Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[000]

Less lanes, less expensive! If the downtown stretch could be reduced to 2 lanes ea way that's standard TBM diameter size and it would save a lot of money on boring.

Spadina to Sherbourne is 2.3km. Also, the current configuration is not 6 lanes, since it's double-decked with Lakeshore underneath, there's 12 lanes.

 

[dunkalunk]

I can't see a demolition without replacement of the Gardiner happening until happening until sufficient transit is in place to pick up the slack. This means a DRL, Waterfront LRT, and potentially an electrified GO Rail tunnel. I'm sure ramps to connect (or terminate) the Gardiner at Front Street couldn't hurt either.

Ultimately, the more capacity you give a highway corridor, the worse traffic will be on the surrounding local streets. If you can discourage people from entering downtown by charging a parking levy or highway toll, or by reducing road capacity, and if you provide them reasonable alternatives (frequent train service) you will see less need to widen roads at street level.

 

[BMO]

I can't see a demolition without replacement of the Gardiner happening until happening until sufficient transit is in place to pick up the slack. This means a DRL, Waterfront LRT, and potentially an electrified GO Rail tunnel. I'm sure ramps to connect (or terminate) the Gardiner at Front Street couldn't hurt either.

Ultimately, the more capacity you give a highway corridor, the worse traffic will be on the surrounding local streets. If you can discourage people from entering downtown by charging a parking levy or highway toll, or by reducing road capacity, and if you provide them reasonable alternatives (frequent train service) you will see less need to widen roads at street level.

I don't think this is about improving capacity, it's more about maintaining what little capacity we currently have while replacing an againg piece of infrastructure that is unsafe and unsightly. Building an underground tunnel, or whatnot will not increase capacity, but it will significantly improve the aesthetics of the area and can be leveraged to provide significant transit improvements if a subway or other rapid transit is bundled with the highway digging.

 

[sixrings]

I don't think this is about improving capacity, it's more about maintaining what little capacity we currently have while replacing an againg piece of infrastructure that is unsafe and unsightly. Building an underground tunnel, or whatnot will not increase capacity, but it will significantly improve the aesthetics of the area and can be leveraged to provide significant transit improvements if a subway or other rapid transit is bundled with the highway digging.

First of all this Tunnel would be a fortune... Give me an estimate? 20 Billion? You could build two DRLS for that price. Second of all you could not use this tunnel as a possible subway location because it would be way to far south of where the line needs to go. This is a far stretch from wellington yet alone queen street. I would rather build for about the same amount of money a DRL and a Queen line.

 

[000]

If the only issue was pedestrian safety they could build pedestrian tunnels at every intersection for a lot less.

I think the rail corridor is close enough to the core to justify a DRL and expressway. Front to Queen is only a 10 minute walk and from Union you can do it all without leaving indoors.

 

[TOareaFan]

i like the underground tunnel idea...seems to get the best of all worlds in...i say do that if the cost is reasonable

Is there a definition of "reasonable cost"?

 

[sixrings]

Is there a definition of "reasonable cost"?

The report also costs out two more extensive options that would have the subway line continue north and east from Pape station, linking with the planned Crosstown light-rail line at Eglinton Avenue and Don Mills Road. Under one scenario, the line would serve the east end only beginning at St. Andrew and would cost $5.5-billion. A line that begins at Dundas West and runs south through the downtown and then northeast to end at Eglinton and Don Mills is estimated to cost $8.3-billion. FROM THE GLOBE

If the Dig costs more than 8.3 Billion I think its a waste. Im curious since Gweed is typically a transit advocate how he is justifying this? Especially since he always condemns Toronto for wanting the luxury of a LRT when a BRT can do the job for less. Could a boulevard not do the same for less? Is this really the best use of our money?

 

[TOareaFan]

The report also costs out two more extensive options that would have the subway line continue north and east from Pape station, linking with the planned Crosstown light-rail line at Eglinton Avenue and Don Mills Road. Under one scenario, the line would serve the east end only beginning at St. Andrew and would cost $5.5-billion. A line that begins at Dundas West and runs south through the downtown and then northeast to end at Eglinton and Don Mills is estimated to cost $8.3-billion. FROM THE GLOBE

If the Dig costs more than 8.3 Billion I think its a waste. Im curious since Gweed is typically a transit advocate how he is justifying this? Especially since he always condemns Toronto for wanting the luxury of a LRT when a BRT can do the job for less. Could a boulevard not do the same for less? Is this really the best use of our money?

