Spacing Wire • understanding the urban landscape » Replacing the Gardiner with the Waterfront Viaduct

Replacing the Gardiner with the Waterfront Viaduct

The Waterfront Viaduct
by Ian Malczewski

Two weeks have passed since the city released the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation’s report on the Gardiner Expressway. Now that the dust has settled, let’s go over what we learned: the TWRC recommends dismantling part of the Gardiner Expressway and widening the Lakeshore Boulevard below to a 10-lane “great street.” Oh, and the price tag is estimated at $758 million. Other than the price, though, none of this is really news to those who have watched the glacial “progress” on a decision about the Gardiner.

Comments on the Spacing Votes blog indicate that most people are not exactly overwhelmed by the TWRC’s report. Some believe that widening the Lakeshore doesn’t fix the problem but moves it to ground level, claiming they would “rather walk under a bridge than cross a 10-lane street.” Eye weekly editor Edward Keenan wrote on his election blog that the Gardiner is more of a “psychological barrier,” and he’s “never understood the drive to dismantle” it.

West 8, the team responsible for redesigning the Central Waterfront, proposed eliminating the expressway, but that proposal is not a guarantee. Recently a member of the design team told me he is actually a fan of Gardiner Expressway, and, like many others, considers the real barrier to the Waterfront to be the rail lands south of Front Street. So why do all plans ignore this more significant barrier?
As part of his final project for Seneca College’s program in Civil Engineering & Technologies, Jose Gutierrez created the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct (TWV). With the help of website designer Scott Dickson, urban planner James Alcock, and Sam Cass, former Commissioner for Roads and Traffic Engineering for Metro Toronto, he has created perhaps the most ambitious plan ever tabled to reconnect the city to the lake.

At first glance the TWV looks impossible: it consists of a 6 km cable-stayed bridge erected over the train tracks, a hanging garden called the skyPATH, and, yes, the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway. Unlike the TWRC’s suggested plan, however, the highway does not sit on the Lakeshore, but on the cable-stayed bridge hovering over the rail yards. The idea behind the Gardiner, after all, is still a sound one: keep fast-moving traffic away from people on the ground.

“I thought about utilizing the existing Lakeshore rail corridor, and merging the Expressway and the rail tracks into one major transportation corridor,” Gutierrez says. “The cable-stayed idea came from the need to provide as few obstacles as possible for train movement and street level traffic (either pedestrian, bicycles, transit or car traffic).”

The ambition of the plan is exceeded only by the research that went into it. The viaduct does not stand alone as a piece of infrastructure, but rather as part of the greater community. Referencing the TWRC’s other plans, Gutierrez says, “You still have barriers. I want to create connections.”

Fort York, for example, would no longer be obscured by the elevated highway, but would be given “a new perimeter worthy of one of the most important historical sites in Canada.” The elevated railway embankment, which runs east of Yonge, would also undergo a facelift, becoming the East Lakeshore Mall. This would be an important resource for the ever-increasing density of downtown, specifically the developing East Bayfront community.

The Viaduct itself would carry at least 8 lanes of traffic (two more than the Gardiner currently holds), and could also include space for pedestrians, cyclists, and a right-of-way rapid LRT, the route of which is based upon the TTC’s never-realized “Network 2011” plan.

The skyPATH, an idea added by Dickson, would move pedestrian and cyclist traffic to a tunnel hanging beneath the viaduct that would be useable all year round. The skyPATH could contain a “unique mix of recreation, extraordinary gardens and sculptural installations by leading Canadian artisans,” but would also connect communities like CityPlace to other parts of the downtown core, appreciating the value of nearby residences, and therefore “mitigating potential NIMBY opposition.”

Gutierrez says the six kilometre viaduct could be completed for 1.65 billion (US), including ramps and connections. Adding LRT would likely increase the cost by another two or three-hundred million, and the skyPATH could add another half billion dollars, too. The final price tag would certainly be well above the cost suggested in the TWRC report, but would have the added benefits of pedestrian, cyclist, and LRT lanes, as well as the crucial community connections.

And while the TWRC offers no financing options, Gutierrez offers several. Funding could come from a diversion of a 2 cent federal gas tax to Toronto for 5 years (Gutierrez admits this would require “a swift attitude change towards road construction from our politicians”), or private investment opportunities, from the East Lakeshore Mall to habitable spaces in the bridge’s pylons. It would also be possible (although he is quick to point out he does not favour this option) to place tolls on the viaduct.

So what does Gutierrez think of the TWRC’s report? Not very much. “Even though the TWRC’s report was kept from the public since 2004, the contents of it [were already] reported by the media. The TWRC is using a non-empirical computer model to make traffic estimations with data obtained ten years ago, and not with what the reality will be ten, or even five years from now.”

