Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[rbt]

The amount of developable land is just one criteria. According to the slides, hybrid 3 has other benefits such as:
- Less overhead expressway over Lakeshore Blvd

I personally don't think this is a benefit. How is it better to put elevated expressway overtop of a park rather than overtop of a roadway?

 

[ssiguy2]

No comment on my building over it?

 

[BurlOak]

No comment on my building over it?

Good idea. Too visionary for the clowns at City Hall to agree to something like that.

 

[ssiguy2]

Well maybe someone should present it or write a letter.

An excellent example is Seattle's downtown LRT/bus tunnel. It is as wide as a 4 lane road but is completely engulfed by surrounding buildings. I bet a developer would jump at the chance of getting his hand on free land at a prime location and the highway would actually make the city money thru the property taxes on it and a fraction of the maintenance costs.

If I had any computer skills I would put up a pic of the Seattle LRT/Bus tunnel but I don't but if anybody has more skills than I {which wouldn't take much} I would appreciate them putting up a pic.

 

[salsa]

I personally don't think this is a benefit. How is it better to put elevated expressway overtop of a park rather than overtop of a roadway?

I think they consider it a benefit because the elevated expressway would be further away from the buildings that will be lining Lakeshore blvd, compared to hybrid 2.

 

[UD2]

I know this is just a rehash of the original Gardiner debate, but I still don't fully get why anti-car/Gardiner people want it torn down so badly. Do you really want more traffic along our surface network, through our prime waterfront, and lengthy light cycles to keep this traffic moving? Wouldn't it be more optimal to keep the cars off the surface network as best we can (which a grade-separated and connected Gardiner-DVP would do better than removal)? If anything we should be narrowing Lake Shore through EBF and LDL, or removing it outright. Not widening it into some 'grande boulevard' and clogging it with traffic. I dunno, I guess I just view an elevated highway like the Gardiner as more urban. And wide traffic-friendly arterials as suburban.

There are really only two groups of people at this point adamantly advocating for removing the highway.

1. Developers
2. The misinformed

I have a feeling the developers would take hybird 2 or 3 as a compromise and run with what they have (especially since land with similar size as the portion in hybird 3 north of lakeshore would need to be set aside for parkland allowance even if the highway is torn down, so the developers really arnt losing anything.)

This just pretty much leaves the misinformed who actually believe the bogus traffic study which studied only one hour during a 4 hour rush hour and completely negelected the traffic build up leading up to and pursuing after their tested time frame, while categorically disregarding delays out side of their irrationally small study area caused by traffic displacement from tearing down the highway, and all in the same time riding on a set of arguments based on the completion of another set of hypothetical public transit infrastructure that is neither funded nor designed. And also those who think 8 lanes of motor way at ground level jammed with highway level traffic density makes for a pleasant streetscape. I'm not too worried about these people.

 

[BurlOak]

I think they consider it a benefit because the elevated expressway would be further away from the buildings that will be lining Lakeshore blvd, compared to hybrid 2.

For those buildings, the view of the lake is more important than the view of the rail corridor.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I personally don't think this is a benefit. How is it better to put elevated expressway overtop of a park rather than overtop of a roadway?

There are very good reasons - e.g. road salt. And having an elevated expressway over a roadway is very much an urban design killer. Plus the space between Lakeshore and the railway corridor/yard is less a park and more "buffer" green space - it will never be all that useful. Personally I think the closer the expressway can be pushed to the rail yard, the better the design outcome will be.

Also, the "pond" might looks nice in the rendering, but it, along with the immediate space around is meant to be a basin for handling floatsam and sediments from the Don River.

AoD

 

[ssiguy2]

I still don't see why you can't run it at grade or with a mild trench and let a developer build it for you with buildings over top.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I still don't see why you can't run it at grade or with a mild trench and let a developer build it for you with buildings over top.

a) You need to build a bridge over the river regardless - and running it at grade or in a ditch meant that you have to go up, down and then up again to meet up with the rest of the Gardiner - not sure if the grade change will be worth the trouble - if at all desirable; b) how much additional financial benefit will you gain by putting it in a trench and giving out development rights above it?

AoD

 

[Lenser]

Wow, Christopher Hume is royally grumpy about the whole Gardiner thing in today's Star. Unfortunately I have to agree with the gist of his assessment. This thing will continue to be bungled for years and years to come. John Tory's era is starting to look pretty regressive. Still light years better than the Ford regime, but nothing to write home about either.

 

[dunkalunk]

Reflecting on that Hume aricle, and completely aware it's 8 months too late, but could I still ask for the Hybrid 3 alignment brought to grade between Cherry and Parliament, a boulevard between Parliament and Cooper, and ramps back up to The Gardiner between Cooper and Yonge?

 

[BurlOak]

Why don't they just take the hybrid #3 option except run it at grade?

T
How about the opposite. Build Hybrid #3 and build under it.
First off, can the Gardiner go over top of that water treatment plant so it can push north just a bit more?
To the east of that, build partially or fully under the Gardiner with frontage on the north side of Lakeshore. From street level, all you would see is building and you wouldn't know the Gardiner existed.

 

[ShonTron]

I'd rather see the Gardiner East come down and get replaced by the "Grand Boulevard." It's the least expensive option and the one that allows the most development of the East Harbourfront. But if we're stuck with it, which I think we are, I'll echo Pam McConnell and reluctantly support the "Hybrid 3" option as the least-worst alternative.

 

[doady]

I'd rather see the Gardiner East come down and get replaced by the "Grand Boulevard."

Even as a 905er, I can't see how Toronto can even consider spending a billion dollars on building a highway through its downtown in this day and age. The idea that highways reduce car traffic downtown is very outdated thinking. It is not the 50s anymore. It is 2016 now.

If you want less traffic, spend that billion dollars on transit instead. Don't build a highway that will reduce density, lower the desirability of the waterfront, and help bring into downtown more cars, which would interfere with pedestrians and streetcars and increase noise and pollution.