water)?
A: First of all, the viaduct proposed is not a suspension bridge. The
superstructure (or deck) of a suspension bridge is supported by vertical
cables that are, then, sustained by a large arched main cable hanging from
the top of the pylons. The superstructure of a cable-stayed bridge or
viaduct is supported by diagonal cables in direct tension to the pylons.
Cable-stayed structures are becoming popular in today's bridge construction,
because they are one of the most cost-effective methods of building long
elevated spans, in terms of time of construction and use of materials. It
has also the advantage of being more aesthetically pleasing than other types
of bridges.
A second reason for choosing a cable-stayed structure to replace the aging
Gardiner Expressway, is to prevent enormous disruptions to existing train
and automobile traffic. The pylons supporting the superstructure will have
an A-shape, so its foundations straddle rail traffic in the corridor. The
existing expressway functions normally until the viaduct opens. Also, the
construction method uses balanced cantilever systems, allowing for elevated
cast-in-place construction, or for assembly of pre-cast sections.
Q: Why not just bury the Gardiner?
A: It will be comparatively more expensive to bury an expressway than to
build a viaduct. For example, in the year 2000, a proposed replacement of
the elevated Gardiner Expressway with a four-lane 1.3 km tunnel between
Strachan Ave. and Spadina Rd., had an estimated cost of $1.8 billion. They
also proposed tolls to finance this project, therefore making it extremely
unpopular, since the plan didn't relieve traffic congestion. If we want to
increase capacity, as the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct proposes, with a
tunnel-like structure along the six kilometres between Dufferin Street and
the Don Valley Parkway, then the final cost is estimated to be in excess of
$10 billion. Tunnel construction would also be too disruptive to traffic in
the central waterfront area, given construction could take up to 8 years to
complete.
Q: Why not just charge a toll to cars entering downtown in order to reduce
traffic in downtown?
A: In London, UK, there are a number of reports indicating a significant
reduction of commercial activity (down 9%) within the London Congestion
Charge Zone during the first year of tolls. After the third year of
implementation 84.2% of surveyed merchants located inside the Congestion
Charge Zone said their sales have declined; while 33% of these merchants
are considering relocating, and 28% are considering closing their business
due to the charging scheme (source: London Chamber of Commerce). After the
London experience, the residents of Edinburgh, Scotland's capital, voted 74%
against a similar congestion charge scheme for their city in a public
referendum on February 2005.
In Toronto, there are already reports indicating a relocation of Head
offices outside of downtown due to two major reasons: higher taxes and
increasing traffic congestion.
By imposing an extra toll, with no improvements on road capacity, we will
effectively be charging an added cost with dubious benefits to downtown
businesses, employees, and their clients and customers.
Q: By increasing road capacity aren't we automatically increasing
traffic congestion?
A: That is a myth spread by anti-road activists. When there is an increase
on highway capacity, the traffic increase on those routes typically comes
from local (street) traffic ... so an increase in road capacity can and
does help relieve congestion, and improve safety on local roads. For
example, the opening of Highway 407, north of Toronto, effectively reduced
congestion on Steeles Avenue, Highway 7, the Q.E.W. (along Burlington and
Oakville) and on Highways 401 and 403. Traffic on Highway 407 has increased
in the last years due to new development in its vicinity, but every time
its lane capacity is increased, traffic on the highway is relieved.
Rapid transit alternatives should also be developed, especially in high
density areas. There has to be a balanced transportation plan that
contemplates improvements for all four modes of urban transportation:
driving, transit, walking and biking. And that is the spirit behind the
Toronto Waterfront Viaduct.
Q: Where are the access points and exits for cars, rapid transit, bicycles
and pedestrians in the proposed viaduct plan?
A: Due to the plane of stayed cables, and the lanes for rapid transit at
each side of the viaduct, the expressway's right lane/lanes will have to
drop below the deck, turning underneath the other lanes, and connecting to
the surface road network. Alternatively, in some areas the plane of cables
can be placed along the median. The ramps connect to roads parallel to the
viaduct, therefore preventing a build-up of stopped traffic into the
viaduct (as currently happens on the Gardiner's eastbound ramps).
Rapid transit will be accessible at the stations located on the pylons.
These stations will be located at approximately 1 km. from each other.
Also, the deck of the complete viaduct is intended to run just above the
trains and the bridges crossing over the rail corridor. Therefore, the
difference in elevation from the street level will be similar or less to
the difference in elevation between the street level and the existing
Yonge-University line subway platforms. Bicycle and pedestrian
accesses to the deck will be located through each pylon, or through the
proposed skyPATH.
Q: Will any of the rail lines have to be re-worked in order to accommodate
the supports?
A: Despite the A-shape of the pylons sitting on the sides of the rail
corridor, there might be some rail line design accommodation required.
However, it will be minimal, and mostly limited to some areas between
Bathurst St. and Spadina Rd.
Q: How many residential units could a pylon accommodate?
A: That will depend on the developer and the pylons' design. But expect
something similar to a typical 120 m. high residential tower.
Q: How long would it take for the construction to be completed?
A: It is expected to last 2-3 years with minimum disruption to the current
road and train traffic patterns.
Q: What about the plans to build a subway below Queen Street?
A: The Queen St. subway is a project that will,probably need to be completed
within the next 10-15 years. However, due to the current trend of high-rise
construction along Lakeshore Blvd., an LRT closer to this area is becoming
more urgent. Additionally, an LRT along the rail corridor can be further
connected to the Bloor-Danforth subway line, creating an effective downtown
transit relief line.
