B
Brighter Hell
Guest
thanks for the link
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
Oliver Tweed
Guest
Burying the Gardiner depends totally on the cost.
It's impossible to make an informed decision on this unless we know how much it will cost to maintain it properly vs. how much burying it vs. getting rid of it altogether. From this discussion so far it seems that no one has a very clear picture of these costs.
Cost aside, would it be nice to get rid of the Gardiner? Sure. But of course there are plenty of other 'barriers' to the lakeshore that have to be addressed. And as many have pointed out, the Gardiner is not even technically a barrier in the downtown area because it is elevated.
Assuming for a second that it would be more expensive to tear it down vs. maintain it properly, I don't mind keeping it and really working on a nice pedestrian- and transit-friendly design scheme with trees and nice public spaces that connects the waterfront to downtown.
If there is a nice place to walk around I don't mind that cars are whizzing by above me. That's one advantage of an elevated expressway.
It's impossible to make an informed decision on this unless we know how much it will cost to maintain it properly vs. how much burying it vs. getting rid of it altogether. From this discussion so far it seems that no one has a very clear picture of these costs.
Cost aside, would it be nice to get rid of the Gardiner? Sure. But of course there are plenty of other 'barriers' to the lakeshore that have to be addressed. And as many have pointed out, the Gardiner is not even technically a barrier in the downtown area because it is elevated.
Assuming for a second that it would be more expensive to tear it down vs. maintain it properly, I don't mind keeping it and really working on a nice pedestrian- and transit-friendly design scheme with trees and nice public spaces that connects the waterfront to downtown.
If there is a nice place to walk around I don't mind that cars are whizzing by above me. That's one advantage of an elevated expressway.
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
Quote:
are you a structural engineer? how do you know that it's structurally unsound, or soon will be? what inspection reports are you basing your opinion on?
You guys do make me laugh sometimes...
article
This is what I read that lead me to my opinons, cheers!
Read that article a little closer. They are referring to the part of the Gardiner that was formerly the QEW. It isn't elevated and runs from the Humber River to the 427. The part of the Gardiner that most of us want taken down runs from Dufferin to the DVP. This is the elevated part and it isn't crumbling or falling down. However it does require frequent maintance that is more expensive than repaving a regular highway like the 401.
M
maxy505
Guest
I love the cable-stayed viaduct over the rail lines! Minor benefits not yet mentioned are
1) the extra height will help disperse its pollution to the wind a little bit
2) the view will be even more amazing
3) alternatively it can be walled off to hold in the noise
4) with luck it would be beautiful, like Boston's (even better in person!)
5) could be even less of a barrier than a "lakeshore avenue": lakeshore would only need to be a usual 4-laner
Of course, the cost factor supercedes pretty much everything else you can think of combined, in this city, in the real world. The federal gov't (as in Boston) or the EU (taxing Germans to buy subways for Spaniards) isn't going to foot the bill. I join the majority of us in admitting that I have no basis for estimating the relative costs of the various options (especially when you include the savings of not shutting down the gardiner during construction).
1) the extra height will help disperse its pollution to the wind a little bit
2) the view will be even more amazing
3) alternatively it can be walled off to hold in the noise
4) with luck it would be beautiful, like Boston's (even better in person!)
5) could be even less of a barrier than a "lakeshore avenue": lakeshore would only need to be a usual 4-laner
Of course, the cost factor supercedes pretty much everything else you can think of combined, in this city, in the real world. The federal gov't (as in Boston) or the EU (taxing Germans to buy subways for Spaniards) isn't going to foot the bill. I join the majority of us in admitting that I have no basis for estimating the relative costs of the various options (especially when you include the savings of not shutting down the gardiner during construction).
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
the average life expectancy of a bridge is about 75 years, but that's for your average highway bridge over a creek. you'd think the gardiner would have been designed to stay up a lot longer. some bridges have lasted hundreds of years. i really don't think the decision to demolish the gardiner will come because of structural issues.
re: toronto viaduct: i had a long debate with a couple people on SSC of all places about that proposal. obviously ramps and access would be a huge issue as has been stated. so would cost - those bridges aren't built because they look cool. they're built to cross barriers like rivers, often shortening a major route enough to justify the cost. the toronto proposal is a lot bigger than that one in boston. then there's traffic - an 8-10 lane central gardiner would require expanding the highways to the east and west of it, as well as all the feeder roads downtown to handle the traffic this thing would attract. the front street extension is child's play compared to the feeder roads that would have to be built with the viaduct.
