Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm not sure what you mean, there's no need to dredge or realign the river. By "ecosystem of the Don" I meant the Don ravine, not the Don river. Should have phrased that better.

In some places it is tight, where they would only be able to add 2 lanes instead of 4.

Interesting historical footnote, the Don River actually was realigned in the 19th century.

1. You have to widen the DVP over the hill south of Don Mills and beside the Don channel south of Riverdale Park to accommodate that many extra lanes, and you need to build a berm for flooding at the soap plant. Where do you put the Don to add lanes to the DVP?

2. It's not a historical footnote, it's the whole reason for this conversation, WT, and our ongoing battle between visions on this project.

 

[Electrify]

Just wondering, has any city regretted taking down their inner city highway, or has it caused more harm than good?

There are a number of factors which leads me to believe that Toronto is a "special case," but in fairness, I'm sure all the other cities which ended up removing them also claimed "special circumstances" before their destruction as well.

 

[WislaHD]

Just wondering, has any city regretted taking down their inner city highway, or has it caused more harm than good?

There are a number of factors which leads me to believe that Toronto is a "special case," but in fairness, I'm sure all the other cities which ended up removing them also claimed "special circumstances" before their destruction as well.

Dallas and Houstan are both looking to remove inner city highways. It would be interesting to see if highway proponents there use similar reasonings as to why they cant possibly remove their highways.

 

[ssiguy2]

True, I thought those numbers for GO seemed pretty low. For me the peak hour AM volume is less of a big deal anyway, it's those weekday/weekend afternoons that seem to be the worst for some reason. The combination of commuters plus leisure travelers seems to have a worse impact on traffic even though the volume numbers are lower. Perhaps volumes are lower because the cars can't get through the traffic cordon!

If/when GO RER is actually up and running and the DRL is built I'd be much more likely to support removal because more people (i.e., me) will actually have palatable options for getting around the region, but I'm skeptical that either of those will actually get built as currently proposed. As it stands now occasional travelers have little incentive to take alternatives since TTC is too slow and GO is too expensive (and sometimes too slow as well). Maybe we do "hybrid" and in 30 years we'll be having this discussion again...

This is exactly that was I was saying earlier.

if there was already a viable alternative available {like in SF BART when they tore down the Emberraco Exp} then Torontonians may be more receptive to a total teardown but there is no alternative. There are promises of RER, Smart Track and LRT but Torontonians can be forgiven for taking those promises with a grain of salt as they are use to grand transit schemes being announced every few years only to have those studies and plans collect dust in a filing cabinet.

 

[k10ery]

k10ery just makes things up on occasion, I think for 'fun trolling' reasons. IIRC, he/she also had a lot of fun presenting the NPV data as 'essentially the same' when the 'keep the elevated' option was 30%ish more, because NPVing the data compressed the absolute numbers to an $80Mish difference.

Riverdale Rink Rat, I do not mind you saying "fun trolling". Indeed that is probably right.

But in my world claiming I make things up - that's fighting words. Please find an example of this or withdraw the statement. I of course draw conclusions form the facts that you may not like. I may occasionally make mistakes. I do not lie. Please acknowledge this.

 

[k10ery]

Bolding mine. This statement is incorrect. Relevant points from this (National Post) article:

There is definitely an exaggeration by extending the period to 100 years, but the "hybrid" option still costs more because it is basically a full reconstruction of the elevated road whereas the rebuilding portion of the removal option would be at ground level.

If you want to be authoritative read the documents, not the National Post. Read my earlier posts, particular on net present value. I am referring to the maintain option, not the hybrid option.

Would you mind posting your source for the 110,000 people per day? The above mentioned article has very different numbers:

Either your source, or the source in the article are very wrong.

The article has a typo. They meant 5,000 per hour (peak AM volume). I have no idea where that 6 figure exaggerated lie comes from, unless some people think it's morning rush hour 24 hours a day.

That "6 figure exaggerated lie" is the AADT for the Gardiner East. Check out page 12; Gardiner East carries more traffic than GO Lakeshore West or East, possibly more than both combined.

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...diner East Public Forum #1 - Presentation.pdf

Here's a more detailed document than what DDA posted.

www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-79902.pdf

Yes, the "exaggerated lie" is the city's own data, and it comes from a city planning report. salsa, the 5000 peak hour figure is per direction, and as planners have long told us Gardiner traffic loads stay pretty much the same all day now.

Of course in their current documents and media releases the emphasize the 5000 figure because it suits their purposes. But of course it's not very relevant. We're talking about demolishing the Gardiner all day right? Not just between 7 and 8 am.

Seems like the city's chief planner, Jen Keesmaat, has come out in favour of the remove option.

You don't say! lol

 

[howl]

I think a lot of people see the removal of any highway as a "war on the car" and are therefore against the removal in principle even though they never use that piece of road.