“Outbound morning traffic [downtown residents commuting to the suburbs] will continue to grow rapidly as more and more high-rise condominiums are being built in the central area.” This in itself is not a problem, he says, except for “the little, if any, consideration the City of Toronto is doing to accommodate this traffic. Imagine if we add the proposed residential developments in the Portlands!”

To prove his point, Gutierrez conducted several studies of his own. Using the same sample route detailed by the TWRC (from the Humber River to the intersection of King and Bay via the Gardiner), he calculated that west-bound traffic from downtown took 2 minutes longer than reported in the TWRC’s study and east-bound traffic into downtown took an extra 3 minutes.

His conclusion: “[R]educing the six Gardiner expressway lanes [and] eight Lakeshore Boulevard lanes to a new ten-lane avenue is nothing but retrograde.” He also notes that the Front Street Extension cannot possibly absorb all the excess cars, adding enormous pressure on King, Queen, and Dundas. In other words, for all the noise made about the TWRC report, the solution does not seem to address some of the most important issues associated with dismantling the Gardiner.

Other than a brief write-up in the National Post and the article in Eye Weekly, there has been little media coverage of the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct concept. The TWRC itself has not responded to the proposal, but Gutierrez admits shock upon seeing developments similar to the East Lakeshore Mall and “a nice cable-stayed viaduct over the rail corridor” in the latest TWRC report.

Still, Gutierrez is not deterred: “On one hand, the private sector has a hard time committing financial resources to prepare a complete proposal if they don’t see a clear endorsement from City Hall, and on the other hand City Hall hasn’t generated a too favourable interest yet.”

Nevertheless, he has received positive feedback from both mayoral candidate Jane Pitfield and Councillor Karen Stintz (Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence). In the meantime, Gutierrez understands he has to be patient. “People are increasingly getting more committed to the TWV idea, but, because is so ambitious, it might take some time to really take-off.”

graphics by Upside-Down Design

————–

It has been a long time since a project of this size and impact has been considered in Toronto — the city has become accustomed to half-finished jobs (see the Shepphard subway line) and stagnation on major decisions (see the Gardiner). Perhaps the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct will remain an impressive but unacknowledged plan because of its high price and ambitious scope. But several candidates vying for your vote in the upcoming municipal election think it is a plan that merits more attention. Stay tuned to Spacing Votes for their opinions on the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct and that TWRC report.

Read more: Spacing

Posted by Ian Malczewski at 1:03 pm | permalink

“The TWRC offers no financing options” is not correct. There’s a whole section — Appendix 8 — called “Funding the Project.”

Comment by Matt L. — October 18, 2006 @ 3:31 pm

WOW! The first inspiring project regarding the Gardiner that I’ve seen.

From the Fort York perspective it would be a huge improvement. The other plans all call for more physical barriers to the waterfront for west-central residents - i.e the front street extension and it’s on ramps - while keeping the western gardiner.

Comment by Shreve L. — October 18, 2006 @ 4:35 pm

Matt L.

You’re correct, I probably should have re-worded that sentence. I was referring to the lack of a business plan, which the Mayor was citing as his reason for not wanting to release the report. Thanks for pointing it out, though!

Comment by Ian Malczewski — October 18, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

Spacing in 2030…

We must find a solution for the overbearing, dirty, and increasingly expensive to maintain viaduct!

Comment by Christopher L — October 18, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

Christopher L.:
I understand your concern about maintenance, but let’s not forget that all infrastructure requires maintenance during its life span. If well constructed, some may even last for millenia.

What makes the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct differentiate from the existing Gardiner, is that aesthetics and architecture will be considered this time, and also the quality of construction material on new elevated structures exceeds by far the quality of materials from 50 years ago.

The TWV should be a structure that makes Torontonians feel proud from the first day, and for 50, 100, or more years after.

Comment by Jose R. Gutierrez — October 19, 2006 @ 7:56 pm

Puke! What a 1950s Corbusian concept. People living above a freeway in little pods, with no connection to the City below? (in fact, there would be no city below to connect to, just train tracks). And do you really think pedestrians and cyclists would want to climb WAY up into this thing to go for a leisurely stroll in a frightening tube?

And maintenance costs ARE a substantial concern that “aesthetics and architecture” will do nothing to resolve. Don’t try and pretend it’s not a hell of a lot more affordable to maintain an at-grade boulevard than some aerial montrosity.

And last, but certainly not least, the major flaw with this proposal is that it’s all about INCREASING vehicular capacity through the core. The problem with the Gardiner is not only that it is a visual/psychological barrier between the downtown and the waterfront, but also that it brings countless cars and trucks into the core every day. This is at odds with a desire for a more walkable, cyclable and transit friendly city.

