Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[AlvinofDiaspar]

ahrvojic:

I don't recall that either, but then your solution is to let the completely interdependent cities of the GTA continue to uselessly struggle against each other out of spite?

No, but within the context of this debate, I believe the needs of the motorists have been dealt with, considering the financial and urban planning cost of inaction regarding the Gardiner.

Tearing down the Gardiner from Spadina may not seem like much, but seemingly small changes or events can be greatly amplified when tinkering with complex networks such as a city's transportation grid and that's why it isn't (or shouldn't be) as straightforward as it may seem.

Which is why the range of proposed changes had been subjected to traffic modelling to death already, on multiple occasions. The system is complex, but it isn't beyond comprehension or analysis. Quite frankly, such an argument is less about straightforwardness or otherwise of such a project than maitenance of the status quo.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

cacruden:

The economics of such a scenario might not even exist for 20 years; in the meantime the cost of tearing down the Gardiner increases every year. Waiting for a private sector white knight to come along might sound appealing, but in the end I suspect it just lead to nothing getting done.

AoD

 

[cacruden]

^ I am not saying wait.

I am saying that the government should make maximum use of that land -- and only allow development along the subway -- that maximizes density (excluding any parks, etc.).

There is sufficient density along King Street, and the fact that a subway runs underneath it.... to make that land ideal for hi-density. Make it a condition of the package (i.e. no Nimbies allowed :rollin ).

The land will be developed, and fairly quickly -- but it will not be able to be done all at the same time. But of course the construction will not be done overnight either....

Usually the government provides funding for subways -- and that is the number used to justify it. The government also sells of crown land sometimes -- but it does not bundle the two together -- and thus the justification for the cost is based only on one side of the ledger. As a complete package, the actual cost difference would be more able to justify such a project.

 

[dashingdan]

Alvin usually I agree with you, but I guess on this issue I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. A ten-lane road just doesn't strike me as an ideal replacement to the Gardiner. That's like replacing the Gardiner with Hurontario Street at its widest stretches (or is it worse?). I think an expressway tunnel with a maybe 6-lane at-grade boulevard would be ideal. Who wants to cross a ten-lane road? I don't think anyone enjoys crossing a street like Hurontario Street.

That said, I would still miss the view of the skyline coming in on the Gardiner (on the bus, I don't drive downtown btw). My main concern is how much longer the GO bus would take to get to Union, which would probably exceed the amount of time added to a passenger car, since buses seem to move slower than cars, especially when NOT on an expressway.

 

[doady]

Aren't they considering adding tolls at all? That way, money would not be an issue at all and they can just replace the Gardiner with a tunnel.

 

[dashingdan]

Tolls would be a good idea. I think they should tunnel a subway as well though.

 

[cacruden]

Question:

Assuming they were to build the tunnel, is there room near the tracks to tunnel for cars/trains/subway?

I am guessing that they would not want to close the Gardiner during the building of the tunnelling.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I have to agree with others that making the most of the resulting chaos that is going to occur regardless of what replaces the Gardiner makes a lot of sense. And I do like the idea of exploring some kind of tunnel for subway/transit purposes. One question I do have, that perhaps someone may know, is, would putting in a tunnel for passenger rail service (GO, VIA, rail links, etc) be possible? It might be one way to seperate passenger and freight traffic as it moves into the downtown area and dramatically modernize passenger rail service.

I have never really been a supporter of tearing down the Gardiner. For the most part it was rather benign and didn't really detract all that much from the waterfront, which was for quick sometime, mostly just industrial waste. But now that development has really started to take off it seems like an appropriate time. Also, the tragedy in Laval with the overpass collapse has really changed my opinion too. A structure as old as the Gardiner is to a certain extent, an accident waiting too happen. It might not be in the form of a collapse of an entire section of roadway, instead taking the form of smaller accidents like chunks of concrete falling or barriers failing to keep cars on the elevated roadway.

What thing also occured to me. The same people who are calling to save the Gardiner are also the same people who would scream and claim that the city should have replaced the Gardiner if an accident like that in Laval ever took place on it. And hopefully there is never a chance to prove my assumption true or false.

 

[adma]

*Have* there ever been any fatal falling-chunks-of-concrete accidents involving the Gardiner? (Just asking--because if any such thing happens now, it'll surely seal the fate, much as a 1973 collapse sealed the fate of the West Side Highway in Manhattan...)

 

[prometheus the supremo]

i say tear it down. all these years bickering on what to do with it, wasting soo much time talking about. once it is gone, the city can move on to more important issues. besides, the scrap metal and concrete rubble alone is probably worth millions of dollars. from a monetary point of view, it's worth it to tear it down. just rebuilt in a positive way is all i ask.

 

[bizorky]

Usually the government provides funding for subways -- and that is the number used to justify it. The government also sells of crown land sometimes -- but it does not bundle the two together -- and thus the justification for the cost is based only on one side of the ledger. As a complete package, the actual cost difference would be more able to justify such a project.

I think I see what you are getting at. I would agree that such an approach is more aggressive than the standard way of dealing with the Gardiner. The project becomes more appealing when more is thrown into the mix.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

bizorky:

AND less likely to happen, with competing interests, visions and funding sources. It'd be the perfect way to make sure nothing ever happen. Involving the TTC as a funding source, for example, will probably necessitate the province and the feds a voice in the matter and potentially give them the power to veto the project. (remember the fine funding mess that is the first opera house?)

