News   Jul 12, 2024
 854     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 768     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 324     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

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.

It looks like the only way to get a grand plan for the Gardiner is to have the Province take it over. That and the DVP act as regional highways anyways - serving both 416-ers and 905-ers alike. A few Billion is not that much to the Province and they could actually build something really great. Heck, the province spent over $1B to not build something so this expense could easily be absorbed.
 
have fun getting Redpaths on board with that, and ripping out the last decade of park construction is a questionable measure as well IMO. It could be a legendary project, but I feel the difficulties bringing it forward (never mind the costs) would be too great.
 
have fun getting Redpaths on board with that, and ripping out the last decade of park construction is a questionable measure as well IMO. It could be a legendary project, but I feel the difficulties bringing it forward (never mind the costs) would be too great.

I don't think that all construction in the last decade would be all for not. The streetcar ROW along QQ would still be very useful, even more useful in fact. Places like Sherbourne Common and the new George Brown campus would still be very valid projects. It's really only projects that have direct interaction with the waterfront (refurb of piers, etc) that would be redundant. And even then, they have the opportunity to be replaced with something far grander.

Yes, this would probably be the biggest project Toronto ever has, or likely ever would, undertake. The delivery mechanism (Waterfront TO) is already there, it would just need to be given the appropriate authority and budget in order to pul it off.

The cash flow problem may be the biggest issue. In order to fund the project, a deal would need to be worked out that the properties created by the demolition of the Gardiner would be sold just as the project was starting, so that they would be in the approvals process as construction is proceeding. When construction is complete, demolition of the Gardiner would go hand in hand with site prep for development of those sites. That would really be the only way to minimize the capital impact of such a mammoth project.
 
Yes, this would probably be the biggest project Toronto ever has, or likely ever would, undertake.
It would be. And all this for only 50,000 vehicles per direction per day - which mostly have 1 person in them?

The King and Queen streetcars alone move the same number of people in a day. Imagine what transit investments you could make, and how many people that would move. You could probably move that number of people an hour, rather than per day.
 
It would be. And all this for only 50,000 vehicles per direction per day - which mostly have 1 person in them?

The King and Queen streetcars alone move the same number of people in a day. Imagine what transit investments you could make, and how many people that would move. You could probably move that number of people an hour, rather than per day.

I only support a Gardiner replacement if a significant percentage of the construction cost can be recouped through the sale of the newly-created parcels of land, and the balance generated from tolls. I don't want to see any "general funds" going into a project like this, because I feel transit is a much better public investment.

If the math works out though (land sales + reasonable tolls = covered project cost), I see no reason why this couldn't happen in tandem with transit expansion. In fact, I think it could be some great synergy with the DRL. This project as I have described it would require a significant amount of fill. Taking the fill from the subway construction and using it for the Gardiner tunnel/park would be an efficient combination, much like Montreal's Metro and Expo 67 scheme.
 
Toronto is going to be creating a metric F***ton of fill in the coming years, from scarborough, eglinton, yonge, DRL, etc. nevermind all the condos going up that would just love a cheap place to dump their fill, specifically one very close to downtown so that they don't have to ship it out to uxbridge or something.
 
Toronto is going to be creating a metric F***ton of fill in the coming years, from scarborough, eglinton, yonge, DRL, etc. nevermind all the condos going up that would just love a cheap place to dump their fill, specifically one very close to downtown so that they don't have to ship it out to uxbridge or something.

Exactly. A box 50m wide by 8km long (or however long it is between the western channel and the mouth of the Don, I don't have Google Earth handy) with at least 3m of fill on top is indeed a f***ton of fill that would be required. It would save quite a bit of money I would imagine, not having to truck that fill clear across the region, and instead dumping it a few blocks away.
 
you would probably need closer to 10m of fill to get it up to the right level, the harbour is dredged for ships so its fairly deep and "ground level" is 2ish meters above lake level, even at the shore.
 
you would probably need closer to 10m of fill to get it up to the right level, the harbour is dredged for ships so its fairly deep and "ground level" is 2ish meters above lake level, even at the shore.

That's true. The way I figure it is the tunnel through much of downtown would need to be 2 "levels" below grade. The lower level would be the thru lanes, while the upper level would be for the on and off ramps. Since it would be one-way pairs, it would be less complicated, but for NB one-ways you would still need to have the EB off ramp cross over top of the highway, while still being underground. Ditto for SB to EB on ramps.

The upper level can be pretty close to the surface, because you only have to go under QQ, and there will be nothing built on top of the tunnel, so you don't have to worry about being deeper to avoid foundations.

But yes, they would probably need fill on the bottom to bring the bottom of the tunnel up to the right level, and fill on top to allow for plants and trees to grow, and for sufficient landscaping.
 
That's true. The way I figure it is the tunnel through much of downtown would need to be 2 "levels" below grade. The lower level would be the thru lanes, while the upper level would be for the on and off ramps.
But why? I heard somewhere that you'd need a highway 20 lanes wide to carry what the subway carries.

20Lanes_Poster_big.jpg
 
The Gardiner needs to go. All of it. Not maintained, not replaced, not "improved", not tunnelled. It's not only well past it's due date, but it should never have been built at all.
 
The Gardiner needs to go. All of it. Not maintained, not replaced, not "improved", not tunnelled. It's not only well past it's due date, but it should never have been built at all.

At the very least it needs to be tunnelled. It would be crazy to just outright remove it and not provide an alternative.
 

Back
Top