Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[nfitz]

Crossing 10- and even 12- lane boulevards is no big deal.

I'd really disagree with that. Even crossing the 5-lanes of the existing Lakeshore eastbound is a big deal - which is why the city built a pedestrian overpass at Jameson. And with that bridge closed for several months for repairs, rather than letting people just cross the street, they say that they should walk a kilometre or so out of their way to Dufferin (though last time I drove through there, people were jay walking instead).

Even with the section that has already been removed, it takes two light cycles for people to cross at Leslie, and your taking your life in your hands if you try and cross along the 1-km stretch between between Leslie and Coxwell. I find crossing beneath the existing Gardiner nothing like that. I walked from Exhibition station to BMO field yesterday, and it was no big deal walking under the Gardiner - many people might even forget there is an expressway there; the railway track is a far greater barrier.

Sure, that long loop between Cherry and the DVP isn't ideal - and the buildings that caused it to do so are long since gone, so fixing the alignment may be useful. And I agree there is exess capacity along the 4-lane segment between Downtown and the DVP - 3 lanes are more than sufficient.

But surely there are bigger issues. The Gardiner/DVP/CN Tracks is a much greater barrier between Kingsway and Jameson than what is being discussed in the east end. If there was only park between the Queensway and the Lake, there is no way anyone would ever let such barriers be created there today. So perhaps the effort should be focussed there to drop the entire thing in a large ditch, and cover it in places.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TKTKTK:

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.

SF managed to get rid of TWO highways with a combined traffic load of close to 150K/day. I don't consider that to be a lower system load. Actually, the Eastern and Western stretch of the Gardiner function as feeders - the traffic feeds into and out of the core in two separate directions. Traffic through the core is NOT the predominant mode - which is exactly the same pattern as SF.

Physically continuous and functionally continuous are two different things. Gardiner is NOT the Boston Central Artery, where the predominant mode is through-traffic and that's why the solution was a buried highway network.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Traffic through the core is NOT the predominant mode.

Not predominant, but still significant. I live near Coxwell, and frequently have to drive to Mississauga, Kitchener, and other points where transit is really not an option. So I frequently drive on the Gardiner from one end to the other - and there's certainly plenty of traffic along with me that's there at both Spadina and Cherry. Needless to say, I won't be thrilled seeing a through route disappear. None of the traffic study results show what it will do for travel time for something like a Leslie to Kipling journey - and I'd like to see that before I jump on board.

 

[RedRocket191]

Most studies I've seen in other field of planning identify two things:
1) What is the destination for the majority of the people using the highway?
2) What is the impact on those people?

I think what people are trying to say (including the mayor) is that the vast majority of traffic on the gardiner and the DVP is destined for the downtown core. Very few people make the full journey from Leslie to Kipling, so for whom should we plan to minimize the inconvenience for? Should we keep this section of the Gardiner up because a the minority would be greatly inconvenienced severely, or should be proceed knowing that there will be great benefit and the average driver will only see a slight inconvenience?

The published numbers indicate that someone heading into the core from the outskirts will be delayed by 2 minutes. Lets increase that to five minutes just for the sake of arguments, even though I have faith in the modeling system. A person heading out of the core will be going against the rush, so it could be reasonable to expect a delay of half. Now, for the sake of arguments again, lets increase that to 5 minutes.

Feel free to poke at my logic, but I don't see more than a 10 minute delay if the model is off by 50%. 10 minutes in the scope of an hour long commute is not big, in my opinion.

 

[northstar]

With continuous city fabric emerging from Front to the lake, the big deterrent to getting there is the rail corridor, not the Gardiner.

BINGO!!
It beats me why so many think tearing down the Gardiner is such a great solution to Toronto's problems.

Spend millions of dollars to tear down the Gardiner,
create further gridlock for people trying to get from the West side to the East side
and the city will still have a huge a rail corridor blocking access to the lake
(or should I say a big wall of condos, as there really is no lakefront in that part of downtown).

