News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

Has anyone heard anything new about the York-Bay-Yonge Interchange project???

As per the City of Toronto website on this matter (http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/yby_interchange/) "The timing of construction of the recommended plan is dependent on the availability of funding and on coordination with other infrastructure and development projects in the immediate area. The City is actively pursuing solutions to the questions of funding and timing; as soon as they are resolved, the design and construction process will be triggered."

Any further news since that was posted back in May?

Thanks.
 
It is funded with Section 37 funds from Harbour Plaza and Ten York, and the park is funded by section 37 funds from Waterpark Place III (Which i presume the city already has considering that the building is already 3/4 of the way up). Once the City gets Ten Yorks and Harbour Plaza's section 37 funds I presume it will move ahead.
 
Last edited:
Pretty brutal getting around on transit this weekend without the Gardiner and with all the streetcar replacements and other road closures.

I liked this article from earlier in the summer

CANADA COMPETES
Don’t knock down the Gardiner Expressway – just put a roof on it
DAVID ISRAELSON
Globe and Mail update, corrected version
Published Friday, Aug. 23 2013, 6:05 AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Aug. 27 2013, 1:51 PM EDT
Comments
Print AA

competes-gardiner00sr1.JPG

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ldings---try-it-on-a-highway/article13931906/

Les Klein has an idea for Toronto’s much-reviled Gardiner Expressway that runs along the lakefront – instead of hating it like nearly everyone else, let’s wrap it in a giant Green Ribbon.

“I happen to always have loved the Gardiner,†says Mr. Klein, principal and co-founder of Toronto-based Quadrangle Architects Ltd. “I came into town when I was 25 for my first job and I remember coming over the hump [a startling bump in the expressway, since smoothed over, near the Humber River]. I thought, this is a beautiful way to enter the city.â€

Right now, most planners and politicians think the Gardiner is anything but beautiful. They are ruminating over what to do with the crumbling, congested expressway, with the choices seeming to be either to rip it down or patch it.

Mr. Klein has a different idea. He has drawn up a proposal to build what he calls the Green Ribbon – a seven-kilometre, landscaped roof over the elevated highway.

The Green Ribbon would keep the Gardiner functioning and intact, minimize future repairs by protecting it from bad weather and also create 32 hectares of recreational parkland above the road, he says.

The millions of dollars now being contemplated to repair the Gardiner or tear it down could, after existing repairs are made, be better spent by protecting it with a park over the top, he contends.

The Gardiner now handles 200,000 cars and trucks a day (though it was originally built for 70,000 vehicles), and the bill to keep it from falling down is now estimated by Toronto’s city engineering staff at $505-million over 10 years. This summer alone, critical repairs just to keep part of the elevated road safe are costing taxpayers $9-million .

Tearing the highway down would be costly and disruptive, too, Mr. Klein says. “I don’t believe tearing it down would be viable. Our approach to transportation may change, but for now it’s a key component of moving people and goods in this region.â€

A third alternative, “burying†the Gardiner by replacing it with a new underground expressway, would run into the billions and pose engineering and construction problems, because much of the land where the Gardiner now sits is composed of landfill that was deposited in the 19th and 20th centuries, so the water table is perilously close.

All this makes the Green Ribbon not only visionary, but practical, Mr. Klein contends. It could be built for approximately $700-million and brings benefits that would enhance Toronto’s infrastructure and competitiveness.

Mr. Klein envisages virtually the entire length of the downtown expressway being covered by a series of bridge-like structures, landscaped with green space, foot and bicycle paths and sprinkled with cafes, boutiques and small galleries.

Pedestrians and cyclists would access this leafy upper deck via stairs, elevators and ramps at a series of “nodes†that would also serve as struts to hold up the Green Ribbon.

As an engineering feat, it’s not as hard as you might think, Mr. Klein says. At its lowest point, the Gardiner is about 8.5 metres above the ground – the Green Ribbon would add roughly another 8 metres beyond this.

All of the structure would be built independently from the roadway below. “You don’t want to add any more load to that [road] structure.â€

A beribboned Gardiner would be easier to maintain because it wouldn’t need to be salted in the winter, and it would be safer too, because the east-west route often confounds drivers who get the glaring sun in their eyes, he says.

A series of solar panels at points along the Green Ribbon could provide power for lighting the covered roadway, too.

