Advertisement

Keeping Gardiner as-is may no longer be a viable option, study says

WATCH ABOVE: City Councillor and TPW Chair Jaye Robinson told reporters on Wednesday that public consultations were underway to decide the future of the 2.4 kilometre stretch of the Gardiner Expressway

TORONTO – A new report on the future of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway suggests maintaining the aging highway is longer be an option.

City studies released Wednesday afternoon include two staff suggestions: Remove the 1.7-kilometre elevated portion of the Gardiner east of Jarvis and replace it with an eight-lane boulevard; or replacing the crumbling deck of that portion, demolishing existing on- and off-ramps and building new ones between the Don River and Cherry Street.

The proposed boulevard would also feature sidewalks lined with trees and retail stores. Removing that 1.7-kilometre section of the Gardiner, the study says, could generate up to $150 million in the sale of unlocked land. It would also add three to five minutes of travel time during morning rush hour.

Story continues below advertisement

The other option would also slow travel times, but not for as many motorists.

Maintaining the Gardiner is technically an option, the study found. And while the final product would be less disruptive to travel times, it would be so expensive it makes little economic sense.

Removing the Gardiner is by far the most cost-effective option, at $461 million, compared to $919 million for the hybrid option and $864 million to keep the aging roadway as-is.

READ MORE: Global’s Gardiner investigation

Artist’s rendering of the “remove” option, from city report.
Artist’s rendering of the “hybrid” option, from city report.

The first round of public consultations on the Gardiner’s fate were to be held Wednesday evening at 6:30 p.m. at the Toronto Reference Library. Public feedback will be included in a report that will go before the Public Works Committee on May 13 before going to City council June 10.

Story continues below advertisement

Two years ago, when Global News investigated problems with the Gardiner Expressway, city staff pointed up – to where the structure near Cherry Street was partly held up with wood.

Breaking news from Canada and around the world sent to your email, as it happens.

At that time, according to John Kelly, then Acting Director of Design and Construction for the City of Toronto’s Technical Services, the wooden bracing, “just provides additional support in that area to ensure that there is no possibility of a failure on the deck surface.”

The possibility of structural failure was outlined in a November 2011 engineering report.

Inspectors found that the concrete deck surface “had deteriorated to the point where it could easily be removed by hand or with small hand tools.”

As such, they warned of the possibility of a “punch-through” of the deck, which is exactly what it sounds like: A car or truck driving on top could break a hole clear through the bridge.

Although it’s very unlikely a hole would be big enough for a whole car to drop through, even a small hole could cause major disruption on the roadway, not to mention risks to public safety.

Back in 2012, Kelly pointed out that a lane of the eastern Gardiner had been closed and the street lamps moved onto the deck, because the crumbling bridge wall was too weak to hold the posts.

Story continues below advertisement

At least four pieces of concrete have fallen from the Gardiner between Jarvis Street and Logan Avenue since 2009, most recently in March. City crews also regularly scraped loose concrete off the bridge before it had a chance to fall.

So the city doesn’t have much time to make up its mind.

In December 2012, John Kelly told council that the deck of the Gardiner is “reaching the end of its service life.”

“It’s simply a matter of age,” he said at the time. “Regardless of the amount of repair work you put into it in that time period, eventually you will have to replace it.”

The graphic below shows issues with the Gardiner Expressway between 2009 and the fall of 2012. The information came from a Freedom of Information request to the City of Toronto.

Advertisement

Sponsored content

AdChoices