[just east of the creek]

Remove the Gardiner and replace with a boulevard, much like that of Lakeshore in Chicago - a cross between and overgrown boulevard and an under grown expressway? I would buy into that along with a package of other changes - congestion charges from the Humber to the Don and North to the 401, real transit improvements to average speeds on key streetcar lines, Smarttrack or similar (you see the potential with the UP), 15 to 30 minute service in all Go lines, completion of the Ontario line, completion of waterfront streetcar service (or Si,Ilan), GO service to midtown Toronto, and comprehensive bicycle lane improvement within the congestion change area. I would not miss the Gardiner, but as a stand alone rip-it-down project, this invites problems. For so many city dwellers and the famed 905 dwellers, the four wheel vehicle still holds many advantages to the areas served by the Gardiner. And the costs of unravelling the work entered into by the city to date could be a large $ item.

But I would love to see some concepts on how this would work. It could be a real game changer.

 

[Rainforest]

The at-grade highway with 8 or 10 traffic lanes (aka "boulevard") isn't really better aesthetically than the elevated structure.

That at-grade highway will look pretty much like the Dusseldorf highway before it got removed. Except it will be wider.

 

[ssiguy2]

Toronto really blew their options for the Gardiner. I actually do understand the need for the eastern expressway. It is not just a road that ends at the downtown but a major connection between the entire southern part of the city to the DVP.

Unfortunately Toronto only looked at 3 potential options: A} a tunnel which would cost a fortune. B} An 8 lane "promenade" which would disconnect the 2 highways and due to being 8 lanes wide would not be very pleasant in terms of the pedestrian realm and become as big a psychological barrier to the Waterfront as the railway corridor is now. C} An elevated structure just a little more away from the Waterfront which does very little.

The best option is the one they never looked at...........a trench. They should trench {which is vastly cheaper and faster to build than a tunnel} a 4 lane road near the rail tracks and then simply build over top of it especially residential. The units could be designated zero parking and would be great for affordable housing mid-rise. It would open up huge amounts of land, the city would be able to sell the current land of the Gardiner now, it would create a lovely and walkable pedestrian realm, provide needed housing, get the highway "out of sight out of mind", and become a revenue source for the city to pay for maintenance and then some by the taxes collected on the new homes/businesses to boot..

It's done all the time and Toronto already has thousands of examples.......................it's called a parking garage. If they can build parking garages that still can hold up 100 story buildings then they can do the same for a mid-rise. Essentially it's just a long underground parking garage with maybe a slower speed limit of 70km/hr. It checks all the boxes and yet is also the cheapest option as well and the only one that will actually MAKE the city money as opposed to being an ongoing financial burden.

 

[just east of the creek]

The at-grade highway with 8 or 10 traffic lanes (aka "boulevard") isn't really better aesthetically than the elevated structure.

That at-grade highway will look pretty much like the Dusseldorf highway before it got removed. Except it will be wider.

I’m not sure you’d would have the room for that width, regardless of the length of the boulevard. I can think of a number of choke points from the Humber to the Don. And if you are going to have a boulevard you will need to provision for walking, cycling, ground level rapid transit of some form.

Even if you’re buried it (think Ville-Marie in Mtl.), I believe you would still face those same issues, although ‘express‘ traffic could be routed below a more local boulevard style roadway.

I guess the side benefit would be that the route as it exists now is a fully committed series of roadways, a pretty sterile Enviroment, and you would not have the issues of ripping apart communities, as Montreal went through as Ville-Marie was built.

 

[whydidimakethis]

The best option is the one they never looked at...........a trench. They should trench {which is vastly cheaper and faster to build than a tunnel} a 4 lane road near the rail tracks and then simply build over top of it especially residential. The units could be designated zero parking and would be great for affordable housing mid-rise. It would open up huge amounts of land, the city would be able to sell the current land of the Gardiner now, it would create a lovely and walkable pedestrian realm, provide needed housing, get the highway "out of sight out of mind", and become a revenue source for the city to pay for maintenance and then some by the taxes collected on the new homes/businesses to boot..

Something like a downsized version of the Decarie in Mtl?

 

[nfitz]

Something like a downsized version of the Decarie in Mtl?

Used to live near that. Unless it's trenched, that would be very unfortunate. Much worse than the Gardiner. It breaks up communities, and feels like you are crossing an arctic chasm in the winter.

 

[kv1990]

I’m not sure you’d would have the room for that width, regardless of the length of the boulevard. I can think of a number of choke points from the Humber to the Don. And if you are going to have a boulevard you will need to provision for walking, cycling, ground level rapid transit of some form.

Even if you’re buried it (think Ville-Marie in Mtl.), I believe you would still face those same issues, although ‘express‘ traffic could be routed below a more local boulevard style roadway.

I guess the side benefit would be that the route as it exists now is a fully committed series of roadways, a pretty sterile Enviroment, and you would not have the issues of ripping apart communities, as Montreal went through as Ville-Marie was built.

Yes, i would convert it it to a proper boulevard and build a underground "downtown bypass" with maybe a exit an exit/ entrance at Spadina or Bathurst ... and maybe build some beautiful pedestrian bridges over the boulevard connecting Rogers Center / CN tower to the waterfront

.... i don't know how feasible this is but i do enjoy imagine it

 

[SashaLemon]

Why not trench it and then deck it? Cut and cover road tunnel?

