Alternative Concepts

Monorail!....Monorail! .... MONORAIL! we could be the city of the future today! A monorail from Pearson to Downtown with stops and extensions to ease congestion! Monorail!

[updated 2010-05-30 17:43]

The functionality of the Gardiner as the only east-west conduit across Toronto south of the 401 needs to be maintained. Access to the QEW, Hamilton, Niagara and the USA, to name a few, for anyone living below Eglinton is provided by the Gardiner; chopping off the east end of the Gardiner would disenfrachise all those residents east of the Don.

It may make some people feel good to take an insular attitude about living all life within the bounds of Toronto, but this city is part of the Province of Ontario, and, to be blunt, is a major obstacle for anyone wanting to travel east or west anywhere near Lake Ontario. Citizens of Toronto are citizens of the Province as well, which means we are part of the Province's infrastructure, including transportation across our region. I suggest that the Gardiner should stay as it is, improve or maintain it as neeeded. The messes under and adjacent to the Gardiner are the impediments to people accessing the lakeshore.

[updated 2009-05-15 09:16]

There are 4 major issues to consider when discussing the future of the Gardiner:
1) The city's network of arterial roadways are hopelessly inadequate at 4 lanes. Six lanes are the norm in other major cities. No discussion about the Gardiner is complete without looking at this historical mistake.
2) Even with better public transit, the automobile (indeed, let's not forget the trucks!) is never going away. We need to forget about the cause du jour and deal with that reality.
3) The Gardiner is merely the lightning rod for the green-movement when, in fact, the railways are the real eyesore and impediment in this city. I challenge anyone to view the rusting, excrement covered hulk of tracks over Parliament as Exhibit A.
4) Although I am somewhat suspicious about the 'science' of urban planning in general (don't forget - only 25 years ago we were told tall buildings were bad!), I do agree that large urban areas can never completely address commuter traffic volumes (which cluster around 2 periods of time each work day); however, having said that, the Gardiner is well beyond addressing any satisfactory traffic volumes at any time of the day. (Well, I've seen it fairly clear at 1 a.m.!) When traffic is grid-locked in BOTH directions on a Saturday afternoon (or Sunday morning) then you know there is a horrible problem. The car-haters conveniently ignore this, preferring to focus their attention on the 'nasty' commuters - like driving to a job is a compact with the Devil.

And one last remark: whenever I have witnessed any of these 'round table' discussions, it is always the same cabal of people who attend. I challenge the city to put this to a referendum on the next election ballot and make this a real issue.
But then be prepared to hear from The Rest of the People.

[updated 2009-05-14 08:26]

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but what happened to the proposal to build a tunnel under the harbor? I understood that a consortium had approached the city several years ago with this idea of a tunnel from the Humber Bay to downtown and all they wanted were the land rights under the Gardiner. Surely some sort of negotiation could have been made with them about that!
The Gardiner needs to be expanded because it is all that this city has. In 50 years, we will deeply regret not doing that. Since we all know THAT ship is never going to leave the shore, let's discuss a 10 lane tunnel (because, IMO, 6 lanes is the REQUIRED width of an arterial road and 10 lanes is the REQUIRED minimum for a limited access highway.)

[updated 2009-05-14 07:11]

The Gardiner is not a psychological barrier to the waterfront. The fact that the waterfront is a soul-less strip is why people don't go there. It's expensive to do anything there (gallery, park, eat), completely concrete and lacks a sense of community. I drive past Harbourfront a couple of times each month to take sailing lessons and find it's really missing a neighbourhood feel.

I don't support tearing down the Gardiner. I live on the east side of the city and I can't imagine how I would get across the city if the eastern portion was torn down. Until there is a viable alternative to driving, you can't remove one of the city's busiest arteries.

