News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 394     2 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 554     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 564     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

traffic armageddon when a road is removed?

not always. not by a longgg shot.

the Gardiner East was ripped out past Carlaw, what, ten years ago?

is traffic in that area significantly worse now than then (notwithstanding the fastfood/supermarkt stuff that sprouted at Leslie)?

for definitive data on that previous de-gardinerization, a proper traffic study (commute time, congestion) would have to take into account the whole east toronto corridor -- lakeshore to dundas (which was also downsized in the last decade)
 
Le Gique said:
the Gardiner East was ripped out past Carlaw, what, ten years ago?

is traffic in that area significantly worse now than then (notwithstanding the fastfood/supermarkt stuff that sprouted at Leslie)?
Click to expand...

They're very different sections. You're talking about a leg that really didn't go anywhere. It just connected the end of the Gardiner to a couple suburban streets.

This eastern section of the Gardiner forms a link between the south end of the DVP and the downtown section of the Gardiner. Removing this section effectively ends two expressways in very inconvenient spots: one at Jarvis, the other in the very centre of Corktown (Richmond/Adelaide), or the centre of the WDL/EBF.

120,000 cars/day use that section. Just because it isn't constantly jammed in grid-lock doesn't mean it isn't useful. In fact, it works so smoothly that most people think it's a ghosttown up there.
 
I know I tend to be a "modern heritage" sort even w/utilitarian-enough 50s/60s infrastructure (think the B-D line stations), and don't mind the visionary alternative ideas for keeping and/or "building under" the Gardiner, or the urban-futurist/dystopian melodrama about the Gardiner/DVP intersection flying overhead. But in all honesty, when/once this is gone, how much bawling about Toronto having made a big urban boo-boo is there going to be? And I'm just talking about the raw removal of the Gardiner, not the execution of its replacement.

Methinks that while with the B-D bathroom tile you might have the Joe Clarks and John Martins-Manteigas dominating the decriers, with the Gardiner you'll more likely have, in the end, the James Alcock/Sam Cass/CAA contingent...
 
Why isn't anyone considering the success that other cities had when they demolished inner city highways? In each case the purpose was to improve access to a waterfront. In each case the opponents said the surface streets would become a parking lot, and in each case they were wrong.

GO Transit and Transit City are planning big service improvements in the next few years. Once those are complete there will be an alternative to the car and Lakeshore will be able to pick up all the slack.

Perhaps similar to the Gardiner East, some concrete pillars can remain as a relic of the past.
 
Those points were made somewhere around page 3 (by myself and others). The problem is some people got in a big huff over the last 6 pages and took everything at face value.

I think its really important to remember that the Toronto of today isn't the one we're going to see when this project is over. MoveOntario is going to be massive and it might just set in place even more drastic changes. You know, flying cars and all that.
 
Well said, adma. Nobody but the most reactionary car lovers will regret this in the end. And even if we do botch the new Lakeshore Boulevard, it can easily be fixed later. Even the worse surface road will be far better than what's there now.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Well said, adma. Nobody but the most reactionary car lovers will regret this in the end.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't be absolute with the "nobody but"--still, it isn't like the Concrete Toronto bunch is gonna scream bloody murder.

And there are those who miss NYC's West Side Highway, whether for its Deco detailing or its 70s/80s state of abandoned utopian-dystopianism--like a more hardcore and distinctly pre-Giuliani version of what the High Line came to be revered for. (NB: the "reactionary car lovers" don't count in this case, because they likely would have trashed the WSH anyway as an obsolete traffic hazard, whether on behalf of a new structure or the Westway.)
 
rudeboie said:
Dismantling the Gardiner = Severe traffic congestion = More idling cars = higher CO2 levels .... SUPER IDEA! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's interesting logic. I'd argue that continuing to support structures that are entirely geared toward drivers getting places quickly will ultimately cause far more pollution (and CO2 levels) than will removing them in favour of structures that better integrate pedestrians, cyclists and public transit.

But what do I know. Maybe the real key to lowering greenhouse gas emissions is to build a bunch of roads so people can get where they need to go in their cars FASTER.

I get on and off the Gardiner every day at Jarvis and I think this is a good idea. I'm sure the City's estimate that it will add only two minutes to the daily commute is a bit optimistic, but even if it adds 5-10 minutes, the possibilities this opens up with regard to development on the waterfront makes it more than worth it.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Well said, adma. Nobody but the most reactionary car lovers will regret this in the end. And even if we do botch the new Lakeshore Boulevard, it can easily be fixed later. Even the worse surface road will be far better than what's there now.
Click to expand...

I think that kind of baseless optimism is dangerous. Toronto's planning history certainly makes the case for being realistic and retaining a touch of pessimism.

While the structure might be ugly in spots - it still works as a transportation route. Why create a missing link in our highway network? Replacing a working highway with an unproven (and, I think) ill-thought-out plan seems like a giant risk, especially with a $200-300 million price tag. Since none (or few) of you live in this area, and even fewer drive - I understand where your opinions come from :)

When the far-eastern section of the Gardiner was torn down it was replaced with a boulevard not unlike what they're trying to plan here. Take a trip out that way sometime, check out what it's actually like on the ground. It's not an improvement. It's just a wider, flatter kind of highway.

I'm open to hearing about how other cities have dealt with similar projects. So far they've just been mentioned in passing. No details seem to surface :)


At the end of the day though, whether it works or not, it's still an awesome example of our early automotive infrastructure. I guess that's why it's already somewhat protected in spots :)
 
TKTKTK said:
I'm open to hearing about how other cities have dealt with similar projects. So far they've just been mentioned in passing. No details seem to surface :)
Click to expand...

I'll take on that challenge. But not tonight, 'cause it's late :)
 
RedRocket191 said:
I'll take on that challenge. But not tonight, 'cause it's late :)
Click to expand...

If its possible, would you be able to include traffic volume for the affected highways? It'd be interesting to see how they compare to the Gardiner's 120,000 in this spot. I'm also curious about what other highway networks might be present, as well any new transit routes that replaced the highways, or (more conveniently) preceded them. :)

I'm not trying to be a jerk by asking for the moon. I'm genuinely curious :)
 
TKTKTK said:
When the far-eastern section of the Gardiner was torn down it was replaced with a boulevard not unlike what they're trying to plan here. Take a trip out that way sometime, check out what it's actually like on the ground. It's not an improvement. It's just a wider, flatter kind of highway.
Click to expand...

Which is more a matter of planning and zoning failure (at least thus far). Otherwise, it might be like West St in Manhattan...
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
TKTKTK:

You should look up the Embarcadero Freeway and Octavia Blvd. in SF. Numbers quoted suggests a traffic load of about 70-100K/day for each (and that's 2 highways removed in SF)

http://www.uctc.net/papers/763.pdf
Click to expand...

What really struck me as a difference between the two was the lower traffic volumes, and the fact that the highways removed didn't really lead anywhere anyway (a lot like that previously torn down section of the Gardiner, which I agree with). They removed damaged sections of a never-finished highway. We're removing working sections of a continuous highway network.

Would they consider removing the James Lick skyway?

(I think the Gardiner is a much more handsome structure than their Embarcadero was.)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top