Roads: Keep the Gardiner, fix it, or get rid of it? (2005-2014)

[rbt]

You say that like if we ripped it down, lakeshore would not also require maintenance? Ripping down the gardiner would also create havoc for all those lakeshore closures for marathons, carribana festivals etc.

Maintenance on the ground level portions of the DVP (floods occasionally) is 1/50th what is put into the elevated section of Gardiner.

 

[dunkalunk]

js97:

Highly doubt that maintaining an at grade Lakeshore cost as much as an above grade Gardiner - and the fact that it was built half a century ago with period technology certainly doesn't help. Not sure what the "best" option is at this point however.

AoD

I can see a small, rebuilt elevated section of the Gardiner remaining adjacent to Exhibition provided there was a logical way to terminate it (either at Front or Spadina/LSB). Also, in response to js97, we should not be no more worried about festivals which close streets than traffic accidents, natural disasters, or protests which close them. At least with a planned closure it is possible for transit agencies to adequately provide alternate service.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Do you guys think part of the reason for traffic woes is the lack of highways in the city proper? Thanks for the answers.

No. It's been demonstrated many times that building more roads (especially highways) generate more traffic. Having more highways in the city, particularly ones that run through the core, would be disastrous. If you tear down highways that run through the core the traffic will reduce. I can't think of an example where this didn't happen. If you also add additional transit when removing the highways the situation will become even better.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think it's not so much a lack of highways but a lack of a hierarchical order of roads in the city. Our main throughfares (king, Queen) are more like intermediate roads than major arteries. This more pronounced along the E-W axis where there are no higher capacity roadways, while along the N-S axis Yonge, Spadina and University are all fairly high capacity routes (6 lane cross sections). This causes E-W traffic to be constantly gridlocked. We have Lakeshore but it's a bit away from the city core.

Taking a quick look at Chicago for comparisons sake. I noticed a couple of N-S roads (our E-W) in addition to their Lakeshore blvd, there with a 6 lane cross section where the 3'rd lane is used for on street parking or HOV/Bicycle lanes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I think it's not so much a lack of highways but a lack of a hierarchical order of roads in the city. Our main throughfares (king, Queen) are more like intermediate roads than major arteries. This more pronounced along the E-W axis where there are no higher capacity roadways, while along the N-S axis Yonge, Spadina and University are all fairly high capacity routes (6 lane cross sections). This causes E-W traffic to be constantly gridlocked. We have Lakeshore but it's a bit away from the city core.

Taking a quick look at Chicago for comparisons sake. I noticed a couple of N-S roads (our E-W) in addition to their Lakeshore blvd, there with a 6 lane cross section where the 3'rd lane is used for on street parking or HOV/Bicycle lanes.

University Avenue was originally TWO roads. They were widened and became one road to appease the automobile gods.

Other roads were also widened, such as Jarvis Street and Dufferin Street. Dundas Street was extended from its original terminal road at Ossington Avenue, joining and widening local roads eastwards (that's why Dundas Street has so many jogs to connect them together).

 

[ssiguy2]

I have a great idea that nearly all Torontonians would not only support but also think is fair.................spend untold billions burying the line from Dufferin to the DVP, divide the amount by 10.5 million and then send each Ontarian who lives outside the city of Toronto their share of the bill. From a Toronto perspective, it's the only fair thing to do.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

University Avenue was originally TWO roads. They were widened and became one road to appease the automobile gods.

Other roads were also widened, such as Jarvis Street and Dufferin Street. Dundas Street was extended from its original terminal road at Ossington Avenue, joining and widening local roads eastwards (that's why Dundas Street has so many jogs to connect them together).

What's your point?

 

[Palma]

University Avenue was originally TWO roads. They were widened and became one road to appease the automobile gods.

Other roads were also widened, such as Jarvis Street and Dufferin Street. Dundas Street was extended from its original terminal road at Ossington Avenue, joining and widening local roads eastwards (that's why Dundas Street has so many jogs to connect them together).

Look how beautiful University looked

 

[M II A II R II K]

There's also the cost of not doing anything meaningful with that corridor, and this time the project wouldn't have a war on cars element to it.

 

[ssiguy2]

What I said ages ago will, unfortunately, probably come to pass..........Toronto will dither with endless debate, political inertia, and require 5 year environmental reviews so that it 5 years when the damn thing is on it's last legs they will end up having to repair the existing structure with general city revenues and all these grand plans will collect dust.

