Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Amare]

I am going to go out on a limb and compare this situation to what is going on in the Humber Bay West area but not for the reasons people may think. The similarities between these 2 areas are pretty striking when you look at them. Humber Bay is essentially landlocked by the Gardiner and the Rail Corridor, and even if the Gardiner was removed in this area (which will never happen) and if Lake Shore was expanded, this community would continue to be landlocked and suffer from increased congestion since the rail corrider would still be blocking access to other roads. The Queensway (an 8 lane alternative to the Gardiner further north) is already congested due to the increased population and lack of alternatives.

Now take the Gardiner East. The future West Don Lands and Lower Don Lands community is already constrained by the Don River, Keating Channel, and the Rail Corridor. Remove the Gardiner, and the only access these future neighborhoods will have to downtown will be Lake Shore. If the Lake Shore gets congested (as it is in the west end) commuters from these neighborhood will have to use Cherry St, Carlaw St, or a future N-S link around the Don Valley Pkwy, in order to access Front, and Richmond (the alternatives to Lake Shore). These N-S links cannot handle increased traffic from the thousands of residents that will move into the area over the next 10-30 years, and that is fact.

If people are looking for similarities as to what may happen if the Gardiner is removed, just look at Humber Bay. But of course, the Don Lands have not been developed yet so it may not be striking obvious to some as to how these 2 areas are similar.

 

[salsa]

What about this 'hybrid' option:

Washington, DC did this with some of their circles. Absolute travesty. The underpass worked like crap, the side streets were horrible.

Looks a lot like the defunct Spadina Expressway plan. No thanks.

 

[WislaHD]

I am going to go out on a limb and compare this situation to what is going on in the Humber Bay West area but not for the reasons people may think. The similarities between these 2 areas are pretty striking when you look at them. Humber Bay is essentially landlocked by the Gardiner and the Rail Corridor, and even if the Gardiner was removed in this area (which will never happen) and if Lake Shore was expanded, this community would continue to be landlocked and suffer from increased congestion since the rail corrider would still be blocking access to other roads. The Queensway (an 8 lane alternative to the Gardiner further north) is already congested due to the increased population and lack of alternatives.

Now take the Gardiner East. The future West Don Lands and Lower Don Lands community is already constrained by the Don River, Keating Channel, and the Rail Corridor. Remove the Gardiner, and the only access these future neighborhoods will have to downtown will be Lake Shore. If the Lake Shore gets congested (as it is in the west end) commuters from these neighborhood will have to use Cherry St, Carlaw St, or a future N-S link around the Don Valley Pkwy, in order to access Front, and Richmond (the alternatives to Lake Shore). These N-S links cannot handle increased traffic from the thousands of residents that will move into the area over the next 10-30 years, and that is fact.

If people are looking for similarities as to what may happen if the Gardiner is removed, just look at Humber Bay. But of course, the Don Lands have not been developed yet so it may not be striking obvious to some as to how these 2 areas are similar.

Hmm, this is the first convincing argument I've seen from the maintain side.

Here is the counter-point I would raise however. Humber Bay Shores does not have rapid transit alternatives to driving. The Don Lands will have transit alternatives in the form of SmartTrack, various streetcars and the WELRT.

We failed massively to provide transit alternatives to Humber Bay and created essentially a car-dependent suburb in our inner city. With Waterfront Toronto's lead, I doubt we will repeat those mistakes in the Don Lands.

 

[howl]

The problem with Gardiner east of Parliament is it swings away from the railway tracks to be next to the water (actually Keating Channel). If they stayed next to the railway tracks a raised expressway would be less of an issue. The reason they swing to the waterfront is to make the curve to get under the railway tracks large enough so cars don't have to slow down. If you're going under the railway tracks you have to swing out to the water's edge. If you were to go over the railway tracks, however, you could connect with the DVP a lot further north and you could keep the Gardiner right next to the railway line until you swung up and over it. The downside of that option, besides the cost issues, is visually you are building a very high ramp around the edge of the brand new West Donland Park. You also have some high power hydro lines to work around.

 

[christiesplits]

http://codeblueto.com/

Great, thank you!

