Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[44 North]

I'm intrigued with how they came up with that number. The new waterfront communities are supposed be a walking and transit nirvana, and the type of people who will live there are less inclined to drive in the first place. And yet, a short streetcar line that may take a couple of minutes longer to get to Union will somehow convince 2,300 people to drive in gridlocked hell because it's not elevated.

Edit: upon re-reading the statement, isn't a "dedicated transit right-of-way" exactly what Queens Quay will have? The report seems to say that a dedicated transit ROW is not possible on Lakeshore, therefore the projected demand will not materialize on that corridor, whereas on Queens Quay it would. I'm not sure you came to the right conclusion, unless your point is that a ROW on Lakeshore is actually possible if you simply [insert engineering feat here]. If that's the case, is it really worth the extra cost for the similar ridership that would be achieved on Queens Quay without said engineering feat? Considering that the East Bayfront and Portlands are quite close to the downtown core to begin with, I'm not convinced that a higher order rapid transit solution is really needed, nor will it result in huge time savings for a short transit line. Whatever few minutes it would save will be offset by the fact that most people will have to walk further to get to Lakeshore, and that stops would likely be further apart.

Also, I wouldn't characterize the streetcar as slow. Unlike every other streetcar in the city, this one will have real transit priority signals and a ROW on the side of the road, which should minimize the stopping at traffic lights. It wont be super fast, but it it also won't be anything like 510 Spadina.

Correct, I did come to the wrong conclusion as to what “dedicated right-of-way” meant. A few pages behind where that quote appears, there was another one which I may’ve also misconstrued to mean rapid transit: “An at-grade facility was considered to be the most feasible solution, whereas a grade-separate facility, given the physical constraints surrounding Union Station, would be difficult to achieve and prohibitively expensive to construct”.

When referring to streetcars like what would be found along East Bayfront, is it the correct usage of the term “grade-separate” to describe them? I always believed that term to mean completely separate from the road system, but perhaps it also can refer to a curb protection for a line in the middle or alongside the road.

Either way, the takeaway from my point is that Lake Shore Blvd (and the Gardiner above it) will be seeing major capital works and design changes. The entire roadway could potentially be rebuilt and realigned...the East Bayfront EA didn't consider this fact. Rather than seeing a streetcar on Queens Quay, and a redundant second streetcar line 200m north on Lake Shore (as discussed in the East Bayfront EA and depicted in the Gardiner EA) - only one higher-order route could/should be created. What better opportunity to construct it than when the roadway is receiving this kind of treatment. It’s not exactly an “engineering feat” to include an elevated RT line into such a wide roadway allowance.

And I will characterize this particular streetcar line as slow. I’m no Ford Nation anti-streetcar guy. I love streetcars, but it doesn’t take a genius to know that a high tech, high speed vehicle will be running slow if it has to stop every 100m. It’s already been in the news that developers will be adding more intersections and traffic signals to QQE than was originally proposed. This adds time to a commute. If we’re seeing one or two intersection additions for a short section between Bay and Sherbourne, how many more will be added from Sherbourne to Leslie? And how many fire stations will require a traffic signal out front? And well after the line opens, how many infill projects will require a new signalized intersection for their parking garages? A trip from, say, Commissioners/Carlaw to Union will take way longer than it ought to...not to mention create too much of a commuting beeline by using a built-up QQ instead of a more direct and commuter-focused Lake Shore express. I’m no prognosticator, but IMO QQE WILL be like the 510 Spadina.

The City seems so focused on one section of the waterfront having a streetcar at their door – and creating a postcard-friendly showcase neighbourhood - that they’re sacrificing transit speeds and commuter benefit for the broader waterfront south and east of East Bayfront. By using a rebuilt/redesigned Lake Shore, QQ isn’t left high and dry. Transit will be one block north.

And your ‘transit nirvana’ scenario is a tad fanciful. Much of the East Bayfront is slated to be higher-end and luxury condos. Just like many of Toronto’s new condos, residents will be owning vehicles - and probably using them to commute as well. Look at Aqualina, every unit gets a parking space.

My view of the waterfront is very similar to London’s when they revitalized their Docklands. Namely, that public transportation should be grade-separated light RT and avoid street-running trams. Just like the Docklands, our Port Lands area is important as a business/employment district, for tourists, for special events, and for being a connected and cohesive part of the city. Just as many people support Vaughan getting another city’s subway system extended to serve their suburban Wal-Mart CBD amongst the tumbleweeds, I support a city of 2.7M creating a vibrant, connected, and prosperous waterfront. Using the backs of lots and a wide rebuilt highway as a transit corridor to serve this connection seems better than a disjointed 25min streetcar trip via QQE.