[updated 2009-05-12 11:22]

There's one thing the city has to take into account whatever solution is chosen. It is impossible to keep up the current rate of growth in Toronto without making a big investment into public mid-distance public transit projects. An Expressway, no matter how small or big will get jammed at some time, but the railway tracks right beside it still have lots of capacity. It is time, that GO Transit is build up to be a real alternative to connect Toronto with it's suburbs and surrounding communities. GO trains need to be faster (i.e. by using light, electric vahicles), need to run more often (like a subway during the rush hour), have more stops in East and West Toronto, and directly reach downtown via a tunnel somewhere between King and Queen streets. With trains traversing Toronto all the way from East to West, serving as urban and suburban transport at the same time.
Every major city in Germany and (and some other European cites) has this kind of traffic arrangement, even cities which are much smaller than Toronto!
The suburban train (together with a good subway and street-car network) is an excellent means of transportation for a large part of the population. Additionally only trains can transport enough people to keep the roads free of jams, so that other people can still drive.
An investment in that kind of infrastructure is what will turn Toronto into a truly modern city. Public transit will bring the people who actually walk and cycle downtown and at the waterfront, instead of motorists who just walk to and from their parking lot (preferably right in the basement of their destination building, without ever being outside at all).

Building public transit gives people a real choice which means of transport they want to take, and it saves the city from otherwise unavoidable traffic jams.

It also introduces multi-modality: drive from the suburban home to the train station; take the train to downtown; then walk or bike to your destination. That's where Toronto's Public Bicycle System comes in. https://wx.toronto.ca/inter/pmmd/calls.nsf/0/FF383D1D0FABA58A8525759B0068D67B?OpenDocument

[updated 2009-05-09 08:27]

With respect to the goal: redistribute traffic

Of course the whole point of the Gardiner was to get rid of the traffic. Now we want to bring it back?

Call me crazy, but here's an idea. Close the Gardiner at the Jarvis off-ramp going east, and at the Richmond and Lakeshore off-ramps coming south on the Parkway. This will provide an inexpensive real-world simulation of the effects of "redistributing" traffic. Throw out the flawed computer simulations.

[updated 2009-05-06 13:29]

With respect to the goal: reunite the city with the lake.

One thing to consider here is that to actually reunite the city with the lake, traffic has to be able to pass from one to the other. Currently that traffic takes three forms: streetcar, automobile, and pedestrian. Getting to the waterfront today is not really a problem using any of these modes. The most difficult aspect is for pedestrians trying to cross Lakeshore Boulevard, especially at Gardiner off-ramps such as Spadina where there is limited pedestrian access. From this perspective the Gardiner is quite invisible. Tearing down the Gardiner will reroute traffic onto the Lakeshore, making the pedestrian crossing even more difficult. Also there will be issues with traffic. With so much traffic in the area, the likelihood of people coming to the waterfront by car will be much reduced. This leaves the streetcar, which seems like a good option but is currently hardly used at all!

In the east the Gardiner runs hard by the railroad embankment. Like the Gardiner, the railway is practically invisible through the downtown, because it runs on an elevated berm and there are no level crossings. I haven't heard any discussion about the railroad. But if tearing down the Gardiner is supposed to create a seamless link between the city and the lake, then logically the railroad would have to go also!

[updated 2009-05-06 13:21]

With respect to the goal: revive the waterfront

In the western part of the city, a pleasant revival of the waterfront has taken place. Walking and cycling paths have been built, parks have been established and maintained, the Sunnybrook facilities and pool have been refurbished, a pedestrian bridge built across the Humber, the Palais Royale has opened as a party venue, the Lakeshore Boulevard has been prettied up.

In the centre, Harbourfront has been created, condominiums have been built, pedestrian boulevards on Queen's Quay are in the works, many events and festivals are scheduled each year at the open spaces and entertainment venues.

In the east there are similar opportunities for renewal.

The point here is that these improvements have been made with the Gardiner standing. How wrecking it would help revive the waterfront is something of a mystery. Funds that could be spent on waterfront revival will instead be spent on wrecking the Gardiner and rerouting traffic.

[updated 2009-05-06 13:09]

An alternative I don't see is to keep the existing Gardiner and add a tunnel route underneath. We need both the Gardiner and the Lakeshore, but there should be an express route underground for anyone going south on the DVP and along the Gardiner all the way to Hwy 427 - and possibly to the Ford Plant. And by all means make it prettier so long as it remains functional. Get a private company to take the work on and charge a toll to use it.

