Issues and Challenges

To those wondering what to do with the traffic once the Gardiner is torn down, the answer is clear.

Send the traffic over the railway tracks that run to and from Union Station.

How? The Toronto Waterfront Viaduct.

This idea is spectacular and I can't figure out why we have not been hearing more about this proposal.

Too ambitious for milquetoast T.O?

I hope not.

Here is the link to the TWV site. Let me know what you think:

www.toviaduct.com

B

[updated 2009-04-21 23:34]

Unless the traffic goes under ground there will be a traffic barrier.
People will not walk through tunnels.
What are the options?

[updated 2009-04-20 20:22]

The attributes of the Gardiner corridor that I experience most as a barrier to/from the waterfront are the use of merge/diverge lanes on city streets to provide access to the Gardiner, and irregular or large intersections designed to accomodate or improve access to the same.

While there seems to be some potential to improve safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists in the area under consideration, I think that removing the right hand turn "ramps" at Lakeshore/Jarvis and Lakeshore/Sherbourne are among the most valuable things to do (and likely outside the scope of the project).

Also, as things currently stand, the convoluted intersection(s) around Eastern/DVP/Richmond/Adelaide are remarkably unfriendly to cyclists and pedestrians, and I expect that tremendous care would have to be taken to design a suitable southern terminus for the DVP should the DVP/Gardiner connection be demolished (particularly given that the nearest exit from the DVP is the Bloor/Bayview exist).

I suspect that in order to alleviate any problems at DVP/Eastern, it would be most prudent to install additional interchanges, possibly downgrading the DVP from an expressway to a longer, arterial, grid-connected Don Roadway. It also seems that it would be helpful to merge Richmond and Adelaide into a single street south of King, lower it to grade, and give it suitably controlled intersections at Sumach and Eastern.

Of course, the giant concrete overhead roadway is still a barrier in that it's very difficult to put a boulevard on Lakeshore that it would be pleasant to wait in for a multi-stage crossing.

[updated 2009-04-20 17:12]

Traffic is going to be a big issue. I think when the traffic comes south on the DVP, it will become a long lineup onto the Boulevard. Right now it goes onto Lake Shore, Gardiner or Richmond. Maybe a two-lane off-ramp to Richmond/Eastern with turning privileges to go east-bound should be studied. That way there is an alternative to going east-bound on the Lake Shore, if needed. Better to disperse the traffic too.

[updated 2009-04-13 14:01]

One suspects that these discussions could become much more productive if they remained focused upon a rather narrow issue. Not the future of personal vehicles. Not the relative entitlements of those with through-way rights versus those with freehold property rights.

The issue is simply whether an aging, overbuilt piece of infrastructure will retain marginal utility over the next twenty-odd years, or whether another configuration can be devised at an acceptable economic, environmental and social cost (i.e. sustainably).

This was the question as it was posed when the stump of the Gardiner east of the Don was demolished. That project neither robbed life of its meaning for those who drove the stump, nor did it reinvent the Port Lands, nor decimate the film industry. It simply made a small step toward improving the eastern part of the waterfront at a cost that will be recouped in reduced highway maintenance and increased property values (viz. Filmport).

The Gardiner-Lake Shore combination in the study area is substantially overbuilt. (It was designed to feed the “Scarborough Expressway” that was never built.) It will be altered in the near term to accommodate public transit (probably LRT). But its advantage is that it is there. The main question to address is how much will it cost (using the triple bottom line) to maintain it in its current form (with a new LRT line). If that calculation suggests that the status quo will be onerous in the mid-term, let’s start examining alternatives that provide similar functions.

At this point I would just like to raise three cautions:

First, one must accept that reducing three-dimensional space (elevated expressway sweep) to two dimensions (“boulevard” at grade) will be difficult to manage efficiently without either significantly reducing capacity or increasing footprint. Does anyone anticipate an “advanced green” traffic light for east-bound traffic turning left (north) up the Don Valley? A traffic circle? Neither is at all likely. Either the sweep will have to remain above-grade or perhaps space may be “stolen” directly at the south edge of the railway berm for ramp lanes from Gardiner (at Jarvis) to DVP. But in any case, to eliminate the sweep, we must be able to see benefit in two-dimensions with all of the following: a) DVP access lanes, b) Lake Shore (with transit), c) Queens Quay (with transit), plus d) bike lanes, trails, and other pedestrian infrastructure, all converging near the Victory Soya Mills. I recommend that you get out and walk the area, as Jane Jacobs might have.