 

[northstar]

None of the traffic study results show what it will do for travel time for something like a Leslie to Kipling journey

That's because your insignificant!
Don't you realise that "downtown" Toronto is the Centre of the universe!!
I mean, it's not as if business parks have sprung up in different parts of the city,
and people might be trying to get from the West side to the East side.

Downtown Toronto is "the" destination
and if people have to travel to other parts of the city - well, they just don't matter

 

[MetroMan]

BINGO!!
It beats me why so many think tearing down the Gardiner is such a great solution to Toronto's problems.

Spend millions of dollars to tear down the Gardiner,
create further gridlock for people trying to get from the West side to the East side
and the city will still have a huge a rail corridor blocking access to the lake
(or should I say a big wall of condos, as there really is no lakefront in that part of downtown).

FYI: I was speaking with regards to the central portion of the Gardiner.

The portion that is being replaced by an at grade road is definitely a barrier. Just look at the industrial uses that have developed around it. Just look at the on/off ramp at the DVP.
These ramps and the Gardiner itself invalidates a vast amount of land that needs to be cleared in order for the East Bayfront and Donlands projects to succeed.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They could kill several birds with one stone with a few options that haven't been considered.

The waterfront could be extended further outward with strips of reclaimed land for more public space and make the rail corridor and condos less of a problem, since it would be further away from the water.

Also a cheaper alternative to burying the Gardiner they could construct a tube that would go in the lake itself for express traffic for a long stretch where the traffic would not only be out of the way but out of sight too. They just need a ship to lower sections of the tube into the water.

 

[TKTKTK]

Not predominant, but still significant. I live near Coxwell, and frequently have to drive to Mississauga, Kitchener, and other points where transit is really not an option. So I frequently drive on the Gardiner from one end to the other - and there's certainly plenty of traffic along with me that's there at both Spadina and Cherry. Needless to say, I won't be thrilled seeing a through route disappear. None of the traffic study results show what it will do for travel time for something like a Leslie to Kipling journey - and I'd like to see that before I jump on board.

I'm in the same boat. I use these routes for getting around the city - and nfitz and I are not the only ones.

But then I suppose the argument is that we're complaining about conveniently making a trip that others would prefer we spend 2 hours making.

 

[TKTKTK]

FYI: I was speaking with regards to the central portion of the Gardiner.

The portion that is being replaced by an at grade road is definitely a barrier. Just look at the industrial uses that have developed around it. Just look at the on/off ramp at the DVP.

umm wasn't the area industrial before the Gardiner? Isn't that why we put the Gardiner in here in the first place?

Also, it's disingenuous to suggest that development isn't happening because of the Gardiner. Development isn't happening because the group responsible for this area have been dragging their heels for a decade. The Gardiner didn't stop anything in the Bay/Yonge area from getting built.

 

[scott]

The argument that the Gardiner shouldn't be torn down because the railways would still be a barrier to the waterfront is just ridiculous.

So just because there's already 1 barrier means we might as well have 2 of them? The barrier would be at least cut in half by tearing down the Gardiner. How is that not a good thing? There may be good reasons for keeping the Gardiner (not that I agree with them), but the reasoning about the barrier with the railways isn't one of them.

Probably half of this thread has been arguments about crossing an 8-10 lane boulevard. First of all, I don't even understand what the big deal is. You have lights and crosswalks. Second, if it is a problem, why not just build some pedestrian overpasses? They could be simple and even add to the aesthetics of the boulevard.

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:
SF managed to get rid of TWO highways with a combined traffic load of close to 150K/day. I don't consider that to be a lower system load.

Yes, but that load is split between two areas that are fairly distant. Here we're talking about one area absorbing 120,000 vehicles in addition to whatever amount runs along Lake Shore already (which is quite considerable from what I see)

Actually, the Eastern and Western stretch of the Gardiner function as feeders - the traffic feeds into and out of the core in two separate directions. Traffic through the core is NOT the predominant mode - which is exactly the same pattern as SF.

