News   Jul 19, 2024
 107     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 695     4 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 405     1 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)

The easiest thing to do is simply take a poll on what Torontonians want. It's already over budget and with demands for money from every area of the city and Torontonians not willing to tax themselves at appropriate levels, it should be presented that the city can no longer afford the project. This with it still being an eyesore and costing {with the DVP} tens of millions per year, present people with an option.............either it goes ahead as a blvd or the remaining portion is tunneled with all infrastructure and ongoing maintenance costs being covered by a $3.50 toll ...........the same as a TTC. ticket.

Let the people decide because in such a scenario, Toronto is a winner no matter what happens because either way it gets rid of eyesore.
 
The ship has probably sailed. Trying to tear down the Gardiner while building the Ontario Line and before GO is geared up to be a true regional express is untenable. Which sadly boots the question a couple of decades down the road. Nice legacy, John Tory,
 
Last edited:
You both realize that Toronto is a city with barely any transit alternatives right?

What do you expect that everyone would magically funnel to the Bloor-Danforth line and/or Lakeshore lines and the rest of the city's arterial routes would be unscathed? Just look at how much of a zoo it is when the city shuts down the Gardiner for it's annual cleaning and tell us all it's a good idea to "tear the thing down from the Ex to DVP".

I myself dont drive in the city and heavily rely on the transit system, and I realize how shortsighted and boneheaded it would be to teardown significant stretches of the Gardiner.

I don't expect that the other routes would be "unscathed." I also don't care that it would be "a zoo." People will adjust their behaviour to the new reality. If the area where the expressway is now was replaced with pedestrian friendly streets and more dense housing and retail, schools, etc. it would be a better overall outcome than a sprawling region of car-dependant built form. Traffic is bad BECAUSE there is a road, not because there are not enough roads. The Gardiner and other highways ALLOWED us to build sprawl by creating car-centric infrastructure to subsidize the suburbs.

The shape has probably sailed. Trying to tear down the Gardiner while building the Ontario Line and before GO is geared up to be a true regional express is untenable. Which sadly boots the question a couple of decades down the road. Nice legacy, John Tory,

Arguably, the ship sailed in 1998 with Mike Harris' soft coup of amalgamation. And yes, I know this is not politically popular and would face major push back, but it's my opinion that it would be better for the city finances, better for the environment, better for everyone in the long run. The best time to do the right thing is now.
 
I don't expect that the other routes would be "unscathed." I also don't care that it would be "a zoo." People will adjust their behaviour to the new reality. If the area where the expressway is now was replaced with pedestrian friendly streets and more dense housing and retail, schools, etc. it would be a better overall outcome than a sprawling region of car-dependant built form. Traffic is bad BECAUSE there is a road, not because there are not enough roads. The Gardiner and other highways ALLOWED us to build sprawl by creating car-centric infrastructure to subsidize the suburbs.
Ok, so people will somehow adjust to not being able to commute with endless commute times once that whole stretch of the Gardiner from the Ex to DVP is torn down in your vision?

Makes great sense to me, in that case let's do it tomorrow.
 
Ok, so people will somehow adjust to not being able to commute with endless commute times once that whole stretch of the Gardiner from the Ex to DVP is torn down in your vision?

Makes great sense to me, in that case let's do it tomorrow.
What tends to happen is people change commute modes so that travel times equalize. A lot of the traffic will evaporate. Reducing the flow of cars into downtown ought to reduce congestion there as well.
 
Ok, so people will somehow adjust to not being able to commute with endless commute times once that whole stretch of the Gardiner from the Ex to DVP is torn down in your vision?

Makes great sense to me, in that case let's do it tomorrow.
In the case of the Gardiner east, I believe the "hybrid" and remove options have the same number of lanes (maybe 1 less per direction), so it's not really a huge difference in capacity. However, it's worth noting that there is precedent for traffic evaporation in other cities. The embarcadero freeway and West Side highway in new york had no replacement for the vehicle lanes when they came down and traffic was a non issue despite predictions to the contrary. People just found a different way.
 
What tends to happen is people change commute modes so that travel times equalize. A lot of the traffic will evaporate. Reducing the flow of cars into downtown ought to reduce congestion there as well.
In speaking about the Gardiner from the Ex to the DVP in specific (as was mentioned by @milkycontent), take that stretch down and think as to where all that traffic would "evaporate" to.