Anyone care to make a bet?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What I said ages ago will, unfortunately, probably come to pass..........Toronto will dither with endless debate, political inertia, and require 5 year environmental reviews so that it 5 years when the damn thing is on it's last legs they will end up having to repair the existing structure with general city revenues and all these grand plans will collect dust.

Anyone care to make a bet?

Personally, I'm hoping that the thing just collapses. With nobody on it or under it, of course.

But to answer your question, no I don't agree. Council is not as incompetent as we make them out to be. They've managed to make the correct decision about infrastructure even when under enormous political pressure. The facts about the eastern portion are pretty clear, and I'm that they'll see that tearing that portion down is the best option for Toronto. And of course it helps that a left of centre candidate will likely be in the mayors seat next year.

 

[Bojaxs]

What I said ages ago will, unfortunately, probably come to pass..........Toronto will dither with endless debate, political inertia, and require 5 year environmental reviews so that it 5 years when the damn thing is on it's last legs they will end up having to repair the existing structure with general city revenues and all these grand plans will collect dust.

Anyone care to make a bet?

That seems to be what's happening already.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/07/24/toronto-gardiner-replairs-begin.html

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Bojaxs:

Those are temporary repairs to keep the expressway usable before a final decision is made.

AoD

 

[KDP]

Okay, I've read this whole thing now (bored at work), and now I can do my idea.

Immediately, toll the whole thing, from 427 to 401. Can make it fairly expensive too since if people find it too expensive they will find another route (hopefully transit), and if they can't complain about commute times since there will be a major highway sitting empty. Also, with less use will mean less wear on the highway, so we may get a couple more years out of the highway.

Tear down Jarvis to DVP and let the through traffic melt into Lakeshore (majority of Gardiner traffic exits at York/Yonge anyways). This would be temporary (a few years wait).

Bury it UNDER the rail corridor all the way up to Jameson. This can free up the view of the lake, free up Lakeshore to be a beautiful Avenue, and is far enough inland so that we aren't digging through reclaimed lake. The Gardiner just sort of slips in under the rails, and Lakeshore/Jameson can be re-alignes so the the area isn't one big interchange.

edit: I forgot the exits on this picture

The exits are only West-centric (ie. exit FROM the West/ enter TO the West), as most of the Gardiner's traffic comes from that direction. It had been mention as few times utilizing Front St's Dead-endness. Exiting onto Bathurst is awkward since Cityplace is on the otherside and we can't dig on Fort York property, but there seems to be space between the Fort and the railyards, so that would be our exit.

Yonge has a full interchange, Westbound exits under the bridge beside Esplanade (it is a right turn (Northbound) only because of the bridge supports, but if they wanted to go South to the Lake they should have gotten off at DVP/Lakeshore instead), Eastbound exits curls under the parking lot to exit onto Bay, and Eastbound enters from present Westbound exit. Westbound entrance is over on Jarvis (since I couldn't make it fit well with the GO bus terminal at Yonge).

It would then slide out from under the Railyards and meet with DVP at basically its current location. The squiggle line is the dig/tunnel site.

The elevated (current) Gardiner could stay open while the new one is dug. It would only need to be closed while the construction crews match the previous roadways with the new tunnel.

Effectiveness? Check.
Cost a fuck-ton? Check.

Hopefully the tolling could help to offset the cost somewhat before the highway even opens, and continuing to toll the whole thing from here-on-out would pay for it..... eventually.
This would save a bit of coin to be used on the DRL and GO electrification. Once those are done (as well as 2 or 3 other downtown (Old Toronto) subways), the entire rail/Gardiner corridor could be covered with a big park since nothing could be built on top of it anyways.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Detroit to study removing freeway in favor of walkable surface street


See this article from Detroit Free Press, at this link:

For the first time in a half century, Detroit could follow a national trend and remove aging I-375, cutting off express downtown access for tens of thousands of motorists a day in favor of a pedestrian-friendly parkway connecting Lafayette Park and Eastern Market with the central business district.

Turning the trench-like interstate that runs from I-75 near Gratiot south to Jefferson Avenue into a surface street would make for easier connections between residential areas on the east side and central downtown. Creating that walkable ambiance would come at the cost of high-speed connections on I-375 that suburbanites take to reach the Renaissance Center, Cobo Center and other downtown destinations.

Removing the 1960s-era freeway could sprout residential communities anew in the once-thriving historic black areas known as Black Bottom and Paradise Valley that were torn apart five decades ago by local freeway construction, the same as in cities across the nation.

