[gweed123]

Why would one want involve themselves with the hassle and expense of building atop a railway corridor if they could avoid that. I'd think it would be cheaper to rebuild the Gardiner entirely and avoiding the mistakes of the previous design.

AoD

Well you would be rebuilding the Gardiner entirely, or at least the eastern portion of it. Putting it on top of the rail corridor would allow Lake Shore to be reconfigured and have it out from under the Gardiner's shadow (literally). The rail corridor is already an eyesore and a barrier to the waterfront, so might as well stack two barriers on top of eachother.

Now having said that, my preference is still to dig a trench along the central waterfront, put a stacked tunnel in it, and then put DRL fill on top of it to create a linear waterfront park across the entire central waterfront. That would open Gardiner lands up for redevelopment, remove an eyesore, and Toronto would get it's version of Chicago's waterfront.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well you would be rebuilding the Gardiner entirely, or at least the eastern portion of it. Putting it on top of the rail corridor would allow Lake Shore to be reconfigured and have it out from under the Gardiner's shadow (literally). The rail corridor is already an eyesore and a barrier to the waterfront, so might as well stack two barriers on top of eachother.

Now having said that, my preference is still to dig a trench along the central waterfront, put a stacked tunnel in it, and then put DRL fill on top of it to create a linear waterfront park across the entire central waterfront. That would open Gardiner lands up for redevelopment, remove an eyesore, and Toronto would get it's version of Chicago's waterfront.

I don't know about that - the rail berm isn't too pretty, but it isn't anything some plantings won't take care of. Adding a deck on top of that would make the whole thing it stick out like a giant sore thumb (given the added height), plus you'd have to make allowances with the rail lines underneath in terms of support columns and the like. I think the rebuild scenarios they were looking at foresee a different kind of central pier/divided road deck structure that would allow at least an increased amount of light penetration - and the project would probably allow Lakeshore realignment as well.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Well you would be rebuilding the Gardiner entirely, or at least the eastern portion of it. Putting it on top of the rail corridor would allow Lake Shore to be reconfigured and have it out from under the Gardiner's shadow (literally). The rail corridor is already an eyesore and a barrier to the waterfront, so might as well stack two barriers on top of eachother.

Now having said that, my preference is still to dig a trench along the central waterfront, put a stacked tunnel in it, and then put DRL fill on top of it to create a linear waterfront park across the entire central waterfront. That would open Gardiner lands up for redevelopment, remove an eyesore, and Toronto would get it's version of Chicago's waterfront.

"The environmental assessment results are expected also to show that the hybrid option has evolved into something that looks very similar to the current highway. Rerouting it close to the rail corridor, as originally planned, proved difficult because it meant curves too sharp to allow for highway speeds.

Instead, the replacement highway would follow roughly the current route. Some ramps will be modified near the Unilever site, allowing development there. But a parcel of land that would be opened up to development by the removal option or by the original hybrid proposal will remain enclosed by elevated highway and the rail lines."

They planned to use the rail corridor and couldn't make it work, as per the quote.

Your solution doesn't free up any extra land for development versus the surface route, is going to be much more expensive, and the whole point of this development is to allow us to get on to the next phase of WT's plan, the diversion of the Don through a huge new park. Why not just sign on to the surface route? I don't get why everyone feels the need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[gweed123]

I missed that quote, thanks. I was just discussing alternatives that would free up Lake Shore to not be buried under a highway. Just saying, if given the choice between having Lake Shore under a highway vs the rail corridor under a highway, I'd take the rail corridor. Like I said, my preference is to bury it along the central waterfront.

 

[salsa]

Except for the small problem that those aren't actually substitutes for the Gardiner. Focusing solely on daily commuting numbers ignores the fact that there are many people who use that stretch of the Gardiner occasionally and would be inconvenienced if it was torn down.

My point was that there are better ways to spend $900 M than rebuilding an elevated highway in the same location with fewer benefits than what were initially promised. The east part of the highway was designed with greater capacity than what was actually needed to begin with. Yeah, a lot of people use it, but the same was true with the Embarcadero freeway, Westside highway, and Cheonggyecheon Freeway.

Guess what: the most popular option in a recent poll was "replace with tunnel" at 27% support, followed by "repair existing" at 25%. Only 13% of poll respondents favoured the surface road option.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015...sway-down.html

1. Forum poll
2. Sentence number one in the article says: "Half of Torontonians want all or part of the aging Gardiner Expressway torn down"
3. Here is the question asked in the poll: "‘What do you think should done with the Gardiner Expressway?". We're only talking about the east end of the gardiner here, not the whole thing
4. A tunnel it's not an option that anyone is seriously considering, so forum decided to ask about it anyway without saying how much that could cost? Surprise surprise, a lot of people said "yell yeah" to that
5. Meanwhile the hybrid option was not included in the poll.
6. Forum poll, nuff said.

 

[JWBF]

Bleeding money is not what the city needs, and thanks to the procrastinating or campaigning about the Gardiner that is just what we has, a boulevard solution makes most sense to me.

 

[44 North]

"The environmental assessment results are expected also to show that the hybrid option has evolved into something that looks very similar to the current highway. Rerouting it close to the rail corridor, as originally planned, proved difficult because it meant curves too sharp to allow for highway speeds.

Instead, the replacement highway would follow roughly the current route. Some ramps will be modified near the Unilever site, allowing development there. But a parcel of land that would be opened up to development by the removal option or by the original hybrid proposal will remain enclosed by elevated highway and the rail lines."

