News   Aug 07, 2020
 2.8K     6 
News   Aug 07, 2020
 673     0 
News   Aug 07, 2020
 761     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
4,916
Reaction score
11,969
If enough people think it's a good idea then don't present it to the City or but rather a developer. If a developer turns to the city with an idea that they will build the Gardiner then that will get the City's and most importantly, the media's attention.
If you're referring to any action with regard to the Gardiner east of Yonge or so, the decision has already been made.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
4,916
Reaction score
11,969
No shovels are in the ground yet. Plans can change.
Okay, in the remote likelihood of that ever happening: what specific plots of land that are not currently under development or in the development planning stages are you referring to?
 

Euphoria

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
513
Reaction score
129
Unless you reconfigure Lakeshore with the Gardiner trenched underneath it, the merge/ramp lanes beside Lakeshore swallow up developable land. If we forego having expressway exits at Jarvis to an underground tunnel, then you actually end up with developable land along Lakeshore from between Jarvis and Yonge to the DVP. The land really opens up around Parliament. The challenge with this project is the shut down for construction, though the hybrid option requires also requires a major shut-down.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
4,916
Reaction score
11,969
Unless you reconfigure Lakeshore with the Gardiner trenched underneath it, the merge/ramp lanes beside Lakeshore swallow up developable land. If we forego having expressway exits at Jarvis to an underground tunnel, then you actually end up with developable land along Lakeshore from between Jarvis and Yonge to the DVP. The land really opens up around Parliament. The challenge with this project is the shut down for construction, though the hybrid option requires also requires a major shut-down.
I'm talking about specific plots of land with definable boundaries - what plots of land are you referring to? You can't just quote a whole bunch of land and say "this is ready for development" if it already has a development planned for it, which is the case with much of the land along the Lakeshore.

On this and other threads, you've accused people of suffering from a lack of vision - I'm now challenging you to display a necessary level of practicality to substantiate your claims.
 

Euphoria

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
513
Reaction score
129
The Gardiner is actually city-owned. Much land is freed up when the Gardiner and its concomitant ramps are removed. As for the wider plots of land between about Parliament and the DVP, the city already has plans for developing this land, quite advanced plans in its plans for the Port Lands. The biggest problem for the Port Lands is that they will essentially be an island, cut off from the rest of the city by the Gardiner. There are some interesting ideas to enhance the north-south connection with a reconfigured Cherry St. and connections to the Distillery and Canary Districts. Yes, the disconnection to the lake is also maintained with the rail corridor, but we seem to be finding creative ways of decking over the corridor. The new rail deck plans do this, and work beautifully west of Blue Jay Way, where the corridor drops below grade.

People can say what they want about cost, feasibility, etc., but the reality is, as long as you have major transportation infrastructure cutting off the waterfront from the rest of the city, whether an open air rail corridor or an elevated expressway, you're selling the city short on what it could be. I really think the final move for Toronto from being a successful rust belt city to something special is to reconnect the city to the waterfront. Whether that's burying or simply removing the Gardiner is up for debate. The hybrid is an expensive, better version of what we already have, but it's still more of the same essential disconnect. I've thought and said a lot on these topics, shown routes on maps, defended positions against people who think I'm interested in building highways through the core, etc. I realize people are trying to make the best of a bad situation with the Under Gardiner, etc., but I believe we can do better...Unless people really want to take up this cause and have real discussions about it, I've nothing more to say on this. (Don't celebrate too much...Lol)
 

dunkalunk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
61
The Gardiner is actually city-owned. Much land is freed up when the Gardiner and its concomitant ramps are removed. As for the wider plots of land between about Parliament and the DVP, the city already has plans for developing this land, quite advanced plans in its plans for the Port Lands. The biggest problem for the Port Lands is that they will essentially be an island, cut off from the rest of the city by the Gardiner. There are some interesting ideas to enhance the north-south connection with a reconfigured Cherry St. and connections to the Distillery and Canary Districts. Yes, the disconnection to the lake is also maintained with the rail corridor, but we seem to be finding creative ways of decking over the corridor. The new rail deck plans do this, and work beautifully west of Blue Jay Way, where the corridor drops below grade.
The rail corridor at Cherry is above grade compared to the section between Bathurst and Blue Jays Way which is in a trench. I'm not sure what you're getting at claiming that it's possible to deck over the section at Cherry.
Extending the streetcar tracks down Cherry, the Relief Line and the East Bayfront LRT will all do a lot to connect the Portlands to the rest of the city.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
799
If you remember one of the arguments against tearing down the Gardiner altogether s that city needed an alternative to get across the city due to the ever congested 401. Their argument was not to better serve downtown residents but crosstown ones...........those taking the Gardiner to by-pass downtown Toronto.

