News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 821     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 743     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 313     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Gardiner Expressway mentioned (in vain? by some) in an article on Freeways Without Futures 2014. See link.

fwf_banner1_0.jpg

I-10/Claiborne Overpass, New Orleans
I-81, Syracuse, New York
Gardiner Expressway, Toronto
Route 5/Skyway, Buffalo
Inner Loop, Rochester New York
I-70, St. Louis
I-280, San Francisco
I-375, Detroit
Terminal Island Freeway, Long Beach
Aetna Viaduct, Hartford

Gardiner Expressway, Toronto


gardiner.png

Built between 1955 and 1966 by the Ministry of Transportation of Toronto (MTO), Toronto's Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway is a major east-west thoroughfare that connects downtown Toronto to its western suburbs. The Gardiner's eastern elevated eight lanes separate the city from its Lake Ontario waterfront. What was originally built to accommodate much less daily traffic, the Gardiner, east of Jarvis Steet, now carries 120,000 vehicles daily and costs around $10 million annually in repairs.

For years, citizens of Toronto have called for the removal of the elevated expressway as it runs from downtown eastward. And they've had some success: a far eastern portion of the freeway was successfully removed in 1999. It was originally intended to connect downtown to the suburb of Scarborough, but a citizens' revolt stopped the freeway's progress and left only a 1.3 km stub. The result was a beautiful linear park that includes bikeways and public art installations. However, much of the eastern portion remains.

Just recently, the City of Toronto and WATERFRONToronto finished work on the Gardiner Expressway & Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment & Urban Design Study, which will help determine the future of the 2.4 km elevated section of the expressway from Jarvis Street to just east of the Dan Valley Parkway abutting Lake Ontario. Four main approaches are being considered for the Gardiner: maintaining ($235m), removing ($240m-$360m), improving ($420m-$630m), or replacing ($610m-$910m). In contrast, the Toronto City Council already approved a budget – between 2013 and 2022 – for a nearly $500 million rehabilitation of the downtown expressway. Interestingly, the maintenance work will move west to east down the freeway – perhaps in anticipation of the removal campaign's success.

Former Toronto Mayor David Miller believes tearing down the Gardiner to be "the most practical approach and offers the greatest public benefits." Deputy City Manager John Livey stated that a preferred option, or possibly a shortlist, will be presented to city council in early February. Engineering on a final project will begin in 2018 at the earliest.
[Image: ArchDaily]
Click to expand...

Some details are wrong, such as it was not built by "MTO" but by Metropolitan Toronto.
 
nfitz said:
They've torn down the Alaska Way Viaduct? I thought they weren't doing that until the tunnel was built.
Click to expand...

I have seen the animation video of how the tunnel was to be built, what was above it and how it would look like only a few months ago. Was told the tunnel had to be built first and this is from the consulting firm designing it.

I have seen how the existing area where the existing Viaduct would look like after the tunnel is built and it would be a whole lot better. The Gardiner team could learn a few things from this video. The cost of the video was not cheap, but was required by the state who was funding it.

Then these days, things change on the fly.
 
drum118 said:
I have seen the animation video of how the tunnel was to be built, what was above it and how it would look like only a few months ago. Was told the tunnel had to be built first and this is from the consulting firm designing it.

I have seen how the existing area where the existing Viaduct would look like after the tunnel is built and it would be a whole lot better. The Gardiner team could learn a few things from this video. The cost of the video was not cheap, but was required by the state who was funding it.

Then these days, things change on the fly.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a problem with the tunneling in Seattle. See link.
 
I'm really amazed with the Seattle project really, its a rather redundant highway they are replacing and the capital costs are absolutely huge for the relatively minor benefits from it.
 
New opinion piece by R. Michael Warren, on thestar.com:

Let the private sector bury the Gardiner Expressway
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...vate_sector_bury_the_gardiner_expressway.html

"Toronto should invite private sector consortiums to bid on burying Lake Shore Blvd. and the eastern section of the Gardiner Expressway (...) The winning design-build-develop consortium would be expected to finance most of the costs in return for extensive air rights over the buried section."
_____

I have to say this sounds like a very good idea, at least in principle.
 
Last edited:
You should have read the article first. Unlike Sheppard, there have been similar proposals for this site before, one in the 1980s and one in 1998, and the value of the land is dismally different.
 
you are still looking at a $1 billion dollar project but you only unlock $300-$400 million worth of land, that is difficult to build on because of the fact that you now have a buried highway below your future condo tower.
 
