Case Studies

Traffic congestion keeps getting worse. If the objective is to try and see how bad it can get, then yes, take the expressway down. That way all the cars that now bypass downtown can now be dumped off right in the middle of downtown. Queens Quay and Lakeshore Blvd. are already a mess traffic-wise so why not make them worse. Everyone will have a great view while sitting in their idling cars going nowhere and contributing to more greenhouse gas. To some this might seem like utopia, to me it's a silly idea.

[updated 2009-04-21 12:34]

Traffic congestion keeps getting worse. If the objective is to try and see how bad it can get, then yes, take the expressway down. That way all the cars that now bypass downtown can now be dumped off right in the middle of downtown. Queens Quay and Lakeshore Blvd. are already a mess traffic-wise so why not make them worse. Everyone will have a great view while sitting in their idling cars going nowhere and contributing to more greenhouse gas. To some this might seem like utopia, to me it's a silly idea.

[updated 2009-04-21 12:34]

Sometimes the only way I know there is a lakefront is by driving on the Gardiner. Even in areas where the lakeshore has been improved you can't see it or access it due to the large number of condos that have been bult. Remove the Gardinr and reality is the developers will grab up the land and still no lakeshore. Leave as is.

[updated 2009-04-21 09:27]

Would the new Lakeshore be lined with trees or malls? Will it be a pedestrian friendly /bicycle friendly / kids on roller blades gateway to the waterfront or will it be a Home Depot, Shoppers Drug Mart, Jack Astors, Subway sandwiches etc? As long as the OMB has the power to override the City's vision for the waterfront I would say leave it as is. This stretch of roadway could end up looking like Davis drive in Newmarket, or like Eglinton Ave. between Victoria Pk and Warden.

[updated 2009-04-20 23:17]

This is Toronto folks. After so many previous utterances by civic representatives to create a beautiful city, they most often fail to live up to these platitudes. Tearing down the Gardiner, in my opinion is a good idea, but good ideas are helpless in the face of systemic conservatism, self-serving political maneuvering and the oppressive weight of market forces backed up by the quasi-judicial entity that is the OMB. It is demoralizing to fight for intelligent and necessary urban planning when so often, attempts fail. What compromises will be adopted this time around?

[updated 2009-04-20 22:32]

It seems the most relevant example is Bosoton.
Has this been looked at?
Cost $15 Billion. 100% over orginal contract amounts.

[updated 2009-04-20 20:25]

To remove sections of the Gardiner would only make traffic conditions much worse. I drove the DVP/Gardiner to work in Etobicoke for many years, and find the notion of trying to put all that traffic onto the Lakeshore simply impractical! The traffic congestion and delays would be unbearable. It is best now with the traffic up in the air and out of the way!
Amelioration/improvement would help.

[updated 2009-04-20 18:53]

As a pedestrian, it isn't the Gardiner that gets in the way...it's Lakeshore Blvd! You have to cross six lanes of traffic in poorly lit conditions. I think the idea of creating attractive pedestrian-friendly entry points to the lake is a smart idea. It keeps traffic moving above, and gives pedestrians a safe and attractive entry point on the main southbound roads. Otherwise an overcrowded Lakeshore will not serve the city well.

[updated 2009-04-20 17:20]

I say put it under ground.

[updated 2009-04-20 15:35]

I use this route to get to Bloor Street East coming from Mississauga. I think the "ameliorate/improve" concepts should be seriously considered. The only other route is up Jarvis Street, and just how does that fit it with the Jarvis Street Improvment Plan?

[updated 2009-04-20 15:30]

If we could please stop wasting money "fixing" things that aren't broken and channel effort to what everybody suffers from on daily basis, that would be appreciated by most.

Our roads are falling apart. Driving downtown reminds me of safari rides with holes, ditches and incredibly uneven pavement.

Extend TTC, improve streetcars.

Build multilevel parking that *gasp* isn't for profit but offered as a public service at cost.

Fix idiotic road signs. Half the downtown is plagued with most stupid signs prohibiting turns when all you have to do is drive 50 meters past to a side street and block more traffic making a turn there than you could ever at your intended intersection.

lets do little things first that are cheap and could have significant impact before moving on to grand money hand outs to buddy corporations.

