AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I would argue against the temptation to go cheap - we are creating a revitalized space - the ramps should be designed as iconic structures in their own right.
AoD
|
|
|
I would argue against the temptation to go cheap - we are creating a revitalized space - the ramps should be designed as iconic structures in their own right.
AoD
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Oh, I'd definitely support that idea!
But if we're going the cheap route, I hope we get something like this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6376...4!1skT0jL3qPo2aNC4GRLn0maQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Instead of something like this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6507...4!1sxCjpU_0RJgyxLhddrsMsWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
MetroMan
Senior Member
There's no reason to use any support columns at all. The Gardiner East should be rebuilt on a berm along the rail corridor as in DTAH's proposal with a developable strip of property and Lakeshore Blvd running alongside.
We'd save on hundreds of millions in maintenance for decades by not building an elevated expressway, it would be cheaper to build and we'd have property worth billions of dollars in development. Done smartly, the city can turn a profit in replacing the Gardiner.
We'd save on hundreds of millions in maintenance for decades by not building an elevated expressway, it would be cheaper to build and we'd have property worth billions of dollars in development. Done smartly, the city can turn a profit in replacing the Gardiner.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
I agree that the berm option is worth looking at, from the standpoints both of urbanism and economics. There was an idea a few years back of using the underused space on the existing berm, but that was found to be unavailable. A couple of issues will be:
- The "tunnels" some folks complain about where Jarvis, Sherbourne, and Parliament cross under would more or less double in length. That takes us back into the unresolvable "two barriers, which is worse" argument, but if you're already in an underpass and it only takes an extra 17 seconds to get out, and you don't have to walk under a hulking expressway at the other end, I don't see that as a huge problem.
- It would more or less rule out any extra development land between Yonge and Cherry, but so do the lie-brid and boulevard options. I suspect building a berm costs significantly less than a concrete structure (it's a place to put fill) and little or nothing to maintain over the years. And staging the construction would not be too challenging.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The bridge between the DVP and Gardiner (whatever the alignment for that stretch) will require a bridge. That's the bit I am proposing to turn lemon into lemonade.
AoD
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 1,926
- Location
- Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
That was my point.
Are you proposing something similar to the Queensway through downtown Ottawa? It's elevated, but it's a berm instead of with support columns.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Green Gardiner Proposal by Brook McIlroy mentioned in the Staff report (and posted in Spacing)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfsmaf1ffb056kt/BMI-GreenGardiner-2015-09-22-draft - LIGHT.pdf?dl=0
I can definitely live with this proposal - and it would be very, very interesting indeed if they tie it to Smartrack. That said, I am not convinced by the NS greenways given the amount of grade change required.
AoD
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfsmaf1ffb056kt/BMI-GreenGardiner-2015-09-22-draft - LIGHT.pdf?dl=0
I can definitely live with this proposal - and it would be very, very interesting indeed if they tie it to Smartrack. That said, I am not convinced by the NS greenways given the amount of grade change required.
AoD
Last edited:
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 1,926
- Location
- Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
I remember going on a Jane's Walk for Gardiner East, and someone was going around advocating for decking the existing Gardiner with a Beltline Trail. I dismissed it as absurd.
This, however, I could get behind. Particularly if the adjacent private development could be leveraged for some of the capital outlay.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Having said that, I am worried about adding even more height to the rail berm and the impact it would have. Think we need to model it further - the proposal to build on the north side of the berm is a little unconvincing at this point.
AoD
I can definitely live with this proposal as well. I never really bought the idea that we couldn't build the Gardiner over the rail corridor (see: I-280 leading into San Francisco), but adding new tracks AND getting a more appealing-looking Gardiner is definitely something I could get behind. I also like the fact that it would allow Lake Shore to be build at a more human scale (~6 lanes), instead of what would have in essence been an 8 lane at-grade highway.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Also interesting that they have used the Option 3 alignment for the DVP connector. Nudge nudge?
AoD
AoD
BurlOak
Senior Member
I thought that "Option 3" still had the DVP to Gardiner ramp under the rail corridor. This one has it over top of the railway.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's an issue with the crossing, not the general alignment - in terms of where the structure will stand.
AoD
AoD