Gardiner East Environmental Assessment Summary
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•306 vues
This document summarizes a study of alternatives for reconfiguring the Gardiner Expressway East and Lake Shore Boulevard in Toronto. Four alternatives are considered: Maintain, Improve, Replace, and Remove the existing elevated expressway structure. The alternatives are evaluated based on transportation infrastructure, urban design, environmental, economic, and other criteria. Preliminary results indicate that completely Removing the expressway scores highest, while Maintaining the existing structure scores lowest. Next steps include developing and consulting on hybrid proposals and alternative designs before selecting a final recommended option.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Gardiner East Environmental Assessment Summary
Similaire à Gardiner East Environmental Assessment Summary (20)
Plus de WaterfrontTO
Plus de WaterfrontTO (9)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Gardiner East Environmental Assessment Summary
- 1. Gardiner East Gardiner Expressway East & Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment & Urban Design Study 1
- 2. What area are we studying? 2
- 3. Gardiner East Passes Through Five Emerging Neighborhoods 3 2.4km 2.4km - Gardiner Expressway East Elevated Structure e.g. King to Bloor 4.2km – Lake Shore Blvd E (Yonge to Leslie) e.g. Ossington to Jarvis Lower Yonge East Bayfront Keating Port Lands South Riverdale
- 4. Case Studies 4 • A number of cities (e.g. New York, San Francisco, Seoul) have removed urban expressways with positive neighborhood and real estate benefits • Remove options are typically around $100 million/ kmremove replace improve maintain • A number of cities (e.g. Boston, Seattle) have elected to replace elevated expressways with below grade tunnels • Boston replaced expressway with an street level park • Tunnel options are typically more than $1 billion/ km • A number of cities (e.g. New York, Louisville) have invested in improved lighting and public realm to reduce impact of overhead expressways • Costs range widely depending if structure is in need of repair • Many cities (e.g. Buffalo, Washington) have invested in rehabilitating elevated expressways as functional single use infrastructure • Costs range widely depending on type of construction and local conditions.
- 5. Maintain Improve Replace Remove Equally Preferred City Rank CDB Through Highways New York 1 Remove Chicago 9 Never Built Toronto 10 Under Study Washington 14 Maintain Los Angeles 17 Maintain San Francisco 18 Remove Boston 19 Replace Houston 27 Maintain Vancouver 28 Never Built Dallas 32 Maintain Atlanta 33 Maintain Seattle 35 Replace Montréal 36 Under Study Miami 40 Maintain Philadelphia 48 Improve Citigroup/ Economist Competitiveness Ranking (North American Cities on World List) 2013 5 Economic Competitiveness & Downtown HighwaysEconomics
- 6. Environment Urban Design Transportation + Infrastructure Economics Evaluation Approach • 4 Study Lenses • 16 Criteria Groups • 60 Measures • Comparison of Relative Advantages & Disadvantages for each Criteria group
- 7. 7 4 Alternative SolutionsUrban Design Maintain Replace Improve Remove Lake Shore Blvd E @ Sherbourne St
- 9. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1975 1981 1985 1991 1995 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 TotalTrips AM Peak Hour Inbound to Downtown Auto (Gardiner Westbound @ DVP) Auto (Gardiner Eastbound @ Bathurst) Auto (All Other Routes) TTC Transit GO Transit Walk/ Cycle Projection Actual Transportation Demand Growth 9 +115,500 Total +157,200 Total +237,900 Total 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
- 10. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Trips Capacity Across the Don River Auto Transit (Existing) Transit (Planned) 10 Transportation Network CapacityTransportation &Infrastructure 2031 Future Total Demand Maintain Improve Replace Remove Equally Preferred 10 Source: AM Peak Hour Westbound at Don River Transportation Cordon (Lake Shore to Bloor): 1) Transportation Model EMME2 Forecast (2011-2031); 2) 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) for Walk/Cycle Mode and Other Data; and 3) Employment/ Population City's Flash Forward Report (2011-2031).
