Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[jcam]

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).

I don't get the “use existing DVP ramps†that the option description uses. The problems with this are twofold. First of all, the ramps are probably twice as high in the air as they would need to be for this project, because they currently go up to get over the westbound onramp from Lakeshore, which will be torn down. Second, half of the existing piers are now shown to be in the new basin (according to their graphics). You cannot simply dig out around existing foundations and allow them to suddenly be immersed in water. There may be details I’m missing, but you’d need to completely rebuild the bottoms.

And if you rebuild the bottoms, you're essentially starting from scratch, at which point the price gap to realigning it and going over the railway is closing....

 

[Tuscani01]

Interesting move by Robinson:



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

Joe Cressy mentioned the cost savings of the removal option would be enough to fund the Waterfront LRT also. I'd like to see that added to the remove option in order for it to gain my support. I don't support the remove option in its current form, as I view Lakeshore as the real barrier, and widening it, making it even busier, and adding Gardiner on and off ramps where none exist today, will just create an even bigger barrier.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Interesting move by Robinson:



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

Pedestrian overpasses are worse than an elevated highway from a pedestrian's perspective as you have to climb up and down stairs just to cross the street.

Folks, remember that the cars are not going to go away. We just get to choose whether they're at ground level or elevated.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Pedestrian overpasses are worse than an elevated highway from a pedestrian's perspective as you have to climb up and down stairs just to cross the street.

Folks, remember that the cars are not going to go away. We just get to choose whether they're at ground level or elevated.

It's a short term issue considering the land on both sides will be redeveloped at some point. Let's not pretend that pedestrians are particularly well served in any case given how Lakeshore is, and will continue to be a quasi-expressway (including under the Hybrid option). The point is that this is cheaper, it's doable, and it removes an eyesore while opening up land for redvelopment instead of taking more away for yet another ramp.

Joe Cressy mentioned the cost savings of the removal option would be enough to fund the Waterfront LRT also. I'd like to see that added to the remove option in order for it to gain my support. I don't support the remove option in its current form, as I view Lakeshore as the real barrier, and widening it, making it even busier, and adding Gardiner on and off ramps where none exist today, will just create an even bigger barrier.

As logical as it maybe, I think that would be a political non-starter - the city doesn't have the money budgeted for the hybrid option, any potential savings from remove would simply be money not acquired in some form from the tax base (which of course is never politically popular). Can you imagine tearing the expressway down AND tieing that to building an LRT which they won't be using? A certain segment of the electorate will have a heart attack.

AoD

 

[k10ery]

Joe Cressy mentioned the cost savings of the removal option would be enough to fund the Waterfront LRT also.

No it's not. In 2013 dollars the difference is all of $39 million. That's not going to fund even a clown car full of transit.

Shame on city planning staff for misleading people so much about the money.

 

[Tuscani01]

As logical as it maybe, I think that would be a political non-starter - the city doesn't have the money budgeted for the hybrid option, any potential savings from remove would simply be money not acquired in some form from the tax base (which of course is never politically popular). Can you imagine tearing the expressway down AND tieing that to building an LRT which they won't be using? A certain segment of the electorate will have a heart attack.

AoD

So what? A certain segment is having a heart attack at the thought of it being removed with nothing being done to ease the traffic situation and projected delays, and another segment is having a heart attack at the thought of the the Gardiner being left standing in the hybrid form. How are those two options any more logical in that case?

The LRT will reduce the amount of cars using the new Lakeshore, which would likely reduce the projected delays with the removal option. Instead of caving in to fear, staff should be showing that the removal option's negative effects can be mitigated. Lets quit playing politics with the Gardiner, as that is what keeps screwing up this whole process.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

It's a short term issue considering the land on both sides will be redeveloped at some point. Let's not pretend that pedestrians are particularly well served in any case given how Lakeshore is, and will continue to be a quasi-expressway (including under the Hybrid option). The point is that this is cheaper, it's doable, and it removes an eyesore while opening up land for redvelopment instead of taking more away for yet another ramp.

With the Hybrid option there will be far less traffic at grade; how is it a quasi-expressway now? Sure the whole area is ugly but it's pretty trivial to cross Lakeshore (and go under the Gardiner). I did it at Jarvis last week quite uneventfully. From a practical perspective it's just like any other street at ground level. Many suburban streets are much worse thanks to left and right turn lanes..

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You should try doing that at the foot of Parliament or Cherry instead.

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Okay sure, but both of those intersections are going to be fixed as part of either option...

 

[salsa]

No it's not. In 2013 dollars the difference is all of $39 million. That's not going to fund even a clown car full of transit.

Shame on city planning staff for misleading people so much about the money.

You're quoting the wrong numbers. The capital cost for remove is $240M vs $336M for hybrid.

With the Hybrid option there will be far less traffic at grade; how is it a quasi-expressway now? Sure the whole area is ugly but it's pretty trivial to cross Lakeshore (and go under the Gardiner). I did it at Jarvis last week quite uneventfully. From a practical perspective it's just like any other street at ground level. Many suburban streets are much worse thanks to left and right turn lanes..

Considering that Jarvis & Lakeshore gets more collisions than any other intersection in Toronto, your claim that many suburban streets are much worse doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I also don't see how this is like any other street, especially with the on-ramps, free turns and multiple pedestrian islands. But I'm glad to year your experience was "uneventful" (i.e you didn't get hit by a car), therefore it's all good.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Except that if your argument against the removal option is that it produces an expressway, that's exactly what Lakeshore is - a high speed parkway - and "fixing" that intersection (by what, adding lights at the already exists?) or adding a lane wouldn't have changed that.

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

It's not a high speed parkway, the speed limit is 60. I feel like they could rejig that intersection as it is a bit of a mess.

Was it top for auto collisions or pedestrian injuries?

 

[salsa]

It's not a high speed parkway, the speed limit is 60. I feel like they could rejig that intersection as it is a bit of a mess.

Was it top for auto collisions or pedestrian injuries?

It's for auto collisions, for which there were 239 of them over a five year span. I initially thought that number included auto-pedestrian collision, but my source wasn't very clear on that so I didn't know. However I recall at the public meeting that they said pedestrian volumes are low at the moment, but that will increase substantially as the area develops and thus the safely issues will be even more problematic in the future. I wish that the intersection would be rejigged, however no changes are planned under the hybrid proposal.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Joe Cressy mentioned the cost savings of the removal option would be enough to fund the Waterfront LRT also. I'd like to see that added to the remove option in order for it to gain my support. I don't support the remove option in its current form, as I view Lakeshore as the real barrier, and widening it, making it even busier, and adding Gardiner on and off ramps where none exist today, will just create an even bigger barrier.

That's a little misleading, isn't it? I believe he's comparing the capital and lifecycle costs of the Gardiner, to the capital of the WWLRT.

 

[k10ery]

You're quoting the wrong numbers. The capital cost for remove is $240M vs $336M for hybrid.

No I'm not. Of course, even your higher number is not going to buy a tram line (or 100 years of maintenance for it)