Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[salsa]

It's also worth mentioning (again bearing in mind that I support "remove") that all these travel estimates are contingent on transit (ie DRL and Waterfront LRT) being built by 2031. One would like to think the money "saved" by not going hybrid would go to transit but you can't bank on anything in this region. The lack of a comprehensive, (and funded) regional transportation plan makes it harder to generate a real consensus on the way to go, as much as I'd like to see it all gone.

Matt Elliot has some insight on what would happen if the transit isn't built as per the Gardiner report. Turns out the lack of a Gardiner should be the least of our concerns in that scenario.

City staff did run a traffic model with most of the transit improvements removed. They found, “all alternatives would place additional constraints on the TTC and GO Transit services beyond their capacities in some circumstances. The analysis also indicated that additional constraints would be experienced on the road network, particularly for auto trips on the DVP.”

In other words, without any major transit improvements, virtually all existing transit routes and roads in the downtown will be at or over capacity by 2031. That would be the much-feared traffic chaos.

In such a scenario, the configuration of a small section of the Gardiner wouldn’t really be relevant to the city’s overall level of congestion. In fact, according to transportation staff, the difference between remove and hybrid would still probably be two or three minutes for most trips. It’s just that the baseline travel times for all trips would be much much longer.

 

[jozl]

All good points ssiguy2 and I agree. I prefer the removal option though I have good friends and neighbors that prefer the hybrid. To me, the Hybrid is like a timid toe in the water. I can't see spending the money to create yet another elevated roadway. Tearing down 1.7 km of the east Gardiner is the bold and, I think, best choice. Many big cities have dismantled their downtown expressways with little effect on congestion. I see little or no downside to the removal option. I listened briefly to an AM Radio phone in show regarding Mayor Tory's preference for the Hybrid option but with a concerted effort to create something beautiful under the new elevated section. So many of the callers were angry (about everything really) that money would be spent to beautify the dead space under the Gardiner. A few wanted to expand the Gardiner with another level on top of the existing structure. The angry commuters that phoned in don't seem to realize that people live downtown. To hell with downtown, as long as they can get to Whitby quickly by car.
If the Hybrid does get built I think it should include tolls. Let the commuters who want, or need to, drive their cars downtown pay for the structure.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Matt Elliot has some insight on what would happen if the transit isn't built as per the Gardiner report. Turns out the lack of a Gardiner should be the least of our concerns in that scenario.

My favourite part of Matt Elliot's Q&A:

"Q: Isn’t there some other traffic study that says delays would be worse than the city says?

Sort of. The University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering Transportation Research Institute, or, I guess, UofTFoAS&ETRI, presented an assessment of the remove option last week. Their work was commissioned by the Gardiner Coalition, which is an alliance made up of organizations like CAA South Central Ontario and the Toronto Financial District BIA.

Their report examined two remove scenarios.

The first, which is more similar to the city’s scenario, envisioned the new boulevard replacing the Gardiner as having two-stage pedestrian crossings, similar to many intersections on University Avenue. People cross half the road, wait in the middle, and then cross the rest.

Under that scenario, the U of T study found delays of between zero to 4.5 minutes versus maintaining the Gardiner as-is — they didn’t compare to the hybrid. Those numbers are virtually identical to the city’s findings.

But they also ran another traffic model, that saw pedestrians given more time to cross the at-grade boulevard. In that scenario, the delays were measured at between 2.5 minutes and a whopping 10 minutes — but that assumes a more generous pedestrian signal scenario than we’re likely to see.

>> So, in order to bias the report, they had to tweak their model to suit. Nice!

>> I must say, although I'm 100% remove, I'm willing to go with First Gulf's 'maintain' plan if the City/Prov/Feds pour the requisite dollars into WT to actually build out the next phase of the revitalization. Given that First Gulf has to build a berm on their side for any of this to happen, I'm assuming that WT also gets funded because they need the spillzone to be built concurrently, would they not?

>> And, for God's sake, whatever gets decided gets started and built. No more going back each time someone whinges.

 

[datamouse]

Former city planner Paul Bedford has said that not removing the east gardiner would make Toronto an international laughing stock. Hyperbole like that doesn't help me take him seriously even given his credentials.

