Study Goals and Principles

Goals 1 through 4 were very similar to the goals of the Harbourfront Corporation in the late seventies, and look what we got lots of condos and very few public spaces. Even the quayside is leased out to large tour boats that block the view. Saving the Waterfront for the people is a fairy tale. The developers won that battle hands down. If the Gardiner goes, are the CN and GO tracks going as well. Are they not a barrier?

[updated 2010-05-26 12:03]

All the words I have heard and read about the 'revitalization' of the eastern waterfront have been said before, almost verbatim, years ago. But then it was about Queen's Quay. The result was Habourfront, and the wall of condos along Queen's Quay. There was much talk about reclaiming the lakefront, access to the water, and so on. What we got instead was rich developers and aloof condo owners, and a space that is anything but inviting or in any way useful to Torontonians. I find nothing in the planning for this area that acknowledges the mistakes of the past and defines the assurance process that it is not going to happen again.

[updated 2009-05-15 09:05]

Now, after reading the comments, i am startled at the lack of vision, and depth of personal interest contained in the resistance to undoing a fatal error of poor planning.

I do agree that taking the lanes of traffic above the Gardiner down to the surface and reinstituting them would be insanity; like providing food for dinosaurs, building roads for an endangered species serves only blind inertia.

[updated 2009-05-11 18:37]

Before reading the comments, but after perusing the information provided, i would like to strongly impress the need for accurate future modeling to be undertaken by the planning team. We are in a time now where to simply survive on the planet almost everything, every way we have of doing things, every resource we have counted on; all are about to change radically. The ability to drive around in a private vehicle may be gone in twenty years; the 'right' to do so may disappear sooner, and the wish to do so should already be leaving our minds. The old economics of 'supply and demand' is about to be replaced by share economics - "how can we 'share' these resources' so no one need do without". 'Build it and they will come, must be replaced by 'tear it down, and they will go away'! Let's not let 'current wisdom' interfere with our children's future.

[updated 2009-05-11 18:20]

I sincerely hope the voices of doom don't sway Waterfront organizers from the plan to tear down as much of that concrete monstrosity as possible. Our city has been built around the car for decades and it has to stop. Jarvis has always been the busiest start point for the Gardiner and that won't change. The vast majority of cars hold one person only and that will never change without some disincentive. If people insist on driving, they should quit griping about extra time in the car. The potential and opportunity here is monumental.
Kudos for what's happened so far. I assume Waterfront is responsible for that newly widened sidewalk south of the overpass on Yonge Street. It's fantastic. Yes, changes can and must be made underneath that structure to welcome people to the waterfront, but we can and must do more than that.

[updated 2009-05-10 09:38]

If we look at this from the triple bottom line approach social, economic, and environmental, I think there needs to be a goal that captures the economic aspect of the project. The above goals do a good job at capturing the social and environmental aspects.
I think goal 6 could be (and keeping with the 'R' theme):

Goal 6: Retain the robust and diverse economic activity of Toronto

[updated 2009-05-04 15:38]

The "Redistribute Traffic” goal is simply unachievable considering the fact that Gardiner Expressway is packed every day after 1:00 PM for at least 5 hours. How could someone even think about stripping the tax payers of the only most practical and least polluting way of crossing the city? I hate driving myself but if I have to drive from East to West, using the Gardiner Expressway is the fastest way. Just imagine the traffic and the amount of pollution caused by the traffic lights at every intersection due to the already beyond pathetic traffic flow control scheme employed in this city.
Do not remove Gardiner. Instead, maintain it and improve the roads around it, so the hard-working tax payers can enjoy a smoother and less time consuming commuting with the least negative impact on the environment.
How about the City Council think about the people of this city, for a change, not only about politics and money.

[updated 2009-04-30 17:45]

The notion of removing the expressway, is a panacea to revitalizing the west Don, is a misconception fostered by anti car activists in Toronto, who seek to increase traffic log jams, to prove a point that there is no place for the car in the downtown core. How absurd. The activity generated by vehicle access to an inner city, leads to enhanced business for the merchants, and access to arts and culture, for those who cannot hop a bus or streetcar due to their outter core habitats.
Tourists I have met critize the traffic jams in Toronto, and compare it to getting around Mexico City, or Cairo.
That may be going a bit far, but if the Gardiner is torn down, bully for the west Don activists, sorrow for the merchants and urban dwellers in the core. Leave the Gardiner and spend the funs on green technology for the city, to save on our outrageous civic spending that seems to be of little visible benefit to the population.

[updated 2009-04-29 19:21]

Goal #6 should be contributing to the long-term goal of shifting transportation flows from cars to transit, cycling, etc.

[updated 2009-04-27 10:44]

I'd argue that you can meet most of these goals without taking down the Gardiner. I'd also question the assumptions made on the maintenance costs. Taking down the Gardiner will actually hurt these goals in my opinion.

[updated 2009-04-27 07:32]

First off, well done with the website city of Toronto. It has given me a pretty good idea of where things are at, and I really appreciate getting to read the comments.

For what it is worth, I need to express my extreme disappointment with these comments. I encourage people to try and think beyond your commute to work tomorrow and to think about the future and what we want to leave the next generation.

