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

[tudararms]

Not to be too melodramatic here but tearing down the Gardiner would give birth to a whole new city, or to a significant new portion thereof. Not just through the space gained in the absense of the expressway but also by the knitting together of natural north/south and eat/west channels that would allow the city to spread organically. The limits of downtown have always been somewhat hemmed in north of Front Street, leaving the area south of Front a relative wasteland. For what reason? This is where the city must now plan to develop, and conceptually our impression of 'entering' the city along an offramp will change to one of simply travelling to Toronto. The natural entry points will be the lake and the Don/Humber rivers rather than the artificial one created by the Gardiner barrier. In short, bring it on down! It is a corset pulled too tight!!

 

[3Dementia]

What an atrocious idea, considering it convinently ignored the placement of offramps, Union Station, etc.

Alvin:

Maybe you should take a closer look before you dismiss ideas out-of-hand... the presentation does include approximate placement of ramps.

This particular idea has tremendous "barriers" to overcome (the tight squeeze beside the Rogers Centre etc.) however the premise is quite brilliant:

no decade-long "Big Dig" nightmares because cantilevered construction methods for an A frame cable-stayed viaduct could mean almost no disruption of existing Gardiner and rail traffic during construction.

Surely that opportunity alone is worth a second look.

Only a much more expensive tunnel could manage that feat. Using the rail corridor (a true barrier) as a "transportation" corridor" to remove a crumbling "psychogical" barrier (Gardiner) has merit.

The proposal even addresses the elevated rail berm...it afterall is a major barrier east of Union.

Sometimes folks get a bit holier than thou on boards like this. I for one would like to encourage a great deal more creativity in this city. Mind you there's not much incentive around here if "cute" is sufficient dialogue.

 

[WhistlerinToronto]

Buffalonians also want to rid their city of its highway. I like to think our chances are a bit better though. It seems like they have the same issues that we're dealing with, and some of the same solutions. Milwaukee had an elevated freeway at one time but removed it to help revitalize its waterfront; Buffalo is using them as an example to follow.

 

[spmarshall]

So we'd have a double or triple decked barrier east of Union Station with the highway going over the current railway viaduct? Imagine what that would do for St. Lawrence, or the Distillery District (more damage than when Pure Spirit is built)?

As for the "Emergency only" lower level? That's redundant, as if emergency vehicles would have to bypass the downtown. The vehicles that would mostly to use such a long-distance are ambulances headed towards trauma centres. The viaduct would end up by-passing the two downtown centres.

I could find many more holes in that design and issues with the plan. It's not going to work. Period. Just bring down the Gardiner to street level from Spadina east.

 

[alklay]

Why spend energy with billion dollar fantasy projects involving highways in this area? Just bring down the highway we have now and we will be more than better off. Then make sure what we have left is full of trees, people and interesting walking areas.

 

[esplanade guy]

I think the sooner that monster is taken down, and the rail lines put underground, the better. I don't think it will cost nearly as much as we have been lead to believe and the use of some of that land can help pay the cost. Whatever the cost, I think in the end it will prove invaluble to the city. Toronto will be a whole different city with the Gardiner gone. The lake will finally play the prominant roll it should have, in defining this city and the flow of people, and development, will not be hinderd. I see the Gardiner every day, and I hate it! Slay that monster.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

3D:

aybe you should take a closer look before you dismiss ideas out-of-hand... the presentation does include approximate placement of ramps.

Actually, one should take a closer look of the maps to see where those ramps are, vis-a-vis development blocks, etc. You'll notice that a good number of them overlaps private properties that are going to be developed in the near future and/or assumes infrastructure supports that aren't there. Also, how are these ramps going to look, vis-a-vis the distance they will have to desend due to the height of the viaduct? Just because something appears in a plan doesn't mean it makes sense.

no decade-long "Big Dig" nightmares because cantilevered construction methods for an A frame cable-stayed viaduct could mean almost no disruption of existing Gardiner and rail traffic during construc

Only a much more expensive tunnel could manage that feat. Using the rail corridor (a true barrier) as a "transportation" corridor" to remove a crumbling "psychogical" barrier (Gardiner) has merit.

Cable-stayed construction isn't cheap by a LONG shot - there is a reason why you don't see them in use for the majority of highway projects other than in areas where engineering needs dictate.