 

[aquateam]

The problem with Gardiner east of Parliament is it swings away from the railway tracks to be next to the water (actually Keating Channel). If they stayed next to the railway tracks a raised expressway would be less of an issue. The reason they swing to the waterfront is to make the curve to get under the railway tracks large enough so cars don't have to slow down. If you're going under the railway tracks you have to swing out to the water's edge. If you were to go over the railway tracks, however, you could connect with the DVP a lot further north and you could keep the Gardiner right next to the railway line until you swung up and over it. The downside of that option, besides the cost issues, is visually you are building a very high ramp around the edge of the brand new West Donland Park. You also have some high power hydro lines to work around.

Thanks, this is the clearest explanation I've seen for why the original hybrid proposal was deemed infeasible. Much better than the city staff's two bulletpoint dismissal.

 

[nfitz]

Thanks, this is the clearest explanation I've seen for why the original hybrid proposal was deemed infeasible. Much better than the city staff's two bulletpoint dismissal.

It doesn't explain though what's wrong with having a ramp you have to slow down for, when transitioning from one expressway to another. We don't build most expressway interchanges like that.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

What about this 'hybrid' option:

This looks a lot like the spadina expressway images, and so I think just based on that you will have a hard time convincing torontonians to this option.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Here's my question, if anyone can answer: Why can't we demolish the whole Gardiner?

 

[aquateam]

This looks a lot like the spadina expressway images, and so I think just based on that you will have a hard time convincing torontonians to this option.

View attachment 47505

Wow, that looks just like the Decarie Expressway in Montreal. Montreal was bequeathed some land on the condition that it stay as a streetcar line. Montreal then decided to get rid of its streetcar system and turned it into a sunken highway.

Before:

After:

 

[nfitz]

Wouldn't one of the several simlar examples in London be better comparisons? The A4 under High Park corner for example, between the Albert Memorial and Buckingham Palace.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.5041...smskx8Fh8LjCz88AVbEbUXQ!2e0!3e5!6m1!1e1?hl=en

 

[Tuscani01]

Or even a more local example... Mount Pleasant where it goes under Bloor Street. You barely even notice it while walking along Bloor.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/To...0x89d4cb90d7c63ba5:0x323555502ab4c477!6m1!1e1

And correct with the post below. There is absolutely no need for the speed on the ramp to be 90km/h:

It doesn't explain though what's wrong with having a ramp you have to slow down for, when transitioning from one expressway to another. We don't build most expressway interchanges like that.

 

[CDL.TO]

What about this 'hybrid' option:

I think there's some merit to this design. They're actually relatively common in Europe. (Such as the ones in London mentioned by Nfitz. London's got a bunch.) Though here in Amsterdam they removed one of these just a few years ago.

However, in this example it really bugs me that the "surface option" primarily has a 4 lane cross-section while the "underpass option" has a 6-8 lane cross-section. If you're offering an intersection "bypass", you shouldn't need to make it wider as well.

 

[nfitz]

Or even a more local example... Mount Pleasant where it goes under Bloor Street. You barely even notice it while walking along Bloor.

An excellent example! Perhaps Mount Pleasant and Crescent is even more comparable with the way it dives down under from both sides.

Personally, I favour remove over hybrid. Though you could have sold me on the earlier hybrid scheme that didn't unnecessarily sterilize all that land south of the new Lakeshore.

 

[Tuscani01]

An excellent example! Perhaps Mount Pleasant and Crescent is even more comparable with the way it dives down under from both sides.

Personally, I favour remove over hybrid. Though you could have sold me on the earlier hybrid scheme that didn't unnecessarily sterilize all that land south of the new Lakeshore.

Same here. The First Gulf Hybrid scheme had me sold on the idea. The existing hybrid is nothing close to being a hybrid option hence why I support removing it now. The remove option still comes with flyover ramps to the DVP, so I doubt it will be as bad as people are saying.

The only thing that bugs me about the remove option is the widened Lakeshore Blvd. If good money isn't put into making it a great space, we're going to be left with something that feels more like a surface freeway than anything. See Hurontario Street in Mississauga or Burnhamthorpe.