Keep the Gardiner, in fact make it more efficient because the vast majority of Torontonians need it for our current set-up. Improve below the Gardiner, not with condos. Do something that is actually good. What about opening up a quay/market area with varied residential properties (not tall condos) and alot of parkland?

This city has some incredibly attributes. Let's have higher expectations of ourselves than the status quo.

[updated 2009-04-25 23:49]

I read these comments and they really and truly reflect my views. We need to examine the infrastructure / road transport through the eyes of everyone who uses the Gardiner Expressway now. This is a major road, Grandfathered into our routine. We have a right to have access to super highways for ease of transition in and out of our city. We must not create chaos by subjecting drivers to delays with street lights and pedestrians and bicycles when we need to travel 50 kilometres one way every day and 50 back.
So here is what I read and agree with with some further comments.

If a relative goal of this study is to determine the effect of diverting all traffic to grade level, we could save a lot of time and expense of taxpayer money by one simple experiment. Install traffic lights (with fair notice and posted warnings) for one week on the east and westbound Gardiner at Yonge St, timed to cycle with traffic light on the Lakeshore below. I am quite sure that it would be very quickly apparent that replacing 6 express lanes and 6 local (grade level) lanes with 12 local (equivalent to grade level lanes) would be an unmitigated disaster,
AS to the goals of the project; (I might add, we have 1 light at Carlaw, and it is backed up often, several kilometres back on the Gardner - oh yeah, thats the result of the removal of the last section of the Gardiner)
Goal 1
City buses have stacked exhaust to lift their noxiuos fumes above other traffic. Tearing down the Gardiner would bring ALL traffic pollution down to ground level.
Goal 2
A 12 lane boulevard would create a barrier to the lake. The only way to remove that barrier would be to bury all 12 lanes. (but views are obscured anyway, by all the apartment and office towers that now act as a barrier on either side of the Gardiner)
Goal 3
Redistribute traffic to where ? The 401 ?? I live at Pape and Danforth area. I travel 50 k min one way to work each day. Taking public transit is not a practical option. The purpose of the Gardiner Expressway is to get people in and out of the city as efficiently as possible, without causing gridlock on the city streets. This has been of major importance as we heard your cries and concerns of traffic congestion on downtown streets. Knocking the Gardiner down, will bring additional traffic into the city which is not desired. So the Gardiner Expressway is accomplishing everything we want it to do.
Goal 4
How can you restore the waterfront to a people place, when you have allowed the proliferation of highrise towers to benefit only the people who live in the area and no one else in the city. Are you now going to now tear down these highrise towers too?
Goal 5
The easiest way to reconcile long term costs and benefits is the cheapest and most practical solution: maintain the Gardiner in its present form.

[updated 2009-04-24 18:27]

If a relative goal of this study is to determine the effect of diverting all traffic to grade level, we could save a lot of time and expense of taxpayer money by one simple experiment. Install traffic lights (with fair notice and posted warnings) for one week on the east and westbound Gardiner at Yonge St, timed to cycle with traffic light on the Lakeshore below. I am quite sure that it would be very quickly apparent that replacing 6 express lanes and 6 local (grade level) lanes with 12 local (equivalent to grade level lanes) would be an unmitigated disaster.
AS to the goals of the project;
Goal 1
City buses have stacked exhaust to lift their noxiuos fumes above other traffic. Tearing down the Gardiner would bring ALL traffic pollution down to ground level.
Goal 2
A 12 lane boulevard would create a barrier to the lake. The only way to remove that barrier would be to bury all 12 lanes.
Goal 3
Redistribute traffic to where ? The 401 ?? I live at Bayview & Eglinton. When I use the Gardiner I am either driving with other family members down the DVP and across the downtown core to at least Spadina, and all points west (i.e.Hamilton) or I am driving on business to Etobicoke , Mississauga or beyond. Taking public transit is not a practical option.
Goal 4
Restore the Waterfront to what ? The 1800's ?
Goal 5
The easiest way to reconcile long term costs and beneifits is the cheapest and most practical solution: maintain the Gardiner in its present form.

[updated 2009-04-23 22:14]

It is difficult to understand how removing a raised expressway and replacing it with cars on ground level on a wide boulevard will "revive" the waterfront or re-unite the water and land. It will put up greater barriers to travelling around the city, block off access to the water currently available UNDER the Gardiner (like Cherry Street), and create more congestion and therefore pollution for those of us who cycle in the city.

The real disaster is west of this section where the city has already allowed condos and buidings to block off access to the water. You cannot even SEE the water from the Gardiner let alone reach it. You are now trying to punish people living in the city who want a quick access route around the city traffic to make up for your bad decisions in the past.

[updated 2009-04-23 14:39]

These goals are all biased towards proceeding with this ill conceived project. Removing the Gardiner Expressway will result in traffic chaos that will do nothing to improve public use of this part of the lakefront. However, it will make way for building more condominiums along the lake. Historically this is exactly what occurs each time a parcel of land becomes free for development. You only need to look at the aerial photo of the lakefront to confirm this for yourself. More condominiums will do nothing to achieve these goals but will add to the money collected by the city. You only need to follow the money to know where this is going to end up.

[updated 2009-04-23 14:03]