1) Lake Shore Blvd (which is already a zoo)
2) Queen St/The Queensway (which cant absorb any kind of serious traffic flow especially with King St converted)
3) Bloor St/Danforth Ave (which cant handle serious crosstown traffic as evidenced when the Bloor-Danforth line is shutdown)
4) Richmond/Adelaide (wont even get started on those because they cant handle heavier traffic flows)
5) Milton GO line (already at near capacity with limited peak only runs)
6) Lakeshore West/East GO line (yes can absorb additional ridership for those who could actually reach GO stations easily)
7) Bloor-Danforth line (yes can absorb some additional ridership)

So as you can see there's only really 2 viable alternatives that one would seriously consider, both of which woudlnt be able to handle the levels of pressure from removing the Gardiner in the specific noted section I was addressing.

In the case of the Gardiner east, I believe the "hybrid" and remove options have the same number of lanes (maybe 1 less per direction), so it's not really a huge difference in capacity. However, it's worth noting that there is precedent for traffic evaporation in other cities. The embarcadero freeway and West Side highway in new york had no replacement for the vehicle lanes when they came down and traffic was a non issue despite predictions to the contrary. People just found a different way.
It's an apples to orange comparison. New York has mass transit everywhere, Toronto doesnt. There are many alternatives in New York, whereas again there are barely any in Toronto.
 
If they are getting rid of the Scarborough Rapid Transit Line (Line 3), we can get rid of the Gardiner Expressway.
Only they are not removing line 3. But rather they are building an underground replacement and in the same time expanding the capacity of a near parallel Go service.

This is the equivalent of burying the gardiner under ground and in the same time expanding the lakeshore to 8 lanes in each direction.

I am ok with this option if the downtown is as well.
 
Last edited:
The Gardiner is moving, generously, 6k people per direction per hour, or the equivalent of a poorly used LRT line.
It is removing 6K people who has otherwise no connection to the downtown. It is there not to serve those who are well served by transit, but rather those who are not.

Building a transit line for those 6K people per hour would cost much more than to maintaining the highway.
 
Sadly there are thousands of suburban voters that feel it is their god given right to drive downtown without traffic in 1 and 2 occupant vehicles along highways that closely trace public transit routes. And to oppose that selfishness you get called a communist.
I am in agreement that the downtown should fund subways with stops every 500 meters to all suburbs of Toronto.

Will you run for mayor and make this happen?

Alternatively, I am also ok if you propose to ensure that the cost of building and operating transit downtown is entirely paid for by the homes that are located within a 15 minute walk to the transit lines. If you offer to pay for the transit that only you receive a benefit for, and reimburse the suburbs for the taxes that they had paid to fund your transit lines, then that will be acceptable as well.
 
Last edited:
Only they are not removing line 3. But rather they are building an underground replacement and in the same time expanding the capacity of a near parallel Go service.

This is the equivalent of burying the gardiner under ground and in the same time expanding the lakeshore to 8 lanes in each direction.

I am ok with this option if the downtown is as well.
Except that Line 3 is closing Q4 2023. The Line 2 extension is expected to open by 2030, seven years from now. In the interim, accessible interim bus service will have to be used.
 
Coming to Council next week - I doubt it will pass but..

MM5.33 - Getting the Gardiner Right: Moving Forward with a New Study on Better Options for the Gardiner East - by Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Amber Morley​

Notice of Motion
Consideration Type: ACTIONWards: All
Attention
* Notice of this Motion has been given.
* This Motion is subject to referral to the Executive Committee. A two-thirds vote is required to waive referral.

Recommendations​

Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Amber Morley, recommends that:

1. City Council request the General Manager, Transportation Services, to temporarily pause entering the City of Toronto into new contractual obligations regarding the Gardiner East of Jarvis, given that no new construction is scheduled until 2026, to allow for a comprehensive report, in consultation with the City Planning, Housing Secretariat, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Waterfront Toronto, and CreateTO, is provided to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee, including:

a. updated costs for the construction of the “Hybrid” and “Boulevard” options that consider inflation and supply chain issues;

b. updated lifecycle maintenance costs of the “Hybrid” and “Boulevard” options that consider inflation and supply chain issues;

c. a detailed analysis of the land value and additional housing that could be realized by opting for the at-grade boulevard; and

d. contemplation of any alternative option that maximizes existing investment and achieves a Hybrid that opens up more City land and minimizes lifecycle maintenance costs.
 

Back
Top