- 11. 11 Downtown vs Through Trips (AM Peak Hour Eastbound) Spadina/ York- Bay-Yonge 3,000 54% Jarvis/ Sherbourne 1,400 25% DVP 900 16% Lake Shore 350 6% Eastbound @ Dufferin 5,650 Per Hour 5,650 2,600 1,200 Gardiner East Study Area Source: AM Peak Hour Survey Results (2010 Origin/ Destination Survey)
- 12. 12 Downtown vs Through Trips (AM Peak Hour Westbound) Jarvis/ Sherbourne 500 7% DVP 4,500 Per Hour Lake Shore 2,900 Per Hour Spadina/ Yonge-Bay-York 2,600 35% To Dufferin/427 1,550 21% Lake Shore 700 9% 4,500 1,550 Gardiner East Study Area Richmond 1,800 24% 2,700 Source: AM Peak Hour Survey Results (2010 Origin/ Destination Survey)
- 13. Maintain Improve Replace Remove Preferred Moderate Preferred Moderate Preferred Less Preferred B C Victoria Park/Finch Union Station Kipling/Lake Shore Victoria Park/Kingston Don Mills/Eglinton A D 13 Peak Hour Auto Travel TimesTransportation &Infrastructure E Actual & Projected Inbound Travel Times AM Peak Hour Average 2001 2012 2031 Maintain 2031 Improve 2031 Replace 2031 Remove A to D 40 min 45 min 50 min 55 min 55 min 60 min B to D 20 min 25 min 30 min 35 min 35 min 40 min C to D 20 min 20 min 25 min 25 min 30 min 30 min E to D 25 min 25 min 25 min 30 min 30 min 30 min
- 15. Over three decades, New York City transformed its West Side Highway into a surface boulevard. Case Study – Route 9A New York
- 16. Growth on the West Side has outpaced the rest of New York City. -1% 2% 4% Rent Jobs NYC MSA NYC West Side -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 MSA San Francisco Embarcadero Population growth by decade Average quarter-over-quarter rent growth, 1996-2013; Job growth, 2002-2012; Vacancy, 1996-2013 0% 10% 20% 30% 19963Q 19973Q 19983Q 19993Q 20003Q 20013Q 20023Q 20033Q 20043Q 20053Q 20063Q 20073Q 20083Q 20093Q 20103Q 20113Q 20123Q 20133Q West Side Case Study – Route 9A New York NYC MSA West SideNYC
- 17. ConstructionTransportation &Infrastructure Replace (8 years) • Close Gardiner/ Lake Shore corridor for majority of construction (8yrs) • Construct new structure Remove (6 years) • Pre-build on/off ramps and re-align Lake Shore (Cherry and DVP) • Close 3 Gardiner travel lanes in two stages and demolish (3yrs) • Complete Lake Shore between Jarvis and Cherry Yonge Jarvis Sherbourne Parliament Cherry DVP Carlaw Maintain (6 years) • Close 2 Gardiner travel lanes (6yrs) • Demolish and rebuild deck in segments • Closure of Lake Shore travel lanes at times Improve (6 years) • Close 2 Gardiner travel lanes (6yrs) • Demolish and rebuild deck in segments • Closure of Lake Shore travel lanes at times 17 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Preferred Preferred Less Preferred Moderate Preferred
- 18. • The intersections of LSB/ Jarvis; LSB/ Sherbourne and LSB/Don Roadway are among the top 20% in the city of intersections on major urban arterial roads in terms of number of collisions between 2007 and 2011. 18 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Moderate Preferred Preferred Preferred SafetyTransportation &Infrastructure Road Segments (along Lake Shore) Collisions 2007-2011 Yonge to Jarvis 86 Jarvis to Sherbourne 128 Don Rd to Carlaw 82 Intersections (along Lake Shore) Collisions 2007-2011 Jarvis 278 Sherbourne 92 Don Rd 149 Carlaw 161
- 19. • Currently about 10 turning restrictions in the corridor • Improve alternative will reduce the number of restricted turns to between 3 and 6 • Replace and Remove will have no or limited turning restrictions thus improving local access to/ from the downtown core 19 Turning RestrictionsTransportation &Infrastructure Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Moderate Preferred Preferred Lake Shore Blvd E @ Sherbourne St
- 20. Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Moderate Preferred Preferred Preferred Pedestrian CrossingsTransportation &Infrastructure 20 • Existing crossing are interrupted by free-turn lanes • Improve eliminates most free- turn lanes and regularizes intersections • Remove has a shorter crosswalk walking distance than University Ave (46m) • Crossing distances vary widely amongst all the options, while the majority of pedestrians can cross the corridor in one stage in all four alternatives Lake Shore E @ Cherry St University Avenue @ Queen St Crossing Distances Maintain Improve Replace Remove 35-45.4m 35-42.4m 22.5m 38m
