[TRONto]

The idea for an new Lake Shore east was to do an University style by pushing far north to the rail embankment with an focus on pedestrians crossing it having more rights than traffic. The 2004 Transit Master Plan originally had an LRT going east to Woodbine more of an express line and connecting to Queen and Kingston Rd that was approved by TTC commissioners and Council. The LRT line was removed by TTC staff when the province during the EA approval stage requested the plan to be split into 3 section. It wasn't know to most parties of the removal of the LRT line until a few years when the Cherry St Line EA started.

IIRC, the analysis showed that the section to Woodbine wouldn't have enough ridership?
I personally think that the section to Woodbine is important for reducing car usage. Getting in and out of the beaches is hard with a car and having a point to jump on a semi-express to downtown (or vice-versa) would be of significant benefit. Also, things are much different from the time of that analysis and Toronto is densifying at a much faster rate. I know that section won't be built for decades if ever but I think it's an important link.

 

[drum118]

IIRC, the analysis showed that the section to Woodbine wouldn't have enough ridership?
I personally think that the section to Woodbine is important for reducing car usage. Getting in and out of the beaches is hard with a car and having a point to jump on a semi-express to downtown (or vice-versa) would be of significant benefit. Also, things are much different from the time of that analysis and Toronto is densifying at a much faster rate. I know that section won't be built for decades if ever but I think it's an important link.

It was not an express in a true sense as there would have been a number of stops along the route. It would be a lot faster getting to/from the Beach(es) to the Downtown area. As more development happen over time, more stations would come on line even the connection to Broadview. Quality of services wouldn't be there on day one, but would increase over time based on needs and ridership.

It was another low ball number for TTC to stop having an RT line and only using buses. Buses has been TTC vision for the Portland from day one and the foot dragging on the extension.

 

[EnviroTO]

The city doesn't have a budget to pay for the Gardiner hybrid because they are constantly reducing their tax in comparison to other costs of living in the city and in comparison to other Ontario cities.

The Toronto Cycle of Dreams is
1. City does a study to determine how to develop the city and decides on a plan,
2. The city puts the start date of the project 5-10 years in the future because surely the city will have saved money by then.
3. Years go by and Toronto has many tax reductions (reduced as a percentage of property value and reduced in comparison to inflation).
4. City pleads for help because they don't have money and federal government or province pays for between 66 and 100 percent of the total cost and the city commits to funding other projects with the money it saved.
5. Repeat.

With the old funding model most of the major infrastructure projects the provide is passing for would have been paid 33% by the city, but not having to pay that didn't make the city more capable of paying for other infrastructure projects... It made them more capable to waste money and lower taxes.

 

[whydidimakethis]

But I don't see how the boulevard plan is a step up over the current plan.

The last thing downtown needs is another Highway 7 (looking at you VMC...)

 

[Northern Light]

The city doesn't have a budget to pay for the Gardiner hybrid because they are constantly reducing their tax in comparison to other costs of living in the city and in comparison to other Ontario cities.

The Toronto Cycle of Dreams is
1. City does a study to determine how to develop the city and decides on a plan,
2. The city puts the start date of the project 5-10 years in the future because surely the city will have saved money by then.
3. Years go by and Toronto has many tax reductions (reduced as a percentage of property value and reduced in comparison to inflation).
4. City pleads for help because they don't have money and federal government or province pays for between 66 and 100 percent of the total cost and the city commits to funding other projects with the money it saved.
5. Repeat.

With the old funding model most of the major infrastructure projects the provide is passing for would have been paid 33% by the city, but not having to pay that didn't make the city more capable of paying for other infrastructure projects... It made them more capable to waste money and lower taxes.

Vancouver staff are proposing a 9.7% tax hike this year; compared with Toronto's 5.5%

 

[ssiguy2]

I don't think the water table would be an issue if they are building huge towers in the area with 4 or 5 levels of underground parking.

The city could sell the land it now owns where the Gardiner is currently and use that money to buy the new trenched corridor. They could then turn around and literally give the land to developers as long as they fully fund and/or construct the highway section under their building and incorporate affordable housing as a percentage of total units dictated by the city. The City would basically get a new highway for little or no new money. What's more they could state that the trench roadway must also have separated bike lanes. imagine how nice it would be to be able to bike from the DVP to Union protected from the elements when it's raining, snowing, or when a regular bike path is simply too slippery.

