|
|
|
Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
turini2
Active Member
I'm still living in the (frankly delusional) hope that the post Covid-19 budget crunch will mean this project is cancelled and replaced by the cheaper boulevard option...
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,596
- Reaction score
- 25,275
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
The work they are doing now (and which is 99% finished)is east of Jarvis and THIS is the section that SHOULD have been cancelled, and the elevated road torn down and a proper surface boulevard made (there were quite detailed plans).. The work they still have to do is (primarily) through downtown where there were never many options and where I think there was much more of a consensus that the elevated section had to remain.
Last edited:
turini2
Active Member
On this very topic...
Northern Light
Superstar
The cut-off at Jarvis is based on the furthest point at which heavier traffic levels flowed (there was a substantial drop east of Jarvis).
The residual traffic on the Gardiner from Jarvis to the Humber definitely cannot be accommodated through a simple replacement road at-grade; nor is there enough existing public transit capacity to replace it.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it would be more costly because additional investments would be required.
Some can and would be GO Transit based; but would require much higher levels of service; and higher levels of local transit service feeding outlying stations.
Further capacity at Union would also be required.
Beyond transit, you wouldn't be able to reduce the inbound vehicle count by 100%, and even 50% would be a challenge.
As such you'd have to find ways to replace a meaningful portion of that capacity.
An at-grade solution could be used for portions of the route; but there are sections, such as the area near Fort York and in the Western Beaches where the choices would be ....difficult and pricey.
In the end, east of Jarvis is fairly easy to remove, at comparatively low cost and with minimal hassle.
West of Jarvis gets progressively more challenging; though as far as Yonge (ish) could probably be done without blowing the bank.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
It's a manner of where that traffic is coming from too, and whether those areas are serviceable by transit. Plus the Gardiner is actually much busier than 3 lanes of traffic - it also routes traffic onto Lake Shore after the Humber. What is a 10 lane freeway turns into a 6 lane freeway and 6 lane boulevard after the Humber.
The overall people throughput on the Gardiner and Lakeshore into the downtown is probably similar to the Bloor Subway coming from the west.
If you were to demolish it, traffic would adjust.. it always does.. but with those cars disappearing, so would economic activity. Some trips would surely transfer to transit, but many would likely just stop happening.
My understanding is that on a typical freeway, about 20% of traffic is commercial. Probably a good chunk more than that can be qualified as "business" as well - contractors, etc. transporting goods and crews in smaller vehicles.
Northern Light
Superstar
The report in the 90s that recommended taking down the Gardiner east of Strachan can be found here:
A more recent report definitely looks at goods volume, that can be found here:
KhalilHeron
Active Member
I haven't really been following this so forgive me if this has been answered but how likely and feasible is burying the gardener below lake shore?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
0% chance and extremely expensive.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
fair oh well
allengeorge
Senior Member
It’s highly unlikely that John Tory would waste political capital on tearing down Gardiner East (though, yeah - it absolutely fails the “value for money” test). He still leads from behind IMO. And, for all that’s happened in the last year, Toronto’s mentality is still car-centric; I’m not 100% sure people would back it.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I mean Paris has a 6-8 lane highway around the downtown, and while I admit London doesn't have a freeway right to downtown, it does have one to Canary Wharf.
One look at the transit maps of those two metros will tell you what you need to know about how they are configured as well. That comes back to my point from where people are coming from. Pretty much everywhere in both the Paris and London metros are within strong rapid transit coverage, and their entire cities are oriented that way. Paris has a 20% auto modal share.. London 37%. Toronto, 68% (though falling). Toronto's suburbs are closer to 80%. The reality is that most of the GTA isn't very easy to get to without a car.. and that isn't going to fundamentally change within our lifetimes. There needs to be an interface between the downtown and those areas, as there simply isn't another option.
It comes back to my point.. sure, you could demolish it, it wouldn't be world shattering.. the city would move on. I just don't think it's the best idea for mobility and quality of life for the GTA as a whole. Toronto actually doesn't have that much freeway infrastructure in it's downtown. Compared to major US cities, it's puny. Toronto has 6 inbound freeway lanes (10 if you want to count the Gardiner west of the Humber), Chicago has 31. Boston has 23. Washington has 20. Philadelphia, 17. All of those cities have more lanes on one inbound freeway than Toronto does in entirety.
One look at the transit maps of those two metros will tell you what you need to know about how they are configured as well. That comes back to my point from where people are coming from. Pretty much everywhere in both the Paris and London metros are within strong rapid transit coverage, and their entire cities are oriented that way. Paris has a 20% auto modal share.. London 37%. Toronto, 68% (though falling). Toronto's suburbs are closer to 80%. The reality is that most of the GTA isn't very easy to get to without a car.. and that isn't going to fundamentally change within our lifetimes. There needs to be an interface between the downtown and those areas, as there simply isn't another option.
It comes back to my point.. sure, you could demolish it, it wouldn't be world shattering.. the city would move on. I just don't think it's the best idea for mobility and quality of life for the GTA as a whole. Toronto actually doesn't have that much freeway infrastructure in it's downtown. Compared to major US cities, it's puny. Toronto has 6 inbound freeway lanes (10 if you want to count the Gardiner west of the Humber), Chicago has 31. Boston has 23. Washington has 20. Philadelphia, 17. All of those cities have more lanes on one inbound freeway than Toronto does in entirety.
Last edited:
U
urbanflight
Guest
U
urbanflight
Guest
What you’re not mentioning is that Paris’ highway ring soon will be transformed into an urban boulevard, favoring public transit and green space.
In fact, most of the highways in the Parisian region (Île-de-France) will be transformed to favor public transit, against individual cars.
The same is true for Lyon, France's 2nd economic capital, which has an approved and financed project to transform a highway into an urban boulevard.
Undead
Senior Member
Ideally, tearing down the Gardiner would be bundled with substantial transit improvements (which are needed either way) including:
frequent 2WAD RER on as many GO lines as possible
full fare integration between 905 transit-GO and TTC-GO
King Street style improvements on all streetcar lines
DRL/OL East and West
additional GO stations in the downtown shoulder areas
improvements on lines 1 and 2
Waterfront East and West LRTs
long range cycling corridors
deliveries shifted to off peak hours
frequent 2WAD RER on as many GO lines as possible
full fare integration between 905 transit-GO and TTC-GO
King Street style improvements on all streetcar lines
DRL/OL East and West
additional GO stations in the downtown shoulder areas
improvements on lines 1 and 2
Waterfront East and West LRTs
long range cycling corridors
deliveries shifted to off peak hours