Roads: Keep the Gardiner, fix it, or get rid of it? (2005-2014)

[Dan416]

Also he's probably just talking out of his ass anyway.

 

[snyberTO]

Burying the Gardiner is unrealistic - i mean it's good idea, but if we're going into totally fantasyland then let's invest in flying cars or raising downtown by 15ft (think of how much better the views would be - haha). Boston's Big Dig freeway-burying project will end up costing about 22 billion (in 2006 dollars) - that's about 4.4 billion toll fares of $5.

I can think of better things Toronto could do with that kind of cash. The Gardiner isnt a barrier to the waterfront, if there truly is a barrier then its the rail tracks (and they're staying put). The space under the Gardiner can provide some unique urban space - how about a linear park or event spaces, or a pedestrian/cycle right of way. And for those that want an at-grade mega-boulevard, why would you want to cover that valuable strip of land south of the rails with a massive road which would be at a scale that would make it unpleasant for waterfront-bound pedestrians to cross.

Plus there's something cool about moving uninterrupted through the city on an elevated highway - especially as new buildings spring up around it. I say leave the Gardiner - just fix it up so that it works/looks better, and maybe remove a few of the ramps east of Bay.

 

[snyberTO]

PLUS, the attractiveness of an express toll route only works if the upper "free" Gardiner remains congested, which means you'd be collecting tolls from less than half of the traffic accessing downtown. And the "free" road would still require all the maintenance and service...

 

[kEiThZ]

PLUS, the attractiveness of an express toll route only works if the upper "free" Gardiner remains congested, which means you'd be collecting tolls from less than half of the traffic accessing downtown. And the "free" road would still require all the maintenance and service...

The boulevard on top would have lights....and maybe even more lights than Lakeshore today.
That's the incentive to pay tolls.

 

[kEiThZ]

Burying the Gardiner is unrealistic - i mean it's good idea, but if we're going into totally fantasyland then let's invest in flying cars or raising downtown by 15ft (think of how much better the views would be - haha). Boston's Big Dig freeway-burying project will end up costing about 22 billion (in 2006 dollars) - that's about 4.4 billion toll fares of $5.

I can think of better things Toronto could do with that kind of cash.

1) Who says it has to be public money? The whole project could be turned over to industry, and they'd probably take it on if the return is solid enough.

2) If it were public money, this would essentially be good debt that could be monetized. Unlike transit projects which usually see no specific positive revenue stream, it's much easier to make a business case for a tolled highway.

3) For a group that's always complaining that drivers don't pay enough, it's an odd suggestion to oppose a scheme that would both transfer existing burdens (maintenance costs) and upgrade costs to drivers, while possibly provided an improved urban landscape and benefits for transit users.

... And for those that want an at-grade mega-boulevard, why would you want to cover that valuable strip of land south of the rails with a massive road which would be at a scale that would make it unpleasant for waterfront-bound pedestrians to cross.

What we want to see is one corridor for the most part with a boulevard on top and a tunnel carrying trains and cars underneath. This frees up more land than just a tunnel for cars with a boulevard on top. It could also make the tunnel faster and cheaper because of fewer exits. The boulevard on top would act as a collectors lanes of sorts.

As for being unpleasant to cross. The current rail corridor is not all that traversable. You don't have bridges and over/underpasses everywhere. And Lakeshore boulevard is no fun either.

Plus there's something cool about moving uninterrupted through the city on an elevated highway - especially as new buildings spring up around it. I say leave the Gardiner - just fix it up so that it works/looks better, and maybe remove a few of the ramps east of Bay.

Once the waterfront became the condofront, it's just not that cool anymore to move down the Gardiner. The view of the water is increasingly being obstructed. And views of the SkyDome and CN Tower are heading that way too. At this point, taking it down to surface level won't make that much of a difference.

 

[snyberTO]

I fully agree that the tracks are the real culprit, but moving them (up or down) would be an engineering nightmare because the maximum slope for most things on rails is just 4%. The current tracks are actually on a berm and quite a bit higher than the grade of lakeshore. Trains would have to be lowered through the entire rail corridor which would mean a total do-over of union station and all its platforms/spurs. I think the scope of of the project would quickly become unmanageable. Why not imagine the rail underpasses as portals or gateways to the waterfront? Excavate them to make them a bit wider, brighter, add some art and make them points of arrival?

Another issue with burying the expressway is dealing with the on- and off-ramps. The ramp portals take up quite a bit of space that cant be crossed (the current ramps up the gardiner are a problem in this regard too) and if you have fewer exits you create bottlenecks were the "express" traffic dumps onto city streets. Fewer exits would also make it less convenient for the users who are paying for convenience. In boston the buried highway made sense because so many people need to get from one side of the city to the other - whereas studies show that almost all gardiner traffic is headed into (or out of) the core.

If boston's project (which became famous for being a money pit) cost 22 billion, the toronto version would certainly cost much more. I think that the 407 works as a profitable toll-road because it truly offers a shortcut across a huge distance where many vehicles just need to get across the city (toronto is not their destination) and also because it's located where huge greenfield development is still possible. Out there everyone is going somewhere different and a highway makes sense. Many other cities (which are widely called progressive by some people) are trying to limit the number of cars entering the city core rather than building the capacity for more.

Why dont we just put a toll on the Gardiner as it is and call it a day? Those who dont want to pay can enter downtown from the DVP exits (richmond and adelaide) or by surface streets or better yet - transit!