The area could be developed into some combination of retail, parkland or mixed-use development. There could be several variations on the idea of a surface street. Or, ultimately, the freeway could be rebuilt as is, though that would buck a national trend of removing urban freeways in favor of pedestrian- and bike-friendly areas and greenways.

The City of Detroit and the Michigan Department of Transportation have formed a committee with local stakeholders, including development agencies and downtown employers, to study transforming I-375 into a surface street. The group will choose a consultant next month who will oversee the process of coming up with a proposed plan by mid-next year, at the earliest. Officials said the group would solicit public opinion but has not provided any specifics yet.

The coming debate over the future of I-375 could be integral in defining Detroit’s development priorities either as a destination for commuters and others doing business in downtown or as a place to do everything, including living, shopping, working, raising children and playing.

With the 50-year-old freeway and the bridges that cross it probably needing upgrades or repairs sooner or later, fans of walkable downtowns say removing expressways are a big plus.
“I think that any opportunity to reconnect important parts of the city should be fully explored,” said Tom Woiwode, who promotes the creation of greenways like the Dequindre Cut for the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan. “And the idea that there’s a way to reconnect Lafayette Park and the Eastern Market to the central business district would be a very exciting prospect.”

What benefits the city?

The stakeholders group includes major employees such as General Motors and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, which combined employ more than 11,000 workers in the RenCen and the nearby Blue Cross campus. The nonprofit Detroit RiverFront Conservancy, which builds and operates the RiverWalk, is also taking part.

“I think we have several interests,” said Tricia Keith, senior vice president and corporate secretary for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. “Absolutely, as an employer, we want to make sure that our people can get in and out safely and efficiently.”

But, she added, “It’s not only about getting people in and out of downtown. It’s also about what benefits the city, what types of gateways we create that make it attractive to development. Taking all those things into consideration I think is key.”

General Motors said in a statement that it supported the study. “We are all keen to ensure that the future of I-375 takes into account the increased population downtown as well as accommodate any future development that may occur,” the GM statement read.

Built in 1964 at a cost of $50 million (about $375 million in 2013 dollars), the freeway runs for slightly more than a mile with recent traffic counts registering 45,000 vehicles a day at I-375 and Lafayette.

Not everybody is so enthused about converting the I-375 corridor to a surface street for greater walkability.

Ed Francis, an architect who has lived in nearby Lafayette Park for some 30 years, likes I-375 the way it is now. He appreciates the ease of connecting to other parts of the metro area by hopping on the expressway. “I get there in half a block, and I can get anywhere in the city in no time at all,” he said Friday.

And the Rev. Giuseppe Licciardi, pastor of Holy Family Catholic Church, which borders I-375, said his suburban parishioners come to Sunday mass along I-375, exiting at the Lafayette ramp.
But he wasn’t worried about removing the freeway, he said. “When love is there, they can find the way.”

National trend

Detroit is hardly alone in thinking of removing a freeway. Indeed, removing freeways from urban downtowns ranks among the hottest trends in urban planning today.

Milwaukee, San Francisco and Portland, Ore., have all ripped out part of their freeway systems, replacing them with parks or surface roads. Cleveland and other cities plan to do the same, and cities including Toronto and Washington, D.C., killed freeway projects before they could be built over concerns of damaging urban neighborhoods.

If half a century ago freeways were viewed as a way to promote downtowns by giving suburbanites easy access, planners today point out the negative sides.

Ian Lockwood, a Florida-based urban planner who has worked in Detroit, notes that I-375 and I-75 in Detroit helped destroy the thriving Black Bottom neighborhood along Hastings Street in Detroit, just as freeways sliced and diced cities everywhere.

“It’s no surprise that the suburbs around Detroit grew tremendously over the last several decades while the city declined. The highways are the conduit of that. They export value and people to the suburbs. That’s what they do, and they create automobile dependence,” Lockwood said last week.

He was skeptical that the stakeholders group will get it right.

“I think balance is the wrong word,” he said. “The word that really should be important in Detroit is priorities. If the priority is to make the downtown fantastic, then Detroit needs to stop evacuating it. They need to stop creating barriers. They need to start making these streets walkable again.”

As to fears that GM and Blue Cross employees coming in from the suburbs would lose their easy connection to downtown if I-375 were removed, Lockwood said, “They don’t lose their access. They lose their high-speed access. There’s a difference.”