Why are we here?

Gardiner East
Gardiner Expressway
& Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration
Environmental Assessment
& Urban Design Study
Public Information Centre #4 – April 2015
1
John Livey
Deputy City Manager
City of Toronto
2
Christopher Glaisek
Vice President, Planning & Design
Waterfront Toronto
3
Presentation Outline
• Gardiner East in Context
• Public Works and Infrastructure Committee
(PWIC) Direction
• New Work Completed
• Alternatives Evaluation
• Next Steps
4
Gardiner East
in Context
5
What area are we studying?
• 2.4km Elevated
Structure = Yonge St.
from King St. to Bloor St.
First Gulf Site
6
Transportation Demand Growth
2031 Study year
Morning Peak Hour Inbound to Downtown
250,000
+237,900 Total
Total Trips
200,000
+157,200 Total
150,000
100,000
+115,500 Total
Projection
Actual
50,000
Gardiner
East & West
1975 1981 1985 1991 1995 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
Auto (Gardiner Westbound and Eastbound)
Auto (All Other Routes)
TTC Transit
GO Transit
Walk/ Cycle
Source: AM Peak Hour Inbound to Downtown: 1) Transportation City Cordon Count (1975-2011); 2) Transportation Model
EMME2 Forecast (2011-2031); 3) 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) for Walk/Cycle Mode and Other Data;
Downtown: Defined as Bathurst to Don River and Waterfront to the rail corridor north of Bloor
7
How Commuters get Downtown
(AM Peak Hour 2011)
Walk Cycle
4%
Dupont
(5,900)
(33,500)
TTC Transit
49%
Don River
Bathurst
Auto (All Other
Routes)
21%
Gardiner West
4%
(6,100)
(77,700)
GO Transit
19%
Gardiner East
3%
(29,500)
(5,200)
157,200 Total
Source: AM Peak Hour Inbound to Downtown: Transportation City Cordon Count (2011)
Downtown: Defined as Bathurst to Don River and Waterfront to the rail corridor north of Bloor
8
Gardiner East Role & Function Today
ORIGIN / DESTINATION STUDY – DOWNTOWN VS. THROUGH TRIPS (AM Peak Hour)
EASTBOUND
Spadina/YorkBay-Yonge
3,000
54%
Eastbound
@ Dufferin
5,650
per hour
5,650
Jarvis/
Sherbourne
1,400
25%
2,600
•
DVP
900
16%
22% through
traffic
1,200
•
Gardiner East
Study Area
Lake Shore
350
6%
WESTBOUND
Spadina/YorkBay-Yonge
2,600
35%
To
Dufferin
/Hwy 427
5,650
21%
Jarvis/ Sherbourne
500
7%
2,700
21% through
traffic
Richmond
1,800
24%
DVP
4,500 per hour
4,500
1,500
Lake Shore
700
9%
Gardiner East
Study Area
Lake Shore
2,900
9
Don McKinnon
Consulting Team Project Manager
Dillon Consulting Ltd.
10
Previous Consultation
Round 1: Ideas (May/June 2013) – 1,000+ participants
Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting
Public meeting
Online engagement – webcast of public meeting; online tool
Round 2: Alternatives/Evaluation Criteria (Oct 2013) – 1,500+ participants
 2 Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings
Public Meeting
Online engagement – webcast of public meeting; online tool
Round 3: Presentation of Alternatives (Feb 2014) – 1,000+ participants
Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting
Public meeting
Online engagement – webcast of public meeting; online survey
11
Previous
Alternatives
Assessed
Evaluation
Approach
Maintain
Improve
Replace
Remove (Boulevard)
Previously Recommended Alternative
12
What We’ve Heard
Public feedback stressed the importance of:
• Balancing modes of transportation
• Enhancing waterfront connectivity
• Providing new transportation infrastructure
• Ensuring transit projects are prioritized and funded (concerns with assumptions
that transit will be in place in future)
• Enhancing the public realm
On the Alternatives:
• Maintain: least disruptive to traffic, keeps existing road capacity, but not a long
term solution and misses opportunity to revitalize area
• Improve: adding bike/pedestrian features is good but cost is high considering
the limited benefits
• Replace: concerns about cost and practicality of replacing just the eastern part
of the expressway
• Remove: cost effective, good for revitalization and redevelopment but will
impact traffic and could create a barrier at grade for pedestrian crossings
13
Previously Recommended: Remove (Boulevard)
• Remove 6-lane Gardiner Expressway East
• New 8-lane Lake Shore Boulevard at grade
• New DVP on/off ramp connection at east end and new Gardiner
ramp at west end
• Boulevard lined with new trees, sidewalks, retail frontage
14
2014 PWIC Direction
March 4, 2014
15
PWIC Meeting and Deputations
•
•
Deputations made by the public, industry associations, stakeholders, property
owners, etc.
