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

[CDL.TO]

Also, Metrolinx wants to divert passengers away from Union, not drive more passengers to Union. See Union Station 2031 Study. Connecting a relief line to Union would undermine this goal.

You're confusing Union TTC station with Union GO station. Union 2031 deals with GO/VIA track and platform capacity, not the subway station capacity.

 

[dowlingm]

If people want to take the subway to Union they can do what they do already - use the YUS. The DRL needs to be farther north for two reasons:

1. To keep the current damburst of pedestrians above and below ground from Union / to Union at peak to just bonkers levels as opposed to apocalyptic running from Godzilla levels
2. To give an attractive option for people who simply can't get on the subway at Queen, Dundas, College, Wellesley in the PM peak.

A DRL that goes further south will be longer and demand more stations and more crossings of major infrastructure (incl Gardiner) by the TBMs.

The reality is that the TTC doesn't think a whole lot about transit south of King but with the growth of the lakeshore condos and the upcoming Portlands renaissance it better think about it soon - someone's going to wake up one day and notice that the 72 and a truncated Cherry streetcar isn't going to get it done. But the DRL doesn't have to do that duty too - it needs to do its primary job which is to relieve Yonge-Bloor Station and the four stations immediately south of it.

 

[West Toronto Junction]

@AlvinofDiaspar, thanks for posting the Waterfrontoronto slide deck. Lovely renderings.

Ultimately deciding on what to do will need some quantitative analysis. That is, running traffic flow models and travel demand models. I really liked the flow diagram of existing traffic in the Waterfrontoronto slide deck because it clarified what the current use is. So for all the various proposals, road and transit, run the simulations. For today's and tomorrow's population and employment patterns.

Then take your flows and travel times, across the whole road and transit network, do a standard economic cost-benefit analysis and see which of the various proposals provides the greatest social-economic surplus.

Sure it's not the whole answer, sure projections are wrong, and sure the method is imperfect. But we'd have a framework to test the different inputs and assumptions in a comprehensive and consistent way.

Then we can do the financial analysis to see how to pay for what makes economic sense.

 

[M II A II R II K]

This Austin proposal looks cool. Maybe cover the Lakeshore and make it the Gardiner, and have a grand avenue on top.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/08/01/austins-ambitious-plan-to-cut-and-cap-a-downtown-highway/

 

[drum118]

This Austin proposal looks cool. Maybe cover the Lakeshore and make it the Gardiner, and have a grand avenue on top.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/08/01/austins-ambitious-plan-to-cut-and-cap-a-downtown-highway/

Can you say ""Boston Big D""??

Would you say $30B is enough to do this since you are in the lake at this point??

 

[M II A II R II K]

Sounds like a plan, but would involve less digging.

 

[ssiguy2]

There's only one little problem with many of these proposals, they cost money. Usually that's a fairly obvious observation but in Toronto's case it warrants mentioning because this is after all Toronto, a city where paying for it's own infrastructure is a notion the citizens can't seem to get their head around.

No doubt the mayor and city council will review their options and come to the bold decision that they aren't going to do anything and simply wait until Queen's Park comes up with the money.

 

[Adjei]

There's only one little problem with many of these proposals, they cost money. Usually that's a fairly obvious observation but in Toronto's case it warrants mentioning because this is after all Toronto, a city where paying for it's own infrastructure is a notion the citizens can't seem to get their head around.

No doubt the mayor and city council will review their options and come to the bold decision that they aren't going to do anything and simply wait until Queen's Park comes up with the money.

You nailed it. We see the same thing with almost everything in this city, always wanting someone else to foot the bill so that they pay nothing or pay little. This same attitude was seen with the recent Scarborough subway fiasco. They wanted to dictate to the province how much money they should pay and when the province came up short, you had flip floppers like Stinz screaming bloody murder. You want to break a signed agreement for a project which is more expensive compared to something which will not cost the city anything but want to dictate to others how much they should pay.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I doubt this proposal would work. Where would on/off ramps go. And this does nothing to improve traffic flow. It will probably make it worse.

 

[Palma]

A relief line along Lakeshore would be useless. The local demand can be easily handled by a new streetcar line, while the regional node that needs to be served is at King and Bay.

Also, Metrolinx wants to divert passengers away from Union, not drive more passengers to Union. See Union Station 2031 Study. Connecting a relief line to Union would undermine this goal.



Not feasible. Downtown business areas are driven by clustering. Accounting firms want to be next to the law firms who want to be next to the finance firms.

If you want to create a second downtown, North York City Center, Scarborough Town Centre, or any number of other locations have a multi-decade head start.

Best case scenario would be a business park, perhaps one with loft-like offices rather than traditional business park wasteland.

Who wants to work in those business parks? A 2nd downtown is certainly not North York or Scarborough. Downtown is downtown not north of the 401

 

[W. K. Lis]

Preserving the Gardiner now wouldn't be the end of it. Toronto will have to fix it all over again in 20 or 30 years, if not sooner. And with inflation, it will cost maybe double or even triple. In other words, your kids will have a turn to go through all this again.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Preserving the Gardiner now wouldn't be the end of it. Toronto will have to fix it all over again in 20 or 30 years, if not sooner. And with inflation, it will cost maybe double or even triple. In other words, your kids will have a turn to go through all this again.

I'm fairly confident that the eastern portion will be demolished, but I just wish we'd demolish the whole elevated structure at once. But the good thing is that when it does come time to demolish or replace the portion above Spadina avenue (probably in another 20 years or so), the entire elevated structure will very likely come down as well.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Do you guys think part of the reason for traffic woes is the lack of highways in the city proper? Thanks for the answers.

 

[js97]

Preserving the Gardiner now wouldn't be the end of it. Toronto will have to fix it all over again in 20 or 30 years, if not sooner. And with inflation, it will cost maybe double or even triple. In other words, your kids will have a turn to go through all this again.

You say that like if we ripped it down, lakeshore would not also require maintenance? Ripping down the gardiner would also create havoc for all those lakeshore closures for marathons, carribana festivals etc.

The issue with the gardiner is the structure is exposed to freezing and thaw, expanding and shortening the life of the road.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

js97:

Highly doubt that maintaining an at grade Lakeshore cost as much as an above grade Gardiner - and the fact that it was built half a century ago with period technology certainly doesn't help. Not sure what the "best" option is at this point however.

AoD