[updated 2009-05-05 12:11]

It would be nice if we didn't need the central part of the Gardiner, and we might eventually get to that stage. But before we can even begin to seriously discuss such a drastic move, we need a wide U-shaped subway line through the downtown core -- a line that would also do much to spark the waterfront process even though none of it would run south of the railway tracks.
I work at the waterfront and walk south from Union station daily, in all kinds of weather. Sure, the Gardiner is ugly and some of its ramps are huge impediments to those serious about making the waterfront a vibrant place, especially east of Bay St. But a major at-grade arterial would be much more of a barrier. It's funny, but the place where the Toronto waterfront is most seriously separated from the city by the Gardiner happens to be west of the Ex, where the expressway is not elevated. Before there was a Gardiner, Parkdale was extremely desirable, much like our east-end Beach neighbourhood
There are a few useful things we can do while we wait for the transit project the city and the GTA need the most. We could remove a couple of the central Gardiner's ramps and we need create more several north-south connections under the real barrier, the railway embankment. And those north-south connections need to be lively, mixed-use streets, unlike the old, single-use, corridor-style underpasses. We could also give pedestrians greater priority on the light cycles south of the tracks (something the city has started on).
Cheers.

[updated 2009-04-30 00:01]

A possibility I haven't heard discussed would be to dredge a trench in the harbour and relocate the entire elevated portion of the gardiner into an underwater tunnel. It should cost a lot less than boston's Big Dig because tunnel segments can just be built, floated out, and sunk, no digging under active highways required.

Regardless of the alternative that's chosen, I would pay for the project with a toll to enter Toronto proper between 6-10am or so.

[updated 2009-04-29 22:25]

In my view, the removal of the Gardiner east of Logan to Leslie was and is a positive example of urban traffic renewal . . although the decision to demolish was made easier as that segment of the Expressway had been allowed to deteriorate exponentially. However, I have to support the 3rd alternative of improving what already exists. There are varied options re landscaping and structural facing improvements as well as pedestrian and cycle lane layouts that can enhance the omnipresence of the overhead lanes and groundlevel intersections. Further, so long as the structure and roadbed are properly maintained as well as Lakeshore Rd itself, what is nicely laidout, landscaped and maintained usually deters the accumulation of garbage that civic 'out of sight - out of mind mentality' can tend to foster. If it is done right from the beginning, we won't have to re-experience the years of Gardiner re-surfacing traffic congestion, for example, which Toronto lived through up until a few years ago. Deal with what we have; retain and improve it the best possible.

[updated 2009-04-29 17:26]

An alternative that may have been missed, or is not clear in the four broad alternative concepts, is the conversion of the existing structure to an alternate means of transportation, such as light rail or bicycle/pedestrian use while creating a better urban environment underneath the Gardiner

[updated 2009-04-29 13:23]

I have two plans for a green highway to replace the Gardiner Expressway that I would like to present you to and to the city.
Both of the plans are to not only improve the view, but also to increase the use ability of the space as well as decrease the carbon offset that the car using the highway emit into the environment.
I am starting to working on putting together the prototype 3D AutoCAD models of a section of the highway and wanted to start the process of submitting the idea for review, knowing that it will involve a large amount of work as well, I want to also make sure that there was no decision made on the future of the Gardiner until I have the chance to put forth my proposals, as I know that it will be the best proposal not only for the city but also for the environment and the communities that surround the Gardiner, once again linking the city to the lake.
I would like to know what is involved in putting forth such a proposal and where I would be able to get all of the applications needed.
I am not looking to put in a bid on the job just put forth and oversee the design of the job, this is not momentarily motivated, but motivated by wanting to see the best thing done for the city and for the environment.
I sincerely request that you take this request in to mind and make no further decision until I have had the chance to put forth my idea, you won't regret it, it will put Toronto on the map as a Green City and provide so many jobs that it would increase the economy in Toronto and help in survive through these tough economical times, possible even increasing tourism to Toronto.

[updated 2009-04-26 21:51]

I prefer you to address option 3 since the existing infrastructure is already in place. The existing connection works well to the DVP.

[updated 2009-04-26 20:37]

Mr Fung's dream and his cronies, are alive again under a new concept. Developers only thinking for themselves to make a huge profit on new condos.
just an example..what if highway 7 gets turn into a pedestrian way? you would kill the entire York region "car king right of way".... same deal here in downtown you kill the highway and were are deep trouble all the nearby streets would be jammed.

boulevard, tunnel... we don't have money... for that nonsense.

keep it as it is.

[updated 2009-04-26 00:55]

Improve the Gardiner to facilitate smooth driving, but spend more on improving below the Gardiner.

If we are actually bold and smart about these kind of things, we can make this a world class city. Let's build ways to get around the railways, brighten up under the gardiner with paintings, wide sidewalks and bikelanes. Let's build a market place and attract people.