[updated 2009-04-14 12:23]

Chattanooga definitely is similar. I think it shows a boulevard can work. I hope we don't make the new Lake Shore Boulevard too wide.

[updated 2009-04-13 13:55]

Put it in the lake.

The Gardiner reminds me of the roadway that separates the people of Thunder Bay from their waterfront. The separation is partially pyschological somehow.

Here is what you do; Run a road from about the 8th line in Oakville. Where the 403 begins to bend north, have it veer off heading south toward the lake and then vear left or east toward the city running parallel to the QEW/Gardiner meeting up somewhere near/through the island airport then veering north into the city. There could be a few/several branches heading north into the city. This roadway would not be too far from the shore maybe about a kilometer from some of the nearest points. Lots of problems with this idea and lots of opportunities. Because there would be no way that this idea would even be marginally entertained by those of us who love nature, one condition may be that it would have to be designed by environmentalists. A condition of use may be that only zero emission vehicles can use it. The water/shoreline(s) between the road and the shore could be controlled in such a way that you could have beach on the shore side and the road side. The water/shoreline(s) between the road and the shore could be controlled in such a way that the water would be clean and swimmable. The water/shoreline(s) between the road and the shore could be controlled in such a way that we could have the largest/longest and best ice way for skating in the world (maybe). The possibilities are endless and very exciting. It could be extended east up to Port Union road for those heading to/from Pickering and beyond. This would reduce traffic volume on the DVP. To remove the sense of being cut off from the shoreline, the existing east west roadways can be reduced in magnitude. And if you really wanted to go nuts and bring the people to the water then cut teeth into the existing shoreline to give the people more access to the water. But that is a project for another generation. Back to the roadway in the water idea. Would it contain housing? The boats would need to have good access to the shore, how would that work? Etc. Etc.

I think this is a better way to go than to dig a tunnel like Boston did. The challange is to make this work for us, to literally improve the environment.

This is likely to happen in the future, will this generation have a say in the design.

This road way in the water idea may have international resistance.

This is a project for a world class city!

Is Toronto up to it?

Good Luck!

[updated 2009-04-12 20:28]

Hello,It is nice to have this opportunity to comment on this project, thank you.

It is a challenge to plan for the future and when it is not done appropriately it is easy to look back and say 'why would they do that?'; I think that, even though it too is an interesting idea, a 'viaduct' would have us asking that very question in 30 years: 'why would they build this big thing right through the heart of the city?'. The Gardiner, in my opinion, should be removed to allow the City of Toronto to grow. That being said this still leaves us with a few considerations. The Case Studies include a lot of relevant information from other cities around the world. Although in a different context, there are more examples from which we can draw on to aid us throughout the process (ie. Sydney Harbour, Boston, etc). Toronto's case study is unique and requires a unique planning response. The following are my comments:

Before removing the Gardiner, introduce a tolling system. Talk to Paul Bedford, he knows what he's talking about. Either a 400 series - GTA-wide automated system, or a Downtown - Gardiner-only toll. I am aware that tax-dollars paid for the highway, however, a small user-fee would go a long way in financing a massive project such as this.

Second, begin construction of a 'harbour tunnel' (thereby initiating the 'replace' phase). Please see 'wwoods' post from April 5th; this is an interesting idea and I'm not sure why it wasn't suggested in 'Case Study - Future of the Gardiner'. You might ask if this option is actually economically viable - I'm not sure. However, this tunnel could operational before any section of the Gardiner would be removed, thereby minimizing traffic disruption. I don't think a 'cut and cover' or boring method to bury the Gardiner would be any less expensive or take less time to construct than a submerged tunnel in the harbour. Initially, the tunnel could begin at the Humber and connect with the DVP, while both ends could be added to in the future to extend further in either direction. Tunnel access points could connect major arterials in the City (i.e. Dufferin, Toronto Island Airport, Spadina, & Jarvis).