FNTS said:
New opinion piece by R. Michael Warren, on thestar.com:

Let the private sector bury the Gardiner Expressway
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...vate_sector_bury_the_gardiner_expressway.html

"Toronto should invite private sector consortiums to bid on burying Lake Shore Blvd. and the eastern section of the Gardiner Expressway (...) The winning design-build-develop consortium would be expected to finance most of the costs in return for extensive air rights over the buried section."
_____

I have to say this sounds like a very good idea, at least in principle.
Click to expand...

This whole statement is working on the assumption that the value of the recovered land from the project will offset most of, if not all of the construction cost:

If we're going to bury the Gardiner, what I would rather do is build a wall ~40m out in the harbour, dredge the area between the wall and the existing shoreline, and use that new trench for an expressway. After building the expressway, you cover the highway and you have a great new waterfront park.

You still get all of the land from the Gardiner, but without restrictions because of building on top of a tunnel. You get a drastically simplified construction process, because you don't have to tunnel under an active freeway and surface street. You get a tunnelled expressway with improved connections to N-S surface streets, because you can rebuild the intersections as T interchanges with the highway. And on top of all of that, you get a true waterfront park that feels like a public space instead of a private promenade for the adjacent condos.
 
gweed123 said:
This whole statement is working on the assumption that the value of the recovered land from the project will offset most of, if not all of the construction cost:

If we're going to bury the Gardiner, what I would rather do is build a wall ~40m out in the harbour, dredge the area between the wall and the existing shoreline, and use that new trench for an expressway. After building the expressway, you cover the highway and you have a great new waterfront park.

You still get all of the land from the Gardiner, but without restrictions because of building on top of a tunnel. You get a drastically simplified construction process, because you don't have to tunnel under an active freeway and surface street. You get a tunnelled expressway with improved connections to N-S surface streets, because you can rebuild the intersections as T interchanges with the highway. And on top of all of that, you get a true waterfront park that feels like a public space instead of a private promenade for the adjacent condos.
Click to expand...

But you would still need to deal with the on/off ramps, and the traffic mess they would create along Queens Quay, especially with it becoming a single lane each way this year. It would also be a waste of the money spent on the current waterfront plan, as everything would need to be redone, the wave decks would no longer be useful, and all of the slips would be filled in. I'd prefer keeping the traffic where it is, than shifting it south to the Waterfront.
 
FNTS said:
New opinion piece by R. Michael Warren, on thestar.com:

Let the private sector bury the Gardiner Expressway
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...vate_sector_bury_the_gardiner_expressway.html

"Toronto should invite private sector consortiums to bid on burying Lake Shore Blvd. and the eastern section of the Gardiner Expressway (...) The winning design-build-develop consortium would be expected to finance most of the costs in return for extensive air rights over the buried section."
_____

I have to say this sounds like a very good idea, at least in principle.
Click to expand...


Better idea: Sell the entire Gardiner Expressway AND the Don Valley Parkway to the highest bidder. Maybe the 407 people will take care of it, for a price.

...not. :cool:
 
Tuscani01 said:
But you would still need to deal with the on/off ramps, and the traffic mess they would create along Queens Quay, especially with it becoming a single lane each way this year. It would also be a waste of the money spent on the current waterfront plan, as everything would need to be redone, the wave decks would no longer be useful, and all of the slips would be filled in. I'd prefer keeping the traffic where it is, than shifting it south to the Waterfront.
Click to expand...

What I would do is this:

1) Convert Simcoe & York, and Bay & Yonge into opposing one-way pairs south of Wellington. This would simplify traffic flow to and from the highway dramatically. Ottawa has a similar setup with roads feeding to and from the Queensway. You end up with 2 northbound roads feeding into downtown instead of 3 or 4.

2) North of QQ, have 3 of the lanes dip into a tunnel, while one lane continues south to QQ. This would avoid a bottleneck at QQ, and would keep it as more of a local road. The end result is the visible traffic impact would be shifted less than 100m to the south in most areas, because the access to the highway would be between Lake Shore and QQ, whereas right now it's at Lake Shore.

Completely revamping the current waterfront plan would be regrettable, but I think the new plan that would emerge as a result of a proposal like this would be far better. Imagine a 40m+ strip of green space along the entire central waterfront. That would be absolutely incredible. Losing the slips would also be mixed, but just think of the development opportunities those would present. If they're putting up 70 storey condos on leftover slivers of land around the Gardiner, imagine what could be done with those pieces of land that would be "squared in" by the expressway. Each of those properties would result in proposals that would likely rival 1 Yonge. Not only would they present amazing development opportunities, they would also go a long way to covering the cost of the project, as sites that big would sell for a mint.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top