Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[44 North]

When you remove an expressway in a part of the city with a grid of streets, drivers end up taking the arterial roads closest to their destination like Lake Shore, Front, Richmond, Queen, Dundas or some combination of streets. So it isn't the case that the cars on the Gardiner will end up stuck in traffic on the Lake Shore boulevard. People take the Gardiner because they perceive it to be faster even if they have to drive 3 kilometres north to their destination--the span of 3-5 major east-west streets.

They perceive the Gardiner to be faster because oftentimes it is faster for crossing the south end of the Old City. I’ve driven alternate routes during peak, counter-peak, and everything in between, and the Gardiner usually comes out on top. Even before construction wrapped up a couple weeks ago, it was a better alternative in many scenarios.

I used to be very supportive of the boulevard option – and in many ways I still am. But my views have definitely changed now that we’ve learned the City plans on selling some of the corridor to develop highrises – thus rendering this potential major thoroughfare into what will most likely evolve into a local-service Avenue.

Another thing I don’t get (separate from this issue entirely because it involves the section west of Jarvis too) is why we haven’t further explored options to improve the experience under the Gardiner. There are enhancements that can be made. But other than showing a rendering of some blue X-mas lights haphazardly strung from the girders, we don’t really know what those enhancements could be. Yesterday I read a Globe piece about improvements to an underpass in Calgary, and it’s pretty cool. Surely we could do something like that here. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...-into-thriving-public-spaces/article24283369/

Fair enough. Some of the pollution around the gardiner is from the industrial areas, but someone literally said that thousand of people will die/become ill just because a couple of stoplights are added. You also have to wonder whether downtown is really the right place to be maintaining industrial uses over the long term. Road capacity is an issue here. Industry is far more suited in the 905 where it is away from residential areas and where there's greater highway capacity and arterial roads compared to a small 6 lane freeway that is the DVP/Gardiner. Those factories have been moving out of the city for decades now but have been replaced by office development. Southcore used to be all industrial but times have changed and will continue to do so. Today it's the East Bayfront and West Don Lands that are redeveloping. Tomorrow it will be the portlands.

I think very little of the pollution around the Gardiner is from industry. My point was about the TO pollution map as a whole, and that much of it isn’t entirely from our highways. And the point about rezoning and loss of industry/manufacturing...didn’t I write something similar in a discussion we had a few mths back? Upon which you exclaimed the importance of how we should try to keep manufacturing and industrial zoning? Obviously we each haven’t done 180s, but I think it’s without question this sector of the economy has significant importance to Toronto - which we both agreed on at one point. And at the end of the day, industry in the east side of the city is definitely concerned with the Gardiner’s loss – and it’s not just those in the immediate vicinity of the highway. Clearly it’s a vital link where no others exist.

And even if we did do away with the aforementioned industries to make way for high-density downtown urban development, we simply create other industries that still rely on our road networks. Filling 1,000 acres of waterfront real estate could take half a century – with non-stop construction activity. Dump trucks, moving trucks, cement mixers..you name it. Highways into/out of the city will still be crucial during that time. Regardless, much of the planned rezoning and redevelopment of the Port Lands is still unknown. There are long-term leases for some sites, and the Prov did build a massive gas plant (which surprisingly they couldn’t do in the 905, oddly enough).

My point is that a boulevard would allow traffic to disperse onto many different streets (thank you Junctionist for trying to explain this). I count at least 20 intersections here, as opposed to just three roads for cars to get dumped on (Yonge, Sherbourne, Cherry). Note that most of these intersections are not gonna have stoplights to slow down traffic.

But prior to any dispersion there are only two areas where expwy traffic will be dumped with the Remove option – and this dumping will be substantial. Whereas with the Hybrid option there are three ramps, and the opportunity for traffic to avoid the surface network altogether.

If the DRL is not built, you should be far more worried about this city's future than a removal of this underused highway. I would be packing my bags and leaving this city, the rest of you can enjoy the gridlocked hell and daily subway meltdowns.

I believe it’s likely that the DRL won’t be built, or at least won’t be built as envisioned. I hate saying it, because I support so much. But I don't like the way things are going on the DRL front.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Sadly there is no money left over for improving the Gardiner between Yonge and the Don under the hybrid option. Continuing to call this a hybrid is essentially a convenient lie. All it amounts to is keeping the ugly thing the way it is and moving the easternmost ramps a bit to the west (where they will take up waterfront land that otherwise would have been developed). The studies have shown that only 4 lanes of it are really necessary (with the Lakeshore as is) yet there is no real mention of slimming it down. The way the thing is built, I don't think it would be that hard to tear one whole side of it off, get rid of or shorten several of the ramps, and generally reduce both its negative impacts and maintenance bills. But no one is talking about that. Why?

 

[Rainforest]

After much thinking, my preferred solution for the Gardiner is this:

Choose the "Remove" option, i.e. do not spend money on the new elevated guideway.

But, do not allow any new buildings constructed along the new 8-lane section of Lakeshore East between Gardiner and DVP. Instead, the road should be lined with grass and trees as much as possible.