Sometimes folks get a bit holier than thou on boards like this. I for one would like to encourage a great deal more creativity in this city. Mind you there's not much incentive around here if "cute" is sufficient dialogue.

Creativity is one thing, sheer lunacy ignoring economics, engineering and planning is another. There are far simpler, cheaper and more effective solutions to the Gardiner problem than this "thing", which incidentally is meant to work as a second E-W corridor.

AoD

 

[Ed007Toronto]

Some of you need to go to Boston to really see what a barrier the Gardiner actually is.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I'd say the millions upon millions poured in each year just to keep it up is pretty harmful...

How many millions are poured into the DVP each year? Or the 401? Or Allen Road? Or any road or street for that matter. Ive never said it was a great struture or that I wouldnt be glad to see it go. But will another 10 years of the Gardiner really be all that bad? If anything it provides the city with a workable timeline. Take the next 10 years, rebuild the Lakeshore line, upgrade Union Station to handle more passenger, bury the tracks or build over them. Essentially do all the necessary upgrades to the rail system in the city and in the core so that when the Gardiner is ready to come down, there is a commuter system in place that will help absorb extra traffic that results from constructing the Gardiner in a tunnel, or just elmininating it and rebuilding city streets in the area.

 

[3Dementia]

Creativity is one thing, sheer lunacy ignoring economics, engineering and planning is another. There are far simpler, cheaper and more effective solutions to the Gardiner problem than this "thing", which incidentally is meant to work as a second E-W corridor.

What's that supposed to mean? It is not a second E-W corridor, it is a replacement for the elevated Gardiner, hypothetically without much disruption.

It is little more than a sketch so I don't understand why you seem bent on distorting the idea presented. Ignoring planning? What planning? Ignoring engineering? Cable stayed construction is very well understood. Ignoring economics? Cheaper by far than the equivalent distance tunneling and priceless reclaimed land after the Gardiner is removed.

Generalizations are impactful but empty.

I look forward to reading about your "simpler, cheaper and more effective solutions". When will they be posted?

 

[beaconer]

Ed, so true..


A few photos take from the Mass Pike site..

This is the Zakim suspension bridge (the widest suspension bridge in the world) over the Charles River north entrance/exit of Boston.. It looks amazing at night from afar.. (They also constructed it with special cutouts so that sun light can reach the river for water life )

You can see the naked swath of land after the I93 was taken down. The connection to the heart of the North end (i.e their Little Italy, which was closed off to the city before) has already begun. Commerce and tourism in that historic area gaining momentum as pedestrians flow across from touristy Fanieul Hall which is right beside the Financial District.

Anyhow, some great video here:
www.masspike.com/bigdig/multimedia/video.html

And some great more amount of photos here:

www.masspike.com/bigdig/multimedia/photo.html

The city is an entire different one, and although the Big Dig was completed a short while ago (i.e the burying portion), the greenery and development on the new parcels of land have begun just about a year to two years depending on which section.

In a few years, the city will be something quite special.

 

[andreapalladio]

Boston already is something special. But I agree, the Big Dig should be our model for getting rid of the Gardiner. And if there is too much congestion on Lakeshore thereafter, then we should follow London's model and impose a congestion charge.

 

[3Dementia]

Actually that is a cable-stayed bridge.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

3D:

It is little more than a sketch so I don't understand why you seem bent on distorting the idea presented. Ignoring planning? What planning? Ignoring engineering? Cable stayed construction is very well understood. Ignoring economics? Cheaper by far than the equivalent distance tunneling and priceless reclaimed land after the Gardiner is removed.

I look forward to reading about your "simpler, cheaper and more effective solutions". When will they be posted?

Distorting the ideas? The proposal tells me nothing about how the problems I have mentioned regarding the ramps will be solved; it tells me nothing about how such a viaduct will exist in the planning context of the surrouding developments; it tells me nothing with regards to the cost of such a system with respect to the simple suggestion of tearing down the highway and replacing it with a surface boulevard. Forgive me if I am more confident of the numbers from TWRC with regards to the latter proposal, in contrast to this supposedly cheap (but we don't know how much, other than it must be cheaper than tunneling) proposal.

AoD

 

[GregWTravels]

Wow, didn't realize what a debate I would start by posting that!

follow London's model and impose a congestion charge

In general, I like this idea.

I've never been to London - how do they manage it? Do they have toll booths at every possible entrance to the core, or is it electronic (like 407)? How's it work?