[amnesiajune]

Underground highways are just costly. Boston's Big Dig was also a huge success, and the public looks back very favourably on it now that it's been finished, but it was a very long and hard 15 years of cost overruns, near-disasters (and a dead driver in one accident) and fights with local communities.

 

[Euphoria]

I agree that it's costly to bury expressways, but Boston faced two major challenges that we just don't have: preventing sea water from entering the tunnel (lake water in our case) and trying to construct a tunnel while keeping the expressway above it open during construction. We can avoid both of these issues by tunneling north of the rail corridor, under Adelaide for the eastbound lanes and Richmond for the westbound lanes. The Allen would be tunneled under roads and parks.

 

[salsa]

Now that the fantasy Gardiner tunnel talk has finally died down (for now), I can finally post what I've been waiting to share for almost 3 months. I was cycling on Sherbourne and noticed that a new parkette has been built on a corner that used to be occupied by an offramp. The offramp has been realigned to go underneath the elevated highway onto Lakeshore Blvd.

I have to say that this is a significant improvement to the safely of cyclists and pedestrians compared to what was here before.

Similar improvements have also been implemented on the northwest corner of the intersection, where a hazardous slip lane used to be. The crosswalk has also been greatly improved.

Until now, here is what it looked like.

 

[marcus_a_j]

I noticed that as well as the new bicycle crossing lights.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One reason not to put any expressway underground or in a tunnel:

 

[Euphoria]

Would you agree that removal of the Gardiner east of Jarvis is a better option than the status quo? I'd also say that burial of the Gardiner with an avenue above it and development along both sides (to fund the burial) is a better option than the billion dollar hybrid.

 

[ADRM]

Would you agree that removal of the Gardiner east of Jarvis is a better option than the status quo? I'd also say that burial of the Gardiner with an avenue above it and development along both sides (to fund the burial) is a better option than the billion dollar hybrid.

The "development along both sides" funding option is a red herring - what stretches of land along the Gardiner are you referring to, and what is the process in mind for acquiring the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be required for such a project (setting aside feasibility for the moment)?

Also, on feasibility, there's a river in the way.

 

[salsa]

Would you agree that removal of the Gardiner east of Jarvis is a better option than the status quo?

Absolutely.

 

[amnesiajune]

Would you agree that removal of the Gardiner east of Jarvis is a better option than the status quo?

If you think University Avenue could handle three times its current volume of cars, it is.

 

[BurlOak]

Would you agree that removal of the Gardiner east of Jarvis is a better option than the status quo? I'd also say that burial of the Gardiner with an avenue above it and development along both sides (to fund the burial) is a better option than the billion dollar hybrid.

So it's about 1800m from Don River to Jarvis.

Assume for hydrology, the bridge over the Don River must have 4.0 m clearance, meaning the road surface is 6.0m above the water. The road could begin to dip down after the Don River, at a 3% grade. With vertical curve, this would take about 350m to dip to ground level. Then in order to be tunnelled, the tunnel requires 5m vertical clearance, plus 1.5m of tunnel structure and 1.0m of fill (for road base, or park, or whatever is needed on top of the new Gardiner. including the vertical curve to switch from down grade to horizontal, this would take another 400m before it is fully underground. Then at the other end, it would another 400m to get back up to grade. The Gardiner is higher here (maybe 9m), so it would take about 400m to get back up to elevation at Jarvis.

This means that the new Gardiner would be underground for about 1800 - 350 - 400 - 400 - 450 = 200m.

It also means that Lower Sherbourne would have to be closed since the new Gardiner is too low to allow traffic to pass under (likely Parliament would have to be lowered a bit). On the other end, it is likely that the new Gardiner will not be sufficiently underground to allow Cherry to pass over, so it too will have to be closed, or somehow raised after passing under the rail corridor.

This would be a roller coaster ride from DVP going up over the Don River, then down, then immediately rising to reach the Gardiner elevation at Jarvis.