The important thing is - changes to the Gardiner ROW doesn't have to happen all at once. As long as it remains in the public domain and planned with enough foresight, options like subway and underground roadways can remain on the table.

AoD

 

[Oliver Tweed]

Okay, I've overcome my skepticism and decided that razing the Gardiner is absolutely and without a doubt, completely necessary.

I drive the Gardiner every day in the middle of rush hour because I live in southeast Etobicoke and work in Don Mills. I would love not to drive to work, but the best transit option is AWFUL (I've done it) and it makes me embarassed to be a Torontonian because it's the best we have and we think our transit system is good. It's not. That's another topic though.

My point is that despite the inevitable delays, the Gardiner must come down.

Next time you drive it, imagine it wasn't there and imagine how the whole city would open up. It would be truly magnificent compared to what's there now. The lake would instantly connect to downtown, and all the development that exists now will be tied into the rest of the city. This includes the CNE, all the condos by the lake, the parks, Martin Goodman trail, Ontario Place, and so on.

This needs to happen, folks. It would be the most significant catalyst for a renewed waterfront possible. It would turn the tide of public opinion if people saw what the waterfront looks like without that huge eyesore. People need to see to believe! It's human nature!!!!

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

The important thing is - changes to the Gardiner ROW doesn't have to happen all at once. As long as it remains in the public domain and planned with enough foresight, options like subway and underground roadways can remain on the table.

I can't say that I agree with that point AoD. This is not a right of way that is in the middle of forested areas or an old railroad corridor that can just sit vacant for years with little effect on the surrounding areas. This is downtown Toronto and with development pressures, costs, politics, and logistics that if some portion of the project is not included in an intitial project, for example, a subway or transit line tunnel, then it is going to have to face the same hurdles being faced now all over again and who is too say that a single city government strapped for cash might not sell off valueable in order to raise some quick funds.

If you look at the planning and work that a project involving dismantling the Gardiner, rebuilding Lakeshore, and building a tunnel underneath for vehicular traffic and for transit traffic, would require, it is enormous. It would not be unrealistic to expect that the entire project could take in the neighborhood of a decade to complete (even under best of circumstances 7 or 8 years would probably be the shortest time). And that is not including all the pre planning. With projects this large it only makes sense that everything be planned simaultaneously so from a logistical point of view and from the point of view of the impact on the city (residents, commuters, tourists, businesses, etc) it can be managed in way that will least inconvenience people.

Another way to look at it is this; if the Gardiner is a barrier now, how much of a barrier will that corridor be if it is under constant construction for decades? The sooner it's all done and over with, the sooner the area can return to normal and the sooner it can begin to develop around its new surroundings.

And yes, politically it might be harder to sell the mega project at first. But it makes more sense to fight one really tough political fight to get everything underway than too have to fight almost equally as difficult political fights every 5 or 10 years every time you want to start a new phase of the project.

Edit: And as Oliver has mentioned, transit options, that may be perfectly accomodated for while the Gardiner is being torn down, are not something that can really wait 10 or 15 years. They need to be dealt with today. Whether you use the corridor for temporary transit and rail so that upgrades can be done to rail corridor, or use the Gardiner corridor for an entirely new transit corridor, or whatever other ideas people have, transit really cannot wait.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Antiloop:

I can't say that I agree with that point AoD. This is not a right of way that is in the middle of forested areas or an old railroad corridor that can just sit vacant for years with little effect on the surrounding areas. This is downtown Toronto and with development pressures, costs, politics, and logistics that if some portion of the project is not included in an intitial project, for example, a subway or transit line tunnel, then it is going to have to face the same hurdles being faced now all over again and who is too say that a single city government strapped for cash might not sell off valueable in order to raise some quick funds.

Except that the blocks suitable for development is periperial to the ROW, and not the ROW itself - which can't be sold simply because the space has to be there for the roadway.

If you look at the planning and work that a project involving dismantling the Gardiner, rebuilding Lakeshore, and building a tunnel underneath for vehicular traffic and for transit traffic, would require, it is enormous. It would not be unrealistic to expect that the entire project could take in the neighborhood of a decade to complete (even under best of circumstances 7 or 8 years would probably be the shortest time). And that is not including all the pre planning. With projects this large it only makes sense that everything be planned simaultaneously so from a logistical point of view and from the point of view of the impact on the city (residents, commuters, tourists, businesses, etc) it can be managed in way that will least inconvenience people.

I don't disagree with this view - in the perfect world, that's what should happen. However, if I am forced to choose between a scheme that could see the expressway torn down, and one that promises the world but have little chance of going forward, I will take the former first.

Another way to look at it is this; if the Gardiner is a barrier now, how much of a barrier will that corridor be if it is under constant construction for decades? The sooner it's all done and over with, the sooner the area can return to normal and the sooner it can begin to develop around its new surroundings.

Depending on the construction methods chosen, the negative impacts can be minimized - and this concern is still predicated upon the assumption that one go ahead with the whole project.

And yes, politically it might be harder to sell the mega project at first. But it makes more sense to fight one really tough political fight to get everything underway than too have to fight almost equally as difficult political fights every 5 or 10 years every time you want to start a new phase of the project.

I'd argue that politically it is close to impossible to sell the megaproject, and I believe the issue is far too important to put all the eggs in one basket.

AoD