Putting a park in the air is not unprecedented – in New York City, a not-for-profit group worked since 1999 with that city to open the High Line, a 2.3-kilometre linear park along an abandoned railway spur. The High Line, which opened in 2009, attracted more than two million visitors in its first year alone. The park continues to expand, with a third section due to open next year, and it has spurred full-scale gentrification and redevelopment of New York’s once-sketchy Meatpacking District.

Mr. Klein concedes that funding a $700-million project like the Green Ribbon would be a challenge for cash-strapped Toronto. And other experts, while intrigued by the idea, are not 100 per cent sure it’s a panacea.

“If Toronto is serious about being a sustainable and green city in the 21st century, it must focus on improving public transport and intra-regional light rail services. The Green Ribbon will do little to achieve this goal,†says Robert Maguire, project director at Wood Wharf, a major redevelopment next to London’s Canary Wharf.

“But it will send an important signal that Toronto’s priorities are shifting increasingly away from the car toward the pedestrian,†adds Mr. Maguire, a former Toronto city planner.

The city is already being compelled by senior governments to consider new revenue tools to pay for improving its creaky transportation infrastructure. And Mr. Klein has already been discussing financing models with several Bay Street firms.

Some of the financial models are complicated, and some, such as issuing private debentures, would require changes in provincial legislation for municipal infrastructure funding. But they’re not impossible.

He also sees a big idea like the Green Ribbon as consistent with the vision of Toronto’s leaders in the 1940s and ’50s, who planned the Gardiner itself as a bold game changer that would make the city more competitive: “When it was built, these kinds of ideas were the essence of progress.â€

“It’s also the most green thing you can do,†says Mr. Klein, whose firm is known for “adaptive reuse†projects such as the MuchMusic building (formerly CityTV) on Queen Street West. “If you tear it down and take away all the pieces, you lose all that embedded energy.â€

Something has to be done soon, no matter what, he points out. In 2012, there were six reported instances of falling chunks from the highway, whose oldest sections will turn 58 in August, and city engineering reports express concern about more of what they ominously call more “punch-throughs.â€

“One of the biggest challenges facing Western society at moment is that, by and large, for the last 40 years, we have postponed spending on infrastructure under the guise of fiscal responsibiliy,†Mr. Klein says.

Editor's note: This article has been corrected to reflect the cost estimate of repairing the Gardiner as $505-million, rather than billion.
 
Saw an interesting comment in an article on the UrbanToronto homepage:

"I would go for removal or replacement. It's a huge eye sore as is. If people agree on replacement, then I would align it over the rail line to meet with the DVP. Then you've got just the one barrier to pedestrians. I would expect that any new replacement would use technology to control the noise of the expressway traffic - in other words some sort of surrounding glass."
"Great idea. Aligning it on top of the rail lines takes care of 2 eyesores at once, and allows the expressway to function as is while the new one is under construction. It may also prevent the city stretch of the rails from snow-related delays. Your idea could be applied to the entire stretch, not just the east end. The current LSB can be a tree-lined avenue with a dedicated bike and LRT corridor."


Well how about it? I'm curious to see the minds of urbantoronto shoot this idea down for impracticality. :)
 
Saw an interesting comment in an article on the UrbanToronto homepage:

"I would go for removal or replacement. It's a huge eye sore as is. If people agree on replacement, then I would align it over the rail line to meet with the DVP. Then you've got just the one barrier to pedestrians. I would expect that any new replacement would use technology to control the noise of the expressway traffic - in other words some sort of surrounding glass."
"Great idea. Aligning it on top of the rail lines takes care of 2 eyesores at once, and allows the expressway to function as is while the new one is under construction. It may also prevent the city stretch of the rails from snow-related delays. Your idea could be applied to the entire stretch, not just the east end. The current LSB can be a tree-lined avenue with a dedicated bike and LRT corridor."


Well how about it? I'm curious to see the minds of urbantoronto shoot this idea down for impracticality. :)

It is an interesting idea, for sure. The biggest issue with that though is what do you do when it reaches Union Station?

Personally, the plan I'm most in favour of is something like this, where the Gardiner gets diverted onto Front/Wellington opposing one-ways, while Lake Shore is reconfigured as an urban boulevard.

This would actually improve traffic flow, because right now the biggest constriction in downtown is getting TO the Gardiner/Lake Shore, as getting to either of them forces people to use a N-S road (Yonge, Bay, York, Simcoe, Spadina), all of which are congested most of the day. By having half the downtown-bound traffic on the Gardiner/Lake Shore combo coming into downtown from the west, and half from the south, it makes much better use of existing road infrastructure.