Such an idea really is a win for everyone. Housing advocates get housing faster near major transit, developers get new land to develop with no land cost purchases, drivers still get to keep their freeway, the city gets a new road with little upfront costs and makes them money thru taxes to maintain other parts of the Gardiner & DVP, transit riders get more infrastructure funds released for transit projects that would have otherwise gone to the Gardiner rebuild, Torontonians get a far nicer public realm and get rid of the Gardiner eyesore, and cyclists get a new fully enclosed, protected, and safe "bike freeway". It's one of the few examples where everyone wins.

The advances in technology also make trenches more appealing than they were just 20 years ago. One of the complaints about trenches is they can become smelly and loud, much like parking garages. Those issues are quickly disappearing as all autos and trucks go zero emissions getting rid of fumes, exhaust, and the roar of engines especially when used along with modern sound dampening technology.

Can someone please let me know of ANY downsides of such a project or who would be against it?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my final question.

 

[blacksquirrels]

^ I could see the benefit of reworking the whole DVP and Gardiner system, turning them into two separate access roads into downtown. Each road with several in/out rumps to regular streets, and no direct connection between the two. That would totally shift through traffic elsewhere, and actually improve the access to waterfront.

But I don't see how the boulevard plan is a step up over the current plan.

aside from being more aesthetically pleasing, opening up more land for development, making the lake more accessible, moving vehicular traffic more efficiently, costing far less to build and maintain there were no real benefits.

 

[Rainforest]

aside from being more aesthetically pleasing, opening up more land for development, making the lake more accessible, moving vehicular traffic more efficiently, costing far less to build and maintain there were no real benefits.

I definitely disagree on the "making the lake more accessible" part; it is easier to walk under the guideway than to cross a wide road at the traffic light.

Ditto for "moving vehicular traffic more efficiently"; what efficiency can be achieved by adding a few traffic lights.

I disagree on the "more aesthetically pleasing" too, but concur that aesthetics is subjective and some people might like wide boulevards.

"Costing far less to build" is a fair point, and because of that alone, probably would be better to select the boulevard option back in 2015. Doubt it is still the case though. If I am not mistaken, 30% of the work has been done and paid for, another 30% has been contracted out. If the last 40% is scrapped and the funds saved, they might not pay for the construction of boulevard, that probably went up compared to the 2015 estimates.

"Opening up more land for development" is a kind of fair point, although isn't it better to fix the zoning bylaws and open up the land near multiple existing subway stations outside downtown? Those locations have transit service already present, unlike Lakeshore East.

 

[evandyk]

I definitely disagree on the "making the lake more accessible" part; it is easier to walk under the guideway than to cross a wide road at the traffic light.

Right now you have to cross a wide road and do it while under a noisy traffic deck. Crossing Lakeshore at Sherbourne or Parliament is a markedly worse experience than crossing University at Wellington or King, because it is under the highway and in a desolate landscape.

 

[Rainforest]

Right now you have to cross a wide road and do it while under a noisy traffic deck. Crossing Lakeshore at Sherbourne or Parliament is a markedly worse experience than crossing University at Wellington or King, because it is under the highway and in a desolate landscape.

I used to cross both, years ago when I worked in downtown. Crossing the University is more pleasing only because there are more people around; it takes a lot of time though.

If it is Lakeshore and not the Gardiner that is acting like a barrier, then wouldn't it be more logical to merge a section of Lakeshore with the Gardiner and make them run together elevated, allowing the people to walk under without much obstacles? Rather than making Lakeshore even wider.

Or maybe re-desing both the Gardiner and the DVP in such a way that they are not connected at all? DVP connecting to the downtown from the east using a set of ramps, the Gardiner from the south using another set of rumps. No through traffic between the two, thus nothing but some small local streets between downtown and Waterfront East.

 

[blacksquirrels]

I definitely disagree on the "making the lake more accessible" part; it is easier to walk under the guideway than to cross a wide road at the traffic light.

no sorry it isn't. the wide road is there with or without the elevated highway above it. once you get rid of the highway and more importantly the on ramps, the street can be redesigned to include an island like on University. this would make it easier and safer to cross than the current Lakeshore Blvd.