The only chance underground, or any type of solution with vision, had was if the Gardiner was looked at from The Ex (Dufferin) to DVP. The moment the scope was made as Gardiner East, any grand solution was eliminated.

 

[Euphoria]

The "development along both sides" funding option is a red herring - what stretches of land along the Gardiner are you referring to, and what is the process in mind for acquiring the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be required for such a project (setting aside feasibility for the moment)?

Also, on feasibility, there's a river in the way.

ADRM, I agree that funding is the million dollar question, and one that will have to be answered whether burial or the hybrid option goes ahead. Presumably a portion of the financing would come from the ‘tax incremental financing’ of developing along the new artery, but only a portion. That’s why Wynne has been floating HOT toll lanes along Toronto highways. I think a tolled Gardiner tunnel would fine as long as there are viable exits from the Gardiner to the surface road network at the eastern and western ends of it, i.e. west of Bathurst and at the Unilever site or just west of the DVP. The Gardiner toll tunnel would be mainly for thru traffic, drivers who are not entering the core or who are willing to pay for a quick exit from it.

I’m not sure what this would look like at the eastern end, though there is no shortage of land at places like the Unilever site. At the western end it’s really the Front Street extension and section of land west and north of Fort York (including some of the rail corridor west of Bathurst?). How would we pay for these ramps and Front Street extension? That’s where I think a north-south toll tunnel (Allen Expressway?) comes in. It would pay for those on/off ramps for the western Gardiner. I’d recommend tolling the north-south tunnel until this offloading infrastructure is paid for (10-15 years?), then only remove the tolls on the stretch from Richmond south to the Gardiner, at which point we can seriously look at removing the elevated Gardiner, because there would be multiple exits from the western Gardiner, discretely tunneled and free to motorists. It’s essential also that at both the eastern and western ends of the Gardiner tunnel there are efficient means of transferring from autos to transit, so intermodal stations (with parking, perhaps multi-level and underground?) at Bathurst and Unilever are key. All of this infrastructure would need to be in place to begin construction of the tunnel. Of course, the cheapest option is removal of the Gardiner without tunneling any of it, but you still need a means of offloading traffic to the road network, which is what this proposal makes possible.

With regard to your question of which lands are available for development along the Gardiner, I would agree that land only becomes available east of Yonge with a reconfiguration of Lakeshore AND the Gardiner's path, such that the Gardiner tunnel runs underneath Lakeshore and its adjacent lands. There would likely be no exits east of Yonge and west of the DVP, and there would be a construction shut down of both Lakeshore and the elevated Gardiner (full removal of the elevated Gardiner) east of Yonge to reconfigure Lakeshore. Then there would indeed be enough room on both sides of Lakeshore above the tunnel/ditch for development, especially approaching Cherry St. and the Keating Channel.

 

[ADRM]

ADRM, I agree that funding is the million dollar question, and one that will have to be answered whether burial or the hybrid option goes ahead. Presumably a portion of the financing would come from the ‘tax incremental financing’ of developing along the new artery, but only a portion. That’s why Wynne has been floating HOT toll lanes along Toronto highways. I think a tolled Gardiner tunnel would fine as long as there are viable exits from the Gardiner to the surface road network at the eastern and western ends of it, i.e. west of Bathurst and at the Unilever site or just west of the DVP. The Gardiner toll tunnel would be mainly for thru traffic, drivers who are not entering the core or who are willing to pay for a quick exit from it.