In addition, it's significantly less expensive than most options, because the bulk of the cost is a split between the tear-down of the existing expressway and the reconfiguration of Lake Shore, and the viaduct to be built from around the Ex to Front & Spadina. East of Spadina, there would be a small tunnel to connect to the viaduct, but by and large it would be a standard one-way reconfiguration of Front, and almost no work needed on Wellington.

Gardiner Downtown.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Gardiner Downtown.jpg
    Gardiner Downtown.jpg
    119.4 KB · Views: 901
Last edited:
Saw an interesting comment in an article on the UrbanToronto homepage:

"I would go for removal or replacement. It's a huge eye sore as is. If people agree on replacement, then I would align it over the rail line to meet with the DVP. Then you've got just the one barrier to pedestrians. I would expect that any new replacement would use technology to control the noise of the expressway traffic - in other words some sort of surrounding glass."
"Great idea. Aligning it on top of the rail lines takes care of 2 eyesores at once, and allows the expressway to function as is while the new one is under construction. It may also prevent the city stretch of the rails from snow-related delays. Your idea could be applied to the entire stretch, not just the east end. The current LSB can be a tree-lined avenue with a dedicated bike and LRT corridor."


Well how about it? I'm curious to see the minds of urbantoronto shoot this idea down for impracticality. :)

That sounds like the Gutierrez "Viaduct" plan from a few years ago. http://www.toviaduct.com/Home.html

It must be done as a complete project and I do not think you can replace the East Gardiner as a separate job.
 
Of course one of the problems is Toronto inertia and political infighting.

The longer this "dialogue" goes on the more it will cost the city to replace/improve it as well as the bigger the repair bills just to keep the damn thing from falling down. This is also effecting the options available. Even if Toronto all of a sudden found a pot of gold the ongoing battle will allow yet more condos to be built right up against it so that doing anything but basic repairs will be a logistical nighmare and greatly reduce the options they have.
 
I like the idea of improving. I feel burying it is prohibitively expensive, and simply improving the public realm under it can do miracles. Make Lakeshore only 2 lanes each way, add shrubs where you can, put in some LED lights so it doesn't get so light, some public art, find a way to slow lakeshore down, install some form of sound barriers for the highway, etc. this would accomplish almost just as much as burying it in terms of creating a friendly pedestrian enviroment and would billions cheaper. We need all the infrastructure money we can get for transit, we shouldn't be wasting it on a buried highway.
 
It is an interesting idea, for sure. The biggest issue with that though is what do you do when it reaches Union Station?

Personally, the plan I'm most in favour of is something like this, where the Gardiner gets diverted onto Front/Wellington opposing one-ways, while Lake Shore is reconfigured as an urban boulevard.

This would actually improve traffic flow, because right now the biggest constriction in downtown is getting TO the Gardiner/Lake Shore, as getting to either of them forces people to use a N-S road (Yonge, Bay, York, Simcoe, Spadina), all of which are congested most of the day. By having half the downtown-bound traffic on the Gardiner/Lake Shore combo coming into downtown from the west, and half from the south, it makes much better use of existing road infrastructure.

In addition, it's significantly less expensive than most options, because the bulk of the cost is a split between the tear-down of the existing expressway and the reconfiguration of Lake Shore, and the viaduct to be built from around the Ex to Front & Spadina. East of Spadina, there would be a small tunnel to connect to the viaduct, but by and large it would be a standard one-way reconfiguration of Front, and almost no work needed on Wellington.

View attachment 18884

Yup, pretty much my thinking...
 
Four options for the Gardiner's future presented to Toronto residents

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/four-opti...ture-presented-to-toronto-residents-1.1497994

- Maintaining the elevated expressway as is, with minor enhancements.

- Maintaining the elevated expressway but with improvements such as better supports and more green space underneath, at a cost of up to $630 million.

- Replacing the current expressway with either an above- or below-ground expressway, at a cost of about $1 billion.

- Removing the elevated expressway and building a new roadway with between eight and 10 lanes of traffic, similar to University Avenue.
 
Bury and toll the Gardiner and the rail corridor at the same time. Make Lakeshore a grand boulevard. That would improve so much of both mobility and aesthetics of the core. It can be done with tolls.
 
The pictures make me want to remove this section of Gardiner I don't use even more lol. As long as they leave the part of the Gardiner I use I'm fine with it. Selfish viewpoint? Yes.
 

Back
Top