IMO, a 8-lane street that connects two freeways is, functionally, a highway itself; even if it has traffic lights and a 60 kph speed limit. It can't be pedestrian friendly. Therefore, it should not be slated for intensification, but rather, surrounded by green space.

Intensification can still happen in the area; in particular, along Queen's Quay East, as well as along Lakeshore east of the Don mouth after the public transit is provided.

 

[torontologist]

IMO, a 8-lane street that connects two freeways is, functionally, a highway itself; even if it has traffic lights and a 60 kph speed limit. It can't be pedestrian friendly.

We already have a similar arrangement in University Avenue/Avenue Road. I cross it daily as a pedestrian. Yes, it's annoying, especially to get stuck in the middle and having to wait for 2 cross signals, but it's functional. There is pedestrian and commercial activity on both sides of the street. Large cities across the world have massive avenues, and they seem to do just fine fostering pedestrian activity. If the Gardiner is taken down, new condo construction in the Lower Don Lands will be built to interact with the new avenue. If it is not taken down, they will be built with their backs to the expressway and create a dead zone like parts of the western waterfront around the Gardiner.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I was going to say much the same thing. There seems to be, particularly in Ontario where the cities were laid out with very narrow streets, a notion that anything wider than King Street is a pedestrian nightmare. Um, Champs Elysées? I recall crossing 18 lanes in Moscow and living to tell the tale.

That said, if they do build the boulevard option, they'll have to do it right. A lot of driveways, "traffic calming," bicycle traffic, etc. would cause it to fail pretty quickly. One possibility would be to have buildings accessed from the side streets or even some sort of internal lane on the north side.

 

[UD2]

In principal this makes some sense.....but does it not raise the question about how much you spend on it over the next ten years? Logic would say "nothing, it's coming down anyway"....but safety logic would say "probably quite a bit as people are using it for at least the next ten years".

All roads cost money to maintain. If they do a study before the next maintenance cycle of yonge street, on remove vs maintain, I'm sure they will conclude that removing yonge street and replacing it with a pedestrian mall will cost less. Same every other street in toronto. So should we then do without roads all together?

 

[TOareaFan]

All roads cost money to maintain. If they do a study before the next maintenance cycle of yonge street, on remove vs maintain, I'm sure they will conclude that removing yonge street and replacing it with a pedestrian mall will cost less. Same every other street in toronto. So should we then do without roads all together?

err, I need help in figuring out how you took my post as advocating for the removal of all roads in favour of pedestrian malls.

All I was/am saying is that a decision has to made now on the Gardiner...it either needs investment now to keep it operational or has to be removed now or has to be replaced now. Deciding to wait 10 years to make that decision is, in fact, a decision to spend a lot on it now for the next 10 years...that, surely, decides its fate....no?

 

[UD2]

err, I need help in figuring out how you took my post as advocating for the removal of all roads in favour of pedestrian malls.

All I was/am saying is that a decision has to made now on the Gardiner...it either needs investment now to keep it operational or has to be removed now or has to be replaced now. Deciding to wait 10 years to make that decision is, in fact, a decision to spend a lot on it now for the next 10 years...that, surely, decides its fate....no?

In context to the post you were replying to, which said its ok to close the hwyway but just wait until transit has been built, it seemed like you are pointing out that it cost money to keep the road there. And the inferenced meaning I took from it was that we should get rid of it now and not spend the money.

Maybe I understood differently.

But my point wasn't that we should remove roads, it was that emphasizing the maintenance cost of a road in a maintenance vs tear down argument is not an intelligent course of action because the result of analysis will always recommend tear down because the maintenance cost of the tear down option will always be $0. So if you did the same analysis on every public infrastructure and undertook the cheapest option, we would have no infrastructure left.

 

[Rainforest]

We already have a similar arrangement in University Avenue/Avenue Road. I cross it daily as a pedestrian. Yes, it's annoying, especially to get stuck in the middle and having to wait for 2 cross signals, but it's functional. There is pedestrian and commercial activity on both sides of the street. Large cities across the world have massive avenues, and they seem to do just fine fostering pedestrian activity. If the Gardiner is taken down, new condo construction in the Lower Don Lands will be built to interact with the new avenue. If it is not taken down, they will be built with their backs to the expressway and create a dead zone like parts of the western waterfront around the Gardiner.

University Avenue has some similarities to the Lakeshore case, but it has several important differences.

First of all, it has great transit, the subway line with close stop spacing being directly underneath. Pedestrians are willing to put up with massive traffic, because the place is so easy to access. Nothing like that is being planned for the Lakeshore East boulevard; not even a median LRT line. Residents will either use a mixed-traffic bus, or walk to the next arterial (south to QQ East with LRT, or north to King).

Secondly, University is wide but it is not a direct continuation of any freeway. In the south, it is connected to Gardiner, via ramps and a rather narrow York Street rail underpass. In the north, it remains a regular street and gradually looses lanes: 8 at the widest section in downtown, 5-6 north of Bloor, down to 4-5 north of St Clair. As a result, University is quite busy but usually is not filled with bumper-to-bumper traffic for its whole length. On Lakeshore East boulevard between the two freeways, that latter might occur.