 

[44 North]

With the growth in retail, residential, institutional and commercial in the East along Richmond and Adelaide are the models out of date with respect to the overflow being handled by these 2 streets? And then remove a lane for dedicated bike lanes?

5 years ago the roads had almost no life east of Jarvis and they were a long on/off ramp for the DVP. Now there is actually street life (and more to come). It is becoming a community. If trucks and commuters take over, what will happen. It use to be an exit of choice but now its easier to get of at Yonge to get to King & Bay.

And it's funny to hear that we can't afford maintenance on a road structure but we could afford a brand new monorail or elevated LRT or other idea. Hamilton can afford the maintenance on a truck diversion route (LINC) and we are 5 times the size and can't afford to maintain a route into the downtown?

The models that were developed 10 years ago also don't predict the future commercial hub at Unilever/portlands. If this ever takes off, there will be added traffic from the west via the Gardiner to this site. There always will be people driving in regardless of the amount of transit. So there would be added traffic to a road with essentially 0 room for growth.

I'm not saying we can't afford to maintain the Gardiner. My reasoning for replacing - or building a wide, partially below-grade highway in its place - are mainly due to the fact that the section between Cherry and the DVP is to going to be rebuilt/realigned regardless. If we're doing that, why not rebuild the section east of Jarvis while we're at it. I support the Gardiner, but I know that there are improvements in technology that didn't exist 60 years ago that we can now take advantage of. Or that realigning the highway farther north can be to our city's benefit.

Although I'd like to see an EL as part of this major construction project, I definitely don't support turning Lake Shore and the Gardiner into some kind of woonerf that defies all the traffic studies and volumes traveling through this stretch (both currently, and in 20 years when the Port Lands and Unilver are built up).

Edit: My use of the "Remove" rendering to draw an EL was mainly because it was easier to portray what I had in mind. Not because I wanted to embrace a 5-lane road.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

The huge problem with the Replace alternative is that it is only east of Jarvis, and therefore the justification of establishing a new above or below grade expressway is that it would only serve that 3% of users entering and exiting downtown from the east using a car. The cost doesn't justify it.

Waterfront Toronto only evaluated this section of the Gardiner because it was looking at land development in that area. In order to meet those land development objectives and some other stuff, the Remove option was the best.

If we were to initiate a new EA examining the entire Gardiner, this would obviously examine the 4% of people using Gardiner west of Bathurst, the 21% of people using cars on other routes, and maybe the indirect impacts on the 53% of people that use the TTC, walk or cycle. Some kind of replacement option would have a larger overall traffic impact/benefit. The cost may be justified to meet those traffic objectives. We could also engage in a discussion about funding it. This should all be totally separate from improving the livability of eastern downtown and Don Land communities.

 

[44 North]

The huge problem with the Replace alternative is that it is only east of Jarvis, and therefore the justification of establishing a new above or below grade expressway is that it would only serve that 3% of users entering and exiting downtown from the east using a car. The cost doesn't justify it.

Waterfront Toronto only evaluated this section of the Gardiner because it was looking at land development in that area. In order to meet those land development objectives and some other stuff, the Remove option was the best.

If we were to initiate a new EA examining the entire Gardiner, this would obviously examine the 4% of people using Gardiner west of Bathurst, the 21% of people using cars on other routes, and maybe the indirect impacts on the 53% of people that use the TTC, walk or cycle. Some kind of replacement option would have a larger overall traffic impact/benefit. The cost may be justified to meet those traffic objectives. We could also engage in a discussion about funding it. This should all be totally separate from improving the livability of eastern downtown and Don Land communities.

The replacement is still a downgrade for auto users, considering it’s to make the expressway smaller (6 lanes to 4). That 3% wouldn’t be so much as “servedâ€, but rather underserved with a new, smaller highway.

As for WT’s role in removing/replacing the Gardiner; they’re not the only stakeholders. The enormous Unilever / East Don Lands site is outside WT’s oversight, and has now created a greater push to do something with the highway (Unilever and a Broadview ext wasn’t news when the EA was written btw). Not that I think private developer interests should have a final say in our city’s transportation infrastructure/planning, but they do have a larger involvement than many people realize. And rightfully so: if their project is a dismal failure – regardless of whether it’s lucrative or not - it doesn’t exactly bode well for the city.