 

[aquateam]

The first, which is more similar to the city’s scenario, envisioned the new boulevard replacing the Gardiner as having two-stage pedestrian crossings, similar to many intersections on University Avenue. People cross half the road, wait in the middle, and then cross the rest.

Under that scenario, the U of T study found delays of between zero to 4.5 minutes versus maintaining the Gardiner as-is — they didn’t compare to the hybrid. Those numbers are virtually identical to the city’s findings.

But they also ran another traffic model, that saw pedestrians given more time to cross the at-grade boulevard. In that scenario, the delays were measured at between 2.5 minutes and a whopping 10 minutes — but that assumes a more generous pedestrian signal scenario than we’re likely to see.

>> So, in order to bias the report, they had to tweak their model to suit. Nice!

They ran the model both with and without a more pedestrian-friendly signalization, there was no goosing the report. This is U of T's department of engineering, so they do good work (although I'm not the most objective judge ).

This is my one issue with the Remove option, it puts all that traffic down at street level. As a pedestrian, I'm less inconvenienced by the cars zooming overhead as I am about the ones zooming in front of me while I wait 5 minutes for the lights to change before I can cross.

>> I must say, although I'm 100% remove, I'm willing to go with First Gulf's 'maintain' plan if the City/Prov/Feds pour the requisite dollars into WT to actually build out the next phase of the revitalization. Given that First Gulf has to build a berm on their side for any of this to happen, I'm assuming that WT also gets funded because they need the spillzone to be built concurrently, would they not?

Great Gulf's plan doesn't work with Maintain. They need Remove or the Hybrid. Hybrid is a realignment, Maintain is keeping the gardiner as is.

And if the Feds put money in, I hope it's for WT and the renaturalization of the Don or waterfront east LRT, not for the highway.

 

[salsa]

My favourite part of Matt Elliot's Q&A:

"Q: Isn’t there some other traffic study that says delays would be worse than the city says?

Sort of. The University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering Transportation Research Institute, or, I guess, UofTFoAS&ETRI, presented an assessment of the remove option last week. Their work was commissioned by the Gardiner Coalition, which is an alliance made up of organizations like CAA South Central Ontario and the Toronto Financial District BIA.

Their report examined two remove scenarios.

The first, which is more similar to the city’s scenario, envisioned the new boulevard replacing the Gardiner as having two-stage pedestrian crossings, similar to many intersections on University Avenue. People cross half the road, wait in the middle, and then cross the rest.

Under that scenario, the U of T study found delays of between zero to 4.5 minutes versus maintaining the Gardiner as-is — they didn’t compare to the hybrid. Those numbers are virtually identical to the city’s findings.

But they also ran another traffic model, that saw pedestrians given more time to cross the at-grade boulevard. In that scenario, the delays were measured at between 2.5 minutes and a whopping 10 minutes — but that assumes a more generous pedestrian signal scenario than we’re likely to see.

>> So, in order to bias the report, they had to tweak their model to suit. Nice!

And of course, the mayor jumped at the opportunity to not only cite that biased report, but also to tack on another few minutes onto that. From the G&M:

On Tuesday, Mr. Tory cited a different report, commissioned by a keep-the-Gardiner coalition, that said the delays could be as high as 10 minutes for some people, though that assumed a roadway scenario different than the one being considered. The mayor later suggested delays could be even longer, in the range of 15 minutes.

Heck, why stop there Tory? Why not say it could be 20 minutes? Or 30?

As for his claim that the teardown would damage the economy, the economic report says otherwise:

• Both options have similar merits for regional economic impacts. “Road networks play a marginal role in the evaluation of Toronto’s competitiveness,” compared with mass transit investment, quality housing, airports and green space. Toronto’s very favourable competitiveness rating compared to international cities would be unaffected.
  
  
• The hybrid option is “modestly preferred” for the competitiveness of downtown Toronto because it would increase travel times by east Gardiner users two to three minutes less than full removal. However, the report notes that only three per cent of people going to work downtown use that elevated portion, and non-car commuting is expected to increase in future.
  
