Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[WislaHD]

Map version of the plan that I described a few days ago.

I've never seen this idea before. I'm against a tunneled expressway in the current location of the Gardiner, but I never considered under the lake.

How technically feasible/expansive would this be?

 

[gweed123]

I've never seen this idea before. I'm against a tunneled expressway in the current location of the Gardiner, but I never considered under the lake.

How technically feasible/expansive would this be?

Technically only the western part of it would be "under the lake", the rest of it would be inside of a new strip of land built in front of the current harbourfront. The strip would become park land, and the current location of the slips would be opened up for development, as would all of the former Gardiner alignment that wouldn't be taken up by Lake Shore.

As for feasibility, the trickiest part would be the western end where it needs to go under the lake, because that would need to be tunnelled. I would imagine a similar setup to the I-90 tunnel under Boston Harbor would need to be employed. Another tricky part would be the ramps leading up to the streets (surfacing somewhere between Queen's Quay and Lake Shore), and the reconfiguration of York and Simcoe into opposing one-ways, as basically an extension of University Ave.

The central section would be constructed by building a giant shoring wall 50-60m from the current harbour edge, draining it, building a concrete base for the highway (think massive cut and cover trench), building a roof overtop, and then putting dirt on top of that.

 

[BMO]

Map version of the plan that I described a few days ago.

This is my favourite option so far. Would prefer it hook up to the existing Gardner that is in a trench behind the EX and just build some ventilation with greenspace on top of the trench instead of having a grade separated highway separating ontario place and the Ex.

I would also add building greenspace over the railway tracks between Front St and Bremner between the CN Tower and Liberty Village, with ventilation for the trains obviously.

 

[ssiguy2]

Not that I particularily agree with the proposal but who cares what the people at CityPlace think?

Anyone stupid enough to buy a condo sandwiched between the busiest rail corridor in the country and an elevated expressway that carries upwards of 200,000 vehicles a day cannot bitch. This is a new development and they knew what they were buying and where it was. That's like people who buy near an airport and then complain about a new runway.

 

[ssiguy2]

Meant to ask............Where do all the potential mayors {including Ford} stand on the issue of the Gardiner?

Even those who think it's just fine the way it is will still have to state how they are going to come up with the money to fix it. That's the one good thing about the Gardiner being ready to fall over...the city can't keep pushing the issue down the road to the next election or council. The time for talk really is at an end as there is no time to lose before they will have to shut it down due to safety concerns.

 

[gweed123]

This is my favourite option so far. Would prefer it hook up to the existing Gardner that is in a trench behind the EX and just build some ventilation with greenspace on top of the trench instead of having a grade separated highway separating ontario place and the Ex.

I would also add building greenspace over the railway tracks between Front St and Bremner between the CN Tower and Liberty Village, with ventilation for the trains obviously.

I was thinking perhaps for the section through the Ex put the Gardiner on a lower level, and a landscaped Lake Shore Blvd on the upper level. I agree that it may form a barrier between the Ex and Ontario Place, but unfortunately there aren't very many other options to connect the current Gardiner to the Harbourfront.

And yes, decking over the rail corridor would be a great addition of green space, but I think that's a separate project. And unfortunately, unlike the green space that my proposal would create, decking over the rail corridor doesn't a) open up any new development land, b) doesn't improve the transportation infrastructure. It would be cosmetic.

 

[junctionist]

Downtown needs people to remain vital, but the Gardiner isn't even needed any more. Electrified GO transit and the DRL will make getting downtown fast and easy for hundreds of thousands of people. Educated and affluent people are moving downtown who can work there and spend money there. There's no need to invest billions in transit and then spend billions on a replacement expressway. No expressway = easy $avings. Everything will work out fine.

 

[Grimace]

Not that I particularily agree with the proposal but who cares what the people at CityPlace think?

Anyone stupid enough to buy a condo sandwiched between the busiest rail corridor in the country and an elevated expressway that carries upwards of 200,000 vehicles a day cannot bitch. This is a new development and they knew what they were buying and where it was. That's like people who buy near an airport and then complain about a new runway.

I'm so tired of these arguments. The City gave approval for Cityplace to be built, it should work actively to make it as liveable a community as possible. This does not mean that affected residents have a veto over necessary infrastructure but the idea that a road, railway or airport is entitled to make an area miserable for residents just because residents happen to have bought next to them creates all the wrong incentives to improve infrastructure in a way that improves rather than detracts from the liveability of the city.