Second, looking to a tunnel as a “game-changer” is fraught with untold difficulty because the DVP is in the Don’s flood plain as far north as the Bloor viaduct. A tunnel terminating in a flood plain is a bad idea – look at earthworms writhing on the pavement during a rain storm.

Third, the project must not further complicate the renaturalizing of the Don’s mouth, which will truly be the key to revitalizing the western Port Lands. As it stands, the Don Mouth project will be dauntingly complex to design, phase and build. The proposed Don Mouth Environmental Assessment solution has demonstrated that the Don project can accommodate the Gardiner-DVP sweep. So will the proposed Gardiner-Lake Shore undertaking undermine the Don renaturalization, either environmentally, temporally (with untold delays), financially (soaking up all available funds) or operationally (with impossibly complex phasing)? If so, improving the existing structure(s) incrementally may be the best solution.

[updated 2009-04-13 10:30]

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 20:25]

It's almost inconceivable to me that you could erase a roadway that was deemed necessary 50 years ago and now carries so much traffic in a much more populous city.

The Gardiner could benefit greatly from beautification efforts that are non-existent at present. Let's make the best of this highly useful and necessary structure, instead of tearing it down.

[updated 2009-04-11 21:27]

Since the Gardiner was taken down in the eastern area, my commute to customers, head office and family has increased by 20 minutes. As well, the traffic in that area has long lineups that weren't there before. The current highways in the city have been the same for decades, yet the number of businesses and people have grown. There has to be a highway through the south part of the city but it could look like the Gardiner by High Park, except for all the highrises.

[updated 2009-04-06 12:13]

I am going to post a concern that I heard about at a public meeting recently. I don't know if anyone has brought it up on the website yet.

What will happen if the connection between the Gardiner and the DVP is disconnected and there is an emergency where the down town needs to be evacuated?

I do understand that people can be evacuated by bus, subway and Go Train but will that be enough? The chances of this scenario happening are probably small but I still think it should be addressed in the planning regardless of what decision is made.

[updated 2009-04-05 15:21]

I have two major concerns about the end result of tearing down the Gardiner. First, if the DVP traffic is to merge with Lakeshore traffic, going west or east, then there will be continuous backups of cars on the Lakeshore, and because the City doesn't like co-ordinating lights so that traffic moves along, there will be much more idling pollution created than there already is.

Second, I can't see how the previous demolition of the eastern part of the Gardiner increased access to the Lake and so can't see how this proposed demolition will either. Sure, the Lakeshore looks better, but that's about it, other than for the industry and big stores that lines the Lakeshore. Why would we think that taking down the Gardiner east of Jarvis would be any different? I can't see how there would be any better public access to the lake. And as a few have mentioned, what's likely is that condos will expand east of Jarvis as they have west of Jarvis along the Lakeshore all the way to Strachan and then picking up again now at Windemere.

[updated 2009-04-04 17:14]

The key challenge to this study is to think 50 years in advance and ask what would the people inheriting the solution be proud of. Since we are never good at that, as the future is notoriously hard to predict, what would we be proud of today, as a city?
Currently the issue revolves around traffic flow for vehicles. Leave it up so people can pass through. Tear it down so people can connect to the water.
I have a maybe solution. Maybe we should leave it up. But maybe we should dedicate it to the pedestrian, the cyclist and a light rail system.
The elevated nature of the Gardiner is a people delight. We can see the Lake from the Gardiner when at walking speed. Imagine coming out of the Rogers Centre or ACC after a night game and walking on an elevated walk to the pedestrian mall of the Gardiner, then walking down to the water front. Or if you needed to go home, you would travel the light rail east or west to pick up feeder stations at either end.
Maybe we think up a bit.
Maybe along the whole pedestrian Gardiner there is a strip of solar panels providing power to the area.
Maybe there are shops and restaurants and a whole "forest" scrubbing the air.
Maybe the people in the condos now have a new world to access and that property becomes valuable.
Maybe by slowing down on the Gardiner and seeing the Lake we actually appreciate it more.
Maybe access to the Lake from a pedestrian Gardiner can be leisurely air strolls, and inclined planes and elevators. A diversity of access points.
Maybe we can create a pedestrian river through our City which would do its own connecting.
And maybe the money not spent on tearing down could actually be used to repurpose the Gardiner.
And maybe the cars driving along Lakeshore which just get envious of the ease of pedestrian traffic and make some other choices.
That makes me proud.
Proud to say that actually we put people first.
Proud to say we were creative.
Proud to say we were bold.