It's not the majority of the traffic, but it's been pointed out that it's still one of the major uses of it. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't get the impression that any of you care, since I'm not supposed to be allowed to drive anyway

Physically continuous and functionally continuous are two different things. Gardiner is NOT the Boston Central Artery, where the predominant mode is through-traffic and that's why the solution was a buried highway network.

Good, then we don't have to worry about burrying it.

 

[TKTKTK]

The argument that the Gardiner shouldn't be torn down because the railways would still be a barrier to the waterfront is just ridiculous.

That's not really what's happening. What's being argued is that the Gardiner is not the Barrier it's made out to be. The bits we charge it with (cutting us off from the waterfront, etc) are actually caused by the rail berm. Since we're not talking about removing the barrier of the rail berm, we're really just talking about freeing up space - which that area is entirely full of at the moment (so why do we need more?)

Probably half of this thread has been arguments about crossing an 8-10 lane boulevard. First of all, I don't even understand what the big deal is. You have lights and crosswalks. Second, if it is a problem, why not just build some pedestrian overpasses? They could be simple and even add to the aesthetics of the boulevard.

So the barrier of a giant roadway will still exist, but now it'll be at ground level and the Pedestrians will go over IT instead! hahahah!!!

 

[scott]

That's not really what's happening. What's being argued is that the Gardiner is not the Barrier it's made out to be. The bits we charge it with (cutting us off from the waterfront, etc) are actually caused by the rail berm. Since we're not talking about removing the barrier of the rail berm, we're really just talking about freeing up space - which that area is entirely full of at the moment (so why do we need more?)



So the barrier of a giant roadway will still exist, but now it'll be at ground level and the Pedestrians will go over IT instead! hahahah!!!

It doesn't matter if the rail berm is a barrier to the waterfront or not, the Gardiner is still a huge barrier. Removing it not only frees up space, it still removes a very big and imposing barrier regardless that there may be another barrier. It's not like there's going to be unimpeded access and free space because the rail berm would still exist, but it would be much better. I think even you can agree with that?

Yes, I see the comedy in going from an elevated highway that you walk under, to a boulevard that you walk over. Ha ha ha.

The key difference is, as I've before, a raised barrier is much worse than a flat one. And it would look about 10x better since you wouldn't have a dark cavern under a raised highway.

 

[TKTKTK]

It doesn't matter if the rail berm is a barrier to the waterfront or not, the Gardiner is still a huge barrier. Removing it not only frees up space, it still removes a very big and imposing barrier regardless that there may be another barrier. It's not like there's going to be unimpeded access and free space because the rail berm would still exist, but it would be much better. I think even you can agree with that?

But that's the problem, I (and others) don't agree. I live near the Gardiner, I know that it isn't very difficult to cross under - and what difficulty there is is because we haven't done ANYTHING to ease movement. We can make the underside of the Gardiner less pedestrian-imposing for a lot less than $200-300 million. And the very nature of its structure means that you can pass under it at any point along it's length. The rail berm, in contrast, can only be crossed where we've punched holes in it. Also, bear in mind that the Gardiner is pressed up against the rail berm for much of its alignment between Jarvis and Parliament - after Parliament it increases (a lot) in height and becomes not unlike the skyway by Fort York. Other than the birds nesting in the girders over head, and the rust from a lack of beautification, it's really not horrible. It's quite bright and airy.

Yes, I see the comedy in going from an elevated highway that you walk under, to a boulevard that you walk over. Ha ha ha.

The key difference is, as I've before, a raised barrier is much worse than a flat one. And it would look about 10x better since you wouldn't have a dark cavern under a raised highway.

A raised barrier is worse than a flat one only for people looking at it from afar. Those who live near it just pass conveniently beneath.

It's not like a dark canyon at all...it's like a giant, now-run-down, outdoor room.