it served the same purpose that the Embarcadero freeway served, but it doesn't. People would be screaming bloody murder if they wanted to rip up the I-80, and that is a better parallel to make.

You're right that the Embarcadero Freeway is different, but the before and after pictures are pretty amazing! I was there a couple of years ago and had no idea there was even a freeway there until I looked it up.

Before:

After:

 

[goreckm]

I don't post here much but wanted to chime in on this. A lot of these points are re-hashes of what other people already said in this thread, but, just wanted to add another voice.

If you are coming at this from a purely aesthetic point of view, I can appreciate not wanting to keep the Gardiner. But, as WislaHD suggested, if we spent the money, we can do it right so that it isn't a complete eyesore. But, if we are a growing urban centre, we have a choice. Build up, or build outwards. Most of us here agree that sprawl is bad, so building up is the only way to go. Unless, of course, you want to stop growth in the city. Yes, infrastructure that is above ground level isn't always the nicest, it can get dirty, can get expensive to maintain, but, it's not necessarily bad. Is the loop train in Chicago ugly? Yes. But it does give Chicago a certain charm, and I think it would lose something as a city if they ever got rid of it. I agree with WislaHD, that being on the Gardiner is definitely a great way to see the city, and by opening it up to cyclists as well (part of plan C I believe), that would give more people the ability to experience this unique view on the city. If you do it right, you can weave the highway into the fabric of the city properly.

If you are coming at it from the point of view of the waterfront, really? The Gardiner is barely visible from the waterfront anymore, and soon won't be at all, and vice versa. I don't know what it has to with it, except for access. Which leads us to the real problem, and that is not the Gardiner. It is Lakeshore. As a pedestrian (and full disclosure, that's what I am, as well as a cyclist. 29 years old and I don't have, or care to get, a driver's license), what would you prefer to cross? A large 9 lane Boulevard (the recommended width of the Lakeshore to keep up with the Gardiner's traffic), where cars are going 80km/h, or a smaller local type road, with 2 lanes per direction maximum, and a speed limit of 40km/h, like Queen's Quay. I assume most people here would choose the later. Let's face it, keeping Lakeshore but getting rid of the Gardiner will not change the pedestrian experience at all, and in fact, will probably make it more unpleasant. Sure, they won't have a large structure hanging over their head, but their crossing will probably be much worse. It's not like this new boulevard will spur the creation of new shops and cafes along it. That extra land is already taken up with Condos. Nobody is going to want to walk there, it will just be a super busy street, as inviting as the Queensway, but wider, and without any streetcars. The only way to make this crossing work well is to limit the number of lanes, and speed limit on Lakeshore. Or, maybe just get rid of it altogether in between Don and the Exhibition grounds. Make all people who want to use Lakeshore just take the new elevated Gardiner. Then, with a reduced or removed Gardiner, we can create new trip generators under the Gardiner (to increase pedestrian traffic), to make it feel more safe and inviting.

 

[nfitz]

Keep in mind, the discussion is only about removing the piece of Gardiner east of Jarvis. This is currently an 8-lane section, and probably could be 4-lanes, as it's far less used than the 6-lane piece from Jarvis to Humber.

I'm a little concerned about creating a 9-lane Lakeshore Blvd to cross though. I'm not sure whey we'd want to create such a barrier between the city and the lake.

 

[innsertnamehere]

its 6 lanes not 8.

 

[PinkLucy]

You know what else tourists remark on?

That it's incredible we f*ck*d up our waterfront by putting an elevated expressway through it and still have not removed it after all these years.

I've never heard anyone say that, but I have heard them say we f*ck*d up our waterfront by building a wall of condos.

That said, I do think having to walk under the Gardiner to get to the waterfront isn't the most pleasant experience. But it's also not great having to cross 6 lanes of Lake Shore, and if that goes up to 9 lanes it will be even worse.

 

[nfitz]

its 6 lanes not 8.

East of Jarvis? It's 8 lanes. You can see this on the live traffic camera:

That said, I do think having to walk under the Gardiner to get to the waterfront isn't the most pleasant experience.

I don't find it as bad as going under the tracks at Sherbourne, Parliament, or Cherry. If we really want to improve access to the lake, we need to get rid of the railway tracks. It's the barrier, with only a few spots to cross.

 

[Palma]

I do not see why the Lakeshore itself cannot be reduced in lanes as well as speed? The more lanes you have the more cars will come. Not sure if it would be enough to build retail long there if extra lanes were removed along with sidewalks and bike lanes. But for the gardiner, take it down

 

[M II A II R II K]

It's not the Gardiner that blocks the waterfront, it's Lakeshore!

 

[ehlow]

I don't see how a 9 lane road would improve anything in terms of urban fabric.

I would vote option 2 "improve it", and I'm glad to read there would be a bike lane on the Gardiner.

That magic view WislaHD mentioned is even better on a bike.

 

[innsertnamehere]

a bike lane on the gardiner seems so pointless and dangerous.. especially if it is just between Jarvis and the DVP.

 

[FNTS]

If Lakeshore was a beautiful avenue like University (I know Jane Jacobs hated it, but still), I wouldn't mind crossing it at all. It's the ugly concrete, the deafening sound, the feeling you're not welcome that the Gardiner creates that's a barrier. Even going under the railway tracks can be more pleasant if they add art and good lighting (as is the plan), because while you cross it you don't see kilometres of blight to each side. London is full of underpasses that don't disconnect the city at all, you get to it and in 20 seconds you're on the other side, and you might have seen a nice light installation on the way.