News   May 03, 2024
 775     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 496     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 247     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

I assume that you mean there are no other highways in the downtown, because there are also the 401,427,400 and Allen Road (which hardly counts).

There wouldn't be any point in removing the DVP or the Gardiner west of downtown. I just meant that they wouldn't be crucial anymore. It would be fine if we just removed the Gardiner downtown. Car drivers could still get downtown using the Gardiner, it would just dump them onto Lakeshore at, say, Dufferin. Lakeshore would not be that much busier than now, because more people would be taking the subway to compensate for the extra people coming off the highway.

To get from London to Downtown Toronto, there's a VIA train.

That's partially what I mean. The 401 was intended to simply bypass Toronto when it was built, and it still does that to a certain degree today. However, with all the other routes that junction with it, it is also a major connecting route. The sheer volume of traffic flowing onto it from these routes is the reason it has become the busiest highway in the world.

When I visit Toronto, I'll take the train if I'm going to downtown Toronto. But when I'm going other places, I'll end up driving.

But back to the Gardiner, it will still be a crucial route even with these huge transit expansions along with the DVP. Other major cities have several highways servicing the city centre and/or downtown and they can get away with removing a few, but Toronto only has one (I consider the Gardiner/DVP one highway). If the Gardiner is removed, it will increase traffic congestion and thus impact the economic vitality of the area.
 
Transforming the Gardiner into a garden


Apr 23 2010

Patty Winsa

thestar_logo.gif


Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/799659--transforming-the-gardiner-into-a-garden

Green Ribbon PDF Report: http://www.quadrangle.ca/articles/GGR BOOK LATEST.pdf

##########################################

In a town that wants to tear it down, could the Gardiner Expressway instead become the green mile? The environmental assessment on the section from Jarvis St. to the Don Valley is in its early stages, but already it includes a surprising alternative to removing the highway — an idea to keep it and cover it with a green roof.

The proposal, formally called the Green Ribbon , was first floated by architect Les Klein last June at the ideaCity innovation conference in Toronto. Klein’s vision to keep the expressway and beautify it “went viralâ€: He did 18 interviews with media outlets in 24 hours. But the notion didn’t just run its course and disappear. “I expected it to be just another idea,†says Klein, who founded Quadrangle Architects in Toronto, “but it resonated in people in quite a positive way.â€

Last fall, council voted to include the Green Ribbon in a handful of proposals to be considered as the environmental assessment and integrated urban design study by Waterfront Toronto goes forward. Other options: remove the highway, improve it or keep the status quo. Council’s decision was “interesting,†said Klein. “It gave us some official standing.â€

The pitch calls for a green roof over the road from Dufferin St. to the Don Valley. Stairs, ramps and elevators would transport users up 10 metres to a steel and concrete platform filled with lush plantings and paths. Below it, Gardiner traffic would rush on, protected by a roof that would catch snow and eliminate the need to salt the highway. Highrise buildings already lining the Gardiner could link to it.

Klein says the canopy would cost $700 million, less than half the price of tearing down the Gardiner and replacing it with a road at grade. There’s a precedent of sorts. In New York, the High Line, an abandoned elevated rail line built in the 1930s to separate dangerous train traffic from pedestrians, has been turned into an urban garden. The initial section, running north about 10 blocks from the Meatpacking District on the west side, drew two million visitors in its first 10 months.

##########################################




New York city turned part of on old elevated railline into the popular High Line Park. Could the same be done with parts of Toronto's Gardiner Expressway?

119c97a04af9b6ecc6e8573486f7.jpeg
 
Maybe someone can explain to me how making it into a green roof (or building one over it) will solve the dark, dreary, dead space that exists beneath the Gardiner??? I thought that was the main issue with being a barrier to the waterfront.
 
Maybe instead of burying the Gardiner they could elevate the land around it and just above the car level of the Gardiner so all the traffic would end up underground but with no digging.
 
The Gardiner's too cool to drive on to tear it down haha.

An elevated expressway isn't intrinsically dreary or ugly. Whoever designed the Gardiner just had no know sense of aesthetics. It's like those nasty brutalist buildings from the 60's (ps the Gardiner was also built in the 60's.. coincidence?). It can be cleaned up, given some character. Think of it as a Roof over part of the city. Chicago's L forms a very inviting "roof" over parts of downtown, as do many parts of Tokyo's elevated expressway system and the interstate through downtown Portland. The Gardiner just represents a lack of creativity with what to do with the space under it (lack of creativity seems to be a common theme with Toronto's publicly managed spaces).
 
Maybe someone can explain to me how making it into a green roof (or building one over it) will solve the dark, dreary, dead space that exists beneath the Gardiner??? I thought that was the main issue with being a barrier to the waterfront.

Couldn't agree more. I just don't get why we keep chipping away at the margins with these little "beautification" projects. The Gardiner will always be an unpleasant barrier to the waterfront. Even if they spend a few million to fix it up, it will soon be crumbling again and the remnants of whatever decoration they installed will only make it look more dilapidated. I don't understand why we can't just tear the damned thing down.
 
And where do you propose to put all that traffic? The Gardiner's already clogged up half the day. It's AADT's about 160,000 vehicles/day around Spadina... how many lanes do you think the Lakeshore would need to handle that traffic? (Hint: about 8 lanes each way) Or should we just forsake the waterfront as a perpetual traffic jam?

Why do you insist it can't be beautified?
p_2894639.jpg
 
The section East of Jarvis could be replaced with a surface roadway of reasonable width without issue. West of there, things get more complicated. But there's no reason this should be all-or-nothing.
 
And where do you propose to put all that traffic? The Gardiner's already clogged up half the day. It's AADT's about 160,000 vehicles/day around Spadina... how many lanes do you think the Lakeshore would need to handle that traffic? (Hint: about 8 lanes each way) Or should we just forsake the waterfront as a perpetual traffic jam?