The fact is most people arriving or leaving the downtown core use Richmond/Adelaide or Spadina/York. The majority of people using the section of the Gardiner between Yonge and the DVP are going between southern Etobicoke and southern Scarborough (or High Park and the Beaches). It's convenient for them, but its not something 99.9% of drivers in Toronto would ever miss. Removing it certainly wouldn't cause traffic chaos in the city as the alarmists would have us believe. It might cause a bit more traffic on the 401, but it would probably reduce traffic on the remaining Gardiner and DVP.

 

[WislaHD]

This is exactly that was I was saying earlier.

if there was already a viable alternative available {like in SF BART when they tore down the Emberraco Exp} then Torontonians may be more receptive to a total teardown but there is no alternative. There are promises of RER, Smart Track and LRT but Torontonians can be forgiven for taking those promises with a grain of salt as they are use to grand transit schemes being announced every few years only to have those studies and plans collect dust in a filing cabinet.

So we are effectively stuck in this circle where we can't remove the Gardiner because there are no alternatives and there are no alternatives because we are busy maintaining the Gardiner?

 

[sixrings]

So we are effectively stuck in this circle where we can't remove the Gardiner because there are no alternatives and there are no alternatives because we are busy maintaining the Gardiner?

To some people YES. Plus some people want us to make a 100 yer commitment to a hybrid option just to tear it down in 30 yrs? Also when will transit ever be more "palatable" than a personal vehicle. I love transit but if time is equal and money isn't a problem I am almost always going to choose my own car. This is why we need to encourage people to leave their cars at home (because the streets aren't getting any bigger) . It isn't a war on car like some people think. Ironically this hybrid option which is for car drivers may in fact incense car drivers by starting tolls on our highways. If anyone thinks that they are going to incorporate tolls for this little section but avoid the 427, the rest of the Gardiner, the Allen, and the DVP they are wrong. If anyone thinks somehow only 905ers will pay tolls they are also wrong. How "palatable" will that be?! This discussion makes me feel like Im in the sequel to Roger Rabbit and we are actually living in Toon Town.

 

[pman]

So we are effectively stuck in this circle where we can't remove the Gardiner because there are no alternatives and there are no alternatives because we are busy maintaining the Gardiner?

Nice summary of City Council's insanity.

 

[44 North]

I think a lot of people see the removal of any highway as a "war on the car" and are therefore against the removal in principle even though they never use that piece of road.

And I believe this is a problem for both sides of the debate. The role of the expressway isn't just for single occupant commuters, and nor are all single occupant commuters like Rob Ford or DMW. Any of the photos of the eastern Gardiner, count how many trucks there are. It's not insignificant. It is part of our economy. We take this grade-separated piece of infrastructure down, these trucks will be on our surface roads. Nobody is happy when that happens.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The 8 lane boulevard would have more lanes than the current Lakeshore, but in a narrower overall package because it wouldn't have to wander around columns, ramps, etc.

The faux-hybrid Gardiner could be narrowed to 4 lanes, but that isn't what's on the table. It's clearly stated that it would be status quo west of Cherry. To "improve" it would be even more money.

 

[pman]

And I believe this is a problem for both sides of the debate. The role of the expressway isn't just for single occupant commuters, and nor are all single occupant commuters like Rob Ford or DMW. Any of the photos of the eastern Gardiner, count how many trucks there are. It's not insignificant. It is part of our economy. We take this grade-separated piece of infrastructure down, these trucks will be on our surface roads. Nobody is happy when that happens.

When the trucks come off the Gardiner they end up on our non-grade-separated roads anyway. The remove option encompasses a couple kilometres so it's not exactly going to produce a truck apocalypse on the area's streets.

 

[WislaHD]

And I believe this is a problem for both sides of the debate. The role of the expressway isn't just for single occupant commuters, and nor are all single occupant commuters like Rob Ford or DMW. Any of the photos of the eastern Gardiner, count how many trucks there are. It's not insignificant. It is part of our economy. We take this grade-separated piece of infrastructure down, these trucks will be on our surface roads. Nobody is happy when that happens.

Trucks are not going to transfer on to King or Front like some highway proponents on here suggest. Why would they go through 12 stoplights in the core when they can go through just 4 on Lakeshore?

Why exactly would trucks be so inconvenienced on an 8-lane Lakeshore Boulevard anyway? Trucks already use the more congested and stoplight filled 5-lane Eglinton and Steeles Avenues as major cross-town thoroughfares with little issue. And need I remind you we aren't talking about removing the entire Gardiner here, just the portion between Jarvis and the Don, a piece of road that moves very quickly and will likely still move rather rapidly as a boulevard.

 

[44 North]

For sure, you guys are both right. But I'm of the opinon that the more trucks and heavy vehicles (or any motorized vehicles for that matter) we get off our streets, the better. I'm very much in favour of pedestrian-friendly streets, which is the entire reason I think it's important to have infrastructure allowing for grade-separate alternatives.