 

[just east of the creek]

Sort of like Raildeck - South? Trench, cover, housing, plus a Blvd of some sort that allows for rapid transit from end to end and connectors. I’m not sure who ‘owns‘ this land, but presuming the city, as others have then suggested, different forms of rent to income housing, co-op housing etc. etc.

 

[T3G]

In this case, it essentially is a stub removal (though a larger stub than most) being replaced by a large boulevard and other capacity enhancements in the form of GO electrification and the Ontario Line. Given the cities finances, this is a no brainer.... Unless the the province picks up the tab or allows tolling. The cost is so astronomical and cumbersome to the budget that even the most apocalyptic traffic predictions aren't worth the cost of replacement.

And how long until GO Electrification is done? (I don't count the Ontario Line, because it will be of very little value to people coming from out of town).

It certainly won't be any time soon.

 

[Rainforest]

I’m not sure you’d would have the room for that width, regardless of the length of the boulevard. I can think of a number of choke points from the Humber to the Don. And if you are going to have a boulevard you will need to provision for walking, cycling, ground level rapid transit of some form.

Humber to the Don is a long shot, no official plans exist. I was talking about the City's alternate proposal for the segment from Jarvis to the Don, which would be an 8 to 10 lanes wide boulevard.

 

[Rainforest]

The best option is the one they never looked at...........a trench. They should trench {which is vastly cheaper and faster to build than a tunnel} a 4 lane road near the rail tracks and then simply build over top of it especially residential. The units could be designated zero parking and would be great for affordable housing mid-rise. It would open up huge amounts of land, the city would be able to sell the current land of the Gardiner now, it would create a lovely and walkable pedestrian realm, provide needed housing, get the highway "out of sight out of mind", and become a revenue source for the city to pay for maintenance and then some by the taxes collected on the new homes/businesses to boot..

I like the idea, but not sure if the proximity to the lake / height of the water table will be a problem.

Edit: if I am not mistaken, the soil conditions in Montreal are quite different from those near Toronto waterfront.

 

[lead82]

In my opinion the hybdrid option was the best option that was presented. The tunnel was a non starter. Unless the city was bold enough to tear down the entire Gardiner and just widen Lakeshore, having a disconnect for the short stretch between Jarvis and DVP would not be worth the traffic mess it would create in that portion. Think of what Eglinton and Allen look like when an expressway ends as a regular road with traffic lights. It creates a bottleneck.

This solution does do something good in that I believe I heard that the new hybrid will be only 2 lanes wide to match DVP at that point and the exit east to Lakeshore is removed so it becomes more like a direct connection between Jarvis and DVP with no other exits / entry points.

 

[ssiguy2]

I don't think the water table would be an issue if they are building huge towers in the area with 4 or 5 levels of underground parking.

The city could sell the land it now owns where the Gardiner is currently and use that money to buy the new trenched corridor. They could then turn around and literally give the land to developers as long as they fully fund and/or construct the highway section under their building and incorporate affordable housing as a percentage of total units dictated by the city. The City would basically get a new highway for little or no new money. What's more they could state that the trench roadway must also have separated bike lanes. imagine how nice it would be to be able to bike from the DVP to Union protected from the elements when it's raining, snowing, or when a regular bike path is simply too slippery.

Such an idea really is a win for everyone. Housing advocates get housing faster near major transit, developers get new land to develop with no land cost purchases, drivers still get to keep their freeway, the city gets a new road with little upfront costs and makes them money thru taxes to maintain other parts of the Gardiner & DVP, transit riders get more infrastructure funds released for transit projects that would have otherwise gone to the Gardiner rebuild, Torontonians get a far nicer public realm and get rid of the Gardiner eyesore, and cyclists get a new fully enclosed, protected, and safe "bike freeway". It's one of the few examples where everyone wins.

The advances in technology also make trenches more appealing than they were just 20 years ago. One of the complaints about trenches is they can become smelly and loud, much like parking garages. Those issues are quickly disappearing as all autos and trucks go zero emissions getting rid of fumes, exhaust, and the roar of engines especially when used along with modern sound dampening technology.

Can someone please let me know of ANY downsides of such a project or who would be against it?

 

[Ward8]

And how long until GO Electrification is done? (I don't count the Ontario Line, because it will be of very little value to people coming from out of town).

It certainly won't be any time soon.

Difficult to say when it will actually finish, but Metrolinx says it will roll out between 2025 and 2032.

The Ontario line follows the same route as the DVP, so it brings significant value to out of towners by pulling cars off that road. That said, the timing could be a disaster for period of a couple years.

In my opinion the hybdrid option was the best option that was presented. The tunnel was a non starter. Unless the city was bold enough to tear down the entire Gardiner and just widen Lakeshore, having a disconnect for the short stretch between Jarvis and DVP would not be worth the traffic mess it would create in that portion. Think of what Eglinton and Allen look like when an expressway ends as a regular road with traffic lights. It creates a bottleneck.

This solution does do something good in that I believe I heard that the new hybrid will be only 2 lanes wide to match DVP at that point and the exit east to Lakeshore is removed so it becomes more like a direct connection between Jarvis and DVP with no other exits / entry points.

At this point, I'm not sure it's a traffic related decision. The hybrid option is bankrupting the city. Unless the province steps in with funding, the prudent thing to do is tear it down and build a boulevard. There would be a modest savings, even with the sunk costs, plus increased development fees and property taxes from the newly developable land. The Gardiner is killing the budget so badly that no traffic situation is really able to justify its rebuild. I think it should be torn down regardless, but a 2km stretch of elevated expressway can't be 50% of the capital budget over 10 years. It's just not that important.