- 21. Maintain, Improve, Replace • 4-5 stories of garages and garage entrances, limited retail opportunities, few pedestrians Remove • Ground floor retail, shops, office/ residential lobbies, patios and greater pedestrian activity • Remove creates the most opportunities for active pedestrian spaces such as outdoor patios Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Less Preferred Less Preferred Preferred Street FrontsEconomics 21 Spadina Ave @ Richmond St W East of Bay St along Lake Shore E
- 22. Consistency with Official PlanUrban Design 22 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Less Preferred Moderate Preferred Preferred Maintain Improve Replace Remove Removing Barriers Least Least Somewhat Most Building a Network of Spectacular Waterfront Parks and Public Spaces Least Least Somewhat Most Promoting a Clean and Green Environment Least Least Somewhat Most Creating Dynamic and Diverse New Communities Least Least Least Most Central Waterfront Secondary Plan Principles
- 23. 23 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Moderate Preferred Moderate Preferred Preferred Social & HealthEnvironment Maintain Improve Replace Remove Noise Level (Decibles dBA) 69-78 68-78 67-77 61-70 Local Air Quality (NOx emissions t/yr) 336 335 313 300 Local AQ (PM2.5 emissions t/yr ) 32.5 30 29 27.4 Regional Air Quality Burden 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.24% Regional Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) 0.28% to 0.29% 0.24% View from South Riverdale Looking WestSource: Air Quality, Noise and Greenhouse Gas Modeling for Gardiner East EA Project
- 24. $0 $250 $500 $750 $1,000 $1,250 $1,500 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Lifecycle Cost (Capital, Operations & Maintenance) Total Capital Cost Estimate (NPV) Total Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate (NPV) $0 $250 $500 $750 $1,000 $1,250 $1,500 Maintain Improve Replace Remove Lifecycle Cost (Capital, Operations & Maintenance) Capital Cost Estimate Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate $70 $50 $20 $90 Maintain* Improve Replace Remove Millionsof$’s $300M (+/- 10%) $360M (+/- 20%) $700M (+/- 20%) Maintain Improve Replace Remove Moderate Preferred Moderate Preferred Less Preferred Preferred Costs (100 Year Lifecycle)Economics 24 $410 $970 $455 $420 $330 $1,390M (+/- 20%) $470M (+/- 20%) $140 $870M (+/- 10%) $865M (+/- 20%) *Capital cost for Maintain includes: 1) $215M for Jarvis to DVP Ramps; 2) $105M for Transitions (Yonge to Jarvis & DVP Ramps); 3) $25M for Don Mouth Naturalization at Lake Shore and Don River Bridge $240M (+/- 20%) Net Present Value 2013$’s Capital Estimate Capital Estimate Operations & Maintenance Estimate Operations & Maintenance Estimate $128 $90 $215 $290 $70 $525 $650 $50 $220 $20 $130 $82
- 25. Maintain Improve Replace Remove Less Preferred Less Preferred Moderate Preferred Preferred Revenues from Public Land SalesEconomics Maintain Improve Replace Remove New Development Parcels (Acres) 0 0 5 10 New Development Area (Gross Square Feet) 0 0 1,900,000 2,800,000 New Revenue from Public Land Sales (NPV) 0 $2M $65-70M $80-90M New Revenue from Public Land Sales (2013$) 0 $3M $150-160M $220-$240M
- 26. 26 Preliminary Evaluation Results Study Lens/ Criteria Group Summary MAINTAIN IMPROVE REPLACE REMOVE TRANSPORTATION& INFRASTRUCTURE Automobiles Transit Pedestrians Cycling Movement of Goods Safety Constructability URBAN DESIGN Planning Public Realm Built Form ENVIRONMENT Social & Health Natural Environment Cultural Resources ECONOMICS Regional Economics Local Economics Direct Cost and Benefit Preferred Moderately Preferred Least Preferred
- 27. Hybrid Proposal
- 28. Consult on Alternative Solutions Next Steps … Public Meeting Oct 16, 2013 Mar 4, 2014 2014/ 2015 MOE Review & Decision 2015/ 2016 Onwards 2015 Evaluate & Consult on Four Alternative Solutions Public Works & Infrastructure Committee Review Develop & Consult on Alternative Designs City Council Approval & Submission to MOE Public Meeting Jun 13, 2013 2009Approved EA Terms of Reference Public Meeting Feb 6, 2014 Further Study & Stakeholder Consultation on Congestion, Goods Movement, Hybrid Alternative Summer & Fall 2014
Notes de l'éditeur