That is a challenge for this study.

[updated 2009-04-04 14:16]

Here's a rhetorical question for all of you:

How tall are you?

In regard to all the comments about buildings blocking views.

Whether buildings are two stories or twenty stories tall, you can't see over them.

The only view that is blocked by a condo tower is the view from another condo tower next to it.

That's life in the big city. :-)

If you are driving along an expressway, you shouldn't be ogling the broad vistas, you should be paying attention to your driving!!!!

If you are driving along a tree lined boulevard, enjoy a slower pace and the scenery, but still, pay attention to your driving. Yield to pedestrians and get off the phone.

The important thing is to make sure that things at ground level are a human scale.

Sidewalks that are clean and well lit. Tree lined boulevards, public art installments, benches and fountains are nice. Space for walking, cycling, driving and parking, not to mention transit.

Architecture that is attractive at ground level by being aesthetically pleasing accessible and functional makes the city livable.

[updated 2009-04-02 18:14]

As much as I like the idea of more park area in the city, I am very sceptical about this. So many people come and go using the DVP and Gardiner that if they don't connect there will be terrible traffic on the surface roads in the area. This will make it even harder for pedestrians to access the lakefront area if the surfaces roads are bigger and/or busier due to the Gardiner being torn down. I think the best thing to do is keep the Gardiner.

[updated 2009-04-02 16:21]

There is an issue that GO Transit, who owns the rail corridor, will not allow construction of a Cable Stayed Viaduct over the length of the rail corridor. [As pointed out by richardvon]

Since GO Transit is a Provincial Government agency, the Provincial Government could push GO Transit to accept the project.

However:

The route doesn't have to follow the rail corridor.

Any Option is expensive.

Tearing down the Gardiner and widening Lakeshore Blvd is expensive.

The Viaduct is expensive.

Keeping the Gardiner and Beautifying it is expensive.

Taking advantage of new materials and building techniques can save us money in the long run, as opposed to the constant repairs and bandaids that have to be applied to the crumbling structure of the Gardiner on an ongoing basis.

So, why not build the Viaduct over the Gardiner?

Double deck the Viaduct. Build 4 or more lanes above the Gardener and then pull the Gardiner out from underneath.

Then, build 4 or more lanes at the level where the Gardiner was...

Once everything is done, you can have one level eastbound and the other level westbound.

Or, have the Expressway on the top level and Lakeshore Blvd on the middle level.

The bottom ground level can be all pedestrian and Public Transit, along with malls, parks etc....

[updated 2009-04-02 13:14]

I think that the priority should be to improve the waterfront before worrying about the Gardiner as a barrier. The Gardiner is essential to this big city and must not be removed.

I am very concerned about the traffic and polution if there were no Gardiner. I go up the DVP every day and see the long line of stopped cars waiting to take the last exit at the bottom of the DVP. If there were no Gardiner to take the flow of the DVP, all those cars would be sitting in a trafffic jam, with the ensuing polution spewing from their tailpipes. If you widen the Lakeshore, there will still be stoplights which will result in huge back-ups of traffic and restriction of flow.

[updated 2009-04-02 10:38]

I have the Toronto Star drawings that were published when the east Gardiner was removed. They are laughable. They show couples and families interacting in the area, holding hands. And what happened? Canadian Tire is on one corner and Tim Horton's drive-through on the other. South of Lakeshore is industry. It did not improve access to the waterfront. I want the Gardiner kept as is. The focus should be on developing trails and parks on the waterfront lands, with free parking areas. Give people a reason to go there. If the waterfront areas are to be occupied by industry and tall condominiums, taking down the Gardiner will not offer any benefit to citizens.

[updated 2009-04-02 09:59]

As a person who lives in the St Lawrence Market area I walk in this area frequently and there certainly are problems getting from Front Street to Lake Ontario. Though the Gardiner is certainly PART of the problem it is not the only problem.

The four north-south streets (Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry) are NOT pedestrian friendly. In most of them one must deal with unfriendly pedestrian crossings at Lakeshore. The streetscapes of all four are, to be kind, dreary!