Lets research what is working in other cities and make it the best we can.

[updated 2009-04-25 23:55]

I agreee with the alternative concept of "improve the existing elevated expressway, and create a better urban environment underneth the Gardiner"

To help with maintenance costs, add a toll at all entrance ramps via a transponder system the same as is being used on Highway 407.

Also, one article that I read awhile back on tearing down the east portion from Jarvis to Logan Ave stated that it would only add 2-3 mins longer to reach downtown from the bottom of the Don Valley! If they want to get an acurate figure on this, why not close all the westbound on ramps for a full 24 hour period on a normal weekday and see exactly what kind of chaos this modification will cause on the Lakeshore and surrounding roadways!

[updated 2009-04-25 11:50]

I have a better idea, make the Gardiner a toll road, and watch the traffic thin.. I would venture to say that Torontonians do not use the Gardiner as much as the suburbanites zooming East in the morning, and West at night, they do not pay any Toronto taxes, we provide them with a speedway and emergency services associated with it.

[updated 2009-04-24 21:14]

The Gardiner is the ONLY panoramic view visitors to our City have. It shows the lake and the City to great effect. Why not use the Gardiner's height to instead suspend a Pedestrian Walkway similar to the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC.

Even if you remove the Gardiner there is still a vast sea of railway lines that are a clear barrier. Worse you create a gapping hole in the region's traffic flow as vehicles from the DVP heading toward the Westside will now be trapped in downtown traffic. (there is no room on the 401 for more traffic so the City will be crippled further with horendous traffic issues as cross town travellers flood the downtown with no way out. Further spewing more cars in the harborfront will make the whole place a Hell Zone.

Lakeshore Bvld needs to be revamped.

Fewer access points to and from the Gardiner would make Lakeshore much more appealing. Build high capicity ramps onto the Gardiner for the remaining access points would help handle the capacity of flow and make traffic work better.

[updated 2009-04-24 12:53]

Another alternative that I do not see discussed is a below-grade road rather than a tunnel. This should be less expensive and allows for at-grade pedestrian, bicycle, and transit crossings.

And, has the idea of a moving ramp ever been tested or studied? Wouldn't it be wonderful if the cars and trucks could turn off their polluting and noisy engines and be moved along a ramp until the exit. If practical, this could be done in a tunnel, below grade, at-grade or elevated.

[updated 2009-04-24 12:20]

The discussion about the change to the Gardiner needs to take place within the broader context of the best and greenest way to move pedestrians, bicycles, and transit through the area. Plan the area for the safety, movement and enjoyment of children, infirm and aged. Out of this, the solution for the Gardiner can then be developed.

[updated 2009-04-24 12:05]

THE GARDINER TUNNEL

The best long term solution is to bury the Gardiner. Boston, MA buried its Fitzgerald Expressway in 2003. "The Big Dig" was very expensive but it achieved the same goals that we have for Toronto.

Let's hope that Toronto has civic leaders with enough imagination and tenacity to achieve the same here. See more about the Boston project at:

http://www.masspike.com/bigdig/background/index.html#solution

[updated 2009-04-23 19:34]

Why not an alternative on taking down a different section of the Gardiner?
That is a much more interesting question than four vague alternatives.

This is a silly section to take down. It doesn't accomplish anything.
Study another section to take down as an alternative such as closer to Air Canada Centre and Skydome.

[updated 2009-04-23 16:51]

Other alternatives: Convert the elevated roadway to elevated parkland with bicycle and pedestrian paths and vegetation, as in New York City's HighLine, which is a conversion of an elevated rail line in a similar site. The views would be terrific and the avoidance of traffice a great attraction. Another possibility is to improve the lands under the expressway to make them more attractive. This could be combined with removing the through roads under the elevated section.

[updated 2009-04-23 14:01]

By merely focusing on the waterfront renewal we are missing
the more global issue of urban traffic flow. Successful cities use a "ring road system", allowing rapid peripheral access to the city core. This principle is best followed by enhancement of the Gardiner expressway.

[updated 2009-04-23 11:11]

Everyone thinks that by tearing down the Gardiner, it's going to "open up" the waterfront to the rest of Toronto's citizens. Well I've got news for the city and all it's residents ... it's not going to work! I'd much rather take my chances walking across 3 lanes of traffic at a time under an elevated highway which is merely a "visual obstruction" rather than risk all with crossing a 10+ lane boulevard, which is more of a "physical obstruction".