First Gulf (Unilever site developers) provided a concept for a 'hybrid' alternative that
maintains Gardiner west of Cherry and replaces it east of Cherry with a new
Gardiner-DVP connection
Summary of Deputations and Letters
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relying too heavily on assumption that transit will be in place
Lack of focus on movement of goods in EA
Impacts on access to goods, services and businesses
Increase in travel time is too high in Remove option
Removing the Gardiner will limit access to downtown core
Removing the Gardiner will increase pollution (from congestion)
Capacity must be maintained during construction
The kinds of buildings that abut the expressway west of Yonge are not compatible with
the East Bay Front Precinct
We believe that removal of this small section of the expressway will enable more
desirable development in our part of the city
16
Reduce the financial burden that the expressway puts on the whole City of Toronto
PWIC Referral Decision
PWIC Referral Decision:
1.
2.
Work with WT and community stakeholders to review the
recommended option [Remove] under the EA process to
mitigate congestion concerns;
Prepare an additional option that combines the maintain and
replace components to preserve expressway linkage and
functionality between the GE and the DVP, and evaluate it
against the EA criteria and the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transportation functionality;
Impacts on key economic sectors;
Cost benefit;
Future land use considerations;
Public transit components;
Environmental Impacts; and
Neighbourhood growth and compatibility
3. Report back in 2015
17
Hybrid & Remove (Boulevard)
• The evaluation is now focused on Hybrid & Remove
(Boulevard):
– The other alternatives were not recommended previously
– PWIC directed the team to investigate Hybrid and
Remove (Boulevard)
– Maintain remains the base case
• The evaluation is considering:
– Input received from public, stakeholders, & PWIC
deputations
– New employment lands development opportunity (e.g.
First Gulf)
– Goods Movement and Economic Competitiveness Studies
– EA Terms of Reference
18
New Work Undertaken
(in response to PWIC)
19
New Work Undertaken
What did we do?
1. Optimized the Remove (Boulevard) alternative to
improve auto travel times
2. Developed a Hybrid alternative
3. Studied Goods Movement & City Economic
Competitiveness impacts
4. Assessed and compared the Hybrid against the
previously recommend Remove (Boulevard)
alternative
20
Optimized Remove
(Boulevard)
21
Remove Description
• Removes 1.7 km of elevated
expressway and replace with
at-grade 8-lane tree lined Lake
Shore Blvd
• Removal of about 750 m (EB
lanes) and 850 m (WB lanes)
of the existing Logan on/off
ramps
• Removal of all road
infrastructure along Keating
Channel
• New DVP ramp connection
• New ramps at Jarvis Street
22
Remove (Boulevard)
23
Remove (Boulevard)
24
Remove (Boulevard)
25
Remove (Boulevard)
26
Remove (Boulevard)
27
Remove (Boulevard)
28
Remove (Boulevard)
29
Reducing Travel Time for the Remove
Alternative
• Optimization involved:
– Adjustments to traffic signal
operations/phasing
– Modifications to Lake Shore
Boulevard intersection
configurations (e.g. Jarvis SB
lane under rail pass becomes a
right turn lane and LSB WB right
turn lane added)
• The optimized Remove
alternative reduces the
additional travel time to 3-5
minutes from the previously
presented 5-10 minutes (AM
peak hour)
30
Hybrid Development
31
Proposed First Gulf Development
• Proposed large-scale office and retail development
• Development area includes land under control of
First Gulf (29 acres), as well as City works yards (20
acres) and private land parcels
• Potential employment centre and economic catalyst
• Strategic location close to rail, roads, future LRT and
trails
• Opportunity to connect site to Port Lands and South
of Eastern
32
First Gulf Hybrid Proposal (2014)
City Owned
Property
First Gulf
(Unilever) site
City Works Yard
Gardiner East EA – Scope Workshop
33
Study Area Considerations
City Stormwater
Quality Management
Facility
Rail Corridor/ Yards
Rail
Corridor
Bridge
Potential
Queens Quay
extension
Planned
public realm
space along
Keating
Channel
First Gulf
(Unilever)
Site
Planned Don River Sediment
Control Basin
Freeway
functionality/
connection 34
Hybrid Evolution
• A new DVP to Gardiner ramp alignment close to
rail tracks is not feasible due to:
– Safe ramp design speed
– City Stormwater facility
• It was determined that the current alignment of
the Gardiner/DVP ramps best satisfies the above
• No real benefit to removing and rebuilding a new
ramp in the same location, so use existing ramps
35
Hybrid Description
• Re-decks existing Gardiner
structure and retains DVP
ramps.