Thanks for that.....wasn't really the point of my question though. I have a bit of a pet peeve of statements people make of "we should do 'X' as long as the cost is reasonable"......I think the people who plan/build these things have to deal with a lot more than just that sort of generality.

As for your costing....I am pretty sure that this is not a popular opinion but I really don't think the DRL and the Gardiner are serving the same constituency.....particularly as it relates to the west end of the Gardiner. I am sure there is some "overlap" but I would bet that a great deal of the people suffering along the Gardiner in the west end would see little/no value in a subway to Dundas West.....and those that would could be served earlier and cheaper by a quicker move to 15 minute trains on the GO line that goes to Bloor and improvements to the link between that GO station and the Dundas West Subway.

A better cost comparison (again, for the western end of the Gardiner) is what would it cost to beef up the 3 GO lines to a point that a significant number of those people saw fit to move out of their cars.

 

[sixrings]

Thanks for that.....wasn't really the point of my question though. I have a bit of a pet peeve of statements people make of "we should do 'X' as long as the cost is reasonable"......I think the people who plan/build these things have to deal with a lot more than just that sort of generality.

As for your costing....I am pretty sure that this is not a popular opinion but I really don't think the DRL and the Gardiner are serving the same constituency.....particularly as it relates to the west end of the Gardiner. I am sure there is some "overlap" but I would bet that a great deal of the people suffering along the Gardiner in the west end would see little/no value in a subway to Dundas West.....and those that would could be served earlier and cheaper by a quicker move to 15 minute trains on the GO line that goes to Bloor and improvements to the link between that GO station and the Dundas West Subway.

A better cost comparison (again, for the western end of the Gardiner) is what would it cost to beef up the 3 GO lines to a point that a significant number of those people saw fit to move out of their cars.

I agree with the beefing up the East and West GO lines to more frequent all day service. I also agree that these areas are probably more responsible for the traffic down here than the DRL riders would be. However there surely would be riders who would transfer to DRL if the DRL was extended west enough. Also Id like to know the percentage of the cars on the gardiner which are from 905. I think there was a study done earlier which showed it was a significant amount. If that's the case then why would Toronto residents want to continue to facilitate these drivers and help keep Toronto car centric by spending billions of Toronto tax dollars on such a project? The argument might be made that this is beneficial for Toronto to remain the economic center of the GTA. But I would argue if the majority of the cars are coming from outside 416 then it should be being paid for by the province or the money should be sunk into better GO service. I guess Im just hostile to the idea because this one project would cost more then the entire TC lines PLUS a full DRL. I wouldnt consider that a wise investment in infrastructure.

 

[TOareaFan]

I agree with the beefing up the East and West GO lines to more frequent all day service. I also agree that these areas are probably more responsible for the traffic down here than the DRL riders would be. However there surely would be riders who would transfer to DRL if the DRL was extended west enough. Also Id like to know the percentage of the cars on the gardiner which are from 905. I think there was a study done earlier which showed it was a significant amount. If that's the case then why would Toronto residents want to continue to facilitate these drivers and help keep Toronto car centric by spending billions of Toronto tax dollars on such a project? The argument might be made that this is beneficial for Toronto to remain the economic center of the GTA. But I would argue if the majority of the cars are coming from outside 416 then it should be being paid for by the province or the money should be sunk into better GO service. I guess Im just hostile to the idea because this one project would cost more then the entire TC lines PLUS a full DRL. I wouldnt consider that a wise investment in infrastructure.

I think that 20 years ago one would be very safe in making the broad brush statement that people using the Gardiner are mostly suburbanites getting to their jobs in the city. Back then, however, the westbound lanes were virtually empty in the morning and the eastbound lanes had similar traffic flows in evening rush (obviously not identical as event traffic was always there)

When you observe the level of traffic in the westbound lanes in the a.m. and the steady stream of traffic in the eastbound lanes in the evening rush (allowing for aforementioned event traffic) it is not hard to see the dramatic increase in reverse-flow commuting and reach a conclusion that a fair number of city folk are commuting to jobs outside the city.