 

[gweed123]

Downtown needs people to remain vital, but the Gardiner isn't even needed any more. Electrified GO transit and the DRL will make getting downtown fast and easy for hundreds of thousands of people. Educated and affluent people are moving downtown who can work there and spend money there. There's no need to invest billions in transit and then spend billions on a replacement expressway. No expressway = easy $avings. Everything will work out fine.

I still don't understand why it needs to be an either/or thing though. Your view is predicated on the fact that there will only be enough money to do one or the other, when in reality if the sale of the Gardiner lands and tolls placed on the new highway can cover the cost of the project, it really isn't an either/or, is it? It can be both.

 

[dunkalunk]

I still have to wonder... I can't wrap my head around how it would be technically feasible to tunnel under an active expressway, especially now that all of the development at CityPlace has gone up. We've missed the opportunity to reasonably do so, the space doesn't exist anymore. Unless I'm missing something, the Gardiner will need to be torn down if it is to be tunneled along the same corridor. There will need to be a lot of additional transportation infrastructure that would need to be in place to make a teardown or tunneled replacement possible without bringing the city to a standstill.

Granted, the $8-12 billion investment in alternate transportation is needed. That's for improved/electrified GO service, full DRL, and Waterfront West LRT and potentially the Lakeshore GO Tunnel/Lower Union Platform. (I'm probably underestimating here)

It is going to take at minimum 15 years to build all of that, although realistically closer to 20. In those 15 years I don't expect much to happen to the Gardiner west of Jarvis apart from potentially eliminating the York/Bay/Yonge ramps. It currently plays too critical a role to shut down for 5 years.

After those 15 years are up and demand is shifted to other modes, will Toronto even need the full width of the Gardiner running through Downtown anymore?

 

[junctionist]

I still don't understand why it needs to be an either/or thing though. Your view is predicated on the fact that there will only be enough money to do one or the other, when in reality if the sale of the Gardiner lands and tolls placed on the new highway can cover the cost of the project, it really isn't an either/or, is it? It can be both.

It's not needed with all the investment in transit and it doesn't make the city a better place, so we should save money by not replacing it with another expressway.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Bottom line is you have to get this right!!

 

[nfitz]

I take the GO bus daily off of the DVP, it uses the gardiner. Exits at Yonge and goes on lakeshore to bay, turns up bay. Coming out, it either loops down to queens quay and back around to bay to take the bay on ramp, or loops around queens quay to get to the Jarvis on ramp.

Yes, it has to doesn't it. How else would be it heading northbound on Bay south of Front, which is only way to enter terminal.

I was referring to the old GO Terminal.

 

[Mulder]

I still have to wonder... I can't wrap my head around how it would be technically feasible to tunnel under an active expressway, especially now that all of the development at CityPlace has gone up. We've missed the opportunity to reasonably do so, the space doesn't exist anymore. Unless I'm missing something, the Gardiner will need to be torn down if it is to be tunneled along the same corridor. There will need to be a lot of additional transportation infrastructure that would need to be in place to make a teardown or tunneled replacement possible without bringing the city to a standstill.

Granted, the $8-12 billion investment in alternate transportation is needed. That's for improved/electrified GO service, full DRL, and Waterfront West LRT and potentially the Lakeshore GO Tunnel/Lower Union Platform. (I'm probably underestimating here)

It is going to take at minimum 15 years to build all of that, although realistically closer to 20. In those 15 years I don't expect much to happen to the Gardiner west of Jarvis apart from potentially eliminating the York/Bay/Yonge ramps. It currently plays too critical a role to shut down for 5 years.

After those 15 years are up and demand is shifted to other modes, will Toronto even need the full width of the Gardiner running through Downtown anymore?

Anything is technically feasible if you throw $$ at it. Look at Seattle's tunneling. They are tunnel boring under downtown. Tunneling under the Gardiner would be much easier because of the spacing of the foundations. They won't exactly be tunnel boring 1-2 m under the surface either. Most likely they will be tunneling in the bedrock which would be even less likely to disturb existing foundations for the Gardiner.

 

[Electrify]

Before a final call is made, we should close the stretch in question down for a period of time, from a week to a month, to see once and for all what not having a Gardiner would be like on our transportation network. While it might not provide an exact prediction as Lake Shore would be widened and (hopefully) we would have better transit, it would give us an idea of just how prepared the current road and transit infrastructure is to handle the removal of this highway section.