probably the biggest stumbling block is building over the rail corrodor. if you think getting a pedestrian bridge built over the tracks is difficult, just try approaching CN with this proposal. not to mention the challenge of building a cable stayed bridge on top of functioning tracks. nowhere on that site (last time i read through it) does it say how this would be done. where do the foundations of the towers go?
according the the diagrams, the proposal is 12 to 14 lanes wide, the same width of the 401. take a look at google maps - that's twice as wide as the rail corridor in a lot of spots. imagine the walk under that thing. and what about all the properties on either side? we're talking about an enourmous structure that would dwarf the gardiner.
re: toronto viaduct: i had a long debate with a couple people on SSC of all places about that proposal. obviously ramps and access would be a huge issue as has been stated. so would cost - those bridges aren't built because they look cool. they're built to cross barriers like rivers, often shortening a major route enough to justify the cost. the toronto proposal is a lot bigger than that one in boston. then there's traffic - an 8-10 lane central gardiner would require expanding the highways to the east and west of it, as well as all the feeder roads downtown to handle the traffic this thing would attract. the front street extension is child's play compared to the feeder roads that would have to be built with the viaduct.
probably the biggest stumbling block is building over the rail corrodor. if you think getting a pedestrian bridge built over the tracks is difficult, just try approaching CN with this proposal. not to mention the challenge of building a cable stayed bridge on top of functioning tracks. nowhere on that site (last time i read through it) does it say how this would be done. where do the foundations of the towers go?
according the the diagrams, the proposal is 12 to 14 lanes wide, the same width of the 401. take a look at google maps - that's twice as wide as the rail corridor in a lot of spots. imagine the walk under that thing. and what about all the properties on either side? we're talking about an enourmous structure that would dwarf the gardiner.
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
the average life expectancy of a bridge is about 75 years, but that's for your average highway bridge over a creek. you'd think the gardiner would have been designed to stay up a lot longer. some bridges have lasted hundreds of years. i really don't think the decision to demolish the gardiner will come because of structural issues.
The only structural issues relate to the cost of maintaining the thing. Salt is a major issue. They did a major rebuild in the 80's when there were worries about falling concrete.
The eastern leg was taken down when the cost of maintaining exceeded the cost of tearing it down. At the time area nimbys were opposed to taking it down because of the fear of traffic. In the end the fears were misplaced.
I'm a firm believer that they same thing would take place here. Build the Front Street extension, take down the Gardiner and redo Lakeshore into a wide boulevard like University. End of story.
3
3Dementia
Guest
Brighter:
The whole point of an A-frame pylon is train traffic is not impeded. It straddles the traffic. Add cantilevered construction techniques= (hopefully) a "thing" as GB would call it is built with little or no disruption.
As for the politics of getting all the stakeholders on board... GO would be the toughest, followed by Rogers (very tight squeeze), Cityplace and every othe myopic organization and resident in the city... oh... and there's a proposed office tower in the way to boot.
But. It could work. First off it is only 8 lanes @ 70 km/hour (obviously it has evolved from class project).
It also proposes an enclosed pedestrian/bike pathway (ideally a sort of linear Allan Gardens) under it... before anyone goes nuts about the cost, stop and think what a developer like Concord Adex would do with an east/west connection like this for its buyers (all season walk/bike to work).
The bottom of the deck/pathway hovers just above the trains so with enough north south connections, it would essentially "deck" the grand canyon rail corridor. So it's not a 100 feet in the sky at all.
The reason I know how it's evolved? I thought the idea of "rebuilding" the rail berm east of Union to create north/south connections (perhaps with shopping/parking etc.) to connect Distillery, West Donlands to East Bayfront... was so damned smart (forest for the trees)... that I opened a door at the Mayor's office to review a much improved version of the idea. Leslie reviewed, briefed the Miller and it's now being looked at by the Twaterfront gang and the Union Person precinct gang.
So the moral of the story is.... don't dismiss ideas out of hand as soon as they appear... sometimes there a little nuggets of "achievable" change that would benefit the future city.
Finally, "viaducts" don't have to cross water or valleys... look it up.
Place "raspberry" here.
The whole point of an A-frame pylon is train traffic is not impeded. It straddles the traffic. Add cantilevered construction techniques= (hopefully) a "thing" as GB would call it is built with little or no disruption.
As for the politics of getting all the stakeholders on board... GO would be the toughest, followed by Rogers (very tight squeeze), Cityplace and every othe myopic organization and resident in the city... oh... and there's a proposed office tower in the way to boot.
But. It could work. First off it is only 8 lanes @ 70 km/hour (obviously it has evolved from class project).
