Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[alklay]

The amount of space taken by the new boulevard will be the same, if not smaller than the Lakeshore/Gardiner footprint today. Thus, I do not understand all the concerns that this will be 'an impediment' to getting to the lake. Its a walk across the street and it will be a better street, and a better walk, with no overhead concrete highway above (and better uses running up and down the boulevard, such as housing and retail). Simply put, this will be a vast improvement over what exits today.

 

[ShonTron]

I partially agree. If the new Lake Shore is done right, with a wide median with landscaping and even some park amenities, it won't be a huge barrier. The surface streets of the Big Dig do leave a wide open space and isn't that bad at all in person, especially as it has become a park.

If Lakeshore is a run-of-the-mill suburban "carterial" (in Hamish Wilson speak) with dual left turn lanes and no sympathy for pedestrians, then yes, it will continue to be the barrier that people fear. But is University Avenue such a "barrier"?

The next step is to address the rail corridor. punching a few more holes out, like Simcoe Street, is only a first step, I still support burying the railways though with more development around now, this will be trickier.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Front St. extension dead
TheStar.com - GTA
May 30, 2008
Paul Moloney
CITY HALL BUREAU

A proposal to tear down part of the Gardiner Expressway will kill plans to extend Front St., Toronto's deputy mayor said this morning.

Waterfront Toronto had earmarked $198.6 million for the project, but now that money is expected to be put toward taking down the Gardiner Expressway east of Jarvis St., Joe Pantalone said.

Extending Front St. from Bathurst St., to join the Gardiner Expressway at Dufferin St. has been on the city’s wish list for more than two decades.

But Pantalone said scarce tax dollars from city, provincial and federal governments - which are funding waterfront renewal - would be better spent removing the eastern Gardiner.

“What’s important is that we do city-building in Toronto, and taking down the Gardiner is a higher priority from a city-wide perspective,†Pantalone said.

“We have limited resources and you have to put those resources where tyou get the biggest return for our city,†he added. “There’s no doubt that taking down the eastern section of the Gardiner gives us that.â€

Demolishing the elevated expressway from Jarvis to the Don Valley Parkway, including new ramps and a new waterfront boulevard, is estimated to cost $200 million to $300 million.

The actual tab will be refined during the environmental assessment, which will take four to five years to complete.

Removing the hulking expressway should make revitalization easier along the eastern waterfront, Pantalone said, including long-held plans to “naturalize†the mouth of the Don River.

The Gardiner, which opened in the 1960s, carries 200,000 vehicles per day west of the downtown core, and about 120,000 vehicles daily east of Jarvis.

It costs the city $6 to $10 million a year to repair the Gardiner.

 

[lokyin]

having an at-grade boulevard would be so much better to cross. There would be lights, there would be a median, cars are a bit slower, and... i dunno but I cross University Ave. at Queen St. every day, certainly feels easier than crossing lakeshore under gardiner (i do that at jarvis often). It'll definitely be less of a barrier with a grand boulevard than what we have right now, speaking as a downtown pedestrian. walking to loblaws down there always dreads me cuz of crossing lakeshore. As for car traffic, I don't think the impact would be as great as ppl think... drivers will find new ways to drive through downtown, and this boulevard will still provide quite a lot of flow for cars still, it's not like we're removing gardiner and having nothing in return..

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Just bury the M***** F*****. It won't be nearly as complex as the big dig in Boston. As someone said if you put only 1 pair of off/on ramps at then ends of the tunnel you can cut costs as well.

WRT to additional access ramps. Could a Simcoe Ramp be squeezed in, now that they've punched it through the railway?

 

[TKTKTK]

having an at-grade boulevard would be so much better to cross. There would be lights, there would be a median, cars are a bit slower, and... i dunno but I cross University Ave. at Queen St. every day, certainly feels easier than crossing lakeshore under gardiner (i do that at jarvis often). It'll definitely be less of a barrier with a grand boulevard than what we have right now, speaking as a downtown pedestrian. walking to loblaws down there always dreads me cuz of crossing lakeshore. As for car traffic, I don't think the impact would be as great as ppl think... drivers will find new ways to drive through downtown, and this boulevard will still provide quite a lot of flow for cars still, it's not like we're removing gardiner and having nothing in return..

But you're still going to have to cross Lake Shore, only now it'll have more cars, more lanes, and some more shrubs. And you won't have the benefit of a roof over your head in inclement weather. We're wasting a fantastic opportunity to separate traffic into the sky, and keep the ground free for pedestrians and recreational uses.

We're idiots to pass this up in favour of some conventional surface speedway.

 

[alklay]

Speedway? With a lot of new north and south roadways as a result of the development in the area (and the resulting traffic lights), this will hardly be a 'speedway'?

And I do not understand the 'fantastic opportunity to separate traffic into the sky, and keep the ground free for pedestrians and recreational uses." Are you proposing shutting down the Lakeshore under the Gardiner and replacing it with soccer fields?