Ditto for "moving vehicular traffic more efficiently"; what efficiency can be achieved by adding a few traffic lights.

the Gardiner Expressway goes from three lanes to two lanes back to three lanes back to two lanes because of the space required for on ramps. this creates a bottleneck effect preventing traffic from moving efficiently. in my opinion it would be much better to have dedicated right and/or left turn lanes instead. it creates better traffic flow.

I disagree on the "more aesthetically pleasing" too, but concur that aesthetics is subjective and some people might like wide boulevards.

sure it's subjective, but hard to argue that the Gardiner is more aesthetically pleasing than La Rambla or Champs-Élysées. you can't really debate this until you see what actually replaces it, but the potential would be there to create a much more beautiful public space. it's a real stretch to try and defend the aesthetics of the Gardiner Expressway even if induced by nostalgia or whatever emotional attachment you have to it.

"Costing far less to build" is a fair point, and because of that alone, probably would be better to select the boulevard option back in 2015. Doubt it is still the case though. If I am not mistaken, 30% of the work has been done and paid for, another 30% has been contracted out. If the last 40% is scrapped and the funds saved, they might not pay for the construction of boulevard, that probably went up compared to the 2015 estimates.

of course it would have. blame amalgamation, suburban city councillors, Tory or whomever lacks the foresight to see this back then. it was a pretty obvious decision at the time. now they are turning it into a sunk-cost fallacy.

"Opening up more land for development" is a kind of fair point, although isn't it better to fix the zoning bylaws and open up the land near multiple existing subway stations outside downtown? Those locations have transit service already present, unlike Lakeshore East.

i don't see why one precludes the other. both should happen and are both important.

 

[Rainforest]

no sorry it isn't. the wide road is there with or without the elevated highway above it. once you get rid of the highway and more importantly the on ramps, the street can be redesigned to include an island like on University. this would make it easier and safer to cross than the current Lakeshore Blvd.

Sure, crossing a wide road that has an island is safer that crossing one that has no island. But it is still a barrier, and crossing takes time .. I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

the Gardiner Expressway goes from three lanes to two lanes back to three lanes back to two lanes because of the space required for on ramps. this creates a bottleneck effect preventing traffic from moving efficiently. in my opinion it would be much better to have dedicated right and/or left turn lanes instead. it creates better traffic flow.

Good point, I did not think about those lane effects. Maybe you are right here.

sure it's subjective, but hard to argue that the Gardiner is more aesthetically pleasing than La Rambla or Champs-Élysées. you can't really debate this until you see what actually replaces it, but the potential would be there to create a much more beautiful public space. it's a real stretch to try and defend the aesthetics of the Gardiner Expressway even if induced by nostalgia or whatever emotional attachment you have to it.

No emotional attachments here, and will not be personally affected by either option selected.

of course it would have. blame amalgamation, suburban city councillors, Tory or whomever lacks the foresight to see this back then. it was a pretty obvious decision at the time. now they are turning it into a sunk-cost fallacy.

The sunk-cost argument isn't always a fallacy. Each case should be analysed on its own merit.

i don't see why one precludes the other. both should happen and are both important.

One does not preclude the other. But there might be a lot more land made available by opening multi-storey development around something like 10 to 15 existing subway stations, outside downtown but not quite at the termini. If each station gives 0.5 to 1 square kilometer of available land - that seems a lot more than a single 3-km long but narrow stretch near Lakeshore. Therefore, I am a bit surprised that more attention goes to the latter than to the former.

 

[T3G]

sure it's subjective, but hard to argue that the Gardiner is more aesthetically pleasing than La Rambla or Champs-Élysées. you can't really debate this until you see what actually replaces it,

I am fairly confident that even if we demolished the Gardiner, what would be left would not look anything like these two streets.

 

[Haljackey]

The Gardiner made it to the F cars reddit today. Interesting comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/11clmms

 

[blacksquirrels]

I am fairly confident that even if we demolished the Gardiner, what would be left would not look anything like these two streets.

haha. yeah that's a pretty safe bet. although it's hard to imagine it looking worse.