[sixrings]

Note quite the same analogy though, since a BRT line and an LRT line along the street take up roughly the same amount of space (curb BRT lanes are only slightly wider than median LRT lanes). The designs of either are relatively similar. An elevated or tunnelled highway vs a boulevard have two completely different designs, and have different impacts. I think a more apt comparison would be subway vs at-grade LRT.

One of the big reasons why I favour BRT over LRT in a lot of cases is because the usage can be handled by BRT. In the case of the Gardiner, replacing it with a boulevard would be a net reduction in capacity, when at the very least maintaining the same capacity is needed, at least in the west end. In the east end, a boulevard would do because that section of the highway isn't approaching capacity most times. The reality is an expressway is needed, regardless of the transit improvements that are made heading into downtown.

I think that any replacement of the Gardiner needs to include recapturing land for development, either land that's currently occupied by the Gardiner or land occupied by the rail corridor. Without that revenue, the economics just don't make sense.

I also think that the costs of any Gardiner replacement project need to be borne primarily by drivers. This means tolls. A model similar to the Confederation Bridge may be in order, although I'd prefer it remain in public hands the entire time. At the very least, I'd like to see the toll revenues equal the cost of paying down the bond over a period of 30 years.

This approach is fundamentally different than building transit. Costs of building transit should be borne by the society as a whole, because it benefits everybody. Building a tunnelled expressway benefits only the users of the expressway, and thus the costs should be borne by them. If tolls need to be instituted on the DVP in order to help pay for the tunnel as well, so be it.

Well based on some peoples ideas which i thought was near insane in other threads, some think tolls, drivers license fees, residential parking fees, business parking fees, gas tax is all needed for transit alone to fund the big move. SO are you suggesting just tolls from the beginning of the tunnel to the end of the tunnel to pay for the tunnel itself? While the remaining parts of the highway if tolled would be used for the big move transit expansion?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Note how I added a new western gap south of the airport to allow ships to continue through. And yes, the major problem would be the forced removal of redpaths, the need to shut down all lakefront functions for a decade, and the waste of millions of dollars already spend on waterfront parks.

 

[gweed123]

Well based on some peoples ideas which i thought was near insane in other threads, some think tolls, drivers license fees, residential parking fees, business parking fees, gas tax is all needed for transit alone to fund the big move. SO are you suggesting just tolls from the beginning of the tunnel to the end of the tunnel to pay for the tunnel itself? While the remaining parts of the highway if tolled would be used for the big move transit expansion?

What I'm suggesting is that the Gardiner and DVP are tolled in order to pay for the tunnel (maybe even a CCZ around downtown TO). The 'all of the above' approach, plus tolling 400-series highways, would go to transit. The idea is that the tunnel should be paid for by drivers heading into downtown, since it's a road-based solution to a road-based problem.

Note how I added a new western gap south of the airport to allow ships to continue through. And yes, the major problem would be the forced removal of redpaths, the need to shut down all lakefront functions for a decade, and the waste of millions of dollars already spend on waterfront parks.

Yes I see that now, sorry. Interesting solution. It would certainly help with access to the island airport, given that it wouldn't technically be on an island anymore. And yes, as for redpaths, their time is nearing an end. Let's just hope that the area for the eastern portal of the tunnel isn't developed by the time this plan would come to fruition.

 

[rbt]

Well based on some peoples ideas which i thought was near insane in other threads, some think tolls, drivers license fees, residential parking fees, business parking fees, gas tax is all needed for transit alone to fund the big move. SO are you suggesting just tolls from the beginning of the tunnel to the end of the tunnel to pay for the tunnel itself? While the remaining parts of the highway if tolled would be used for the big move transit expansion?

A 20 Billion dollar tunnel funded by tolls? That's going to be a damn tough sell.

A minimum of 430 Million per year revenue (assuming 0% interest over 50 years, and $0, $3M/km in maintenance -- subway is about $7M/km) woudl be required.

At 3 lanes, 2500 cars per lane per hour and you generously get 75,000 trips per day (2.5 hour rush each direction plus some mid-day users).