It also proposes an enclosed pedestrian/bike pathway (ideally a sort of linear Allan Gardens) under it... before anyone goes nuts about the cost, stop and think what a developer like Concord Adex would do with an east/west connection like this for its buyers (all season walk/bike to work).
The bottom of the deck/pathway hovers just above the trains so with enough north south connections, it would essentially "deck" the grand canyon rail corridor. So it's not a 100 feet in the sky at all.
The reason I know how it's evolved? I thought the idea of "rebuilding" the rail berm east of Union to create north/south connections (perhaps with shopping/parking etc.) to connect Distillery, West Donlands to East Bayfront... was so damned smart (forest for the trees)... that I opened a door at the Mayor's office to review a much improved version of the idea. Leslie reviewed, briefed the Miller and it's now being looked at by the Twaterfront gang and the Union Person precinct gang.
So the moral of the story is.... don't dismiss ideas out of hand as soon as they appear... sometimes there a little nuggets of "achievable" change that would benefit the future city.
Finally, "viaducts" don't have to cross water or valleys... look it up.
Place "raspberry" here.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
Lots of interesting points being made. Here are just a few comments on a few of what I think are the biggest issues surrounding the Gardiner question.
1. The Viaduct Option.
What a stupid idea. Maybe in some peoples minds it looks cool and the idea of building over the rail tracks might be a possibility. But a land bridge? If ever there was a case of wasted money. I dont see how anyone can actually take this proposal seriously other than too maybe spark the imagination into being more creative on realistic options.
2. Context
The Gardiner should not be viewed simply from a transportation standpoint or as a single entity. As many have mentioned seemingly forgotten aspects such as onramps will make a huge difference and take up their share of room. The Gardiner also no longer runs through a benign industrial area, but is being surrounding by development at a rather rapid pace. Taking down the Gardiner is no longer a case of connecting the city with 'theoretical' places that may come to be. It would connect actual places that have been, are, and will continue to be built. What will the space look like in 30 years? Probably quite a bit different and this needs to be kept in mind so that in another few decades people are not sitting around wondering how to fix the problems that the second reincarnation of the Gardiner has brought.
As I mentioned before, from a transportatin perspective, this corridor should not just be considered from another highway. Rail is hugely important to the downtown core, and will likely find this importance grow dramatically in the years to come.
If you look at Toronto and the GTA at large, probably the most important transportation project that will be underaken in the next decade is a proper upgrade of the Lakeshore line. And given that the main terminus of the line is at Union Station and that a major overhaul will have to take place on the line especially within a few kilometers of the station, the Gardiner corridor will be very important. Maybe sections of it could be used for new passenger only track? Maybe for temporarily rerouting some trains? Diverting traffic. Etc. Given the rail corridor and the Garinder are so close neither one can be examined without taking into account the other.
3. Cost.
How to pay for it? I see no reason why tolls should not be started on the Gardiner tommorow if it was decided to replace it with a tunnel. They dont have to be excessive tolls, but something that can help offset construction costs. If the Gardiner is simply going to be replaced with surface routes, then tolls might be a more difficult proposition.
The entire project (especially if it were to include rail upgrades) would be massive. Funding is going to have to come not just from traditional government sources, but private sources as well. Maybe the city can sell off land holdings? If rail upgrades were part of the plan, CN could be encouraged to join the project. However its funded, in what percentage, by whom, its going to require a bit of creative thinking that might make some a little uncomfortable by images of P3's and privatization.
4. Do it right, or dont do it all.
Leaving the Garinder as is might not be ideal, but it could be a lot worse. The problem is once you take down the Garinder, you open up a whole new set of problems which will need to be adressed. Burying the Gardiner is not a magical solution that will fix up the waterfront with a wave of a wand. Its a part of a number of investments that are taking place that all put together over several decades will ultimately lead to the vision that people have.
Id rather see it stay and let a compentent group of citizens, government officials, planners, and developers tackle the problem then have a bunch of nitwits who either leave the city with a project that cost 10 times the original price (Boston), or, leave the city with a problem it will only have to fix 10 or 20 years down the road (The Garinder itself).
1. The Viaduct Option.
What a stupid idea. Maybe in some peoples minds it looks cool and the idea of building over the rail tracks might be a possibility. But a land bridge? If ever there was a case of wasted money. I dont see how anyone can actually take this proposal seriously other than too maybe spark the imagination into being more creative on realistic options.