The way I see it, if they REALLY want to do it right, then here's my simple run-down of projects ... (in no apparent order)

- Relocate the Gardiner Expwy from Jarvis to the DVP onto the south edge of the railway embankment as a freeway-standard 4-lane road (2 lanes + right-hand shoulder in both directions). The transition from the elevated expressway to the new alignment on the railway embankment would also permit any future considerations for the section of the Gardiner to the west of Jarvis, whether it be the existing elevated, a new elevated, or a new tunnel. What this whole change does is incorporate the two "barriers" everyone notices into one, being the railway embankment. Now, there is no way to get rid of that "barrier" so you may as well improve upon it. So ...

- Reconstruct all grade separations along the railway viaduct to be wider, brighter, safer, and more "pedestrian friendly" crossings. Look at the example of the new structure along Simcoe Street. 3 lanes + bike lanes in the central section and in the outer spans, large sidewalks (easily 2-3x wider than a standard sidewalk). It is well illuminated and visually appears more welcoming and safer than any of the other underpasses. This should be done on Yonge, Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry Street's. Projects (including teamways) are underway or have been completed to improve these situations at York and Bay Street's.

- As part of relocating the Gardiner onto the railway embankment, construct a signature bridge that curves over the railway mainline and the Don River, before descending into the alignment of the Don Valley Pkwy at Eastern Ave. This would be similar in logic and image to the Charleston Bridge in Boston as part of the Big Dig project. Something with an aesthetic design (Cable Stayed, truss, etc) should be used to be eye catching, impressive, and something that people will admire and won't mind it being "way up in the sky".

- Lake Shore Blvd would be reconstructed into a 6-lane divided boulevard (bike lanes provided either in the boulevard or on a separate/different roadway) with an option for curbed parallel parking bays. Access would be provided in full at Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry St's, with all other street/business connections being RIRO-style (right-in, right-out).

- Gardiner interchange access would be provided by the current (or modified) EB offramp and WB onramp at Jarvis (which would also double as the Gardiner-Lake Shore connection). Don Valley access would remain as-is, with the Lake Shore access ramps (Don Roadway) being shifted north to meeting the DVP north of the railway bridge (under Eastern). These ramps would become a 4-lane divided boulevard (with the option to allow developments on the east side, or local street connections) from the DVP south to Lake Shore Blvd, where a large, 3-lane roundabout would be located as a "gateway project" for the Portlands area. (As scary as a big roundabout sounds, I have faith that it can work effectively)

- Transit access would be provided by the currently planned projects, including the Cherry St GO Station, the Cherry St LRT (King St south to the GO Station, w/ extensions planned into the Portlands), the East Waterfront LRT (Union Station east along Queens Quay & Lake Shore to Cherry & the Portlands).

One of the big reasons I feel a need to keep the continuous freeway connection is both to keep the little bit of "thru traffic" away from a potentially significant and critical development area, as well as provide a way to keep local and suburban-destined traffic seperate. Also, many inter-regional services use the Gardiner as a fast and easy connection into downtown. This includes GO Transit and Greyhound buses (the later will be more apparant when a final decision is made regarding a new terminal in the vicinity of Union Station). But one also needs to look at truck traffic, while slim, still exists and benefits from the non "local street" travel. These are two modes that local residents would likely prefer to not be on the local streets.

And then you have to look at another issue ... emergency access! Not too long ago an accident closed down Lake Shore near Yonge. What if this was the proposed "boulevard" that many have been looking at? Then where does the traffic go too? Eastern? Richmond/Adelaide? Queens Quay (which will only be 2-lanes wide soon enough)? Already a lot of traffic all over, especially during rush hour, so you are only shooting yourself in the foot by reducing the number of routes (and alternative routes) traffic can take. By having both the Gardiner and Lake Shore, you provide two routes which would hand-in-hand at moving traffic effectively. And I'm sure emergency services (TPS, TFS, EMS) will all appreciate the express route bypassing congestion!

To summarize, and for anyone who likes to skim comments, I am totally against the whole "grand boulevard" concept in favour of a smaller, more pedestrian/cyclist friendly boulevard and a freeway-grade connection between the Don Valley Pkwy. and the existing Gardiner Expwy.

[updated 2009-04-23 05:27]