Hm, I had an inkling the rerouted Gardiner / DVP connection wouldn’t work as proposed. Naturally a 90km/h expressway couldn’t handle a tight curve like that. Though I don’t see why speeds couldn’t be lowered for that stretch, the same way it’s done with suggested speeds for on/offramps. I was somewhat on board with the hybrid option because of the amount of land it freed up. But if it's going to follow the same path it does now, there's not much point in rebuilding that stretch.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

My point was that there are better ways to spend $900 M than rebuilding an elevated highway in the same location with fewer benefits than what were initially promised. The east part of the highway was designed with greater capacity than what was actually needed to begin with. Yeah, a lot of people use it, but the same was true with the Embarcadero freeway, Westside highway, and Cheonggyecheon Freeway.

Those are apples to oranges comparisons that don't take Toronto's geography and travel patterns into account. We have no other highways anywhere near the central core and the highway is not the biggest barrier to the waterfront. Anyway, this has been argued to death so I'm going to drop it.

1. Forum poll
2. Sentence number one in the article says: "Half of Torontonians want all or part of the aging Gardiner Expressway torn down"
3. Here is the question asked in the poll: "‘What do you think should done with the Gardiner Expressway?". We're only talking about the east end of the gardiner here, not the whole thing
4. A tunnel it's not an option that anyone is seriously considering, so forum decided to ask about it anyway without saying how much that could cost? Surprise surprise, a lot of people said "yell yeah" to that
5. Meanwhile the hybrid option was not included in the poll.
6. Forum poll, nuff said.

I actually participated in the poll, and it seemed pretty well-designed. It was a single question about the eastern Gardiner, with options like tear down and replace with surface boulevard, teardown and replace with tunnel, tear down some of it, repair and maintain, something else, don't know. The spin put on the results is more biased, given that half of those who ostensibly supported "tearing the Gardiner" actually want an even more expensive tunnel and presumably want that high capacity driving option. Obviously we don't have a straight-up comparison between "surface road" and "maintain/replace" but I think you can get the gist of public sentiment. 52% supported a high capacity option (repair/tunnel) while 25% supported full or partial teardown and the rest have no idea.

 

[muller877]

And those LRTs would carry far more people than that decrepit highway ever could. It will be interesting to see if Tory and all those "fiscal conservatives" will be willing to waste that much money.

The Gardiner and a LRT are targeting different audiences for travel. The Gardiner is not just a way for people from the Beaches & future East Waterfront to get to work but all of Toronto. I can just see all the transport trucks/cargo trucks sitting at a stop light spewing out diesel fumes while you wait for the LRT.

A "fiscal conservative" (whatever that term means)...I assume you mean look at the hard numbers. The hard numbers say keep it and repair the current structure. The comparison to move the same number of vehicles/people into downtown includes a 8 or 10 lane monstrosity of a surface highway, increased interaction between pedestrians and traffic (most vehicles are currently passing overhead), and a LRT network.

To increase capacity (which is needed with increased growth in the east end) a LRT network is needed...but can't replace all the traffic that the Gardiner would produce.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Bleeding money is not what the city needs, and thanks to the procrastinating or campaigning about the Gardiner that is just what we has, a boulevard solution makes most sense to me.

I was leaning towards rebuilding it, but now I'm thinking that we should just tear it down. We've been wasting too much money on underused infrastructure, and the Gardiner East is fairly low on the priority list. I'd much rather see that money spent on more pressing priorities. $400 Million could pay for the TYSSE overruns, or go a long way towards bringing the TCHC and the TTC to a state of good repair.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The Gardiner and a LRT are targeting different audiences for travel. The Gardiner is not just a way for people from the Beaches & future East Waterfront to get to work but all of Toronto. I can just see all the transport trucks/cargo trucks sitting at a stop light spewing out diesel fumes while you wait for the LRT.

A "fiscal conservative" (whatever that term means)...I assume you mean look at the hard numbers. The hard numbers say keep it and repair the current structure. The comparison to move the same number of vehicles/people into downtown includes a 8 or 10 lane monstrosity of a surface highway, increased interaction between pedestrians and traffic (most vehicles are currently passing overhead), and a LRT network.

To increase capacity (which is needed with increased growth in the east end) a LRT network is needed...but can't replace all the traffic that the Gardiner would produce.

Do you have a link to your 'keep it and repair it' 'hard numbers'? I have yet to see a study where 'keep it and repair it' was cheaper than the surface boulevard plan.

Thx.

Also -- actually, the current eastern Gardiner is just a way for people from the Beaches to get to work. That was the plan (the Scarborough Expressway)! Unfortunately for the eastern Gardiner, not enough Beachers to justify the Gardiner once they decided not to build the rest of the expressway over their heads.

To assuage the DVP commuters to the CBD who don't exit to Richmond but rather carry around the loop to exit, is there any way to increase the capacity of that route? Or has that ship sailed due to RiverCity, WDL, etc. (Not that I would do that, but it might be a way for Tory to buy off some of his car-centric critics.)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Price tag on Gardiner East proposal more than $900-million, assessment to say



Woof. $900 million. For that chunk of change, you could build the East Bayfront and Waterfront West LRTs.

Woah. $900 Million? Scrap that plan.

I never expected it to be so expensive.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Also -- actually, the current eastern Gardiner is just a way for people from the Beaches to get to work.

Or people and goods from the rest of the east end, southern Scarborough, Leaside, Thorncliffe, Don Mills, etc. to get downtown or points west, or for people and goods from York Region to get to the waterfront, Rogers Centre, etc. There would be a lot of traffic on this surface boulevard...

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Woah. $900 Million? Scrap that plan.

I never expected it to be so expensive.

hahaha... if you go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll see that the price has been pretty consistently the same over time. It's going to cost about a billion dollars, give or take a Front Street Extension.

Also -- 2006(!) appearances from AllabootMatt and AoD as 'guests' of the site. It's the Hotel California, folks! "You can check out any time you like..."

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

And don't forget that the surface road option is not free, so we're really looking at the net difference between the two options.