Having a bold vision is different from endorsing cockamamie schemes with big $$ attached. What Toronto (and most cities) needs is the political and civic leadership to push for all of the politically difficult but technically very easy solutions that create fabulous cities: fighting developers to ensure that the public realm is preserved/enhanced, fighting entrenched nimbyists to ensure that social and other forms of housing and community needs are available throughout the city, and convincing everyone of the benefit of transferring existing roadspace to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit. We need to stop looking for pie in the sky ’solutions’. The real ones are right here in front of us. We just need to courage to fight for them.

Comment by Dan — October 20, 2006 @ 11:48 am

Jose, I think it’s great that you’re putting this proposal out for discussion, but I wonder if you’re too quick to dismiss the amount of effort and planning that created the ill-fated Gardiner.

I find it hard to believe that aesthetics and architecture weren’t considered when the Gardiner was originally built. No one specifically tries to build ugly infrastructure, though it certainly happens often enough. I haven’t studied the history of elevated expressways, but judging from how many cities built them they seem to have been the “in” thing architecturally at the time the Gardiner was built. (Ian’s article even mentions a present-day architect who’s a “fan” of it.) And while the quality of materials has improved in the past 50 years, it will probably continue to improve for the next 50. So while it’s easy in hindsight to criticize the Gardiner, I don’t see why the TWV is likely to age better.

It seems to me the main flaw in the Gardiner was in its fundamental premise: that traffic was a problem to be solved in isolation, and that the smooth routing of this traffic was more important than the areas it passed through. I’d argue the Gardiner was a celebration of the automobile, in the way it created the illusion of cars flying into the heart of the city. It seems to me TWV adopts much of this premise. It creates a mega-barrier along the rail corridor, even though the current barrier could one day be replaced by green space (by decking over either electrified or ventilated tracks). It has even fewer connections to the downtown street grid than the Gardiner. And ultimately it celebrates the rapid bypass of downtown neighbourhoods by promoting this road to a major feature of the city skyline.

Comment by Matt L. — October 20, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

I think this is one of the most imaginative ideas this city has seen in ages and I support it fully. My one concern is of security (for pedestrians)…how do we maintain public safety and ensure a really long tunnel in the sky doesn’t become a really easy place to get mugged?

Comment by Steven dS — October 21, 2006 @ 9:24 am

Matt,
thank you for your comments and questions, so let me answer them.

The Gardiner Expressway, originally called the Lakeshore Expressway, is the child of a major effort in the 1950’s and 1960’s to provide a comprehensive balanced transportation plan of new roads and transit lines to improve the commute of the residents of Toronto and its suburbs. Toronto was, then, growing at a very rapid pace after the heavy industrialization from the Second World War. However, in the 1970’s the highway expansion program came to a halt due to the understandable fierce opposition against the Spadina Expressway, which was going to demolish large residential areas on Forest Hill and the Annex. The Gardiner Expressway didn’t find much opposition (except from people concerned about Fort York and Sunnyside Beach), because it was built over mainly industrial and rail lands. Expressways at that time were built as quick as possible, therefore considerations on their aesthetics were not as predominant, as it was earlier, in the late 1930’s, with the original Queen Elizabeth Way. Despite the Gardiner important function, I don’t see the Gardiner as a beatiful structure; however, I am also a fan of it because it provides the best view of the downtown when driving into the city core.

On the better contruction materials issue, the Gardiner was originally built with no protection to its steel rebar, therefore every minor crack on the concrete would let water and salt, and pollution, to sip through it and to attack the steel. That’s why you can see chunks of concrete fallen off the elevated Gardiner. In the early 1990’s, when the Gardiner bridges over the Humber River were completely rebuilt, the builders (having learned the lesson) coated the steel rebar to prevent it from rusting agents. Today, many of the new road projects around the world are being built prefabricated, therefore helping to improve quality control, and extending its life span. There are also new concrete mixes like Ductal with much higher strength and durability than conventional concrete.

As for the idea behind highways, they were not conceived to celebrate the automobile, but to let their occupants commute quicker, and to by-pass residential streets. This has the additional effect of making the local street network safer and helps to reduce pollution. If we replace the Gardiner Expressway with an at-surface street network, then we will be getting the inverse effect within downtown narrow streets. On the contrary, the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct will keep the through traffic (which keeps growing from downtown residents commuting to the suburbs), and will also include a much needed major rapid transit line for the downtown-waterfront area.

