News   Mar 05, 2021
 4.4K     9 
News   Mar 05, 2021
 566     0 
News   Mar 05, 2021
 2.1K     3 

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

darth_freeman

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
264
Reaction score
136
Location
Toronto
Maybe this has been discussed before but I assume that they determined that the pillars holding up the deck are still in good shape and don't need replacement. Or is there any pillar replacement happening east of Jarvis? Other than the new ramping up portion closer to Cherry? I'm not that familiar with the design.
There is no pillar replacement as part of the current Jarvis to Cherry deck replacement works.

With all the deck sections replaced, all they have to do now is complete the north barrier wall and pave before traffic can shift to the opposite side and then rinse and repeat for replacing the entire south half of the Gardiner in this stretch.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,651
Reaction score
7,510
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
"In the 1960s, it seemed clear that the future was the car. Amsterdam had its own plans about how to make the city more car-friendly. Some of these plans failed, others only partially. Discover how radically different Amsterdam might have been had these plans succeeded."

The Highway Plan that Almost Destroyed Amsterdam - Plan Jokinen

From link.

 

mburrrrr

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
555
Reaction score
6,325
Great pics. Thank you.
I believe that based on the schedule, the work on the North side should be completed within the next 3 months. The work on the South side should take less time and be completed by the end of 1st part of 2021. The Eastbound Jarvis on-ramp has been closed for construction as of last week allowing for concurrent work and faster completion of the South side.
Where did time go? Looks like they are ready for paving the north side. Wow 2 months!
98C4A55E-AF7D-4FAA-B11B-B758EDF41432.jpeg
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,454
Reaction score
1,840
Location
Ward 28
Now that pillars have been brought up I'm curious. With the Hybrid (not the current rebuild), what's the proposed distance between the pillars. I feel like with improved engineering for girders, and a less thrifty design, the distance between pillars should be double what exists now. Thus creating a more airy environment below.
 

urbannorth

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
31
Reaction score
43
Now that pillars have been brought up I'm curious. With the Hybrid (not the current rebuild), what's the proposed distance between the pillars. I feel like with improved engineering for girders, and a less thrifty design, the distance between pillars should be double what exists now. Thus creating a more airy environment below.
Not that much. Measuring from Google, I get spans of about 70' (21m). Span to depth back in the day was about 25, so the girder depth was 32" or 36" (800 to 900 mm) - plus an 8" (200mm) concrete deck.

Now, steel can go to span to depth of 28 to 30 - so a bit better but not by much.
And, I believe they are using concrete girders - which had span to depth of 20 back in the day, or about 23 to 25 now. So, with a 36" (900mm) concrete beam, they can do about the same 21m span. I am now sure what the vertical clearance to the Lakeshore Blvd. is below, but if they can lower the underside of the beams, or raise the road profile, they can indeed do better.
I'd probably go with 2000mm deep girders, which could span 45m.

So yes, they could double the span, as long as they double the depth - not for the reasons you give.

When this was built, prestressed concrete girders were just in their infancy (first one in Ontario was 1955) - and Toronto didn't want to risk the new technology. It looks like cost was a factor, and 36" (rolled) steel girders were about the deepest "cheap girders you could get. Above 36" (well they did have 42" but it was a bit less common), they would have to use welded steel plate girders, which was more expensive than the rolled steel girders. This technology was also relatively new (riveted steel plate girders were done before), with the first welded bridges in Ontario in about 1950.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,007
Reaction score
10,318
Except that doesn't work. The cost of demolishing the Gardiner wasn't free - it was $600 million. The city isn't paying $1 billion to keep the Gardiner, they are paying $400 million, since that's the difference from the "demolish" option to the "keep" option.
 

urbanflight

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
72
Reaction score
145
The city is wasting $1 billion just to rebuild, repair and keep the Gardiner, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the city has already wasted in previous years on repairs to that disruptive, polluting piece of garbage. That $1 billion doesn't even include all the money that will be wasted in future repairs and maintenances.

The demolition of the Gardiner could save the city at least $500 million immediately, that already includes the redevelopment of the road into an urban boulevard. On top of that the city could save hundreds of millions of dollars from the repairs and maintenances to an archaic highway that could be avoided.

In total the city is projecting to waste $2.205 billion in the next 10 years solely over that highway that induce congestion, air and noise pollution and disruption to the urban environment.

 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
10,489
Reaction score
15,271
Location
Toronto/EY
I strongly prefer the 'Urban Boulevard' option; and one done at lower cost than the City's model, because I would cut one-lane each way on Lakeshore vs the City model.

That said, @innsertnamehere is closer on the direct cost savings of going at-grade.

But there is an additional factor, which is assessment growth from the Boulevard option.

Which would be even greater if we went with a slightly slimmer road, as I prefer.