• Removes about 750 m (EB
lanes) and 850 m (WB lanes) of
the existing Logan on/off ramps.
• Adds 2 new ramps (2 lanes
each) in the Keating precinct:
– about 470 m new WB on-ramp
and
– about 425 m new EB off-ramp
• Includes new multi-use pathway
& some intersection
improvements.
36
Hybrid
Boulevard
37
Hybrid
Boulevard
38
Hybrid
Boulevard
39
Hybrid
Boulevard
40
Hybrid
Boulevard
41
Hybrid
Boulevard
42
Alternatives
Evaluation
43
EA Terms of Reference
Evaluation Approach
Environment
Urban Design
Economics
Transportation +
Infrastructure
• 4 Study Lenses
• 16 Criteria Groups
• 60 Measures
45
Hybrid and Remove
Existing
Hybrid
Remove
45
Transportation
&Infrastructure
Transportation Modeling - Transit Assumptions
• All alternatives require new transit to support planned
development in study area
• Transportation modeling assumes same new transit for all
alternatives
• SmartTrack, currently under study, would provide transit
benefit
Waterfront LRT
Extension
Relief Line
Broadview
LRT Extension
GO Service
Improvements
475
Transportation
&Infrastructure
Auto Travel Times
A
Projected Inbound Travel Times
AM Peak Hour Average
Victoria Park/Finch
2031
2031
2031
Base Case Hybrid Remove
A to D
52 min
+0 min +3 min
B to D
30 min
+0 min +3 min
C to D
23 min
+3 min +5 min
Victoria Park/Kingston
E to D
27 min
+0 min +3 min
C
B
Don Mills/Eglinton
D
Union Station
Kipling/Lake Shore
E
• 2031 Base case travel times are approximately five minutes higher than
current travel times due to growth in background traffic volumes.
47
Transportation
&Infrastructure
Safety
Hybrid
Remove (Boulevard)
• Free turn remains at Jarvis and
Gardiner overhead structure
continues to impact sight-lines in
LSB corridor
• Includes some intersection
improvements (e.g. Sherbourne St.
NB ramp channel removed)
• Gardiner sub-standard shoulder
configuration remains
• All free turns removed and all
sight-line obstructions eliminated.
• Improves all intersections
48
Transportation
&Infrastructure
Goods Movement Study
Concerns of Industrial and Manufacturing, Retail, Courier and Logistics
Companies:
• Road Capacity & Travel Time – Increased travel times will result in
greater impacts and operating and maintenance costs for trucks
• Reliability – Concern that greater travel time “buffer” will be required
• Alternate Routes – More vehicles on other City roads will impact
deliveries
• Impact of Construction – Concerns of significant congestion during
construction
• Safety – More trucks on our City streets could lead to more accidents
Study Summary:
•
•
•
•
The Port Lands generate high number of trucks in the City
Peak AM period is a heavy truck travel time – approx. 500 trucks/hr. on the
Gardiner (approximately half of what Hwy 401 carries)
80% of truck trips on East Gardiner either begin or end in the local area
The nature and extent of impact ultimately depends on the type of goods
shipped
49
Transportation
&Infrastructure
Construction
Carlaw
DVP
Cherry
Parliament
Sherbourne
Jarvis
Yonge
Hybrid
Remove (Boulevard)
• Close two Gardiner travel lanes at a time • Pre-build on/off ramps and re-align
for re-decking activities
Lake Shore (Cherry and DVP)
• Closures of Lake Shore at times during • Close and demolish eastbound then
re-decking activities.