It is wrong to call the TWV a “barrier”. The TWV replaces the psychological barrier of the Gardiner, and helps sort across the physical barrier of the rail corridor, with the East Lakeshore Mall and skyPATH. Yes, we can wait until somebody funds a major decking solution above the rail trench, but that will only be effective between Bathurst St. and just west of Spadina, so the rest of the corridor remains physically separating downtown to its waterfront. The skyPATH can help provide small pedestrian bridges across the trench at a minimum cost, and can also provide a large covered esplanade for pedestrian enjoyment.

In terms of connections, I plan them to be at similar locations as today’s Gardiner ramps. For example: next to Spadina, Yonge, Jarvis, Paliament and the Don Valley Parkway. The ramps should be designed in a way that have them merge parallel to roads, with little physical obstruction on the surface, and safe to pedestrians nearby.

And yes, the idea is to rescue and recreate a space that will combine with the downtown skyline, making it quite unique and attractive for tourists everywhere.

Shreve and Steven,
I really appreciate your support on the TWV project. I hope you can help promote this idea among other Torontonians.

As for your concern about safety, Steven, I expect that skyPATH and all transit stations along the viaduct to have security cameras, as well as two-way communcation devices to contact security control, similar to the existing ones on the subway network. Additionally, I envision a high pedestrian use of the skyPATH, since it will be connecting a series of adjacent condominiums and other waterfront residents, therefore increasing security.

Always feel free to contact me with questions or constructive criticism. I’ll be happy to respond them. You can also contact me directly to: info@toviaduct.com

Cheers.

Comment by Jose R. Gutierrez — October 21, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

Dan> I think some people would want to live way up in one of the pylons, just as people want to live way up in cityplace, which the skyscraper-haters don’t understand either.

This reminds me of 1967’s Habitat in Montreal — it is and was isolated on that spit of land in the middle of the river, and yet is still a highly desirable place to live.

Comment by Shawn Micallef — October 22, 2006 @ 5:57 pm

This is the first proposal I’ve seen that does its best to satisfy car users, transit users, pedestrians, and people concerned with the aesthetics of the city.

There are some people who emphasize only public transit solutions to congestion problems while ignoring car users. These proposals are doomed to fail since a LOT of people use cars. People advocating thses positions usually live near the core, or close to subway lines. For people like myself who live far from subway lines, taking the TTC isn’t always the best option over driving.

There are also some people who emphasize building more roads to accomodate cars, without thinking of public transit.

I’ve seen far too many articles tilted either towards car loving nuts or public transit loving nuts. There are a lot of people like myself who enjoy using both, and this proposal is the only one so far that is satisfactory.

Comment by Shim Mannan — October 23, 2006 @ 2:50 am

“And do you really think pedestrians and cyclists would want to climb WAY up into this thing to go for a leisurely stroll in a frightening tube?”

^ skyPATH sits just above the trains in the corridor… essentially at grade. Not much of a climb.

Comment by Scott — October 26, 2006 @ 8:39 am

When I was a geography major in university, I came across the website “The New Gardiner” and fell in love with this project. It meets the needs of improving traffic flow, increasing public transit routes, and providing safe lanes of traffic for cyclists and even pedestrians. Moreover, the design of the viaduct is beautiful. This enhances the Toronto skyline, and eliminates the architecturally-absent barrier that is the Gardiner.

The plan is perfect: take advantage of a transportation corridor! Furthermore, the Gardiner will remain in use during construction of the new expressway…that’s genius!

Those who oppose this idea has to come up with very valid reasoning outside of funds. This project will be like no other, and will put the city of Toronto on the map as an innovative city.

Comment by Dwayne — October 29, 2006 @ 5:09 am

Wow. The Viaduct is simply the best piece of thinking and design I’ve seen regarding downtown traffic woes and the Gardener Expressway. Three cheers. I love it. The security issue is a problem, but, hell you can mugged or shot just about anywhere here in the Big Smoke these days. So you take your chances. I suspect, the bike path would be very popular at all hours of the day or night. Currently, there is no easy or safe way to get from east to west and west to east in the city on a bike. Especially in the winter. The Viaduct makes this a breeze.

I wonder what they think of this down at City Hall?

Has there been any reaction?

It seems like such a great idea. It probably overwhelmed them. CIty Hall doesn’t seem to like to do anything that involves making decisions or changing anything from the status quo.

Comment by Warmflash — November 15, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

This is excellent proposal, purely looking at the Toronto Down town traffic problem. Viaduct had presented lot of information, how the investment is recovered and also the benifits to the City.

The other proposal to tunnel under the exsisting Gardiner expressway doesn’t talk about the investment recovery plan and how they would do it without effecting traffic during the construction period

Comment by Edirisinghe — January 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

October 13, 2006

Replacing the Gardiner with the Waterfront Viaduct

15 Comments »

Leave a comment

Looking for Work?

RSS

Archives

Categories