Due to this they should be given exactly what they asked for.........a downtown by-pass which means NO interchanges at all between the DVP and Church. People getting downtown can get off the DVP at Queen/King which most of them do already. It would save money, keep the traffic moving even faster, and permanently get rid of the eyesores of the interchanges & ramps.

Building "highway garages" keeps the traffic flowing, is out of sight and out of mind, and would be vastly cheaper than an elevated structure...........in fact it would be practically free and much cheaper to maintain due to not being exposed to the elements and no snow removal costs . Toronto could give away the land it owns with the proviso the developers builds it's portion of the highway and Toronto could buy any new property it may need to complete the route by selling or swapping it with the land it owns under the current Gardiner. I bet the land owned by private interest right now by a new "garage corridor" would jump at the chance because they would be getting far more valuable land due to being much closer to the Waterfront and away from the railway.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,211
Reaction score
5,908
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
../

Building "highway garages" keeps the traffic flowing, is out of sight and out of mind, and would be vastly cheaper than an elevated structure...........in fact it would be practically free and much cheaper to maintain due to not being exposed to the elements and no snow removal costs . Toronto could give away the land it owns with the proviso the developers builds it's portion of the highway and Toronto could buy any new property it may need to complete the route by selling or swapping it with the land it owns under the current Gardiner. I bet the land owned by private interest right now by a new "garage corridor" would jump at the chance because they would be getting far more valuable land due to being much closer to the Waterfront and away from the railway.
Wrong! Out of sight garages have expensive problems with salt melting from motor vehicles dripping off them when they're parked. Existing condos, apartment buildings, office buildings, and Nathan Phillips Square have to spend millions to repair corrosion on the concrete caused by salt.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
799
Don't tunnel, don't elevate, don't at-grade.............trench. Trench the damn highway and GIVE the Toronto lands to the developers with only the proviso that they have to build the highway under their buildings. This isn't rocket science and Toronto has thousands of examples of doing precisely this..........their called underground parking garages except instead of parking the cars, they would simply keep driving.

Highway is built, Toronto can sell the land the current Gardiner is on, the highway is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and Toronto gets it's Waterfront back. If Minni can built an LRT thru a parking garage including the station surely to god Toronto can built a road. These would be just parking garages except they would have openings at either end. Also if the private developers do it you can be damn sure they will do it in half the time as the city and they won't run over budget.

Again, this is how the new road tolls go towards transit and not towards a Gardiner re-build.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
4,916
Reaction score
11,969
Again, this is how the new road tolls go towards transit and not towards a Gardiner re-build.
That hasn't really been decided, but city staff did note that, of a $2 toll (though the Mayor wasn't committing to a price), $1.40 of each $2 would go to the Gardiner East construction.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
966
That hasn't really been decided, but city staff did note that, of a $2 toll (though the Mayor wasn't committing to a price), $1.40 of each $2 would go to the Gardiner East construction.
No they didn't. $1.40 per trip is the amount that's required to pay for operating costs and maintenance for the entire Gardiner Expressway, and the DVP, as well as the cost of administering the tolling system (plus a small net income resulting from rounding the toll up to a 10-cent interval). The other 60 cents would provide $158 million/year in net income for the city.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
4,916
Reaction score
11,969
No they didn't. $1.40 per trip is the amount that's required to pay for operating costs and maintenance for the entire Gardiner Expressway, and the DVP, as well as the cost of administering the tolling system (plus a small net income resulting from rounding the toll up to a 10-cent interval). The other 60 cents would provide $158 million/year in net income for the city.
Oh, interesting -- the exactness of that suggests you're reading it directly from a report (or similar); the $1.40 bit I quoted was from a City Hall reporter, which was perhaps premature.

David Nickle also reports that "Toll revenue will go into a separate infrastructure fund, be run by an external overseer and audited by the auditor general."
 

Top