That would be a positive impact into 100M+ per year range.

That adds up to 3B over 30-year timeframe.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,007
Reaction score
10,318
The city is wasting $1 billion just to rebuild, repair and keep the Gardiner, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the city has already wasted in previous years on repairs to that disruptive, polluting piece of garbage. That $1 billion doesn't even include all the money that will be wasted in future repairs and maintenances.

The demolition of the Gardiner could save the city at least $500 million immediately, that already includes the redevelopment of the road into an urban boulevard. On top of that the city could save hundreds of millions of dollars from the repairs and maintenance to an archaic highway that could be avoided.

In total the city is projecting to waste $2.205 billion in the next 10 years solely over that highway that induce congestion, air and noise pollution and disruption to the urban environment.

Yes. But as I said, most of that spending isn't "optional". We can't just close the highway and let it rot. It either needs to be demolished or maintained, and the marginal costs between the two options is much less than $2.2 billion. As I said, the original cost estimate had rebuilding the eastern Gardiner pegged at $1 billion, while demolishing and replacing it was pegged at $600 million.

So cancelling the replacement "only" saves you $400 million. Still a frig-ton of money, but not enough to cover the current annual deficit.

I could of course also go into how it wouldn't be possible anyway as capital funding is very different and cannot replace operational funding, etc...

I'm just generally annoyed by you, as well as several other people in the Toronto urbanism world, who constantly claim that cancelling the Gardiner would suddenly free up billions of dollars. It won't. I'm happy to debate whether or not it should be retained, but if we are going to do that, we need to make sure we are using the correct information.

@Northern Light That's a fair assumption, but it's assuming that the assessment growth won't occur elsewhere instead. It probably won't happen on a 1-1 replacement, but most of the growth that could have happened here will likely happen elsewhere in the city instead, negating some of that assessment growth. It's a hard question to answer.
 

urbannorth

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
31
Reaction score
43
The city is wasting $1 billion just to rebuild, repair and keep the Gardiner, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the city has already wasted in previous years on repairs to that disruptive, polluting piece of garbage. That $1 billion doesn't even include all the money that will be wasted in future repairs and maintenances.

The demolition of the Gardiner could save the city at least $500 million immediately, that already includes the redevelopment of the road into an urban boulevard. On top of that the city could save hundreds of millions of dollars from the repairs and maintenances to an archaic highway that could be avoided.

In total the city is projecting to waste $2.205 billion in the next 10 years solely over that highway that induce congestion, air and noise pollution and disruption to the urban environment.

Toronto could have had the Gardiner (and DVP) uploaded to the Province for free - but they decided to do the work themselves instead.
 

urbanflight

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
72
Reaction score
145
Yes. But as I said, most of that spending isn't "optional". We can't just close the highway and let it rot. It either needs to be demolished or maintained, and the marginal costs between the two options is much less than $2.2 billion. As I said, the original cost estimate had rebuilding the eastern Gardiner pegged at $1 billion, while demolishing and replacing it was pegged at $600 million.

So cancelling the replacement "only" saves you $400 million. Still a frig-ton of money, but not enough to cover the current annual deficit.

I could of course also go into how it wouldn't be possible anyway as capital funding is very different and cannot replace operational funding, etc...

I'm just generally annoyed by you, as well as several other people in the Toronto urbanism world, who constantly claim that cancelling the Gardiner would suddenly free up billions of dollars. It won't. I'm happy to debate whether or not it should be retained, but if we are going to do that, we need to make sure we are using the correct information.

@Northern Light That's a fair assumption, but it's assuming that the assessment growth won't occur elsewhere instead. It probably won't happen on a 1-1 replacement, but most of the growth that could have happened here will likely happen elsewhere in the city instead, negating some of that assessment growth. It's a hard question to answer.

You aren't reading what I am saying, you keep distorting my posts.

Demolishing AND transforming the Gardiner into an urban boulevard at-grade could save the city at least $500 million in the short term, after the project is completed. I did not say that reviewing the current archaic project would free up billions of dollars right away.

The current situation is that the city has budgeted $2.205-billion on repairs to the Gardiner. So obviously demolishing it would enable the city to make alternatives & better investments in the future. In other words, the city won't be $2.205-billion poorer due to an archaic highway. By the way, that figure doesn't even include the cost of road pollution (air & noise, and lack of greenery).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTC

Jasmine18

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
518
Lol a 6 to 8 lane boulevard with massive backlogs seems like a nightmare.


It cant be high speed and would have to be pedestrian friendly meaning it be very bad at moving traffic.

Now if we make it with pedestrians bridges then it be good maybe.

Best option would be to tunnel it from cne to DVp with exit only at spadina York and jarvis.

That's the only real long term solution.
 

Top