Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[CDL.TO]

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...

Personally, I'm perfectly OK with that. It can still be a car-focussed street. But that's still better for the city and the neighbourhood than a highway stacked on top of a car-focussed street.

 

[aquateam]

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.

My concern wasn't just the number of lanes that they have to cross, it was also the signal timings. With an even heavier focus on east-west travel and the additional volume, I can picture the signal timings being even more unforgiving for north/south travel, on top of requiring multiple phases to cross. E.g. instead of one 4 minute cycle to cross, it becomes two 6 minute cycles. Given that the city rejigged the model to minimize travel times, it is completely possible that pedestrians could have such a low level of service (LOS) timed into the lights. That's where the U of T's model with improved pedestrian timing comes in. Personally, I would prefer the "worst case" scenario for cars because it would mean more access to the waterfront for pedestrians and people who live in the area.

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...

I'm not talking about the original hybrid scheme that stayed by the rail corridor. By "hybrid", I am talking about the same "hybrid" option that John Tory is talking about, which is the great gulf proposal 2.0. It's confusing to call it Maintain when what the EA calls maintain is a completely different option, even if it's no longer on the table. Can we just use the same terminology everyone else is using, even if it isn't necessarily the most descriptive?

Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning towards the Remove option. I just am trying to get a vision for how the city will look like with it gone. I used to cross lakeshore twice a day at parliament to go down cherry, by bicycle, and that was a big pain, so I'm trying to imagine what a super-lakeshore might be like.

 

[Grimace]

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.

Well, it's a good thing that the Gardiner supporters don't use hyperbole.

 

[Grimace]

Experts rely on assumptions. As a litigator, I can tell you that the key to most expert reports is in the assumptions. That's how UofT got the answers that its client wanted.

The point raised by Matt Elliott that the removal of the Gardiner was nearly irrelevant in scenarios where additional transit isn't built only makes logical sense. The Eastern Gardiner is not a bottleneck, and making it a boulevard will not turn it into a bottleneck. It sits in between 2 bottlenecks.

My expectation is that removing the Eastern Gardiner would slow traffic in non-peak times, when there are not bottlenecks at either side of it.

 

[44 North]

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.

True. And all the plans for the Keating channel and precinct include the Gardiner. Or at least a Lake Shore Blvd built right up against the north side of the channel (where it currently is). The idea of having newly opened/developed land there with the Removal is very recent, and I don't think any tangible plans outside the Gardiner report have been presented.

 

[datamouse]

Well, it's a good thing that the Gardiner supporters don't use hyperbole.

Eh, it's generally all a mess. "War on cars". "LRTs will ruin streets". Discourse of these matters seem to rarely come with an appreciation of the other side. Bedford's comment struck me as worth commenting on because after what this city went through during the Ford years I can't see keeping the Gardiner elevated as something that will make the world laugh at us.

 

[CapitalSeven]

True. And all the plans for the Keating channel and precinct include the Gardiner. Or at least a Lake Shore Blvd built right up against the north side of the channel (where it currently is). The idea of having newly opened/developed land there with the Removal is very recent, and I don't think any tangible plans outside the Gardiner report have been presented.

For years planning around the Keating Channel has taken into account that the Gardiner might stay or might go. What the faux-hybrid-bait-and-switch-Trojan-horse has added is actually making that area worse because of the new ramps that would suddenly be added where some buildings and open space were supposed to go.

To call this a hybrid, is like thinking you've replaced Slob Ford with a hybrid between John Tory and Olivia Chow. But when the bandages come off, it's just Douggie in drag.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

To call this a hybrid, is to like thinking you've replaced Slob Ford with a hybrid between John Tory and Olivia Chow. But when the bandages come off, it's just Douggie in drag.

Post of the day

AoD

 

[44 North]

For years planning around the Keating Channel has taken into account that the Gardiner might stay or might go. What the faux-hybrid-bait-and-switch-Trojan-horse has added is actually making that area worse because of the new ramps that would suddenly be added where some buildings and open space were supposed to go.

To call this a hybrid, is like thinking you've replaced Slob Ford with a hybrid between John Tory and Olivia Chow. But when the bandages come off, it's just Douggie in drag.

Might stay or go, yes. But even if it went, the WT plans still had a Lake Shore highway right up against the Keating Channel where it is now. If it was removed I would prefer having Lake Shore there than a bunch of buildings built right to the water's edge (like with the current Remove plan). At least it's more public and would be a scenic drive. Again, the idea of creating new land to develop is still relatively new to the discussion, and is what has me asking more questions than I did this time last year.

And funny as that drag Doug concept is, the analogy is a bit off. I think it would be a hybrid between Tory and Chow. So a woman in a men's suit, or man in a purple skirt. I think many are overestimating the situation and any severity. And IMO the Hybrid plan is still pretty flexible to changes.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Yes, WT didn't propose moving the elevated highway north - maybe they figured it was not feasible or too expensive. Any plan will leave some public access along the water's edge - presumably the bunch of buildings would be much like the east bayfront, with a wide treed promenade.