And finally, all sections of University with much pedestrian activity have very wide sidewalks, thus the pedestrians are partly separated from the traffic. I am not sure that there will be enough space for such sidewalks along the Lakeshore East boulevard.

Therefore, while I am fine with not spending money on the new elevated guideway, and routing the DVP-to-Gardiner traffic via a surface road, I'd rather treat that surface road as a highway than as a place-for-growth avenue. It's not like the city's plans for the neighborhood will be compromised by such choice; there is plenty of land in the vicinity where intensification can happen.

 

[44 North]

After much thinking, my preferred solution for the Gardiner is this:

Choose the "Remove" option, i.e. do not spend money on the new elevated guideway.

But, do not allow any new buildings constructed along the new 8-lane section of Lakeshore East between Gardiner and DVP. Instead, the road should be lined with grass and trees as much as possible.

IMO, a 8-lane street that connects two freeways is, functionally, a highway itself; even if it has traffic lights and a 60 kph speed limit. It can't be pedestrian friendly. Therefore, it should not be slated for intensification, but rather, surrounded by green space.

Intensification can still happen in the area; in particular, along Queen's Quay East, as well as along Lakeshore east of the Don mouth after the public transit is provided.

Although I'd like to see what could happen with a 3 or 4-lane Gardiner hybrid/rebuild, I'm more in agreement with your post. And up until last year, this seemed like what the plan was going to be. QQE will naturally be the showcase road, so it only makes sense to keep Lake Shore as a major at-grade thoroughfare link with no development fronting onto it.

 

[k10ery]

Like with everything you post in this thread, your claims are unsubstantiated bunk that is unsupported by evidence. ...

If the 100 year thing bothers you so much, then lets compare the upfront cost instead: $414 M for the hybrid, $342 M for maintain, $326 M for removal.

Thanks for providing the numbers to back up my "unsubstantiated bunk that is unsupported by the evidence". Tearing down the Gardiner east is no cheaper than maintaining it.

As to the rest: great use of graphics I guess, but what is your point? You are not going to will this traffic away by making it harder to use the Gardiner. You are simply going to congest the remaining expressway and its offramps, and the surrounding streets. And, yes, that will kill people, no lie.

God save us from planners who think the best way to discourage car use is to make it as inefficient as possible. Take an economics class, folks.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Thanks for providing the numbers to back up my "unsubstantiated bunk that is unsupported by the evidence". Tearing down the Gardiner east is no cheaper than maintaining it.

As to the rest: great use of graphics I guess, but what is your point? You are not going to will this traffic away by making it harder to use the Gardiner. You are simply going to congest the remaining expressway and its offramps, and the surrounding streets. And, yes, that will kill people, no lie.

God save us from planners who think the best way to discourage car use is to make it as inefficient as possible. Take an economics class, folks.

Umm... your sarcasm is worth a 25% discount? How else is $326M = $414M? And, if you get out of your car, you will stop the noxious fumes, and then people won't die. But that wasn't your point, I know. The 'people dying' meme was just a way for you to try and get back to your main point -- don't get in the way of my driving from point A to point B, because that's important to me.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Transferium

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/default/files//designideas/Remove_OMA+AMO_Booklet.pdf

Cross-posting from the 21 Don Roadway thread, 'cause it's way cool and brings some interesting ideas to the mix.

For the 'do not remove' crowd -- does OMA's arguments make any impact on you? What if their short tunnel at Distillery (so... Cherry to Parliament, I guess) was put into place?

Although SouthCore has already expanded downtown dramatically, I think a CBD hub on the east side of the Don would be a dramatic, positive makeover for Toronto, and would really allow the full Waterfront Toronto vision unfold.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Bedford and Greenberg weigh in, via the Star

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...eed-to-tear-down-the-gardiner-expressway.html

The 'removers' also like to add up their dollar estimate numbers to make things sound better. Other than the most-likely-inflated '$500-700M that could be used for other things' argument (you'll start on the TCHC repairs with DCF from 2115, lads?), this is a pretty compelling argument.

Therefore, council will stick a fork in it. My hopes will remain pinned on First Gulf / OMA convincing the right wing that they can bring in an extra tonne of tax revenues from the shiny new office buildings, and convincing Tory that this will fast-track the eastern portion of his SmarTrack.

 

[bobbob911]

Umm... your sarcasm is worth a 25% discount? How else is $326M = $414M? And, if you get out of your car, you will stop the noxious fumes, and then people won't die. But that wasn't your point, I know. The 'people dying' meme was just a way for you to try and get back to your main point -- don't get in the way of my driving from point A to point B, because that's important to me.

Umm - its $342MM for maintain, $326MM for teardown. A difference of $16MM which is certainly in the margin of error for these estimates.

Even the $88MM spread for the hybrid option is a trivial amount over the financing term that would be used to do this construction (at least 30 years like the scarborough subway - possibly 50)