Using the standard assumption that Sat+Sun is the same as a weekday (6 day week) for 23.4 million trips per year to cover the $430Million in bills.

This is $17 per trip or $34 for a round-trip per vehicle and that's provided the highway is packed; it goes up significantly if any of Gardiners current users take another route into the city.


Even if it can be done for $1B/km for a very large 3 lane wide tunnel, including on/off ramps and reconfiguration of Lake Shore; you've still got a $20 per day toll.

Even tolls around Tokyo are only about 50 cents/km for a typical car and we're over $1/km just to break even.

 

[gweed123]

A 20 Billion dollar tunnel funded by tolls? That's going to be a damn tough sell.

A minimum of 430 Million per year revenue (assuming 0% interest over 50 years, and $0, $3M/km in maintenance -- subway is about $7M/km) woudl be required.

At 3 lanes, 2500 cars per lane per hour and you generously get 75,000 trips per day (2.5 hour rush each direction plus some mid-day users).

Using the standard assumption that Sat+Sun is the same as a weekday (6 day week) for 23.4 million trips per year to cover the $430Million in bills.

This is $17 per trip or $34 for a round-trip per vehicle and that's provided the highway is packed; it goes up significantly if any of Gardiners current users take another route into the city.


Even if it can be done for $1B/km for a very large 3 lane wide tunnel, including on/off ramps and reconfiguration of Lake Shore; you've still got a $20 per day toll.

Even tolls around Tokyo are only about 50 cents/km for a typical car and we're over $1/km just to break even.

Yup, I know the math is tough. That's why I suggested a London-style CCZ as well in order to spread the cost out more evenly. I would think that this type of plan is the type that should be put to a city-wide referendum. Make all the costs known, and if drivers are willing to pay for it, go for it. If not, find another solution.

 

[sixrings]

Yup, I know the math is tough. That's why I suggested a London-style CCZ as well in order to spread the cost out more evenly. I would think that this type of plan is the type that should be put to a city-wide referendum. Make all the costs known, and if drivers are willing to pay for it, go for it. If not, find another solution.

If you combined this with a drl where exactly would you be putting stations? Someone earlier mentioned that if it was this far south it would only be a five minute walk to union. That may be fine if your destination is union but most people aren't going to like to walk 5 minutes just to transfer.

 

[000]

This under the lake proposal is way too far from Union, they would have to extend YUS further south and create a new Union station somewhere around Queens Quay Terminal.. which kind of makes the renovations they're doing now feel like a big waste of money

 

[gweed123]

If you combined this with a drl where exactly would you be putting stations? Someone earlier mentioned that if it was this far south it would only be a five minute walk to union. That may be fine if your destination is union but most people aren't going to like to walk 5 minutes just to transfer.

I didn't mean physically combine it, I just meant have the projects under construction at the same time so that you could use the excavated fill from the DRL as filler soil for the Gardiner tunnel.

 

[sixrings]

I didn't mean physically combine it, I just meant have the projects under construction at the same time so that you could use the excavated fill from the DRL as filler soil for the Gardiner tunnel.

OK that makes sense.. but I was always hoping the fill from all the new transit lines could fill in the Allen instead. Either way, your suggestion makes alot more sense now.

 

[gweed123]

OK that makes sense.. but I was always hoping the fill from all the new transit lines could fill in the Allen instead. Either way, your suggestion makes alot more sense now.

Use the fill from the Yonge extension for that instead then . Makes more sense in terms of trucking distances anyway, haha.

 

[dunkalunk]

I've done some tweaking to my concept of my Front Street/Gardiner Viaduct concept.

For reference I've also included a representative DRL routing (Blue), Waterfront LRT (Purple) and GO Routes (Lime Green)

I see option where the central Gardiner being torn down as feasible if both the Gardiner and DVP were to be tolled and if transit alternatives to access downtown are fully built.