Why do you insist it can't be beautified?
p_2894639.jpg

Uh, I'd hardly call putting some shrubs on the side of it "beautiful." That's also an aerial view. What does it look like from underneath?

I drive the Gardiner all the time. It saves me a few minutes. I'd be happy to sacrifice a few minutes time for a much more pleasant walk down to the waterfront. You picked the busiest section of the highway. Nobody's talking about eliminating it west of Spadina. The Fung plan wanted to bury the Bathurst to Spadina stretch. That's one option. East of Spadina, the traffic thins out quite a bit. East of the Harbour Street exit, handling the cars on the Lakeshore wouldn't be an issue.

There are also alternatives to highways. The Gardiner carries a fraction of the total number of commuters into the downtown core. If we ran a few extra GO trains, it could soak up much of the extra traffic, not to mention a Downtown Relief subway. I don't have to cite examples of highways like the Embarcadero Freeway that were torn down without provoking traffic chaos.
 
I don't have to cite examples of highways like the Embarcadero Freeway that were torn down without provoking traffic chaos.

They didn't tear down Embarcadero. It fell down in an earthquake. If the Gardiner falls down due to an earthquake, I'll be happy to rebuild it in a different manner (tunnel/street level/green roofed/transparent/whatever). HOWEVER (and he raises his lance and charges the windmill!), despite all the bleating about the Gardiner, it's just not that bad and now that condos/Roundhouse/Canoe Landing/Telus/MLS have filled in the 10 minute walk through boring parking lots, the 2 1/2 minute walk under the Gardiner in order to get to the waterfront is really not an issue. Really. Truly.

Miller proposed dropping the Gardiner from Don Roadway to Jarvis, which is a lot of concrete to much less effect, as has been observed. Maybe this is a good idea, but the real barrier from Cherry to Parliament, visually and for its grotty underpasses, are the rail lines. And they're not going anywhere. So, if we add more trains and drop the Gardiner, who starts immediately kvetching over the rail lines and how they're a 'barrier to the Waterfront, especially the new parks on the East Bayfront'?

Leave the Gardiner be.
 
They didn't tear down Embarcadero. It fell down in an earthquake. If the Gardiner falls down due to an earthquake, I'll be happy to rebuild it in a different manner (tunnel/street level/green roofed/transparent/whatever). HOWEVER (and he raises his lance and charges the windmill!), despite all the bleating about the Gardiner, it's just not that bad and now that condos/Roundhouse/Canoe Landing/Telus/MLS have filled in the 10 minute walk through boring parking lots, the 2 1/2 minute walk under the Gardiner in order to get to the waterfront is really not an issue. Really. Truly.

I live in the area and it is one of the biggest issues. Really. Truly! It's hideous and makes Lakeshore into a back alley rather than the main street of the area. Don't get me wrong--it's not a panacea for the waterfront. Queens Quay is still probably the ugliest major street in the downtown core and spray-concrete-from-a-fire-hose landscaping doesn't do much for the railway lands. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fix one of the very fixable issues. That's especially true for the section east of the Harbour St exit.

Miller proposed dropping the Gardiner from Don Roadway to Jarvis, which is a lot of concrete to much less effect, as has been observed. Maybe this is a good idea, but the real barrier from Cherry to Parliament, visually and for its grotty underpasses, are the rail lines. And they're not going anywhere. So, if we add more trains and drop the Gardiner, who starts immediately kvetching over the rail lines and how they're a 'barrier to the Waterfront, especially the new parks on the East Bayfront'?

Leave the Gardiner be.

I completely agree that we should bury the rail lines too. I have a copy of a report done for CP in the 80s that recommends doing just that. It's way too bold to imagine Toronto doing, but cities like Stuttgart or Antwerp are doing it right now.
 
The rail corridor really isn't that wide at Parliament or Sherbourne and isn't much of a barrier.

The biggest barrier to pedestrians is obviously the Lakeshore, which features some of the most hostile-to-pedestrians intersections in this city. (Oh, you're on the wrong side of the street? You can't cross here.)

I do think you could improve things greatly in the East while leaving the highway intact, but why? If the study shows that traffic impact will be minimal, why not tear it down? It would certainly increase land values on the eastern waterfront.
 
The biggest barrier to pedestrians is obviously the Lakeshore, which features some of the most hostile-to-pedestrians intersections in this city. (Oh, you're on the wrong side of the street? You can't cross here.)

In Chicago they have pedestrian underpasses on their Lakeshore Drive to get to the water area.
 
In Chicago they have pedestrian underpasses on their Lakeshore Drive to get to the water area.

A concrete tunnel with low ceilings every 1 mile isn't particularly great; particularly in Chicago after midnight. Those tunnels are a great spot to get mugged.
 
I completely agree that we should bury the rail lines too. I have a copy of a report done for CP in the 80s that recommends doing just that. It's way too bold to imagine Toronto doing, but cities like Stuttgart or Antwerp are doing it right now.

Interesting. I've thought of that, but always gave up on it because the railway is already above ground level east of Simcoe. What did they propose?

The biggest barrier to pedestrians is obviously the Lakeshore, which features some of the most hostile-to-pedestrians intersections in this city. (Oh, you're on the wrong side of the street? You can't cross here.)

I agree with this. I used to work at Queen's Quay and Bay (Water Park Place), and the walk from the waterfront up to Union was very unfriendly. Crossing Harbour and Lakeshore was a pain - long light cycles, traffic jammed so tight that the cross-walks were blocked, inability to cross at all sides. It is a real pain. If they give the pedestrian more flexiblity and an equal priority to the cars, I think it would be much better.
 

Back
Top