 

[RedRocket191]

According to Miller, who was just on CBC Radio, the reason they have chosen to do this section instead of the whole Gardiner is cost. But, I do agree with the people who say this is just the first step in bringing the whole thing down. At the very least, I think we should do this section to see how successful it will be. If its a miserable failure, we'll learn from our mistake. If its successful, then lets keep the engines running on the bulldozer.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Just bury the M***** F*****. It won't be nearly as complex as the big dig in Boston. As someone said if you put only 1 pair of off/on ramps at then ends of the tunnel you can cut costs as well.

WRT to additional access ramps. Could a Simcoe Ramp be squeezed in, now that they've punched it through the railway?

That would be a great idea, and a relief for York St.

 

[TKTKTK]

Speedway? With a lot of new north and south roadways as a result of the development in the area (and the resulting traffic lights), this will hardly be a 'speedway'?

And I do not understand the 'fantastic opportunity to separate traffic into the sky, and keep the ground free for pedestrians and recreational uses." Are you proposing shutting down the Lakeshore under the Gardiner and replacing it with soccer fields?

Sure. Why not? Why not move more traffic up and away, rather than bringing it down?

Do you ever drive along Lake Shore now? There are already quite a few North/South connections and lights, and it doesn't slow anyone down. People just gun it at the green - I don't see any reason to believe that'll suddenly stop with more plants around.

Richmond and Adelaide have more North/South connections with lights than Lake Shore will ever have, and traffic just rips along those two routes (until it hits the construction areas, in which case it's just cut-off-and-re-merge until it's clears up past Yonge)

 

[TKTKTK]

According to Miller, who was just on CBC Radio, the reason they have chosen to do this section instead of the whole Gardiner is cost. But, I do agree with the people who say this is just the first step in bringing the whole thing down. At the very least, I think we should do this section to see how successful it will be. If its a miserable failure, we'll learn from our mistake. If its successful, then lets keep the engines running on the bulldozer.

Like all of the mistakes our city makes - by the time we realize it's a mistake, we're stuck with it. That doesn't seem like a particularly wise method of planning.

 

[christiesplits]

I think the partial dismantling is a perfect compromise... especially for a guy like me who has utter disdain for the Gardiner, certainly from the Lakeshore, but can't help enjoy that incredibly urbane car ride through the skyline from Yonge to Spadina.

Not only that, demolishing the Gardiner west of Yonge would leave another barrier... the infamous condo mile. If planned properly, the Gardiner-less stretch east of Jarvis can provide much more access to the water for us layfolk. I think little patches here and there on Queens Quay West like West 8and Ht0 are worthwhile, but for the most part, only so much can be done further west... its best that we make the most of Jaris eastward before it gets destroyed as well.

 

[unimaginative2]

I will echo my concern of having a "boulevard" replace that stretch of the Gardiner. Remember that the main impediment to getting to the lake is not the overhead freeway, as unsightly as it is, but the six lanes of Lakeshore avenue that drivers treat as a surface highway.

After many walks down to the waterfront recently, I've realized that the cliché isn't really true. Lakeshore is in fact as easy to cross than University or Spadina, and much easier than any suburban arterial. What makes it unpleasant is the ugly, wide slab of concrete above, and its many supports. There aren't any sidewalks along Lakeshore. Why would anybody want to walk along a street with no sun and no landscaping under an elevated highway.

I also don't buy all these cheapo solutions of "beautifying" the area under the Gardiner. You can't do any landscaping where the sun never shines. Buildings under the Gardiner are an even worse idea. Not only would the ugly highway remain above surely rather undesirable buildings, but it would also be impossible to then demolish the thing down the line, too.

The reality is that demolishing it now is by far the best option. For people who think that it's too expensive -- remember that the upkeep of a half-century old concrete and steel structure on which we dump tons of salt every year will in the long term cost far more than demolition and partial burial.

The other option for the area west of Jarvis is the Paris-style car-only tunnel that I described in an earlier post. Engineers in Paris are saving a fortune for a new tunnel on the outer Périphérique by reducing the clearance so that only cars are permitted, and thus allowing for six lanes of traffic in one standard-width tube. This would be particularly suited for here, because truck traffic isn't a major factor on the Gardiner.

 

[alklay]

Richmond and Adelaide have more North/South connections with lights than Lake Shore will ever have, and traffic just rips along those two routes (until it hits the construction areas, in which case it's just cut-off-and-re-merge until it's clears up past Yonge)

I will take Richmond or Adelaide over an overhead expressway any day. And they are certainly not 'speedways'.

 

[TKTKTK]

I will take Richmond or Adelaide over an overhead expressway any day. And they are certainly not 'speedways'.

Respectfully, I firmly disagree. I drive Adelaide and Richmond every day. They're speedways. Traffic moves along at the hardly urban speed of 70-80km/h.

i think the majority of the dislike around the Gardiner is psychological. We remember the gross parts, though hardly even notice the dope bits. The concrete supports beneath the Gardiner west of Jarvis, and into the city centre are beautiful! We should use that as the template for redoing the entire underside.