Third, the City then has the opportunity to reinvent itself and its downtown with many exciting and unique communities. Following a comprehensive planning project for the entire length of the Gardiner the City can engage the private sector and create partnerships to develop mixed-use, transit supportive development (think of the tax revenue!). Toronto could create a connected series of parks from the West-end to the Don-Valley, making the waterfront a livable, healthy place to be. Lakeshore Boulevard can become even more GRAND than it already is. Please read 'Breathe in the Air' from the ThinkToronto competition in Spacing Magazine (Fall '08) and Pamela Robinson's comments for what we could do with the important/necessary rail corridor.

I hope that this is the venue to make these suggestions and that we might begin a dialogue surrounding the 'tunnel' idea.

[updated 2009-04-08 18:10]

I think it will be more expensive to leave the Gardiner up and maintain it, its a crumbling piece of infrastructure. Instead, a boulevard that can be used by cars, bikes and pedestrians would be more useful in the long term and probably a lot cheaper. People in the east end will still be able to access the Gardiner to get out of town heading west, just not at the same point they access it now.

I think Toronto shares much with the case studies in New York and San Francisco given their highways were crumbling and blocking access for residents to the waterfront. Once these structures were gone, the traffic didn't jam up in side streets, it somehow dissapeared.

[updated 2009-04-07 09:01]

Dear All - thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important topic. My perspective is as a relative newcomer to Toronto (5 years), but with experience of living around the world. To me the immediate issues are:
1. Toronto is wasting its waterfront and we need to open it up if Toronto is to grow as a world class city.
2. The city and its inhabitants are cut off from the waterfront by three things:
a) the Gardiner (a huge East West barrier);
b) the Railway tracks (another huge East West barrier); and;
c) buildings (some old industrial ones on the east side and some awful residentail ones in the centre and west side).
3. This proposed project is too timid because it only deals with one smallish part of the Gardiner and does not deal with the Gardiner issue as a whole, nor the Railway.

I am intrigued by the Viaduct over the railway idea, it is innovative and replaces a) and b) with one East West coridor, BUT, it still perpetuates an enormous East West barrier between the city and the lake.

The boulevard idea looks lovely on artists' impressions with smiling families riding around on bikes, BUT it too maintains an East West barrier AND it will accentuate rather than solve the traffic flow issues for people using the DVP to get to or from the downtown core.

My proposal: Take a look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong needed to build a new cross harbour tunnel. It did so with only one year of construction and minimal cost, by building prefabricated concrete tunnel sections in an old quarry and floating them into the harbour where they were sunk onto the harbour bed.

We can bury the whole of the Gardiner in a tunnel that is laid along the existing waterfront on the floor of the lake. The cost will be MUCH lower than the BIG DIG idea of a deep bore tunnel on land AND it will be much less disruptive, since the new tunnel can be laid without disrupting the existing trafic flow.

Once it opens, DVP traffic will swing into the tunnel at its southern most tip and either turn into the downtown core underwater or drive on to Mississuaga - The whole length of the Gardiner can then be raised and Toronto will be partially reconnected with the waterfront.

One other huge advantage is that the top of the tunnel will provide an area of land reclamation along our existing crummy waterfront (a la HK again) which can be turned into a fanatastic park/recreational/ferry terminal/running track etc, etc.......

What about the rail tracks?......using the viaduct concept in part...we build over them (just like the railtracks coming into Grand Central in NY), so that they are not an East West barrier.

I urge the City to reconsider this limited proposal and go for a long term removal of the whole of the Gardiner, by putting the vehicular traffic into the lake (literally!).

[updated 2009-04-05 10:09]

Ideas (currently five, as per the discussion paper) - such should presume clear transportation, urban planning and environmental objectives up-front.This will provide for a very robust policy and cost/benefit analysis framework on a going-forward basis.