I dont think moving along the gardiner is cool because of the view to the lake, i think its interesting to move through the towers and watch their changing volumes and shapes. I also think people like to see where they are - driving into the city is exciting - especially if you're visiting for the first time. And the gardiner can make you feel like your flying just over the surface (admittedly this feeling only happens during non-peak traffic - haha)

And lastly, i have not said (nor am i part of group that has said) that drivers dont pay enough. For me its not about who will pay for this wacky project - its that the project itself is wacky - because the net gain would almost certainly fall short of investment. And there would surely be at least "some" public money invested. Lets' talk about getting private money to build some subways (which, unfortunately, i think is improbable too)

Anyway, if you can find someone to build it and foot the bill - go for it!

 

[ssiguy2]

I'm curious..................seeing that both the DVP and Gardiner are City roadways and hence they have to pay for the expensive maintenance , is it possible just to sell them?
I'm not talking some form of PPP but rather just sell them outright and let a private company simply charge tolls as they see fit and sell the air rights around the Gardiner {not DVP} to potential developers who could place building over or under the elevated section?
The city would hit pay dirt and would no longer have the maintenance costs of the roadway and put the money into a DRL.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Cover over the tracks.

 

[nfitz]

I'm curious..................seeing that both the DVP and Gardiner are City roadways and hence they have to pay for the expensive maintenance , is it possible just to sell them?
I'm not talking some form of PPP but rather just sell them outright and let a private company simply charge tolls as they see fit and sell the air rights around the Gardiner {not DVP} to potential developers who could place building over or under the elevated section?
The city would hit pay dirt and would no longer have the maintenance costs of the roadway and put the money into a DRL.

Yes ... they could likely do this.

 

[Still Waters]

There was a reason that the original engineers didn't bury the Gardiner in a tunnel -- bad soil, high water table. Not only affecting the capital costs, but also the long-term maintenance costs. They went elevated in order to maintain existing Lake Shore capacity and add the expressway capacity through the central city.

I have never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the string, but don't we already have all of the elements that Doug F. is talking about? i.e. Expressway (possible toll route), surface road (Lake Shore) and rail (GO)? The only difference is that he is talking about putting them on top of each other. But why spend an obscene amount of money just to end up with virtually the same transportation capacity that you already have there today, unless he is talking about keeping the existing Gardiner/Lake Shore/GO rail lines and then adding a new tunnel? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money electrifying and expanding the existing GO rail lines? Or sell the Gardiner, let the private company operate it and toll it as is, and use the sale proceeds for something else?

 

[dunkalunk]

I'd say the best thing to do with the Gardiner at this point is to just leave it as is, except remove a lane for dedicated bus-bypass shoulder/registered freight lane. Unfortunately, Toronto doesn't have the types of natural disasters that would necessitate the tearing down of a freeway and we could end up maintaining the structure for another 50+

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

If boston's project (which became famous for being a money pit) cost 22 billion, the toronto version would certainly cost much more. I think that the 407 works as a profitable toll-road because it truly offers a shortcut across a huge distance where many vehicles just need to get across the city (toronto is not their destination) and also because it's located where huge greenfield development is still possible. Out there everyone is going somewhere different and a highway makes sense. Many other cities (which are widely called progressive by some people) are trying to limit the number of cars entering the city core rather than building the capacity for more.

Boston's project was MASSIVE in scope involving multiple tunnels under water, bridges, etc. Toronto would be relatively simple (depending on what is done exactly) that the only reason it may cost more than boston did would be due to inflation.

For reference the big dig involved a ~6 km tunneling of an elevated highway, a bridge, a tunnel under the Boston Harbour, and most of it was built on infill similar to Toronto's (there were other minor tunnels and bridges but splitting hairs). So: tunneling 6 km of the Gardiner would cover pretty much from West of the CNE grounds to the DVP, there would be no bridge, and no tunnel under the lake. Toronto's should cost about as much but certainly not more that Boston's project once inflation is accounted for. The only way it surpasses Boston is if something major is done with the rail tracks.

 

[Mapleson]

Boston's project was MASSIVE in scope involving multiple tunnels under water, bridges, etc. Toronto would be relatively simple (depending on what is done exactly) that the only reason it may cost more than boston did would be due to inflation.

For reference the big dig involved a ~6 km tunneling of an elevated highway, a bridge, a tunnel under the Boston Harbour, and most of it was built on infill similar to Toronto's (there were other minor tunnels and bridges but splitting hairs). So: tunneling 6 km of the Gardiner would cover pretty much from West of the CNE grounds to the DVP, there would be no bridge, and no tunnel under the lake. Toronto's should cost about as much but certainly not more that Boston's project once inflation is accounted for. The only way it surpasses Boston is if something major is done with the rail tracks.

The actual engineering and construction costs for Boston's Big Dig were much lower. It was on the fincincing and administration side that most of the foul-up occured. However, on the costing front, Ontario has much stricter policies on soil contamination than Massachusetts, so disposal costs would be much high per kilometre of tunnel. Also, you need bridges or tunnels under rivers to relieve system pressure, otherwise the Don and Humber will remain choke points. That said, I doubt we'd build anything that cost over $20 billion.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I figure this is probably the right time for me to jump in and say that these conversations always tend to ignore the eastern edge of the Gardiner, which was built to accommodate a future connection with the Scarborough Expressway. It's a prime candidate for removal or at least realignment, as removing it would unlock huge potential for future waterfront developments.

 

[gweed123]

I figure this is probably the right time for me to jump in and say that these conversations always tend to ignore the eastern edge of the Gardiner, which was built to accommodate a future connection with the Scarborough Expressway. It's a prime candidate for removal or at least realignment, as removing it would unlock huge potential for future waterfront developments.

I've always wondered if rebuilding the elevated highway directly over the rail corridor in the east is an option. It would free up Lakeshore to be redesigned to be more of an avenue.