westbound Gardiner travel lanes in
• Build new Keating on/off ramps and retwo stages, detour traffic, demolish
align Lake Shore
DVP ramps and Logan ramps
• Demolish Logan ramps and detour traffic • Six years of construction, including
• Six years of construction, including
approximately three to four years of
approximately one and a half years of
road detours
road detours (Logan Ramps)
50
Urban Design
Public Realm
Hybrid
Remove (Boulevard)
• East of Don River, a new open Boulevard • The entire corridor is opened up
is created with new public realm
creating a new attractive streetscape
• West of Cherry St. minimal
with new public realm
improvements to the attractiveness of • Additional public realm space created
the corridor
• Visual barriers largely removed
• For additional cost, aesthetic
enhancements could be made under the
structures of the elevated expressway
Lake Shore Blvd E @ Parliament St
University Ave @ Richmond St W
51
Urban Design
Pedestrian Experience- Existing (Maintain)
Boulevard
Hybrid
Lake Shore Blvd E/Gardiner Expressway @ Jarvis Street
52
Urban Design
Pedestrian Experience - Hybrid
Lake Shore Blvd E/Gardiner Expressway @ Jarvis Street
53
Urban Design
Pedestrian Experience - Remove
Boulevard
Hybrid
Lake Shore Blvd @ Jarvis Street
54
Urban Design
Planning – Built Form
• Both alternatives reduce highway ramps over the mouth of the Don River
• The Hybrid alternative requires two two-lane highway ramps east of
Cherry Street and a new access road along the Keating Channel, which
will reduce development area and may limit public use of the water’s
edge in the Keating Precinct
• The Hybrid alternative will require a review of the Keating Precinct Plan
• Both alternatives equally provide the necessary flexibility for achieving a
Broadview road and transit connection
• Both alternatives provide additional connections and better built form
interface between the Port Lands and Unilever precinct
• Both alternatives support development plans in the South of Eastern
and Port Lands areas (including First Gulf Site)
55
Urban Design
Planning – Built Form
Remove (Boulevard)
Hybrid
56
Urban Design
Planning – Don River
View Looking North Don River & Keating Channel
(Don Mouth Naturalization)
Hybrid
Remove (Boulevard)
57
Urban Design
Planning – Keating Channel
Hybrid
Hybrid
Existing
58
58
Urban Design
Planning – Keating Channel
Remove (Boulevard)
Existing
59
Costs1 (100 Year Lifecycle)
Economics
$1,000
$919M
$864M
(+/- 20%)
(+/- 10%)
Millions of $’s
$750
$505
$461M
$522
(+/- 20%)
$500
$135
$250
$414
$326
$342
$0
Hybrid
Remove (Boulevard)
Maintain
2013$’s (un-inflated)
Capital Estimate
Operations & Maintenance Estimate
1
All costs are high level order of magnitude prepared for comparative purposes only.
61
Costs1 (100 Year Lifecycle)
Economics
$1,000
Millions of $’s
$750
$500
$336M
$250
(+/- 20%)
$240M
$76
(+/- 20%)
$19
$415
$260
$291M
(+/- 10%)
$84
$221
$207
Remove (Boulevard)
Maintain
$0
Hybrid
Net Present Value
Capital Estimate
Operations & Maintenance Estimate
1
All costs are high level order of magnitude prepared for comparative purposes only.
62
Economics
Public Land Value Creation
• Remove would provide 12 additional acres of new
development land west of the Don River than Hybrid
provides – which could generate a potential for $100M to
$150M of additional public land sales revenue ($2013)
• East of Don River, both alternatives unlock First Gulf Site
development including City-owned parcels (20 acres)
62
Economics
Economic Competitiveness - Consultation
• Concerns of Think Tanks, Employers, Building Owners/Managers:
• Regional transit service is critical
• There is an increasing reliance of downtown employees using transit,
cycling and walking
• There is frustration with travel time and reliability when traveling
places within Downtown and the region
• The length and nature of road construction disruption is a major
concern
• Potential for impact on Downtown competitiveness given the highway
accessibility of other GTHA submarkets and their increasing amenities
• Increased travel times of the Remove alternative might decrease the
regional attractiveness of Downtown
63
Economics
Economic Competitiveness - Results
Study Findings:
1. Global Competitiveness:
• Toronto is ranked as one of the world’s most competitive cities; a
standing that is unlikely to be affected by either alternative.
• There are several criteria considered by third party
competitiveness studies – accessibility is an important criterion,
particularly access by public transit
2. Regional Economics:
• To remain competitive, Toronto needs to have a strong
transportation network that links the city, including the downtown
core, with neighbouring regions.
• The increase in vehicle travel time with the Remove alternative
may impact regional competitiveness.
• Removal of expressways in some other downtowns appears not to
have harmed their economic performance.