  
• For local economics, removal is modestly preferred. “The remove (optimized boulevard) alternative will support more potential for job creation, allowing for the possibility of 4,100 new jobs. The hybrid alternative will likely support 2,100 new jobs.” The difference of 2,900 jobs is mostly driven by the potential for removal to increase development opportunities west of Cherry St. The hybrid plan would actually generate fewer potential jobs than maintaining the status quo, HR&A found.
  
  
• In terms of fiscal net benefits, removal is preferred. “The remove entails lower lifecycle costs and results in more land revenues than the hybrid alternatives.”

He also says the hybrid is the best option to unlock land for development, even though it blocks 12 acres of land from development compared to the teardown. He says the hybrid is the best way to unlock the potential of the waterfront, even though the teardown is greatly preferred in the report in terms of urban design and public realm. Judging by his comments, I have little reason to believe he actually looked at the facts or had an open mind, which is very disappointing.

They ran the model both with and without a more pedestrian-friendly signalization, there was no goosing the report. This is U of T's department of engineering, so they do good work (although I'm not the most objective judge ).

When they ran the model under the less pedestrian-friendly signalization, the numbers were 0 to 4.5 minutes compared to the current Gardiner configuration, not the hybrid. Given that travel times with the hybrid would slightly increase compared to today, the travel delays for the teardown are actually very similar to that from city staff. This whole 5 to 10 minutes thing they came up with would only happen under a more pedestrian-friendly signalization, which is not on the table. And yet every Gardiner supporter is now gonna cite that 10 minutes, which completely undermines the city staff's report.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Okay, but how about this: if they remove the Gardiner and don't do the pedestrian friendly timings you're going to have tens of thousands of cars driving along this street at high speeds. How does that help when it comes to placemaking? In the hybrid option Lakeshore Blvd will have much less traffic on it.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

They ran the model both with and without a more pedestrian-friendly signalization, there was no goosing the report. This is U of T's department of engineering, so they do good work (although I'm not the most objective judge ).

This is my one issue with the Remove option, it puts all that traffic down at street level. As a pedestrian, I'm less inconvenienced by the cars zooming overhead as I am about the ones zooming in front of me while I wait 5 minutes for the lights to change before I can cross.

Great Gulf's plan doesn't work with Maintain. They need Remove or the Hybrid. Hybrid is a realignment, Maintain is keeping the gardiner as is.

And if the Feds put money in, I hope it's for WT and the renaturalization of the Don or waterfront east LRT, not for the highway.

Aquateam:
1. No one has reported the first set of numbers anywhere. The 'more pedestrian-friendly' numbers, which was what the client wanted to hear (i.e. 'less car-friendly' so they could have a good scare story) are, by definition, 'goosing' a report to meet the client's needs. I'm sure the underlying modelling was whip-smart.

2. As a pedestrian or biker, the key for the area (Don Roadway to Jarvis, anyway) will be what kind of a crossing they have to connect Don River Trail to the south side of Lake Shore. At Parliament right now, it's a six lane roadway with no real meridian. Remove, it's an 8-lane road with meridian. Couldn't be worse, could be a lot better. With Maintain*, they tear down the ramp east of the Don and re-route Lake Shore, but keep the Gardiner exactly where it is. So, as a pedestrian, you then... what? Go across a six lane Lake Shore, same as now I guess but not under the Gardiner, then go under the Gardiner and look up at the pretty lights? If the 'under-Gardiner' part features a pedestrian/bike path treatment along Keating with decent access to Cherry bridge and QQE, it could be a win for pedestrians, I guess.

3. The 'Hybrid' was a complete re-routing of the Gardiner closer to the train tracks. It was not feasible. Don't continue the hype. There is no 'Hybrid'. 'Maintain*' is keeping the Gardiner as-is, with a new ramp at Cherry and tearing down the rest of the Leslie stump. Since you insist, I'll start using a Maintain* notation...

4. Completely agree. Any money from the Feds needs to go to WT and the Don (while I'd be happy to see the LRT, any Fed money need to go to WT as they're out of their original allotment and we really need to see them finish the job. What WT has done so far has been nothing short of miraculous.)

