[salsa]

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I did some googling. Here is what I came up with - a 2012 Conference Paper. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...3365b1f226b6db8084a+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

View attachment 46377

Measuring that the Gardiner is about 32m wide in this area, it appears that the entire water treatment facility is about 50 across. Lets say we need a 60m span to get across it. If an alignment closer to the railway is chosen, the existing Gardiner would probably be removed just west (about 100m) of Cherry - at the expansion joint.

The current Gardiner in this area has spans of about 20m. This was built in the 1950's. At the time, the steel strength was 230 MPa, while now it is 350 MPa (or 485 MPa is High Performance Steel is used - although not common in Canada). Also, when built, prestressed concrete was in its infancy so there was not confidence to have large spans. If built now, the cheapest alternative would probably be 2400mm deep NU (Nebraska University - a more efficient concrete shape for higher strength concrete than the previous AASHTO or CPCI girders) Girders with a span of about 50m. To get a get longer span, a +/-20m segment could be put above the pier, with a 40m drop in span, with the girders post-tensioned. Alternatively, steel girders can easily be built with end spans of 60 to 80m and interior spans up to 120m. Finally, the existing Gardiner in this area has expansion joints at about 100m spacing, whereas now with modular joints, they span easily be 500m apart - if not more.

Another image form that paper shows the height of the treatment facility. It is about 7.5m above the ground elevation. I am not sure, but it looks like the bridge deck is about 10 to 12m above the lakeshore - so if the concrete bridge of 2400mm depth, or the steel girder of 2000mm is used, there would be adequate clearance to pass above it.

So the conclusion is that if this sketch is anything close to being accurate, there would be no problem at all in spanning the facility.

Or you could consult Waterfront Toronto:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/west_don_lands/stormwater_treatment

It's getting much bigger to handle QQE, too. But, you know, concrete & steel are better now.

 

[UD2]

View attachment 46396

Gardiner only benefits care drivers eh, I guess we build bridges tall enough to for trucks to travel under for the benefit of trucking companies, and we construct airports for air travellers only. Heck you're also paying for other people's health care, education, public safety, public housing, in fact why have public service at all? I'm sure most of Toronto don't use the local road that's in front of the author's residence, so I think we should rip it out and stop using my tax dollars for his sole benefit, same goes with his electricity and water supply.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Gardiner only benefits care drivers eh, I guess we build bridges tall enough to for trucks to travel under for the benefit of trucking companies, and we construct airports for air travellers only. Heck you're also paying for other people's health care, education, public safety, public housing, in fact why have public service at all? I'm sure most of Toronto don't use the local road that's in front of the author's residence, so I think we should rip it out and stop using my tax dollars for his sole benefit, same goes with his electricity and water supply.

Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Are you for or against the tear-down?

 

[BurlOak]

Gardiner only benefits care drivers eh, I guess we build bridges tall enough to for trucks to travel under for the benefit of trucking companies, and we construct airports for air travellers only. Heck you're also paying for other people's health care, education, public safety, public housing, in fact why have public service at all? I'm sure most of Toronto don't use the local road that's in front of the author's residence, so I think we should rip it out and stop using my tax dollars for his sole benefit, same goes with his electricity and water supply.

Great response. Unless people who take transit are menonites who grow their own food, make their own clothes, and barter furniture for ferrier services - they obviously do not need trucks.

 

[BurlOak]

Or you could consult Waterfront Toronto:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/west_don_lands/stormwater_treatment

It's getting much bigger to handle QQE, too. But, you know, concrete & steel are better now.

Yep, nothing really there. I saw a underground tank about the same 60m I saw before. That project had nothing to do with the Gardiner, so of course there is no info on that.

Its obvious that someone didn't like this option and came up with a flimsy excuse to no pursue it. Maybe they meant that it would cost an extra $1M (on a $200M project) and that became cost prohibitive to go with this original hybrid option.

 

[Electrify]

Don't some GO bus routes also use the east Gardiner as well?

 

[ssiguy2]

Finally found a simply guide to the Gardiner................it stated that the idea of a hybrid is dead. Basically now the only choice is remove or retain. Tory's idea isn't a "middle ground" at all. I think a lot in Toronto must think the way I do that the "hybrid" idea put forth by FG is still an option. I think a lot who support the hybrid are doing so due to them thinking that it means a realignment closer to the railway tracks to get the elevated structure away from the Waterfront and get a new GO/ST station for free to boot.

I think if the tear down side wants to win they should be making this distinction loud and clear............Tory's idea is not a hybrid but a maintain.

The TTC/City/Metrolinx certainly haven't helped the tear-down cause. Many people who are undecided may feel that maintaining it is an unappealing option but the only realistic one to keep the city moving. They are told that it won't make much of a delay in their commutes but that assumes ST/RER/DRL/LRT are all built and the population doesn't believe them and with good reason.

