Toronto: Gardiner Expressway Study

1. Toronto: Gardiner Expressway Study Paramics 2009 UGM: Newark October 5, 2009

2. Project Introduction • Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway • Elevated freeway through downtown Toronto • Lower Don Lands • Former industrial land redeveloped into residential and commercial uses • Gardiner is seen as a barrier to the redeveloped LDL • Investigate solutions

3. Project Introduction • Joint Clients • City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto • City owns the Gardiner • Waterfront Toronto is charged with revitalisation of the waterfront • Sensitive Project

4. Project Scope and Goals • $6M Planning and Design Study • Sub to Dillon Consulting • ~$300k Microsimulation budget • Investigate four design options for treatments east of Jarvis Street • Do Nothing, Ameliorate, Remove, Submerge • Five construction staging models • Goal is to investigate ways of reconnecting the redeveloped Lower Don Lands to the City

5. Microsimulation Model Area • 5 mi2 (13 km2) • Dense, urban development Dundas Spadina Woodbine

6. Methodology • Create existing conditions • Road selection • Zone system creation • Include transit and pedestrians • Matrix Estimation • Calibration / Validation • Alternative Testing • Construction Staging

7. Existing Conditions • Most roadways in study area • Arterial and up, some collectors, and few locals • Coding issues with Lake Shore Boulevard

8. Existing Conditions • Arup Model as a starting point • Approximately double model area JACOBS ARUP

9. Zone System • Layout zones on paper

10. Zone System • Simple one zone per block with access to all roads • Simplifies creation and coding • Makes for very difficult matrix estimation

11. Zone System • One zone per connector on each block face • Allows maximum control • Model becomes unwieldy with so many zones

12. Existing Conditions • Transit • Streetcars • Spadina and Queens Quay – Median-running • Other streets – In mixed traffic • Buses • Subway • Not included in our model • Pedestrians • Taken only from Arup model, no new ped work

13. Streetcar Coding • Spadina and Queens Quay • Median-running • Median Lane Operation • Paramics limitation that similar movements must be in adjacent lanes • This is an issue where the transit vehicle through lane is adjacent to a left-turn lane • Fortunately, coding the through movement in the transit lane as ‘barred’ works perfectly • Transit vehicle moves with normal traffic ‘through’ green

14. Streetcar Coding • Remainder of Streetcar network is in mixed traffic • Typically runs in the left-hand lane of a two-lane per direction facility • Congestion issues due to frequent stops • Both lanes in the streetcar travel direction must stop when loading/unloading passengers • New feature built into Paramics STOP

15. Matrix Estimation • Counts • Travel Demand Model O/D data • Screenlines

16. Matrix Estimation • Issues • Estimation of congested conditions • Counts at congested locations are less useful • Use counts upstream of issues to help estimate demand • Grid network adds to the challenge • Many parallel routes and relatively short blocks

17. Calibration / Validation • Counts • Travel Times • Screenlines • Major Queue Locations • Gardiner and on/off ramps

18. Calibration/Validation • Issues • Major queues on Gardiner • WB in PM, EB in AM • Replication of WB queue may require network extension or link speed modification at external station STUDY AREA CONGESTION SOURCE

19. Future Alternatives • Do Nothing • Ameliorate EASTERN JARVIS • Remove (bring to ground) • Submerge

20. Construction Staging • With a preferred alternative selected • Build a series of 5 incremental networks that take the geometry to the final design • Stages given to us for analysis • Provide results and recommendations

21. Conclusions • Most challenging work will be: • Matrix Estimation • Calibration / Validation • Questions or Comments? • Adam Lanigan adam.lanigan@jacobs.com