News   May 09, 2024
Industry Updates: Construction Education, Housing Prices, Celebrating Excellence
 468     0 
News   May 09, 2024
30-Storey Infill Proposed on Jane Street Between Sheppard and Finch
 795     1 
News   May 09, 2024
News Roundup for May 9, 2024
 538     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Well the western side of Downtown has been and is in the process of being totally revitalized. Meaning from the waterfront to about North Of Queen has been changed from Yonge to Bathurst and even further...

Dundas is the main street left, and college has UFT to make it look nice.


However on the Eastern side, Apart from King to Richmond heading east to Sherbourne, the rest is till mostly run down. Queen is changing however Dundas is a mess...
 
I wholeheartedly agree that the rail corridor is a significant barrier, especially west of Yonge, though of course it is preposterous to make that a justification for doing nothing with the other barrier, the Gardiner.

I have a report (or at least I did!) that was prepared for CP in the 1980s, outlining a plan for burying the rail corridor. It describes it as not only feasible, but desirable. This should be the next project after the Gardiner is removed. It will be significantly more ambitious. At the very least, we should look at overbuilding the depressed segment from John to Spadina.
 
syn said:
I think Miller would love subways but knows it isn't the most realistic goal right now.
Click to expand...

I can't be any more clear: he wouldn't. He doesn't want them. Of course it's realistic. Every transit project on the table was funded through MoveOntario 2020. All of York Region's projects were, including a Yonge subway that was only a vague rumour. They clearly would have funded the completion of Sheppard, the number one subway priority for decades, if the city had not specifically opposed it. Like I said, when faced with a proposal for subway construction, a senior TTC commissioner responded "We don't build subway anymore. The future is in streetcars in their own right of way."

It's funny about Eglinton. That's one of the routes for which I actually think the Transit City isn't so bad. It would be a bit backwards to build Eglinton as a subway, but complete the half-subway on Sheppard as a streetcar. Let alone replacing the RT which is now projected to serve 10,000 an hour.

TKTK, I drive the Gardiner, too, but I recognize that saving me two minutes is pretty low down on the priority list when it comes to city building.
 
^Burying the rail corridor is ambitious but when you consider that some serious upgrading will need to be done to accommodate the growth of passenger rail traffic, both inner and inter city, it may be a project that makes sense in the not too distant future. Depending on the scale of the EA for the Gardiner removal there could be some provisions to ensure that any vacant land that exists or is created next to the railway corridor remains that way for a few extra years so that it could better facilitate the creation of a buried rail corridor by allowing room for temporary track, staging grounds, etc.
 
AnarchoSocialist said:
...provisions to ensure that any vacant land that exists or is created next to the railway corridor remains that way for a few extra years so that it could better facilitate the creation of a buried rail corridor by allowing room for temporary track, staging grounds, etc.
Click to expand...

NO!

If they're going to tear down the Gardiner to redevelop the area then they need to do it properly. Don't open the door to them tearing it down and leaving empty lots and tracts of land in its place. That's not a change for the good!

The points about the rail corridor are valid. Plans for their expansion/improvement should be being discussed at the same time as the Gardiner. One of my beefs is that just tearing down the Gardiner is a half-measure that will only result in more surface traffic, and not (at all) an improved area.

I'm all for improvement, but I don't like how it's being done in tiny, small-minded amounts :(
 
I'm sure that any Eglinton subway rumours are merely people calling the proposed 10km of tunnelled streetcar a subway.

Even slight improvements to the Richmond Hill and Stouffville GO lines could take thousands of cars off the DVP-to-Gardiner stretch. The total GO revamp that MoveOntario/Metrolinx has suggested plus a DRL would remove a substantial percentage of the DVP-to-Gardiner traffic, certainly enough of it that improved surface routes could easily handle the Gardiner's removal.
 