64
Economics
Economic Competitiveness - Results
Study Findings…/2:
3. Local Economics:
• Both alternatives complement development plans for Port Lands
and South of Eastern developments
• Increased development opportunities in the Remove alternative
along the Lake Shore Blvd corridor represent a positive economic
impact
• Removing the expressway connection could affect attractiveness
of the Port Lands for certain industries
Regarding construction:
• Construction period for both options is up to six years – this will
likely impact commerce
• The Remove alternative will have three to four years of road
detours and the Hybrid alternative will have one and a half years
of road detours.
65
Various
Other Evaluation Considerations
• Other criteria groups under consideration but not presented include:
• Transit – both alternatives facilitate new transit
• Pedestrians – most improvements to pedestrian environment with the
Remove
• Cycling – both include new east-west cycling facility
• Built Form – preference for Remove
• Natural Environment – both facilitate/improve Don Mouth
revitalization
• Cultural Resources – minor preference for Hybrid with expected less
impact on archaeological resources
• Social and Health – initial results suggest that noise and air effects
would be similar for both alternatives
66
Summary of Key Differences
Study Lens
Hybrid
•
Transportation
•
&
Infrastructure
•
•
Urban Design
Economics
•
•
•
Longer auto/Goods Movement travel time in
peak hour
No DVP/Gardiner direct expressway connection
Greater construction impact on traffic
(approximately 3-4 years of detours)
Complements development plans for Port
Lands & South of Eastern developments
(First Gulf) – requires review of Keating
Precinct Plan
Less public realm space created and less
quality of place along Lake Shore Blvd.
corridor
West of Cherry Street, active street
frontage along the corridor is unlikely
•
•
Complements Don Mouth naturalization
•
Complements Don Mouth naturalization
•
No impacts on City global or regional
economic competiveness
Less opportunity for economic
development in corridor
$336 M (NPV) $919 M ($2013)
•
No impact on City global economic competiveness
but could result in regional impacts
More opportunity for economic development in
corridor.
$240 M (NPV) $461M ($2013)
•
•
Environment
Shorter auto/Goods Movement travel
time in peak hour
Maintains DVP/Gardiner direct expressway
connection
Less construction impact on traffic
(approximately 1.5 years of detours)
Remove (Boulevard)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Complements Port Lands & South of Eastern
developments (First Gulf)
More public realm space created and more quality
of place along Lake Shore Blvd. corridor
More opportunity for new development in
corridor – more development in Keating
Allows for the creation of more active street
frontage along the corridor.
67
Evaluating the Alternatives
Both alternatives facilitate:
• Revitalization of the Don River Mouth and Flood Protection project
• Development of the First Gulf site
• Development of new public transit proposals
However, there are differences in the benefits between the two
alternatives, including:
• Hybrid maintains an expressway connection between the Gardiner
and Don Valley Parkway, has lower auto travel and goods movement
times, and less construction disruption
• Remove has a lower cost, higher revenue from public land
redevelopment, creates an animated Lake Shore Boulevard and
facilitates better connections to the waterfront
68
Next Steps
69
Making a Decision
•
•
•
•
Consultant’s EA Evaluation Report
City Staff Report
May 13 PWIC and June 10 City Council
Design options for preferred alternative:
•
•
•
Public Realm and functional aspects
Detailed construction implementation
Mitigation opportunities for preferred alternative:
•
•
•
•
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Corridor design improvements
Off-site improvements
Opportunities to accelerate construction and reduce user
impacts
• Submit EA report to Ministry of Environment
70
Project Schedule
Approved EA Terms of Reference
Public Ideas
Design Ideas
Your Ideas
2009
Public Meeting Jun 2013
Consult on Alternative Solutions
Public Meeting Oct 2013
Evaluate & Consult on Four Alternative Solutions
Public Meeting Feb 2014
Evaluate & Consult on Refined Solutions
Committee and City Council Approval
Develop & Consult on Alternative Designs
Submission to MOE
MOE Review & Decision
You are
here
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Winter 2016
2016 Onwards
Please Provide Your Feedback
• Public Works and Infrastructure Committee and
Toronto City Council will soon consider what to do
with the Gardiner East.
• Thinking about the results of the additional work
and updated evaluation...
– What are the most important considerations in
making this decision?
– What other advice do you have on making a decision
that involves finding a balance among priorities?
72
Get Involved
• Participate Online
GardinerEast.ca
• Phone 416-479-0662
• Email
info@gardinereast.ca
• Send us a letter
73
Thank you
74