News   Mar 28, 2024
 372     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 277     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 310     0 

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

The Green Streetcar tracks with lane reductions is planned literally right next to the gardiner on Queens Quay East. It isn't some wild fantasy.

Regarding the recent vote - it makes sense. Perhaps there was some validity in 2016 when the first vote happened to argue for the boulevard, but 7 years later the city has sunk hundreds of millions into advancing the hybrid option. It would be silly to turn back now and would negate basically all of the original benefits of the boulevard option.
 
The Green Streetcar tracks with lane reductions is planned literally right next to the gardiner on Queens Quay East. It isn't some wild fantasy.

Regarding the recent vote - it makes sense. Perhaps there was some validity in 2016 when the first vote happened to argue for the boulevard, but 7 years later the city has sunk hundreds of millions into advancing the hybrid option. It would be silly to turn back now and would negate basically all of the original benefits of the boulevard option.
sunk cost fallacy. There is no capital amount we could spend on reconstructing the Gardiner where it would cease to still be overwhelmingly positive to take it down. Reduce emissions, vehicle deaths, emergency response cost to crashes, thousands of new homes, millions in property tax, hundreds of millions (forever) in new economic activity. There is no debate, this has been proven worldwide, Toronto is just insufferably reactionary
 
Yeah, people compare the specific construction costs, but if you look at emissions, deaths, injuries, emergency services, new home builds, etc., it really makes no sense to favour people saving a few minutes on their commute. The cost of saving those few minutes is immense.
 
Doug Ford is so enamored of everything related to highways and concrete in general that I assume he would abolish the City of Toronto were it to try demolishing the Gardiner.
 
Doug Ford is so enamored of everything related to highways and concrete in general that I assume he would abolish the City of Toronto were it to try demolishing the Gardiner.
Doug Ford will instigate a coup d'état against Toronto City, like his hero, Donald Trump tried and failed. However, in this case, Doug Ford maybe successful since Toronto is a "child of the province".
 
sunk cost fallacy. There is no capital amount we could spend on reconstructing the Gardiner where it would cease to still be overwhelmingly positive to take it down. Reduce emissions, vehicle deaths, emergency response cost to crashes, thousands of new homes, millions in property tax, hundreds of millions (forever) in new economic activity. There is no debate, this has been proven worldwide, Toronto is just insufferably reactionary

Normally, sunk cost argument is not a fallacy but a valid consideration. It only becomes a fallacy if one can prove that continuation of the current plan is worse than switching to another plan. I don't believe that's the case here.

In details:

1. Proponents of the boulevard option maintain that the traffic counts in the affected section will be easily handled by the boulevard, with a minimal increase in the travel time. If so, then the boulevard option will not cut the emissions or reduce vehicle deaths. Same traffic, just organized a bit differently.

2. No independent confirmation that the boulevard option is still cheaper than the current plan, given that's it will be full cost vs remaining cost. Plus the inevitable delay since the boulevard design needs to be completed, and we know that all construction costs rise as time passes.

3. More space for highrises = more revenue for the city, from development charges and then property taxes. That's true, but - what is the cost of building utilities for those additional highrises? Furthermore, are those additional highrises a net addition, or they simply would be built elsewhere in the city and still yield development charges and property taxes? Is available land the main bottleneck, or is it the number of people who can afford a condo?

My guess is that the reality is somewhere in between, i.e. some of the Lakeshore boulevard highrises will be a net addition, while some will be built here instead of somewhere else. The end result is that the city might not get as much additional revenue as the proponents hope for.

4. Finally, losing $400 million of the city's funds on the unfinished construction will substantially weaken the city's standing in any funding negotiations with the province and the feds. Say, the city needs $500 million for some transit project in the near future, and the Mayor goes asking for help from the other governments. And they respond: "But you have just wasted $400 million of your own funds on the highway you didn't even complete. If you don't need that highway, then you shouldn't have been spending any money there. Or if you are so rich that you can easily drop $400 million for nothing, then just rise your property tax rate and don't bug us for bailouts."

That consideration is political rather than technical, but it's real nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Doug Ford will instigate a coup d'état against Toronto City, like his hero, Donald Trump tried and failed. However, in this case, Doug Ford maybe successful since Toronto is a "child of the province".

My guess, that won't happen. The most convenient position for Doug Ford is to pull the strings where he wants, without taking full responsibility for the city and its needs.