 

[salsa]

Okay, but how about this: if they remove the Gardiner and don't do the pedestrian friendly timings you're going to have tens of thousands of cars driving along this street at high speeds. How does that help when it comes to placemaking? In the hybrid option Lakeshore Blvd will have much less traffic on it.

See my earlier post in the mayor Tory thread. I don't expect anything special with Lakeshore Blvd, but the Keating Channel is what will be impacted the most and which the original unfeasible hybrid alignment tried to address that. As for your "tens of thousands of cars" comment, the same could be said about University Ave, but I don't hear a lot of complaints about that street.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Okay, but how about this: if they remove the Gardiner and don't do the pedestrian friendly timings you're going to have tens of thousands of cars driving along this street at high speeds. How does that help when it comes to placemaking? In the hybrid option Lakeshore Blvd will have much less traffic on it.

C'mon, man. You're not about to try a 'but, who will defend the poor pedestrians?' argument now, right? Given the current pedestrian/bike crossing possibilities at Cherry south (none), Cherry north (sketchy), Don Roadway (none), Parliament (sketchy), Sherbourne (much better now that the park's in) and Jarvis (OK except the dudes trying to kill you to get on the Gardiner ramp), a University Avenue style four lane each way road with centre median would be a great step up from current conditions and -- probably -- better than a six-lane Lake Shore.

 

[CDL.TO]

There's lots of examples of wide boulevards with reasonably decent urban realm adjacent to it. I think of West St in Manhattan, for one.

I can't think of any elevated expressways anywhere in the western world with a decent urban realm adjacent.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I'm just saying that the cars have to go somewhere. If the Gardiner remains the cars will at least get funneled away from grade level.

West Street in NY has sidewalks but the buildings generally don't have any public use at-grade. University Ave. is not very good in that respect either...

You guys ever been to the Keating Channel Pub? Despite being across the channel from the Gardiner and surrounded by industrial wasteland it has a pretty nice patio.

We also have the entire ship channel and the rest of the Port Lands to work with here... it's not like the mouth of the Don is the only place that can be developed.

 

[jozl]

I don't understand the " Lakeshore Blvd" will be worse if the remove option is decided on. Adding another lane each way will not, according to the plan I've seen, make Lakeshore any wider than it already is. As is, the ramps add signifigantly to the distance pedestrians have to traverse. The added lanes would not make the new Lakeshore wider than the existing Lakeshore Blvd with the ramps.
I don't see how an 8 lane Lakeshore with a median could possibly be worse than the 6 lanes plus ramps that are currently there. Lakeshore now sits under the perpetual shadow of the crumbling Gardiner which traps traffic noise and fumes. Add fast moving traffic from the ramps and you have a very unpleasent walk across Lakeshore. I would prefer a boulevard similar to University Ave. to the noisy nerve racking mess that now exists.

 

[sixrings]

Torys usage of the keep-the-Gardiner coalition report makes me super concerned that we will not see Eglinton connects with bike lanes.

 

[salsa]

I don't understand the " Lakeshore Blvd" will be worse if the remove option is decided on. Adding another lane each way will not, according to the plan I've seen, make Lakeshore any wider than it already is. As is, the ramps add signifigantly to the distance pedestrians have to traverse. The added lanes would not make the new Lakeshore wider than the existing Lakeshore Blvd with the ramps.
I don't see how an 8 lane Lakeshore with a median could possibly be worse than the 6 lanes plus ramps that are currently there. Lakeshore now sits under the perpetual shadow of the crumbling Gardiner which traps traffic noise and fumes. Add fast moving traffic from the ramps and you have a very unpleasent walk across Lakeshore. I would prefer a boulevard similar to University Ave. to the noisy nerve racking mess that now exists.

Exactly right. Ironically, the 8 lane boulevard would actually be less wide than the current configuration. According to this cross section, today the road is 45 metres wide whereas the new boulevard would be shrunk to 37 metres if the highway is removed. These pro-Gardiner people really undermine their credibility with their consistent misinformation and indifference to facts, which says a lot about the weak business case for pursuing the hybrid (i.e do almost nothing) option.