I’m not sure what this would look like at the eastern end, though there is no shortage of land at places like the Unilever site. At the western end it’s really the Front Street extension and section of land west and north of Fort York (including some of the rail corridor west of Bathurst?). How would we pay for these ramps and Front Street extension? That’s where I think a north-south toll tunnel (Allen Expressway?) comes in. It would pay for those on/off ramps for the western Gardiner. I’d recommend tolling the north-south tunnel until this offloading infrastructure is paid for (10-15 years?), then only remove the tolls on the stretch from Richmond south to the Gardiner, at which point we can seriously look at removing the elevated Gardiner, because there would be multiple exits from the western Gardiner, discretely tunneled and free to motorists. It’s essential also that at both the eastern and western ends of the Gardiner tunnel there are efficient means of transferring from autos to transit, so intermodal stations (with parking, perhaps multi-level and underground?) at Bathurst and Unilever are key. All of this infrastructure would need to be in place to begin construction of the tunnel. Of course, the cheapest option is removal of the Gardiner without tunneling any of it, but you still need a means of offloading traffic to the road network, which is what this proposal makes possible.

With regard to your question of which lands are available for development along the Gardiner, I would agree that land only becomes available east of Yonge with a reconfiguration of Lakeshore AND the Gardiner's path, such that the Gardiner tunnel runs underneath Lakeshore and its adjacent lands. There would likely be no exits east of Yonge and west of the DVP, and there would be a construction shut down of both Lakeshore and the elevated Gardiner (full removal of the elevated Gardiner) east of Yonge to reconfigure Lakeshore. Then there would indeed be enough room on both sides of Lakeshore above the tunnel/ditch for development, especially approaching Cherry St. and the Keating Channel.

But this is all fantasy.
1. There's no active public discussion out of Council, Mayor's office, or Planning department pursuant to burying the Gardiner (let alone another one for an Allen extension, which is the silliest subject of all).
2. Council voted to pursue the so-called hybrid option and that decision has been rendered.
3. It's not even clear it would be possible to bury the Gardiner along the stretch you're describing.
4. You're quoting land that is either currently under development, currently in the planning process, or slated for future development.
5. Tax increment financing is often just a lazy method used by revenue-averse politicians to mislead the public into thinking projects are closer to coming to fruition than they actually are. There are no free lunches, and that is precisely what proponents of TIF often essentially claim it to be.

 

[Euphoria]

Every project starts as fantasy. Also, it sounds like you're embracing the hybrid option full bore. Look out, that's a very pricey project that will likely result in road tolls on the Gardiner, if not all Toronto highways. It also maintains a disconnect between the city and the lake, especially to the last frontier of development, the Port Lands. I would fight it. It barely passed in council and hopefully will die with Tory's reign. 'TIF' is actually how cities get built on the most part, off of the property tax base. TIF just makes it sound more profound than it is. Also, of course it's possible to bury the Gardiner along that stretch. We're not planning a return trip to Mars.

 

[ADRM]

Every project starts as fantasy. Also, it sounds like you're embracing the hybrid option full bore. Look out, that's a very pricey project that will likely result in road tolls on the Gardiner, if not all Toronto highways. It also maintains a disconnect between the city and the lake, especially to the last frontier of development, the Port Lands. I would fight it. It barely passed in council and hopefully will die with Tory's reign. 'TIF' is actually how cities get built on the most part, off of the property tax base. TIF just makes it sound more profound than it is. Also, of course it's possible to bury the Gardiner along that stretch. We're not planning a return trip to Mars.

No, I loathe the "hybrid", but that's what we're getting. That ship has sailed.

TIF is not actually how cities get built on the most part. In fact, it is a practice that is forbid by legislation in many jurisdictions.

 

[Euphoria]

What I mean is, much city infrastructure is paid for off of the land tax base, development charges, land transfer taxes, etc. TIF is just a speculative program that builds the infrastructure of today with the tax base of tomorrow's development. It's speculative, and therefore a bit sketchy, because we don't really know how much revenue will be generated, as the development hasn't occurred yet. However, it's still using property taxes to build stuff. I'm not actually too worried about this speculation, as property values in Toronto have consistently risen over the long term. That land would get developed. I'm afraid we need to look at more of these kinds of funding tools to pay for infrastructure. City bonds are another means. If any city can implement these kinds of financing tools, it's Toronto, the centre of finance in Canada.