- Environmental Assessment looking at 2.4km elevated structure Total Study Area extents from approximately Jarvis St to Leslie St (4.2km) Gardiner East represents 13% of the total 18km length of the expressway from 427 to DVP Why just the east end? Less Volume No ramps TOR set out only east end would be considered Unlock development opportunities Not looking to extend EA beyond Jarvis
- In all four options being studied for the Gardiner East assumes existing plans for waterfront revitalization will go forward. The Gardiner EA east will coordinate with all projects including precint plans for East Bayfront, Keating Channel, Port Lands, Lower Don Lands, etc. Don Mouth Naturalization
- … parks, amenities are have been built for all city residents and visitors Waterfront revitalization New communities Jobs
- 7 Cities Maintain/ Improve 6 Cities Never Built/ Remove/ Replace
- Iterative process to assess issues, opportunities and inform policy development with other City divisions, including: Heritage, Parks, Economic Development, Toronto Water and Strategic Initiatives, Policy and Analysis – Affordable Housing and Community Services and Facilities. TDSB Integrate the recommendations of the Urban Design and Transportation work with development of a policy framework to inform the context for the review of development applications
- Describe the area that “Downtown” refers to
- Inbound trips to downtown projected to grow by 80,000 which is 50% (2011-2031) Volume of Gardiner East has been relatively flat since 1975 Gardiner East today carries 4,350 trips of the 157,903 total trips downtown (3.3%) Population grew by 50% and Employment by 15% (1991-2011) Population and employment expected to grow by 30% by 2031.
- Significant increase in the capacity to move people. Some options include a reduction in the capacity for vehicles This slide illustrates the existing and future auto and transit capacity to move people at the east end of the study area You will notice a significant increase in future transit capacity for all options over existing conditions to help accommodate the increase in demand You will also notice a modest decrease in capacity for the Improve and Replace alternatives; and a slightly larger decrease for the remove option. The decreases come on the road side with the changes to Lakeshore and the Gardiner; transit capacity is up for all alternatives almost 40% over existing conditions The available capacity exceeds forecasted demand for all Alternatives so commuters have a choice to switch to other modes or to avoid travelling by car in the peak hour to avoid congestion
- Values in this diagram represent the average travel time. Actual travel times will vary throughout the peak travel period.
- Values in this diagram represent the average travel time. Actual travel times will vary throughout the peak travel period.
- City has significant experience in the area Experience from 1999 takedown of the Stump Estimated construction schedule Given the area has relatively few existing residents or employment destinations, diversions will impact less people
- More “eyes on the street” reduce actual crime and increase residents’s sense of security.
- This table considers all vehicles assigned by the Paramics transportation model to any route in any direction.
- Replace & Remove produces surplus land for development. 2,000,000 sq ft and 3,000,000 sq ft respectively. Replace & Remove increases land value along the corridor (3% - 4%)
- Remove is preferred for the greatest number of criteria/measures It is generally preferred from an Urban Design, Environment and Cost/Economics perspective Remove best meets the objectives of the Central Waterfront Plan – it will transform the corridor & best facilitates growth in the Waterfront And while it accommodates pedestrian and cyclists, it will result in higher auto times – up to 10 min more on average – affecting about 10% of peak hr. commuters to downtown This is the key trade-off in the decision We want to know what the community thinks about the Remove alternative?
- Iterative process to assess issues, opportunities and inform policy development with other City divisions, including: Heritage, Parks, Economic Development, Toronto Water and Strategic Initiatives, Policy and Analysis – Affordable Housing and Community Services and Facilities. TDSB Integrate the recommendations of the Urban Design and Transportation work with development of a policy framework to inform the context for the review of development applications