Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[RedRocket191]

So how will the people traveling in from the DVP get to downtown if the Gardiner is removed? Drive down Lake Shore?

It would be replaced by a street level boulevard. Let me try to dig up some concept art. I'll update the post when I find it.

Edit:

Found it:
This document here describes the preferred option for dealing with the Gardiner Expressway. The phase being discussed in this thread is actually supposed to be the last phase of the plan, but I suppose they've changed the implementation timetable. The concept art starts on page 33, while the details of the "Great Street" option starts on page 20. Hope this helps.

In short, Lake Shore would be transformed into University Avenue. It would be wide as all heck, but at least it would have stuff on the sides.

 

[gei]

I don't know if I see this happening any time soon. The DVP/Gardiner link is a crucial and heavily used one. That supposed boulevard would get very busy very quickly - in itself creating a "barrier" of cars.

 

[unimaginative2]

This is definitely great news! I wish they'd be a bit bolder and extend the demolition to the west a bit. The section from Jarvis to the DVP is the smallest barrier. I've been walking down to the waterfront a lot recently, and it's made me realize just how hideous the Gardiner corridor really is.

The Front Street Extension right of way is perfect for running the DRL subway inexpensively on the surface.

 

[MetroMan]

I've seen some pretty sophisticated drawings from a study that the then TWRC put together. It's somewhere in my archives. RedRocket will get it first I'm sure (I'm lazy tonight ).

An avenue like Lakeshore Blvd will get you from Jarvis to the DVP. Think: Lakeshore post-Gardiner demo that was done in 2001. Traffic still flows quite well from the DVP up to Leslie as it did when the Gardiner was there.

 

[MetroMan]

Looking back at the history of the Gardiner: It actually terminated on the East at York St. Considering that the ramps are already there, it would feasible to remove the Gardiner from York to the DVP rather than from Jarvis.

Yonge St would then continue uninterrupted and the ACC's south façade would finally be seen again.

 

[nfitz]

I can't concieve of a dumber idea. Replace an elevated expressway you can walk under by a 10-lane boulevard? At Leslie it already takes 2 light cycles to cross the 7-lane cross-section of Lakeshore (with the island in the middle). Surely it is much easier to access the lake currently, than putting a massive boulevard at ground level.

And frankly, I'm really not sure how this benefits the east end. It will reduce people travelling to Queen Street East - we already know that transit is not a great option to get there, even after over 100 years of trying to get service to work.

 

[unimaginative2]

I'd take a landscaped boulevard over the Gardiner any day of the week. I can cross the Champs or Ramblas without any trouble. It's certainly a much more pleasant experience than crossing the oil-stained gravel under the Gardiner.

 

[MetroMan]

Here's a view of what a landscaped boulevard with a wide central median (for statues, gardens, fountains, etc) would look like if it were to replace the central portion of the Gardiner East from Bathurst:

 

[urbanfan89]

The hard-core anti-car part of me wants to see the entire Gardiner east of Jameson to go, and merged with Lakeshore. And for Richmond, Adelaide, York, and Simcoe to become two-way streets, and the overpass by the DVP to go.

The realist in me thinks the Gardiner between Spadina and Parliament to be demolished, and for Richmond/Adelaide to continue being an east-west funnel.

 

[urbanfan89]

Here's a view of what a landscaped boulevard with a wide central median (for statues, gardens, fountains, etc) would look like if it were to replace the central portion of the Gardiner East from Bathurst:

Give it a rest, all right? The highway/rail/pedestrian viaduct isn't happening. We aren't Dubai.

 

[whatever]

I'd second the comments that this might actually be worse from a pedestrian's point of view. Having to walk across a highway seems much more daunting than having to walk under/over one. The only way I'd be comfortable with the proposal is if they do a Richmond/Adelaide type thing, where we end up with two three lane highways separated by a block or so, so that instead of a useless grassy median in the middle you end up with space that can actually serve a use in an urbanistic sense. Even if they leave it as greenspace, but make it substantial enough greenspace that people might concievably want to go there just to enjoy it. Wide enough to support playing fields or cafes or water features, etc

 

[RedRocket191]

They say it will be comparable to crossing University at Dundas, which is manageable as she is now. What would it be like crossing University with double the traffic? That we cannot predict. At the very least, it will be a lush, green environment with on-street retail, public art and shelter from the wind, even if the traffic is a nightmare.

It'll be the best damn crosswalk on any highway in the world. That's something to be proud of

 

[MetroMan]

Give it a rest, all right? The highway/rail/pedestrian viaduct isn't happening. We aren't Dubai.

Why don't you relax? Who mentioned the viaduct? My description along with the image focuses on the new Lakeshore Blvd. that we're discussing here as a replacement of the Gardiner.

There... I cropped it out as to not confuse you:

 

[MetroMan]

I'd second the comments that this might actually be worse from a pedestrian's point of view. Having to walk across a highway seems much more daunting than having to walk under/over one. The only way I'd be comfortable with the proposal is if they do a Richmond/Adelaide type thing, where we end up with two three lane highways separated by a block or so, so that instead of a useless grassy median in the middle you end up with space that can actually serve a use in an urbanistic sense. Even if they leave it as greenspace, but make it substantial enough greenspace that people might concievably want to go there just to enjoy it. Wide enough to support playing fields or cafes or water features, etc

Seems to work (very well) here:

...and here:

...also here:

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

I wonder what the actual through travel rate is on the Gardiner?

If few people actually get on the western side of the Gardiner and travel across downtown and on to the DVP (or vice versa), one could remove the section from York to the DVP without damamging traffic patterns. If you were coming down the DVP you'd be forced off at the south end and onto Richmond, Eastern, or whatever (one could really improve traffic flow by giving new exit options). Coming west you'd be forced onto an expanded Lakeshore, which would link to the truncated DVP.

Might actually work, or at least, it might not be the nightmare that some people will claim it to be.