Finding a solution to the Gardiner and the mix of transit/road use is essential....but it is not going to happen if (as it often does) the discussion melts down into a 905 v 416 squabble. (IMO).

 

[sixrings]

Finding a solution to the Gardiner and the mix of transit/road use is essential....but it is not going to happen if (as it often does) the discussion melts down into a 905 v 416 squabble. (IMO).

You make a good point about reverse commutes. However the office space inside toronto is growing at a unusually high rate. If we continue to see this type of office construction it is very likey that the people whom live downtown will be able to find jobs downtown.

Im relying on GOOGLE and WIKIPIDEA here because no one has come up with a cost of this project. After googling the BIG DIG as a comparason I came up with the cost of 24 Billion (How much would that cost in todays dollars?)(http://www.boston.com/business/news...makers-told/iuHOvq2ENQtakQ8ZdIBHzN/story.html) Transit City in was to cost 17 Billion in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_City) and if you add the 8 billion for the DRL as that globe article points out you come to a total of 25Billion. So its roughly the same cost.

All Im suggesting is that transit projects including all day GO seem to make much more sense then the fantasy of a underground tunnel for Cars which will only service a small section of the city. This BTW is coming from someone who is in love with his new FIAT 500 and drives almost everywhere but downtown (transit makes more sense for that) Limited finances dedicated to a small part of the city isnt well used.

I am still waiting to hear a reply from GWEED since he is always against LRT as a waste of resources when BRT could do. With that same logic why cant a boulevard suffice instead of a underground tunnel?

 

[gweed123]

I am still waiting to hear a reply from GWEED since he is always against LRT as a waste of resources when BRT could do. With that same logic why cant a boulevard suffice instead of a underground tunnel?

Note quite the same analogy though, since a BRT line and an LRT line along the street take up roughly the same amount of space (curb BRT lanes are only slightly wider than median LRT lanes). The designs of either are relatively similar. An elevated or tunnelled highway vs a boulevard have two completely different designs, and have different impacts. I think a more apt comparison would be subway vs at-grade LRT.

One of the big reasons why I favour BRT over LRT in a lot of cases is because the usage can be handled by BRT. In the case of the Gardiner, replacing it with a boulevard would be a net reduction in capacity, when at the very least maintaining the same capacity is needed, at least in the west end. In the east end, a boulevard would do because that section of the highway isn't approaching capacity most times. The reality is an expressway is needed, regardless of the transit improvements that are made heading into downtown.

I think that any replacement of the Gardiner needs to include recapturing land for development, either land that's currently occupied by the Gardiner or land occupied by the rail corridor. Without that revenue, the economics just don't make sense.

I also think that the costs of any Gardiner replacement project need to be borne primarily by drivers. This means tolls. A model similar to the Confederation Bridge may be in order, although I'd prefer it remain in public hands the entire time. At the very least, I'd like to see the toll revenues equal the cost of paying down the bond over a period of 30 years.

This approach is fundamentally different than building transit. Costs of building transit should be borne by the society as a whole, because it benefits everybody. Building a tunnelled expressway benefits only the users of the expressway, and thus the costs should be borne by them. If tolls need to be instituted on the DVP in order to help pay for the tunnel as well, so be it.

 

[innsertnamehere]

toying around with a new waterfront park and gardiner burial... blue is a new waterway and green is park. Redpath's would not be happy with my plan in the least.

 

[gweed123]

toying around with a new waterfront park and gardiner burial... blue is a new waterway and green is park. Redpath's would not be happy with my plan in the least.

That's pretty much what I had envisioned as well, except I would have kept the western channel open so that ships can still come in and out. But yes, I think the waterfront park would look great.

 

[diminutive]

Is that kind of large scale land reclamation even legal anymore?

Somehow I can't imagine the City where cutting a road to build a subway is an unimaginable crime against society would somehow start dumping huge amounts of landfill into the Lake, closing marinas and (functioning!) industrial ports.

Lakefront people complaining about the odd Q400 into YTZ would go ballistic!