In the apparent absence of this, I offer for consideration three clear objectives; these being the following:

1.Maintain the DVP/QEW links as an essential GTA highway connectivity linkage and related functionality - at least in average speed and probably in capacity. This observation, however, does not necessarily mean that the existing elevated structure must be retained. For example west of Cherry Street there is a significant amount of room between the existing Gardner footprint and the railway berm. It may be possible to put a segregated ground level expressway replacement next to the railway embankment on the north and a realigned Lakeshore Blvd immediately adjacent to it. Possibly, such a proposal will not allow for a "grand boulevard" but it might allow for significant higher order development and on-going lower Don River improvements while still maintaining effective existing GTA highway connectivity - and existing higher vehicle speed functionality. To achieve that existing speed functionality - assuming that is considered necessary - it would be prudent to look at at least two transportation planning options, either in stand alone mode or combination mode. In no particular order these transportation planning options - intended to maintain expressway velocity - would be as follow: (1)very long east-west traffic light times, and (2)one or more north-south street underpasses.

2. Increase the desirability - and likelihood of higher order urban redevelopment in the fullness of time, in two specific areas; the East Bayfront precinct planning area and that portion of the Portlands that is situated immediately east of the Don Roadway - both on the north and south sides of Lakeshore Blvd. Carrying on with the 'idea' presented in point 1 of this commentary it is anticipated that the possible new Jarvis Street - Cherry Street ground level expressway would continue on eastward on the same alignment as the elevated portion while gradually rising to a level to accommodate a low level Don River 'bridge' to the DVP. Essentially, I envision a DVP connection in exactly the same place as the current on- ramp which allows southbound DVP vehicle traffic access to the westbound Gardner at the Don Roadway except that under my vision, it would immediately come down to ground level on the westward side after bridging the Don River. Two immediate benefits would occur; firstly; the existing Lakeshore Blvd. 'jog' could be eliminated, assuming relocation of the Lakeshore Blvd. alignment to parallel the adjacent 'new' ground expressway, at least up to that expressway turn point,and, secondly; allow for a restructuring of the current DVP - Lakeshore Blvd, link to the Don Roadway and finally,

3. the project must support, in a meaningful way, the regeneration of the form and functions of the lower Don River ecosystem,including the facilitation of the proposed new Don River mouth.

[updated 2009-04-04 16:08]

Dear Mr. White,
before being so condescending on myself and the supporters of the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct, let me tell you that this proposal has received an important amount of media attention and public support in the four years that it has been showcased at the www.toviaduct.com website.

This is not somebody's pipe dream job, since it came after many months of research and analysis to the different proposals to deal with the Gardiner issue at that time, including your mentioned "Big Dig" job in Boston. The number of years that commuters would have to suffer from construction, plus the ridiculously high price tag to build a six to ten lane tunnel replacement of the Gardiner along its entire current elevated route, would most probably end up costing far more than what they did in Boston. Just do a simple comparison, the eleven-lane wide, 500-metre-long cable-stayed bridge across the River Charles (in Boston), cost only US$100 million. While a four-lane tunnel replacing only 1.3 km of elevated Gardiner was estimated - in the year 2000 - to cost in excess of CAD$1.5 billion.

You can argue that some important people/organizations will not agree to this solution at the beginning, but what I propose with the TWV is a major city-building effort, comprising all levels of governments (including the bosses of GO), private corporations, and urban communities with interests in this project. It has many aspects that can be quite beneficial to all of them.

I invite you to fully read the website, and the downloadable material found at the "download reports" web page (http://toviaduct.com/down.htm), for better understanding of this proposal.

Regards,

Jose R. Gutierrez

[updated 2009-04-02 13:02]

The case studies are showing up ridiculously large; large enough that only those with absolutely huge monitors will be able to read them properly without having to scroll about the screen, never getting the whole picture at once. Please bring the pixel-count down so that those with typical resolution monitors - let's say 1024 by 768 or so - can read the case studies properly.

If the case studies remain unreadable you will only continue to attract the fringe-element viaduct-pushers to this board, and you do not want to continue to be dominated by them, as they are making a joke out of this serious undertaking.

[updated 2009-04-01 16:01]

It is very strange that you would not consider Boston as one of the case studies around the world for comparison purposes. It is such a glaring omission in fact that it leaves one rather suspicious as to why it has been excluded from the list. If the incredible cost of the Big Dig is what has led to the omission, well, that's a bone-headed move: show what Boston did, and what it cost!