Torontonians have become so cynical about transit in Toronto that many are basing their "maintain" views not because they relish the idea of a Waterfront freeway but because they feel that it is needed to keep the city moving and to get downtown because the promised rapid transit, like all the promises before, will never materialize. They don't view "maintain" as the best transportation option but rather the only option because they don't think the transit promises will come to pass in their lifetimes.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Great response. Unless people who take transit are menonites who grow their own food, make their own clothes, and barter furniture for ferrier services - they obviously do not need trucks.

Trucks are part of the current traffic count. Gardiner East still empty.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Is there a advocacy group for the Hybrid option?

http://codeblueto.com is the advocacy group for the remove option. Is there an equivalent for keeping the elevated highway?

The CAA group seems more like lobbyists, but maybe? Advocacy & lobbying are not that different.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Finally found a simply guide to the Gardiner................it stated that the idea of a hybrid is dead. Basically now the only choice is remove or retain. Tory's idea isn't a "middle ground" at all. I think a lot in Toronto must think the way I do that the "hybrid" idea put forth by FG is still an option. I think a lot who support the hybrid are doing so due to them thinking that it means a realignment closer to the railway tracks to get the elevated structure away from the Waterfront and get a new GO/ST station for free to boot.

I think if the tear down side wants to win they should be making this distinction loud and clear............Tory's idea is not a hybrid but a maintain.

The TTC/City/Metrolinx certainly haven't helped the tear-down cause. Many people who are undecided may feel that maintaining it is an unappealing option but the only realistic one to keep the city moving. They are told that it won't make much of a delay in their commutes but that assumes ST/RER/DRL/LRT are all built and the population doesn't believe them and with good reason.

Torontonians have become so cynical about transit in Toronto that many are basing their "maintain" views not because they relish the idea of a Waterfront freeway but because they feel that it is needed to keep the city moving and to get downtown because the promised rapid transit, like all the promises before, will never materialize. They don't view "maintain" as the best transportation option but rather the only option because they don't think the transit promises will come to pass in their lifetimes.

I think you are very generous to maintain advocates, ssiguy. I don't think most would switch to transit if they had the option, as most have the option now but designed their life around the flexibility a car gives them.

 

[Rainforest]

If I understand it, the current hybrid plan is to fully retain the existing alignment for the full length from Jarvis to DVP. The piers will remain, and either the deck replaced or the deck and girders. The only differences in alignment are in the ramps.
It really does sound like the "retain" option, but they changed its name to hybrid to gain extra acceptance.

The short section east of DVP (that merges into Lakeshore East) is actually getting removed under the "hybrid" option.

 

[Rainforest]

I don't think most would switch to transit if they had the option, as most have the option now but designed their life around the flexibility a car gives them.

There is a clear dependency between the speed/convenience of public transit and its modal share.

A car does not always give the greatest flexibility, especially for downtown-bound trips. A car trip may include the search for a parking spot, and sometimes being stuck in traffic, while a ride on subway or GO train avoids those problems.

Plus, there is a matter of cost. A person may be able to afford a car, but decide to save the money if permanent ownership of a car is not essential in his/her situation. A family may decide to own one car (quite handy for groceries and for taking small kids anywhere), but not 2+ cars.

A faster and more reliable transit will certainly divert some users from cars.

 

[salsa]

By now I assume everyone has made up their mind on what should be done with the Gardiner, and that you are informed on the various options. I set up an Urban Toronto poll to see what you guys prefer. Cast your vote here.

 

[ssiguy2]

The short section east of DVP (that merges into Lakeshore East) is actually getting removed under the "hybrid" option.

That's true but conversely they are adding exit/on ramps at Cherry.

I do think transit does play a part in this equation. All the studies done that promote a tear down and it's subsequent effect on traffic assume a RER, ST, and DRL. If people do not believe those things will get built then also do not believe that the extra time required due to a teardown will be negligible.

People have seen Toronto come to a screeching halt and if they do not see transit as a viable option then the last thing they will want to do is make the situation worse by pulling down a freeway.

People use the San Francisco downtown Embarrco Freeway as a comparison to the Gardiner and there are indeed a lot of similarities but there is one VERY big difference................the Embarrco was an extension of the SF/Oakland bridge which already had a full BART line running under it. In other words a very extensive subway was already there before the tear down even started. From word GO San Franciscans had a viable, fast, frequent, and affordable option coming anywhere from where Embarrco traffic would originate.

Currently all Toronto has is a relatively infrequent and very expensive GO train most of which still only runs in rush hour.......not a realistic alternative to the car. That hopefully will change but Torontonians are use to transit promises that never materialize so when deciding on whether to keep or tear down the Gardiner they assume there will be no transit offered as an alternative.