News   May 06, 2024
Amexon Nominated for BILD Green Builder of the Year for Residences at Central Park
 519     1 
News   May 06, 2024
Four High-Rises and Public Park Proposed South of Whitby GO
 1.1K     0 
News   May 06, 2024
News Roundup for May 6, 2024
 695     1 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

DonValleyRainbow said:
I remember going on a Jane's Walk for Gardiner East, and someone was going around advocating for decking the existing Gardiner with a Beltline Trail. I dismissed it as absurd.

This, however, I could get behind. Particularly if the adjacent private development could be leveraged for some of the capital outlay.
Click to expand...

I agree. There is such interesting potential with this idea. I imagine new condo's on Lakeshore could back onto the park above the Gardiner and Berm. Residents of these condo's would be directly connected to a parkway. At street level it would mean a redesigned Lakeshore could have condo's and businesses on both sides of the road. This approach increases the value of these properties and makes the whole idea more saleable. I'll be interested to see where this goes.
 
Once they decided to look at only the East Portion of the Gardiner, it was obvious that the underground option would not work. We have known for maybe 4 years now that building over the rail corridor was the best option, yet it was continuously ignored. One of the keys to building over the railway is allow for construction without disruption to existing traffic - in this case both highway and rail.

The reason we keep re-opening past decisions is because not all correct information was presented to the decision makers at the time.
 
"Best" option said who? The proposal as it stand is a blue sky that requires approval from Metrolinx, who might not be as sanguine as you are about it. Most of the solutions, including burial will work depending on how much you want to spend and what drawbacks you are willing to live with.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
"Best" option said who? The proposal as it stand is a blue sky that requires approval from Metrolinx, who might not be as sanguine as you are about it. Most of the solutions, including burial will work depending on how much you want to spend and what drawbacks you are willing to live with.

AoD
Click to expand...

Wasn't one of the issues with the 'stacking on the railway' idea was that CN/CP refused to do so, and owned the tracks? Has that been 'solved' by Metrolinx being involved?

I mean, there's a curving parking lot between two buildings on Carlaw because of CN, and they haven't used that piece of land for track in decades...
 
I can't seem to download the Green plan on Dropbox.............could someone put it up for me please?

I've never understood why the Gardiner couldn't be put over the rail tracks.
 
This may be the "best" option but it is also a really, really expensive option. Easily 1.5 billion more than "remove" for 2 more lanes (4 of the 10 grade separated). How much of the cost of rebuilding most of a mile of elevated above a railway and a park above that will be offset by land sales and tax increment?
 
CapitalSeven said:
This may be the "best" option but it is also a really, really expensive option. Easily 1.5 billion more than "remove" for 2 more lanes (4 of the 10 grade separated). How much of the cost of rebuilding most of a mile of elevated above a railway and a park above that will be offset by land sales and tax increment?
Click to expand...
Where are you getting $1.5 Billion? The report says $316 Million capital + $50 Million maintenance
 
I'll admit I got it from nowhere, and hadn't seen the 316 million figure. I didn't manage to find it till I read John Lorinc's article.

The 316 seems to be the cost of the building the stretch over the railway tracks. Then 50 for the new Lakeshore, 500 for 100 years of maintenance, then the extra 120-180 for reconfiguring the ramps from the DVP, as estimated for Option three in the recent city report (that part of the scheme is roughly the same).

That all adds up to roughly a billion, not 1.5, or even 1.9, as I guess I suggested. But in the spring the city suggested the "hybrid" was 919 million over 100 years. Moving the DVP ramps makes it closer to 1.1.

I don't see how demolishing and rebuilding more than a kilometer over the tracks can possibly cost lest than just rehabilitating that section of the existing road. It seems clear to me that the numbers have been prepared by two different sets of engineers with wildly different assumptions, and can't be compared as they stand.

But I would be delighted to learn that it really would be cheaper to build the green version. It should be less disruptive, with nearly all of the construction running to the north of the existing (though there would be some impact on the railway).
 
How does this new decking over the rail line conflict with potential plans for new eastern infill stations on the go line? I assume this would complicate a parliament go station.

Double decking with a park on top of a highway seems dumb. First who is going to climb all the way up there. Second the noise in the park will be brutal. Third will there be fake trees that are actually smoke stacks to remove the fumes? Fourth do we need this much capacity? Fifth how does this complicate any tunnelled future transit lines. Sixth why would metrolinx go for this, it just complicates their future work.
 
I think the "green" is added just to get some support from the environmental lobby. It probably adds 33% to the total cost. It would make more sense to have a few north-south land bridges that meet a retail level of the new buildings.
I hate the thought that Metrolinx will not go for it. I thought the job of Metrolinx was to co-ordinate transportation between different agencies. Do they only care about GO, or do they actually do their mandate.
 
BurlOak said:
I think the "green" is added just to get some support from the environmental lobby. It probably adds 33% to the total cost. It would make more sense to have a few north-south land bridges that meet a retail level of the new buildings.
I hate the thought that Metrolinx will not go for it. I thought the job of Metrolinx was to co-ordinate transportation between different agencies. Do they only care about GO, or do they actually do their mandate.
Click to expand...

It's bit of a stretch to consider this project having anything to do with "coordinating transportation between different agencies", as if Gardiner is a public transit authority. And no, I highly doubt that the "green" added 33% of the total cost considering the price of replacing elevated structures (and it can't be cheap along the rail corridor) - and besides the green space was presented more as an optional element by the proposal than anything else.

One interesting bit was of course how there was absolutely no ground level renderings - especially from the north and also through the existing N/S streets. It's usually telling when these things are not presented.

AoD
 
Oh gawd, Mammo's vision - from yesterday Exec:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-83474.pdf

Interestingly, the move the declare the DVP and Gardiner better suited as 400 series highways by Pasternak died:

Motions 1 - Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor James Pasternak (Lost)

That City Council take the position that both the Don Valley Parkway and the F.G. Gardiner Expressway are not appropriately city roads and should be King's Highways similar to the existing 400 series highway system.

Vote (Amend Item (Additional))
Sep-21-2015

Result: Lost Majority Required
Yes: 6 Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Cesar Palacio, James Pasternak, Jaye Robinson

No: 7 Paul Ainslie, Gary Crawford, Frank Di Giorgio, Mary-Margaret McMahon, David Shiner, Michael Thompson, John Tory (Chair)
Absent: 0

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.EX8.12

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top