News   Oct 26, 2021
 791     3 
News   Oct 20, 2021
 93     0 
News   Oct 19, 2021
 748     0 

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

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
14,944
Reaction score
29,221
Location
Toronto/EY
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

While I would support all of the above........

In terms of removing the central and west sections of the Gardiner, the key is those investments that work in the west, and north-west areas of the inner and outer suburbs.

2 way, all-day GO, running 15 minute or better frequencies all-day to Brampton, and Hamilton on the Kitchener and LSW corridors; along with 15-minute rush hour, and hourly or better all-day service on the Milton Corridor to Lisgar.

But, those GO Stations still need to be served by vastly better local transit.

That transit has to be every 15 minutes or better in its own right, and in place for full span of service. (all-day and weekends).

That and fare integration would do wonders.

Then, I think we're in a better position to look at removing more of the Gardiner; and bundling those makes sense.
 
Last edited:

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,905
Reaction score
12,584
I'm aware of Paris's plans. And it can support them easily because 80% of people already don't drive..

The auto modal share of downtown Toronto is higher than the entire Paris metro. let that sink in. Even the outer suburbs of paris have modal shares similar to inner city Toronto.

It's certainly the ideal to shoot for, but that has to happen over time with a generations worth of infrastructure and land use changes to support it. You can't just demolish all the major road infrastructure and say "Done!".
 

KhalilHeron

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
360
Reaction score
894
Location
Scarborough
a1985991742_10.jpg
let that sink in.
Scrapping tolls on the 407 would def help redistribute the traffic (not saying people would take 407 instead of gardiner) but that's a whole other mess
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,777
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Majorca
As someone who uses the Gardiner almost daily (when I'm not laid off because of misguided pandemic closures) in a commercial capacity, I'm also one of the greatest proponents of blowing it up (with actual explosives). It is a malignant sore on the face of the city. No amount of perceived economic benefit justifies its existence as a pustulent sore.

I'm looking at it out my window right now: instead of a potentially world famous beach/cultural waterfront along the entirety of the Humber Bay shore, I'm staring at 12 lanes of bullshit.

It was built by people who had no taste and no sense. That isn't reason to keep it going either.
 

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
446
Reaction score
1,722
Just to bring this back to reality. In my piece, the design by Smart Density only looks at the section east of Cherry Street. This is the section whose reconstruction has not yet begun. It’s about 800 metres. And the key advantage of the teardown would be that it opens up more land. The five buildings on the north side of the joint roadway, in this diagram, are all on sites that would get eaten by the hybrid. There are also incremental games to the south.

Basically, highways are very big; this is an incredibly important part of the city; some change is still possible.

074F0AC1-2910-4C61-A1F9-DC3144BF97A6.jpeg
 

allengeorge

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
921
Reaction score
2,175
Basically, highways are very big; this is an incredibly important part of the city; some change is still possible.
How likely is it politically? Mayor Tory is politically cautious, and it’s unclear that suburban councilors would support this, regardless of the budget benefits, no?
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,905
Reaction score
12,584
The budget benefits, while significant, are also less than typically described. The reconstruction is about $400 million more than the demolition option, not the $1 billion often described. $1 billion is the total project cost, but demolishing it would still cost $600 million.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,905
Reaction score
12,584
Why does it cost $600 million to demolish? That sounds excessive for 1.7km.
Because you have to demolish, construct new connecting ramps, and reconstruct lake shore.

IIRC both options included the current ~$250 million reconstruction from Jarvis to Cherry as well, which was never planned to be demolished in either option. So minus that part off and you are left with either $750 million for the reconstruct option, or $350 million for the demolish option.
 

KhalilHeron

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
360
Reaction score
894
Location
Scarborough
So it's really ~$350 million to demolish 0.8km (the portion east of Cherry to the Don). That still sounds astronomical. Let alone spending $750 million for 0.8km???

Florida DOT puts 6-lane urban road/highway construction cost at $8-14 million USD per mile! As does the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (~$11 million USD/mile).


Mind you costs will be a lot higher in a dense urban area
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,905
Reaction score
12,584
So it's really ~$350 million to demolish 0.8km (the portion east of Cherry to the Don). That still sounds astronomical. Let alone spending $750 million for 0.8km???

Florida DOT puts 6-lane urban road/highway construction cost at $8-14 million USD per mile! As does the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (~$11 million USD/mile).


Because a florida standard highway is 1. not elevated. 2. has terrible public realm. It likely doesn't even provide sidewalks. 3. doesn't demolish an existing highway. 4. doesn't construct temporary roads to redirect traffic. 5. doesn't rebuild service roads entirely, including a large new bridge structure. 6. doesn't use the highest quality streetscape and landscaping elements in order to mitigate the highways impact, etc., etc,. etc.

MTO builds standard rural freeways at about $10 million per KM. Or at least that is how much the 400 Extension to Sudbury has been. Adding extra lanes, complex interchanges, improved landscaping, etc. all increases costs. That works out to $12 million USD per mile or so.

Florida is also cheaper because of cheaper labour, simpler terrain to deal with, much lower land costs, etc.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,905
Reaction score
12,584
The elevated part is what gets you.

structures are incredibly expensive. An at grade freeway is gravel and asphalt. No lighting, no electrical, some aluminum signs, a bit of paint, and that’s it. construction involves mostly grading.

A concrete elevated expressway is thousands of tons of steel and concrete with extensive lighting and even heating systems. I believe they plan on using heating systems on the ramps so that they can be steeper to reduce their land impact.

urban freeways are much more expensive than rural ones mostly because there are far more structures involved. Most costs in freeways are the interchanges because they involve structures, stoplights, etc.

The Gardiner is essentially one gigantic bridge. A more comparable cost would be bridge projects.. the Champlain bridge in Montreal cost $4.2 billion to replace and it was 3.4 km long.
 

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
446
Reaction score
1,722
None of the numbers cited above are correct. The section east of Cherry needs to be torn down. The question is how to replace it. Doing so largely on the ground would be cheaper, both in terms of construction and maintenance costs, than building a new elevated structure.
 

MrGoose

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
179
Reaction score
485
What if we turned the Gardiner into a new rail corridor? Can the existing infrastructure handle it?
 

mjl08

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
3,528
Reaction score
1,694
Location
Toronto

But over weeks of budget consultations and meetings at city hall, there’s been no real appetite to really grapple with this reality. Last month, Councillor Mike Layton, a member of city hall’s budget committee, put forward a motion looking for information about the Gardiner. He asked for a report on the money spent to date on designing and rebuilding the contentious eastern section of the Gardiner — which council in 2015 voted to maintain rather than replace with a boulevard — and for details on the implications the Gardiner has on Toronto’s budget.

That request was swiftly denied by the committee.

Tory lapdogs Bradford (an urban planner!), Crawford, McKelvie and Nunziata voted against the motion (J4)
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewPublishedReport.do?function=getMinutesReport&meetingId=19789
 

Top