Route Description (From East to West)

From Lakeshore Boulevard to Exhibition GO
-Rehabilitation of Existing Structure
-Reduced from 6 lanes to 4 with bypass/emergency shoulders
-Lakeshore Boulevard to act as through route through Downtown
-Construction of Liberty Village local connector street

Exhibition GO to Strachan Road
-Transition Structure from existing ROW to Lakeshore Rail ROW
-4 lanes with bus bypass/emergency shoulders
-Eastbound off-ramp to Strachan Road

Strachan Road to Bathurst Street
-Cable-Stayed Viaduct constructed overtop the existing rail corridor
-4 lanes with bus bypass/emergency shoulders
-Westbound on/off ramps connecting viaduct to Ordnance Street
-Potential parking structure with direct ramp access to Gardiner
-Potential decking-over of the rail corridor to act as connector between Stanley Park, Fort York, and the Lakeshore


Bathurst Street to Spadina Ave
-4 lane boulevard with tree-lined median
-Queue Jump and Signal Priority
-Double-left turn from EB Front to NB Spadina

Spadina Ave to Union Station
-Queue Jump and Signal Priority
-Within existing road envelope

 

[gweed123]

I've done some tweaking to my concept of my Front Street/Gardiner Viaduct concept.

For reference I've also included a representative DRL routing (Blue), Waterfront LRT (Purple) and GO Routes (Lime Green)

I see option where the central Gardiner being torn down as feasible if both the Gardiner and DVP were to be tolled and if transit alternatives to access downtown are fully built

Very interesting idea. What about a Front St boulevard that runs from Bathurst to Spadina, with it splitting somewhere around Spadina to have Front and Wellington as one-way pairs running from Spadina to Church? Maybe a short tunnel under Spadina to connect Wellington to Front around Spadina? That way each of those streets can be turned into 3 one-way lanes plus a bike lane from Spadina to where they meet again at Church.

I just fear that if Front is left by itself to absorb the majority of the downtown-bound traffic (with Lake Shore taking a bit of it, granted), that it would become pretty much a parking lot. Basically it would be the mirror image of what Richmond and Adelaide are to traffic coming off the DVP.

 

[adeel]

Is there a definition of "reasonable cost"?

Thanks for that.....wasn't really the point of my question though. I have a bit of a pet peeve of statements people make of "we should do 'X' as long as the cost is reasonable"......I think the people who plan/build these things have to deal with a lot more than just that sort of generality.

I, like the majority of Torontonians are not super well informed about these kinds of issues and the costs. What I'm trying to get across with my reasonable cost comment is that I'm ok if underground costs a certain amount more relative to just tearing down the gardiner and expanding lakeshore or whatever the more common option is. But it depends on how much more. 100x the cost (an exaggeration to get my point across) is not something I'd be ok with. But maybe 3x or 5x or 10x.

 

[dunkalunk]

Very interesting idea. What about a Front St boulevard that runs from Bathurst to Spadina, with it splitting somewhere around Spadina to have Front and Wellington as one-way pairs running from Spadina to Church? Maybe a short tunnel under Spadina to connect Wellington to Front around Spadina? That way each of those streets can be turned into 3 one-way lanes plus a bike lane from Spadina to where they meet again at Church.

I am agreed with you about making Front and Wellington opposing one-way streets, although I think this could be handled more simply by making Blue Jays Way one-way southbound. This section of Front street is already 4 lanes wide with left turn lanes. This is the same cross-section as the 4 lane highway. Also, from what I understand, the parking lot at the corner of Front and Spadina is to be redeveloped.

 

[gweed123]

I am agreed with you about making Front and Wellington opposing one-way streets, although I think this could be handled more simply by making Blue Jays Way one-way southbound. This section of Front street is already 4 lanes wide with left turn lanes. This is the same cross-section as the 4 lane highway. Also, from what I understand, the parking lot at the corner of Front and Spadina is to be redeveloped.

That would be a good backup plan. I'm just worried about having such a major artery reliant on a left and then a right turn. That could become a pretty big choke point. While a short tunnel wouldn't be cheap, it would eliminate a huge potential choke point along the route.