Pagebackground-blue
Home > Study Approach

Study Approach

4 comments - Latest by wleadie

Thank you for participating. The consultation for this round has concluded. Please stay tuned for the next round of online topics and meetings.

Progress on the waterfront has brought us to the point where it’s time to decide the Gardiner Expressway’s place in Toronto’s future. Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto are undertaking an integrated environmental assessment and urban design study on the feasibility, impact, alternatives and cost of the project. The study will guide what action is taken on the Gardiner.

The study will feature and integrate five major areas of work:

  • environmental assessment;
  • urban design;
  • public realm design;
  • transportation planning; and
  • infrastructure design.

A number of different alternatives will be studied, discussed and presented in detail so that we can consider how each will meet our transportation and urban design needs. To date, four “families” of alternatives have been identified:

1) do nothing;
2) improve;
3) replace;and,
4) remove.

The environmental assessment terms of reference (ToR) is the first step in the process. It sets out the framework for the planning and decision making process to be followed during the preparation of the environmental assessment. The terms of reference are essentially a work plan for what is going to be studied during the environmental assessment. Once the ToR is approved, the full Environmental Assessment study can begin.

Public consultation and engagement is a critical element of this multi-year decision making process. We want to hear from you and will be providing on-going opportunities for you to contribute your input into the project. Throughout the course of the ToR we will be developing a public consultation strategy for the Environmental Assessment process.

You can view documents related to the study process in the “Support Material” box located in the right had side of this page.

DISCUSSION QUESTION:

Do you have any comments on the study approach?

Reply to Topic


Share on Facebook

Comments

wleadie

Even if this section of the Gardiner were removed, there would be neglible benefit, since the railway tracks immediately to the north of the Gardiner would remain, and would still be a significant barrier.

If one goal is to better integrate new residential areas (eg. East Don Lands) with the rest of the city, as an option to be studied, consider getting removing the Richmond + Adelaide ramps to/from the DVP. The benefits would be much more obvious.

[updated 2009-04-20 17:30]

Reply to Comment

20 Apr 17:30

No replies yet. View this conversation.

Syrinx

You don't need to spend $8 million or $11 million to study what MIGHT or THEORETICALLY happen if the Gardiner is removed between Jarvis and the DVP. Just do this simple experiment: block off the Gardiner between Jarvis and the DVP and you'll see what IN REAL LIFE what will happen.

[updated 2009-04-06 12:59]

Reply to Comment

06 Apr 12:59

No replies yet. View this conversation.

eventim

Removing the Gardiner would create another bottleneck similar to the Allan resulting in a massive traffic jam as traffic pours onto city streets.

The earlier removal of the eastern portion has done absolutely nothing to improve the area, it is all industrial. The result is a very wide "boulevard" with massive traffic. No trees, lots of weeds, no people.

Removing the Jarvis-DVP portion would provide an excellent view of the port. I wonder if there is an ulterior motive in the idea of removing the Gardiner, closing down the port and selling the land to condo builders perhaps.

[updated 2009-03-30 23:35]

Reply to Comment

30 Mar 23:35

No replies yet. View this conversation.

edwardpyves

It feels like you have way too many consultation topics essentially asking us the same thing. That’s city hall bureaucracy for you.

[updated 2009-03-27 19:51]

Reply to Comment

27 Mar 19:51

No replies yet. View this conversation.


Nik Nanos

Pic_nik_thumb

Nik Nanos is our independent moderator for this topic.

Nik is one of Canada’s leading research and consultation experts. He has facilitated a broad range of very complex and sensitive consultation initiatives ranging from legislative consultations through to national roundtables.

Email Nik


Newest Comments

Even if this section of the Gardiner were removed, there would be neglible be...
read and comment

wleadie (Ontario) 20 Apr 17:30

You don't need to spend $8 million or $11 million to study what MIGHT or THEO...
read and comment

Syrinx (Ontario) 06 Apr 12:59

Removing the Gardiner would create another bottleneck similar to the Allan re...
read and comment

eventim (Ontario) 30 Mar 23:35

It feels like you have way too many consultation topics essentially asking us...
read and comment

edwardpyves (Ontario) 27 Mar 19:51

Most Read

It feels like you have way too many consultation topics essentially asking us...
read and comment

edwardpyves (Ontario) 27 Mar 19:51

Removing the Gardiner would create another bottleneck similar to the Allan re...
read and comment

eventim (Ontario) 30 Mar 23:35

You don't need to spend $8 million or $11 million to study what MIGHT or THEO...
read and comment

Syrinx (Ontario) 06 Apr 12:59

Even if this section of the Gardiner were removed, there would be neglible be...
read and comment

wleadie (Ontario) 20 Apr 17:30

Highest Rated Comments

You don't need to spend $8 million or $11 million to study what MIGHT or THEO...
read and comment

Syrinx (Ontario) 06 Apr 12:59

It feels like you have way too many consultation topics essentially asking us...
read and comment

edwardpyves (Ontario) 27 Mar 19:51

Removing the Gardiner would create another bottleneck similar to the Allan re...
read and comment

eventim (Ontario) 30 Mar 23:35