2. Context
The Gardiner should not be viewed simply from a transportation standpoint or as a single entity. As many have mentioned seemingly forgotten aspects such as onramps will make a huge difference and take up their share of room. The Gardiner also no longer runs through a benign industrial area, but is being surrounding by development at a rather rapid pace. Taking down the Gardiner is no longer a case of connecting the city with 'theoretical' places that may come to be. It would connect actual places that have been, are, and will continue to be built. What will the space look like in 30 years? Probably quite a bit different and this needs to be kept in mind so that in another few decades people are not sitting around wondering how to fix the problems that the second reincarnation of the Gardiner has brought.
As I mentioned before, from a transportatin perspective, this corridor should not just be considered from another highway. Rail is hugely important to the downtown core, and will likely find this importance grow dramatically in the years to come.
If you look at Toronto and the GTA at large, probably the most important transportation project that will be underaken in the next decade is a proper upgrade of the Lakeshore line. And given that the main terminus of the line is at Union Station and that a major overhaul will have to take place on the line especially within a few kilometers of the station, the Gardiner corridor will be very important. Maybe sections of it could be used for new passenger only track? Maybe for temporarily rerouting some trains? Diverting traffic. Etc. Given the rail corridor and the Garinder are so close neither one can be examined without taking into account the other.
3. Cost.
How to pay for it? I see no reason why tolls should not be started on the Gardiner tommorow if it was decided to replace it with a tunnel. They dont have to be excessive tolls, but something that can help offset construction costs. If the Gardiner is simply going to be replaced with surface routes, then tolls might be a more difficult proposition.
The entire project (especially if it were to include rail upgrades) would be massive. Funding is going to have to come not just from traditional government sources, but private sources as well. Maybe the city can sell off land holdings? If rail upgrades were part of the plan, CN could be encouraged to join the project. However its funded, in what percentage, by whom, its going to require a bit of creative thinking that might make some a little uncomfortable by images of P3's and privatization.
4. Do it right, or dont do it all.
Leaving the Garinder as is might not be ideal, but it could be a lot worse. The problem is once you take down the Garinder, you open up a whole new set of problems which will need to be adressed. Burying the Gardiner is not a magical solution that will fix up the waterfront with a wave of a wand. Its a part of a number of investments that are taking place that all put together over several decades will ultimately lead to the vision that people have.
Id rather see it stay and let a compentent group of citizens, government officials, planners, and developers tackle the problem then have a bunch of nitwits who either leave the city with a project that cost 10 times the original price (Boston), or, leave the city with a problem it will only have to fix 10 or 20 years down the road (The Garinder itself).
3
3Dementia
Guest
compentent group of citizens, government officials, planners, and developers tackle the problem t
:rollin
:rollin
:rollin
I don't use emoticons but I'll make an exception for your expert post.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
I don't use emoticons but I'll make an exception for your expert post.
I never claimed to be an expert. I offered my thoughts and opinions.
I also dont see why its laughable to want to see a competent group of people tackle the problem. Who wants to see another Mel Lastman tackle transit in the city? Perharps a mayor Pitfield would offer some wonderful ideas on how to improve the city?
To use an example, the current TWRC. Some people might argue it has been going to slowly for their liking. I would argue that what they have achieved in terms of some of the parks they have started and the plans for East Bayfront and The Portlands areas so far have proven to be very interesting. Not too mention they had to start from scratch and assemble support from 3 levels of government. And they are also under a lot of public scrutiny to work miracles on the waterfront and to deliver nothing short of the best. Why would I not want to see an important project like the Gardiner replacement be headed by an agency or collective of organizations with this kind of competence and organization?
C
crackpott
Guest
I must say, any time I'm walking under the Gardiner, it's not the elevated highway that makes it a barrier - It's Lakeshore.
It isn't difficult crossing under a bridge, but with the speed cars drive on Lakeshore combined with the width of the street, I'd consider that to be more of a barrier than the Gardiner is...
It isn't difficult crossing under a bridge, but with the speed cars drive on Lakeshore combined with the width of the street, I'd consider that to be more of a barrier than the Gardiner is...
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
Keep the Gardiner! Bury Lakeshore!
S
samsonyuen
Guest
I agree that the Gardiner is the barrier to the waterfront. Having said that, just removing the Gardiner won't automatically extend downtown.
B
bizorky
Guest
Interesting debate, but what would we think of the Gardiner if it looked better? One big problem is that the structure looks ugly as sin. What if there was an option to make it look more attractive?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
A
afransen TO
Guest
No amount of gussying could make it less of a barrier. It is a big, noisy, polluting highway with huge ramps running along it. You can't drastically improve it's appearance, really.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.