[updated 2009-04-01 15:56]

Why does Toronto always have to look to other Cities for solutions to our problems? The Gardiner should be maintained an upgraded. Without easy access to the downtown business will continue to flee to the suburbs.

[updated 2009-03-31 10:31]

I've lived in downtown Toronto, as well as Mississauga and Kingston over the past two decades, so I'm both familiar with the downtown core and with getting in and out of it and across it. I usually use GO Transit, VIA rail, and TTC subways to move around the city. Nonetheless, there are many auto trips that simply cannot be substituted, and expressways are part of urban life. I agree that an expressway connection should be maintained between the Gardiner and the DVP.

Vehicle traffic crosses the downtown core in three patterns. The first is crossing the city from Scarborough and East York to Etobicoke and vice versa. The second is interregional traffic coming from Scarborough to anywhere southwest of the city along the QEW, and vice versa. The third is traffic moving from southern Etobicoke to anywhere northeast of the city along the 401, and vice versa. Attempting to divert this movements north to the 401 is very circuitous, will increase driving distances and congestion on the 401, and will therefore increase vehicle emissions.

When then-Waterfront-Chairman-Fung's initial Waterfront Toronto plans were released around 1999-2001, it was planned to replace parts of the Gardiner with at-grade roads with traffic lights, and parts with tunnels. This was based on the assumption that almost all traffic on the Gardiner was driving downtown (onto Spadina, York, Bay, Yonge and Jarvis). Toronto's transportation department then revisited the issue and found that 40% of traffic on the Gardiner was through traffic (crossing the downtown core). A very wide at-grade boulevard combining local and through traffic with bicycles and pedestrians would not only constitute a different sort of barrier, but would also be quite dangerous. An 8 lane or 10 lane boulevard with left and right turn bays at intersections would be 12 to 14 lanes wide at points where you would be able to cross it!

The best overall solution is a mostly tunneled through route from Fort York east to the Don River, with a Lakeshore Boulevard no more than 6 lanes wide above it. 6 lanes for local traffic and 4 underground lanes for through traffic would neatly match the 60%/40% local/through split found in the study mentioned above.

However, transitioning from the elevated structure to a tunnel around Jarvis would not be feasible, so a proper solution can only be a whole end-to-end solution. In the interim the current structure east of Jarvis can certainly be cleaned and repaired to a much better state than it is currently in. Also, the Lakeshore Boulevard lanes can be routed out from underneath it. Noise attenuation panels can be fitted, and it would be quite feasible to walk under the structure easily anywhere one chooses to.

Finally, I would add that the east-west Autoroute Ville Marie (A-720) tunnel/below-grade highway in Montreal and the underground expressway systems of Sydney and Melbourne in Australia and Boston in the United States should also be looked at as case studies for a fully effective long-term replacement of the Gardiner.

[updated 2009-03-31 02:36]

the city is already bankrupt and keeps coming up w grandiose schemes while existing facilities are in disrepair and pools are being closed. An expressway ending at a red light! brilliant. Think the allen road *2. 24 hour gridlock and fumes. In 30 years they'll raise it again

[updated 2009-03-30 09:32]

I believe they should get rid of Mayor Miler and keep the Gardiner expressway.

[updated 2009-03-28 19:26]

The best long term solution I think is two phased. In the first phase, replace the elevated expressway with a below-grade expressway, with bridges at ground level for pedestrian/bicycle/local traffic. Ideally, the rail lines would also be moved below grade, if feasible. In the second phase, with a second round of funding, a pedestrian-friendly boulevard is built at ground-level above the expressway, effectively converting the expressway into a tunnel. I think the great thing about the below-grade approach is that the space is reclaimed without negativelly affecting existing traffic flow, and in fact due to the potential of adding a boulevard in the future, traffic flow may improve. Another possibility is that the below-grade expressway could be dug with enough space for a future east-west subway line.

[updated 2009-03-28 11:53]

Just follow the example of the demolition of the East Gardiner and its replacement as a surface road, along with a bike path on one side. What a nice change!