The Gardiner west of Jarvis...that’s not really an issue. Maintain+ Improve(aesthetically) is basically the only option that makes sense. Why rebuild or realign it? The land around it has already developed, with much of it coexisting alongside the highway for decades. And if I’m not mistaken, tunnelling that stretch was ruled out as technically challenging. Regardless, there’d be no net benefit to auto users by rebuilding that stretch.

As for funding anything Gardiner-related, and how it can be viewed that we’re essentially spending dough to improve the liveability for those in the eastern waterfront... this is why I’d like to combine any Replacework with a theoretical Lake Shore RT. A combined DBF would allow for greater cost/time savings than two standalone projects; and IMO the $0.5bn for the rinkydink 2km Queens Quay streetcar could be stretched a lot further (while providing better/faster/broader service). Win-win. Naturally the added net benefit to transit users is greater justification for spending big bucks on a Gardiner solution than the notion that we’re merely catering to developers’ desire to increase property values. Or conversely, continuing to cater to the Gardiner’s 3%.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Does anyone know an approximate date when this is going to be back at council?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

From the official site.

Help decide the future of the Gardiner Expressway East

We invite you to join us at two upcoming public meetings where you can comment on the current phase of the Environmental Assessment on the future of the Gardiner Expressway East.

The Study

Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto are jointly carrying out the Gardiner Expressway / Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment (EA) and Integrated Urban Design Study. The EA will determine the future of the Gardiner Expressway East and Lake Shore Boulevard East, from approximately Jarvis Street to approximately Leslie Street.

The four alternative solutions that have been considered to date are:

* Maintain the elevated expressway;
* Improve the urban fabric while maintaining the existing expressway;
* Replace with a new above-or-below grade expressway; and
* Remove the elevated expressway and build a new boulevard.

In the last phase of the EA, the evaluation of the alternative solutions concluded that the remove option best met the evaluation criteria. Following direction from the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee of Toronto City Council. the upcoming public meeting will share the results of the following work:

1. Review the remove option under the EA process to mitigate concerns about traffic congestions

2. Prepare an additional hybrid option that combines the maintain and replace components to preserve expressway linkage and functionality between the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway, and evaluate it against the EA criteria and the following:
* Transportation functionality;
* Impacts on key economic sectors;
* Cost benefit;
* Future land use considerations;
* Public transit components:
* Environmental impact;
* Neighbourhood growth and compatibility.

Get Involved

Interested persons are invited to participate through two upcoming public meetings, one of which will be webcast, and online opportunities. If you can't attend in person, you can participate and watch the meeting online - and at any time afterwards - at www.gardinereast.ca.

Gardiner Expressway East Public Meeting (Downtown)
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. at the Bram & Bluma Appel Salon, Toronto Reference Library
789 Yonge Street, Toronto (Bloor Street subway station)
Open house begins at 6:30 p.m.; presentations at 7:00 p.m.
Please register at: gardinereapublicmeetingdowntownapril15.eventbrite.ca

Gardiner Expressway East Public Meeting (Scarborough)
Monday, April 20, 2015
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. at the Blessed Cardinal Newman H.S. Cafeteria
100 Brimley Rd S, Toronto
Open house begins at 6:30 p.m.; presentations at 7:00 p.m.
*PLEASE NOTE THIS MEETING WILL NOT BE WEBCAST*
Please register at: gardinereapublicmeetingscarboroughapril20.eventbrite.ca

For more information or to be added to the project mailing list, contact info@gardinereast.ca, or call (416) 479-0662.

 

[ksun]

I don't think Toronto will have the guts or the foresights to remove the Gardiner, even the less used eastern portion. Replacing it with a new one would be a completely waste of money and will incur massive cost overruns (maybe 300%). So I guess we are stuck with it for a very long time, and hopefully someday it crumbles and becomes irreparable.
Cars will continue to dominate the city for the next 50 years for sure.

 

[ehlow]

It won't get removed anytime soon.

Personally I think we should focus on making the experience under the Gardiner better. Underpass park showed that good things can happen underneath the highway. In a way it turned the perceived negative of being under a highway into something cool, featuring frequently in the "We the North" commercials.

Also now that it's surrounded by glass towers in south core it feels like less of a wasteland than it did before.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It won't get removed anytime soon.

