Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)

[BurlOak]

View attachment 135629

Interesting that 2 exterior girders are floating in space. Maybe using the same technology, they could eliminate all the piers.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The report doesn't call it a linear park, but rather a linear open space or greenway. They are trying to make it look more attractive, but I don't think they are trying to disguise the fact that it's a transportation corridor, not a park. All the renderfolk are on the move, except the one sitting on a rock (we all need a break now and then). They are silk-lining the sow's ear. OK, enjoy the silk.

 

[44 North]

Just read the report that AoD posted about the linear park proposed along the new Gardiner. I think it is misguided to think that people will dwell in this linear park along a very noisy and active highway (Lake Shore below, Gardiner above). The renderings (below) depict a lush place where moms will push strollers, kids will hang out on rocks, and everybody will pretend they're hanging out at waters edge. Just because the shoreline was once here doesn't mean we should pay homage with this green and rocky outdoor shoreline along the highway. At heart here in my view is a moral discomfort with any new high capacity autocentric infrastructure, so it must be tamed with grandiose naturalizing of that space even if that doesn't work well for an highly urbanized pedestrian corridor. Maybe that is just how it is presented for public consumption, but I don't think it will work as depicted. It would be better to treat it like the infrastructure it needs to be, and invest perhaps no more money in separating the cars from people on bikes and on foot, using a glass wall. Something like exists under the rail corridor along Bay could be a decent model (pictured). Buildings could be built right along this enclosed corridor, and residents could step out into bike- and pedestrian-friendly corridor. Developers could help build this corridor if they were allowed to build a bit closer to the Gardiner. This would be a more appropriate urbanized vision for multi-modal mobility.

Not sure if there's all that much room for development built right up against the Gardiner. It would certainly help hide the structure, but not sure how viable it is. However I definitely welcome the naturalization along the East Gardiner. Believe it or not, but there are people that are willing to bike along any trails. Perhaps not families and amblers, but pedal commuters would use it - particularly those that don't want to deal with the slower pace of the QQ trail. And if the alternative to a path and tree plantings is mud, gravel, hobo encampments, I think many would prefer the former vs latter. Even as a driver it's nice to see greenery. When passing by Fort York on the Gardiner you can see tree tops. And Lake Shore is way too dark and dank. This will be welcome.

 

[ADRM]

Not sure if there's all that much room for development built right up against the Gardiner. It would certainly help hide the structure, but not sure how viable it is. However I definitely welcome the naturalization along the East Gardiner. Believe it or not, but there are people that are willing to bike along any trails. Perhaps not families and amblers, but pedal commuters would use it - particularly those that don't want to deal with the slower pace of the QQ trail. And if the alternative to a path and tree plantings is mud, gravel, hobo encampments, I think many would prefer the former vs latter. Even as a driver it's nice to see greenery. When passing by Fort York on the Gardiner you can see tree tops. And Lake Shore is way too dark and dank. This will be welcome.

Couldn't agree more; I think this all looks excellent (so much so that I'm just waiting for DMW and the like to get the chance to kill it).

To me, putting on my pedestrian and cyclist hat, I think the north-south connections are going to be especially vital; it's such an inhospitable environment and it really does act as a barrier to movement. I quite like what they've envisioned here, and actually think that the "roof" design elements will be very important in making the connection feel more viable -- I hope those don't get axed.

Also, seeing this graphic makes me wonder when we'll see movement on the 3C lands and silo site (which I forgot aren't one and the same), and a redevelopment proposal for Loblaws.

 

[jaybe]

Just read the report that AoD posted about the linear park proposed along the new Gardiner. I think it is misguided to think that people will dwell in this linear park along a very noisy and active highway (Lake Shore below, Gardiner above). The renderings (below) depict a lush place where moms will push strollers, kids will hang out on rocks, and everybody will pretend they're hanging out at waters edge. Just because the shoreline was once here doesn't mean we should pay homage with this green and rocky outdoor shoreline along the highway. At heart here in my view is a moral discomfort with any new high capacity autocentric infrastructure, so it must be tamed with grandiose naturalizing of that space even if that doesn't work well for an highly urbanized pedestrian corridor. Maybe that is just how it is presented for public consumption, but I don't think it will work as depicted. It would be better to treat it like the infrastructure it needs to be, and invest perhaps no more money in separating the cars from people on bikes and on foot, using a glass wall. Something like exists under the rail corridor along Bay could be a decent model (pictured). Buildings could be built right along this enclosed corridor, and residents could step out into bike- and pedestrian-friendly corridor. Developers could help build this corridor if they were allowed to build a bit closer to the Gardiner. This would be a more appropriate urbanized vision for multi-modal mobility.

A key premise of the report is that "The elevated Gardiner Expressway is a major physical barrier that cuts off the city from the waterfront." I'd argue the railway lines are a much more significant barrier between the city and the waterfront. Combined, they make for an uncomfortable connection to the waterfront. I've worked in the area for 14+ years, and have witnessed how the development is increasing the number of pedestrians and cyclists. This design document is intended to address the impact of the infrastructure on the pedestrians who will live, work, walk or ride through the area.

You make a practical point about taming the area. Personally, I don't think it is a moral question that is driving this review. I see it as a need to find balance, as much as possible. No question that this is a very challenging design assignment. Frankly, I find this is some of the most interesting stuff to follow...

To your suggestion of a glass separated corridor, the distance between Jarvis and the Don is roughly 2 km. That would be costly to build and maintain.

 

[44 North]

Couldn't agree more; I think this all looks excellent (so much so that I'm just waiting for DMW and the like to get the chance to kill it).