Walking through the rail berm pedestrian tunnels is not pleasant. These need to be GREATLY improved, better lighting, less dripping water, fewer pigeons.

The area directly under the Gardiner is in need of improvement (the area under the Gardiner west of York is much nicer, though not great.) If the Gardiner is removed this problem will be solved, if it stays it MUST be addressed.

If the Gardiner is removed (and I am generally in favour of doing this) it will only be worth the cost if Lakeshore Blvd is made more pedestrian friendly. This will be challenging because there clearly does need to be a major east-west road in this approximate location. East-West traffic should be discouraged on Front, King etc and through traffic should certainly be removed as far as possible from Queen's Quay. If Lakeshore is the only major link it will be a busy road and it will be difficult to make it easy to cross for pedestrians, 'beautiful" and not simply a ground-level expressway.

If, or when, the Gardiner is removed it will probably be better to move Lakeshore so it is immediately south of the rail berm - the area between the berm and the Gardiner is totally wasted space now. This will, of course, mean that pedestrians will need to negotiate the rail berm tunnels and then, immediately, cross a busy Lakeshore Blvd.

Though there will be a good east-west cycle trail on Queen's Quay East once the work there is completed it would be good to have another east-west cycle path NORTH of the new Lakeshore Blvd so that those coming along the existing cycle path on Lakeshore east of the Don River and from the Don River trail will not need to cross Lakeshore to go downtown. It could link to the existing north-south bike paths on Sherbourne and Yonge. (There is an existing cycle path just north of Lakeshore from Cherry Street to Parliament Street - this should be continued to Yonge.)

[updated 2009-03-31 17:50]

Some space under the Gardiner can be used like in London , England, to create Sports courts. Iluminate the areas, made them accesible and clean.

[updated 2009-03-30 12:44]

The Boston big dig project that is what has to be done first make a underground roadway to ease the traffic congestion and then dismantle the gardener expressway.

[updated 2009-03-28 15:31]

Challenges: keeping traffic moving across the city (as an alternative to the congested 401) but making it more pedestrian friendly and safe.
Congestion is a huge issue, the Gardiner is always backed up and costs the taxpayer a lot of money to maintain (repairs, mantenance, snow removal/salting, filling pot holes, etc). There needs to be a public transit alternative to get more people out of their cars to ease that congestion but the transit needs to be in place for that to happen.

Solution: increase public transit (be it light rail, subway, street car or more buses with dedicated bus lanes) and instead of raised highway, a boulevard featuring express lanes in the center, local lanes on the sides, and tree-planted medians between the express and local lanes, with parallel parking along all curbs.

[updated 2009-03-28 11:09]

The real challenge is to keep the political spin out of deliberations. The entire study is biased towards a foregone conclusion that the Gardiner must not remain as it is today, when in fact, that is probably the most viable option.
To do that, the mis-truths must be challenged.
The Gardiner is not an impediment to accessing the waterfront. If anything, it enhances access by removing traffic from ground level. It is the roads and rail lines below the Gardiner that restrict access, yet most proposals advocate widening Lakeshore Blvd even more if the Gardiner goes. Very little is said about the huge increase in ground level traffic that will result from removing the elevated roadway.

[updated 2009-03-28 09:18]

-With the Gardner gone or moved over the rail lands (as the http://www.toviaduct.com/ idea suggests/) we should direct street traffic away from Queens Quay and make it a pedestrian mall w/TTC-Streetcar access.
-All new residential development should be mixed income like St. Lawrence market so the waterfront doesn't continue to essentially be a suburban enclave in the front of the city.
-More parks and where possible and suitable fill in land to create a waterfront path that is unrestricted from Bathurst Street to at the very least Yonge Street.
-New restrictions on the height of buildings so we put a stop to the condo towers blocking the view of the waterfront.
-Set a building standards on any new streets restricting development to buildings that represent classical Toronto (i.e. brick, no glass and steel) with mixed use business/residential (i.e. Little Italy, Queen West past Bathurst, Parkdale, Danforth) giving a part of the new area a desirable appeal instead of just an overbearing cold feeling.

[updated 2009-03-27 19:45]

Better, convenient, accessible Transit (TTC & GO) in/out of the city.
Whereby, there is ample, safe. secure, free parking available to commuters (from the suburbs).

[updated 2009-03-27 13:18]