Personally I think we should focus on making the experience under the Gardiner better. Underpass park showed that good things can happen underneath the highway. In a way it turned the perceived negative of being under a highway into something cool, featuring frequently in the "We the North" commercials.

Also now that it's surrounded by glass towers in south core it feels like less of a wasteland than it did before.

They should however rebuild key sections of it - particularly off ramps and at intersections to "lighten up" the structure.

AoD

 

[Canadian Chocho]

It won't get removed anytime soon.

Personally I think we should focus on making the experience under the Gardiner better. Underpass park showed that good things can happen underneath the highway. In a way it turned the perceived negative of being under a highway into something cool, featuring frequently in the "We the North" commercials.

Also now that it's surrounded by glass towers in south core it feels like less of a wasteland than it did before.

Agreed. I used to be in the 'tear it down' camp but after visiting other cities and even seeing some developments in our own city (Underpass Park, Fort York Visitors Centre) I realized that working with what we already have may not be all that bad.

The real issues I think are the railway berm, the width of the roadway, and primarily Lakeshore Boulevard running right underneath it.

 

[gweed123]

Agreed. I used to be in the 'tear it down' camp but after visiting other cities and even seeing some developments in our own city (Underpass Park, Fort York Visitors Centre) I realized that working with what we already have may not be all that bad.

The real issues I think are the railway berm, the width of the roadway, and primarily Lakeshore Boulevard running right underneath it.

You hit the nail on the head with your last point. I find Lake Shore to be more of an obstacle than the Gardiner, at least from a pedestrian point of view. Yes, the Gardiner is visually obtrusive, but it doesn't prevent pedestrian movement very much, except for limited on and off ramp locations. Finding a way to reconfigure or outright remove Lake Shore would help the pedestrian experience immensely, and would open up more space for places like Underpass Park.

 

[ksun]

Finding a way to reconfigure or outright remove Lake Shore would help the pedestrian experience immensely, and would open up more space for places like Underpass Park.

we can't even install a bike lane on Jarvis and had to reverse it, and you expect Lake Shore, driver's paradise, to be removed?

South of the rail tracks, the roads (I don't say streets) are so confusing, for both drivers and pedestrians. At one time it is Fort York then it comes Bremner, which bends 90 degree and then merges with Lake Shore. Harbour st emerges from nowhere and disappears rapidly into Lake Shore Blvd too. Then we have the short stubs of Freeland and Cooper that don't go anywhere and both disappear into Lake Shore. Lake Shore Blvd is like this monster what devours everything and winds erratically on the south edge of the city. East of Yonge st, there is not so much traffic, but Lakeshore is unnecessarily so wide and nearby area so deserted that you wonder whether you are indeed in the downtown of a large city literally steps away from the CBD. It is just a huge mess requiring a complete gut and makeover.

 

[salsa]

From the official site.

I could have went to the meeting, but my thoughts don't matter to anyone at city hall. Waterfront Toronto made a solid case for removing the Gardiner but no one is listening. The mayor and his allies have thrown their support behind the more expensive "hybrid option" that was pitched by a private developer, long before any studies or facts have been completed. Fiscal conservatism and "making decisions based on evidence" is not happening here, therefore I'm not going.

 

[salsa]

It won't get removed anytime soon.

Personally I think we should focus on making the experience under the Gardiner better. Underpass park showed that good things can happen underneath the highway. In a way it turned the perceived negative of being under a highway into something cool, featuring frequently in the "We the North" commercials.

Also now that it's surrounded by glass towers in south core it feels like less of a wasteland than it did before.

I like Underpass park, but it was only possible because there were no roads under the overpasses. I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done under the Gardiner because of Lakeshore Blvd, other than at Fort York.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I could have went to the meeting, but my thoughts don't matter to anyone at city hall. Waterfront Toronto made a solid case for removing the Gardiner but no one is listening. The mayor and his allies have thrown their support behind the more expensive "hybrid option" that was pitched by a private developer, long before any studies or facts have been completed. Fiscal conservatism and "making decisions based on evidence" is not happening here, therefore I'm not going.

You're very probably right. The planners have spent years gathering examples from other cities, doing studies, and commissioning visioning, but this will be decided the way the Scarborough Subway was, but with a lot more input from large commercial interests. Shouting, pounding, class warfare, and facts banished.

That said, cutting the existing portion from Cherry to Yonge down to four lanes, getting rid of most of the ramps, then improving the Lakeshore, would probably be a decent compromise.