To me, putting on my pedestrian and cyclist hat, I think the north-south connections are going to be especially vital; it's such an inhospitable environment and it really does act as a barrier to movement. I quite like what they've envisioned here, and actually think that the "roof" design elements will be very important in making the connection feel more viable -- I hope those don't get axed.

Also, seeing this graphic makes me wonder when we'll see movement on the 3C lands and silo site (which I forgot aren't one and the same), and a redevelopment proposal for Loblaws.

For sure. That roof element looks like a new concept to me. I remember ideas before showed something like christmas lights strung up, but this seems way better. Gives an organic feel, and apparently cuts down on noise. Besides all this though, and speaking more broadly, I'd be down if the City considered basic improvements to the whole underside of the Gardiner for the immediate future. Namely painting the columns. We already have a handful done east of Cherry, some under the DVP ramp, then the Bentway. Put a mere $100k to paint the columns something bright with a few commissioned pieces interspersed.

3C is probably cooking up something interesting. I also recall they wanted to punch through Trinity, which would obviously work well with what's planned for East Gardiner.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From Rochester, at this link:

A New Neighborhood Will Replace a Sunken Rochester Highway

With a portion of the Inner Loop highway filled in, Rochester is ready to reconnect its downtown to the East End neighborhood with mixed-use development. Photos: Google Maps

The removal of the Inner Loop freeway opened up six acres of land for development. Photo: City of Rochester

Toronto suburban councilors however doesn't want to upset the automobile gods.

 

[chicu1981]

From Rochester, at this link:

A New Neighborhood Will Replace a Sunken Rochester Highway

With a portion of the Inner Loop highway filled in, Rochester is ready to reconnect its downtown to the East End neighborhood with mixed-use development. Photos: Google Maps

The removal of the Inner Loop freeway opened up six acres of land for development. Photo: City of Rochester

Toronto suburban councilors however doesn't want to upset the automobile gods.

Stop this #WarOnCar. Go hug a tree or something.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the Rochester inner loop was always a low traffic, rather useless expressway that did little to reduce vehicle travel times. AADT was only 7,000, too low to justify even a 4 lane arterial, yet alone a 4 lane sunken expressway. It's removal has more to do with not maintaining an essentially useless asset than it does with creating new development land. Rochester isn't exactly a booming metropolis, especially downtown.

Compare that to the Gardiner east, with 120,000 AADT. That traffic level is typically accommodated by a congested 6 lane expressway, or preferably, 8 lanes. To be accomodated in an arterial road, 10-12 lanes would be needed.. there are no arterial roads over 8 lanes in Ontario, and very very few roads wider than 10 lanes anywhere in the globe. It is a key arterial connecting the old city of Toronto to places north and east.

One of the key differences between Toronto and other examples of freeway removals is that usually if a highway is removed it is a "stub" expressway ending at the downtown without any through traffic, is extremely underused, etc. Not a through freeway.

A good example is Syracuse, NY. I-81 runs on an elevated, 4 lane expressway through downtown that is reaching end of life. There was a big push to demolish it, but it was decided to retain it as it was a key interstate corridor. They even looked at bypassing the interstate around Syracuse, but that came out to be something like triple the cost.

Detroit is removing a little freeway stub that has no real reason to exist. Houston is demolishing part of it's freeway loop, after expanding the remaining portion to accommodate re-routed traffic. Boston buried it's freeway as it was a key regional connector.

Montreal recently removed Autoroute 10 coming into downtown, which was a dead end expressway into downtown. They just made it end a bit earlier. (OK, technically it had a connection to A-720, but A-720 is a stub expressway in itself)

Heck, even Toronto removed it's stub expressway 15 years ago when the eastern Gardiner was demolished.

 

[rbt]

the Rochester inner loop was always a low traffic, rather useless expressway that did little to reduce vehicle travel times. AADT was only 7,000, too low to justify even a 4 lane arterial, yet alone a 4 lane sunken expressway. It's removal has more to do with not maintaining an essentially useless asset than it does with creating new development land. Rochester isn't exactly a booming metropolis, especially downtown.

Right. Same reason they no longer have a subway line; it got turned into highway space in the 50's.

They overbuilt a long time ago and 100 years later the population to use it simply hasn't shown up.

 

[amnesiajune]

Montreal recently removed Autoroute 10 coming into downtown, which was a dead end expressway into downtown. They just made it end a bit earlier. (OK, technically it had a connection to A-720, but A-720 is a stub expressway in itself)

It was very different from the Gardiner in that it's a road into downtown, not a road through downtown. Duke/Nazareth is sort of analogous to Richmond/Adelaide, while A-15 is their equivalent of the Gardiner.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A-40 through northwest Montreal is most similar to the Gardiner in the sense that it is a large elevated highway, but A-720 is the primary highway into downtown. A-15 runs near downtown but not right beside it.

Montreal is a lot older and denser of a city than Toronto in general, and it's highway network is very different because of that. A lot more urban expressways than Toronto. It's a fun city to drive in off peak. If anything the traffic is even worse there than here though, especially given that they are essentially rebuilding the entire core area of the freeway network with the Champlain Bridge and Turcot interchange projects.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Just wondering about the elevated portion of the Gardiner Expressway, after this...

 

[raptor]

For starters, these are 2 completely different bridges. Might as well compare the Gardiner with tunnels.

 

[darth_freeman]

Gardiner bridge spans are very conventional and pretty much will never totally collapse (though of course still vulnerable to chunks of deteroriated concrete falling), compared to the Italian bridge which was an unusual design.