TKTKTK said:
If they're going to tear down the Gardiner to redevelop the area then they need to do it properly. Don't open the door to them tearing it down and leaving empty lots and tracts of land in its place. That's not a change for the good!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should should reread what I wrote. I didn't say that land should be left vacant for no reason. I said it should be left vacant and a hold put on development on some of the land, the land that immediately borders the rail corridor, so that it can be put to use to help better facilitate the burying of the rail corridor.

And just because everything is not being done all at once does not mean these types of plans are small minded. Why would you straddle yourself with the logistical nightmare and huge cost of tearing down the Gardiner and rebuilding that section of the rail corridor all at once? Doing one project at a time makes sense not just from a project management point of view but also because improving the rail corridor and increasing capacity in a big way is still something that is only now being seriously discussed and until Metrolinx/GO really begin to expand is not nearly as important as removing the Gardiner.
 
AnarchoSocialist said:
Perhaps you should should reread what I wrote. I didn't say that land should be left vacant for no reason. I said it should be left vacant and a hold put on development on some of the land, the land that immediately borders the rail corridor, so that it can be put to use to help better facilitate the burying of the rail corridor.
Click to expand...

I understand the distinction, but i'm not sure it matters in the end. The land is still sitting there, unused, with a theoretic purpose we may or may not use. That's dangerous! That's the underlying spirit behind so many surface lots: tear down this building so we can replace it with something...sooner or later.

And just because everything is not being done all at once does not mean these types of plans are small minded. Why would you straddle yourself with the logistical nightmare and huge cost of tearing down the Gardiner and rebuilding that section of the rail corridor all at once? Doing one project at a time makes sense not just from a project management point of view but also because improving the rail corridor and increasing capacity in a big way is still something that is only now being seriously discussed and until Metrolinx/GO really begin to expand is not nearly as important as removing the Gardiner.
Click to expand...

It's not that they're not being done all at once - it's that they're not even being spoken about all at once. It's piecemeal planning, which is far worse than just piecemeal doing.

There is no pressing reason to remove the Gardiner, but there IS pressing reason to increase rail and alternative transit capacity. I don't understand why we rabidly go after one, while hardly saying a word about the other.
 
TKTKTK said:
I understand the distinction, but i'm not sure it matters in the end. The land is still sitting there, unused, with a theoretic purpose we may or may not use. That's dangerous! That's the underlying spirit behind so many surface lots: tear down this building so we can replace it with something...sooner or later.

It's not that they're not being done all at once - it's that they're not even being spoken about all at once. It's piecemeal planning, which is far worse than just piecemeal doing.

There is no pressing reason to remove the Gardiner, but there IS pressing reason to increase rail and alternative transit capacity. I don't understand why we rabidly go after one, while hardly saying a word about the other.
Click to expand...

There is a reason to remove the Gardiner. It is an old, aging structure which is going to either need major work (unless you take your chances that it doesn't collapse like many bridges from that era are doing), or removed. And yes, rail expansion is a priority. And that corridor does need to be addressed now. That is precisely why I suggested including provisions for its renovation as part of the Gardiner EA. I am not suggesting they leave the land vacant in case it can be used one day to help bury and upgrade the rail corridor. I am suggesting upgrading the rail corridor becomes an integral part of the development of that area. Develop a plan that would see the existing and newly freed land used as soon as it become available and useful.

I agree that piecemeal planning is not ideal. If there is no immediate plan and interest to upgrade the rail corridor and any stakeholders do not speak up, then they should look at other plans, such as using it for residential and commercial uses or whatever other ideas might exist. But if you put the idea out there now and attempt to involve them in the EA and planning, then you can capitalize on an opportunity. And if you read the info on the page that waterloowarrior posted you can see they do mention the role of transit initiatives and infrastructure so the importance that rail corridor does and will increasingly play is being talked about and recognized. Planning might only be in the earliest stages but it seems like they are going to take issues such as the rail corridor into consideration.
 
Just a general comment about what AnarchoSocialist said, and this is not directed at anyone at all - and I am sincere when I say that.

Good of you for bringing up the fact that all the details of the plan will come out in the EA. One of my pet peeves is when someone proposes an idea and people rally against it without even knowing what it will entail.