The hybrid plan is open to change, at least I hope. I don't really understand why the new ramps are needed, and I'm not sure anyone has asked. I always thought keeping it but slimming it down and "improving" the part west of Cherry was a viable compromise. I don't see any Olivia Chow in what is on the table now. For an extra few hundred million (over the decades) it's just the same highway with two ramps moved. It opens up land east of the Don but at the price of not opening up land closer to the core on the west side. It assumes the area is a transportation core for the suburbs and heavy industry, and puts no value on it as a place to be.

 

[44 North]

I don't see any Olivia Chow in what is on the table now

Ah, but there is! The OC that I see in this is: moving Lake Shore north and rejigging it (b/n Don Rdwy and Cherry), narrowing it, and making it more pedestrian-friendly and tree-lined. Not to mention using the now vacant space below the Gardiner to create parkland and something neat (a la Underpass Park). *<- This is something I've been really interested in, even for west of Jarvis*. And IMO there's still the opportunity that the Gardiner can be 'slimmed down' as part of the Hybrid (I hope it'd be, it's too large).

To be quite honest, the way I see it is that the Remove is neither Tory or Chow. Wanna take a stab at who I think it is? Doug Ford! Why? Because he was part of BuildTO and spearheaded the move to sell off the Richview corridor - just like what would be happening here with the Remove option. And there was nothing "fiscally conservative" about that fire sale; it was to balance his brother's bungled budget.

 

[ssiguy2]

If the hybrid is built then it should be a by-pass not standard freeway...........no on/off ramps at all. All costs on top of the removal cost should be paid for by tolls at the Gard/DVP interchange. Those who demand the more expensive option should have to pay for it.

If the hybrid goes ahead there must be an agreement that a GO station opens before the new improved highway does.

Toronto does have an opportunity here to create a truly world renowned urban landscape under the Gardiner. Under the Gardiner should not just be a bunch of pretty lights but an urban oasis. All the concrete should be repainted another colour. All the exposed concrete supports and freeway barriers should be built over with red brick to give it a more historic look along with brick sidewalks. The space should not only be a pedestrian and bike path but a true destination with red brick buildings under the freeway with everything from cafes, restaurants, galleries, markets, play area. The lights should be old fashioned authentic lamps and not just standard streetlights. The area under the Gardiner should be turned into a true urban environment and be considered the "Louvre" of highway urban development. They should spare no expense to make this a jaw dropping environment with tolls footing the bill.

Toronto has the once in a lifetime opportunity to turn a lemon into lemonade and create one of the most beautiful, enticing, and urban environments in the world and one that can be used all year round which is a real bonus for a winter city. If Toronto grabs this opportunity and decides that they are going to make one of the world's greatest covered urban spaces, in 20 years you could have urban designers and even Jane Jacobs herself saying "thank god we DIDN'T tear town the Gardiner".

 

[CapitalSeven]

The part you like is the part that has nothing to do with Gardiner - it is and was going to be that way no matter what. It's the only part the bogus hybrid doesn't manage to wreck.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

If the hybrid is built then it should be a by-pass not standard freeway...........no on/off ramps at all. All costs on top of the removal cost should be paid for by tolls at the Gard/DVP interchange. Those who demand the more expensive option should have to pay for it.

If the hybrid goes ahead there must be an agreement that a GO station opens before the new improved highway does.

Toronto does have an opportunity here to create a truly world renowned urban landscape under the Gardiner. Under the Gardiner should not just be a bunch of pretty lights but an urban oasis. All the concrete should be repainted another colour. All the exposed concrete supports and freeway barriers should be built over with red brick to give it a more historic look along with brick sidewalks. The space should not only be a pedestrian and bike path but a true destination with red brick buildings under the freeway with everything from cafes, restaurants, gallerie s, markets, play area. The lights should be old fashioned authentic lamps and not just standard streetlights. The area under the Gardiner should be turned into a true urban environment and be considered the "Louvre" of highway urban development. They should spare no expense to make this a jaw dropping environment with tolls footing the bill.

Toronto has the once in a lifetime opportunity to turn a lemon into lemonade and create one of the most beautiful, enticing, and urban environments in the world and one that can be used all year round which is a real bonus for a winter city. If Toronto grabs this opportunity and decides that they are going to make one of the world's greatest covered urban spaces, in 20 years you could have urban designers and even Jane Jacobs herself saying "thank god we DIDN'T tear town the Gardiner".

Uh-huh. One of the world's greatest covered urban spaces. I'll telegraph the Istanbul Bazaar the news that it'll soon be supplanted.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting move by Robinson:

2 - Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Jaye Robinson (Carried)

That the Acting City Manager report directly to City Council on additional strategies to mitigate the congestion impacts of the Remove alternative, including:
a. additional travel lanes on Lake Shore Boulevard;
b. pedestrian overpasses at key intersections on Lake Shore Boulevard; and,
c. any other opportunities to reduce vehicle travel times.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.PW4.1

That sounds like a fair compromise for remove. Not ideal from a UD perspective, but it gets the ball rolling.

AoD