[updated 2009-03-27 23:29]

The east-west expressway element needs to be
maintained in some form. The Gardiner, as well as being a route into & out of the city, is also an alternative
to the 401 as far as passing around the city from the east
or west. Gridlock ensues when our major highways are
blocked.To remove another express element would be
folly. Passenger & commercial vehicles need as many
options as possible to keep things moving.

[updated 2009-03-27 21:12]

I agree that the eastern portion of the Gardiner must remain until such time as a viable option is made available. The only option that makes sense is to build a viaduct above the railway lands and once built then take down the Gardiner. We need to support all modes of transportation in Toronto and encourage the use of public/private partnership to build and expand our roadway infrastructure. The T.O. Viaduct that has been proposed makes a lot sense to achieving many goals.

[updated 2009-03-27 20:16]

http://www.toviaduct.com/

The idea for the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct is the best option. Not only would it leave us with a landmark bridge it would also be constructed without disrupting the current traffic flow. I suggest that we be smart. Of course as a downtown resident who hates cars I would prefer no express way at all but it is a necessity. This would simply place the two obstacles we have on the way to the waterfront in one place.

I would nix the stupid ideas for the indoor mall and condo towers attached to the bridge that the above website proposes though, those are just unnecessary.

[updated 2009-03-27 19:31]

The express link between the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway MUST be permanently maintained. However, it can be done in a different way from the way it is now. Removing the expressway and putting all of that traffic on a boulevard will cause stopping and starting at traffic signals which will increase accidents and air pollution. It will also be very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists to cross. If the area is then developed, this will get worse. However, that being said, the current Gardiner-DVP 'sweep' over the Don River goes over open space on the west side of the Don River and can be relocated. The best option would be to rebuild the Gardiner up on the railway berm, such as a cable-stayed viaduct above the railway lines or simply on the berm next to the tracks to carry the express traffic to the DVP and to the Lake Shore Boulevard east of the Don River. The existing Gardiner-DVP 'sweep' can then be removed and a real local boulevard can be developed in its place which should be bicycle and pedestrian friendly. This is a win-win situation for all and the only real practical answer.

[updated 2009-03-27 18:21]

We're stuck with it unfortunately. While the Gardner is a physical and psychological barrier between the city and the waterfront, even if it is removed, the traffic artery of the Lakeshore would have to be maintained. But more importantly, even if we buried the Gardner, the Lakeshore, and transit, the railway lines remain, keeping the same barrier issue. So the lakefront and the city will forever be separate in my opinion.
BUT - there is opportunity to improve the harbourfront experience in itself. But the removal of the Gardner is a red herring.

[updated 2009-03-27 17:56]

I'm concerned that the "remove" option will create a "waterfront boulevard" that for all practical purposes is a ground-level suburban highway/arterial road. If that happens we will have lost the opportunity to create a great neighbourhood (and lucrative source of taxes). Rather than seeking to accomodate the current volume of traffic, could WT not propose a combination of Gardiner demolition with accelerated construction of the eastern part of the Downtown Relief Line to (say) Don Mills and Eglinton? Given today's provincial budget, the money and political will to fast track that project would seem to exist. In any event, Harbourfront East plan will be a failure if one of its functions is to expedite suburban car travel to and through downtown.

[updated 2009-03-27 16:07]

A far better alternative to the long-time issue of the Gardiner is to replace it with a cable-stayed viaduct running above the rail corridor. This way you can build a better structure of greater traffic capacity, a new waterfront transit line, new bicycle lanes, while also letting the redevelopment of Lake Shore Boulevard.

Also, under the rail lines, you can transform it into an inhabitable structure for commerce and services to the waterfront communities.

This is the best way to just not maintain connectivity, but to increase it (East-West and North-South), while improving the urban landscape of the waterfront.

More information can be found at: www.toviaduct.com

[updated 2009-03-27 13:47]

Ameliorate! Improve the area and bring it up to date with the rest of the new surroundings.
There really is no point in tearing it down anymore, now that all we have to look at is condos anyway.

[updated 2009-03-27 13:10]

Nice to see the variety of options available to us!

[updated 2009-03-27 10:12]