EAs are for identifying problems and overcoming them, so lets let the EA do what it's supposed to do. Be it the Gardiner Expressway, the Metrolinx RTP or my idea to build a dedicated freight railway instead corridor as opposed to building third fourth of fifth tracks on existing corridors, lets study the issue and then, once we have all the information, make a decision.

We have more information about the Gardiner Expressway's impact on the traffic in Toronto, and it appears that the talking-points about "two minute delays are credible". But, I understand where people who think its a bad idea are coming from. The best thing we can do to please everyone is move to the EA stage and figure out once-and-for-all what is best for the City of Toronto.
 
RedRocket191 said:
Just a general comment about what AnarchoSocialist said, and this is not directed at anyone at all - and I am sincere when I say that.

Good of you for bringing up the fact that all the details of the plan will come out in the EA. One of my pet peeves is when someone proposes an idea and people rally against it without even knowing what it will entail.

EAs are for identifying problems and overcoming them, so lets let the EA do what it's supposed to do. Be it the Gardiner Expressway, the Metrolinx RTP or my idea to build a dedicated freight railway instead corridor as opposed to building third fourth of fifth tracks on existing corridors, lets study the issue and then, once we have all the information, make a decision.

We have more information about the Gardiner Expressway's impact on the traffic in Toronto, and it appears that the talking-points about "two minute delays are credible". But, I understand where people who think its a bad idea are coming from. The best thing we can do to please everyone is move to the EA stage and figure out once-and-for-all what is best for the City of Toronto.
Click to expand...

I have a BIG problem with you suggesting we wait for the EA. The TTC, for instance, has consistently shown that it has already made up its mind by the time an EA is undertaken, and avoid listening to public input as much as possible: e.g. Saint Clair, Sheppard East.

So waiting for the EA to complain is absolutely the WRONG choice to make in this city.
 
AnarchoSocialist said:
And if you read the info on the page that waterloowarrior posted you can see they do mention the role of transit initiatives and infrastructure so the importance that rail corridor does and will increasingly play is being talked about and recognized. Planning might only be in the earliest stages but it seems like they are going to take issues such as the rail corridor into consideration.
Click to expand...

I did read it once it was posted - and I'm glad that they're going to consider all aspects of transportation through that area - including the role of the rail embankment (well, I'm assuming they're thinking of its future along with GO/Metrolinx mention).
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I have a BIG problem with you suggesting we wait for the EA. The TTC, for instance, has consistently shown that it has already made up its mind by the time an EA is undertaken, and avoid listening to public input as much as possible: e.g. Saint Clair, Sheppard East.

So waiting for the EA to complain is absolutely the WRONG choice to make in this city.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is everyone should wait for more information to come out.

The best example I can give is the TTC tickets debate. Every blog I came across talked in concrete terms like "will eliminate tickets by september," ignoring the fact that a final decisions has not yet been made. I'm not saying we shouldn't debate the ideas being proposed, I'm just saying that we should recognize that most of the things we hear on the news are just ideas - nothing more.
 
Toronto is literally the only entity in the GTA that ignored the existing backbone of their transit system, and instead put feeder routes on the top of their wish list. York Region's primary goal is to improve transit on the Yonge and Highway 7 corridors. Peel municipalities are pushing for high order transit on Hurontario. Even Durham Region wanted in on improved east-west connections to the rest of the GTA along the 401 and Lakeshore GO lines.

And what about Toronto? The Yonge subway was over crowded 20 years ago, but who cares! Let's give it even more feeder routes. The Sheppard subway could become the transit backbone of the northern suburbs, but who cares! Let's make it as hard as possible to use by forcing as many transfers as possible. The Bloor subway is the only way to travel across the city and is packed, but who cares! It's already there, so why build an alternative along Queen or Eglinton.

I think Miller would love subways but knows it isn't the most realistic goal right now.
Click to expand...

Ya, but only if his union cronies got the contract.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top