As it stands, Doug Ford can be a hero for building the 4 new subways, while the mayor and the city council are fools for transit overcrowding / homelessness / budget woes etc. Once Doug Ford appoints himself responsible for everything, he is both the hero and the fool, and the latter more often than the former.

Likewise with the Gardiner East. If the City flips and decides to cancel, it will be more beneficial for Doug Ford to do nothing real, but point the finger and say: "Look, those lefties just wasted $400 million of taxpayers money in sunk costs on the highway they don't want to finish. Don't elect the lefties in the provincial 2026 elections. My PC party is your choice."

While if he really interferes, then he will have to wrestle with the activists trying to block the construction, and likely will end up paying for the highway upkeep. All for the highway through the wards where he will never see an MPP elected. So, why bother.
 
Toronto Star: East-enders seeing red over ‘postapocalyptic hellscape’ on Lake Shore. How will they cope with years of traffic turmoil?


Good, drivers should suffer. Especially if they live in "Upper Beaches". 🤣
 
Normally, sunk cost argument is not a fallacy but a valid consideration. It only becomes a fallacy if one can prove that continuation of the current plan is worse than switching to another plan. I don't believe that's the case here.
It is always a fallacy, as you point out. The only valid consideration is what is the best path forward from the present, regardless of what has already been invested.
 
It is always a fallacy, as you point out. The only valid consideration is what is the best path forward from the present, regardless of what has already been invested.

It is true that the only valid consideration is the best path forward from the present.

The sunk cost argument is a shortcut for: "We weighted all options in the past, and have chosen Option A because we found it favourable. We have spent some money building Option A. After that, in our opinion, A became even more favourable, because now it is the remaining cost of A versus the full cost of B, C etc." That line of reasoning is not a fallacy.

Is it possible that B is actually better the A, despite the sunk costs? Yes, if a gross mistake was made when choosing A in the first place, or if new facts have emerged. But the onus is on the proponents of B to prove that B is in fact better than A. They can't use the "sunk cost fallacy" phrase to dismiss the fact that sunk costs affect the overall cost/benefit balance.
 
Last edited:
It is true that the only valid consideration is the best path forward from the present.

The sunk cost argument is a shortcut for: "We weighted all options in the past, and have chosen Option A because we found it favourable. We have spent some money building Option A. After that, in our opinion, A became even more favourable, because now it is the remaining cost of A versus the full cost of B, C etc." That line of reasoning is not a fallacy.

Is it possible that B is actually better the A, despite the sunk costs? Yes, if a gross mistake was made when choosing A in the first place, or if new facts have emerged. But the onus is on the proponents of B to prove that B is in fact better than A. They can't use the "sunk cost fallacy" phrase to dismiss the fact that sunk costs affect the overall cost/benefit balance.
The costs sunk are not the basis of the argument, but the remaining investment. Many times we do make mistakes (political decision making, incompetence) and just as often there are unforeseen circumstances, such as unexpected technical difficulties, rapid inflation, or a decrease in utilization that reduces the benefits.
 
McIntosh has a background in economic development, so he understands the need for massive infrastructure projects, even if they inflict discomfort and inconvenience. He’ll adapt — spend more time on his bike and Google Maps. His wife now takes the GO train to work. He recently lost his job in the tech industry layoffs, and this affects his job search. He’s not applying for jobs in Oakville.

It's working!
 
Thread has been quiet for a while, but figure it was worth mentioning mayor elect Chow has committed to tearing down the Gardiner east of Cherry in favour of the Boulevard option. While this may have been something Council could have jammed up, the strong mayor powers granted by Ford only a few months ago makes it possible for Chow to make this happen no matter how much Holyday and Burnside (plus others) complain.

Since the eventually removal of the Gardiner throughout the core is becoming increasingly an inevitability, treating it as such seems like the mature option. Breaking the highway down piecemeal only ensures that the potential for a grand reimagining of Lakeshore Blvd will not happen. Chow, or any other progressive such as Matlow, outright saying this would be met with fury from the province and suburbs, but it is ultimately needed and simply the best option for the city. And for anybody concerned about congestion or overflow into local streets, please read literally any study done on highway removal in the past 50 years.
 
Thread has been quiet for a while, but figure it was worth mentioning mayor elect Chow has committed to tearing down the Gardiner east of Cherry in favour of the Boulevard option. While this may have been something Council could have jammed up, the strong mayor powers granted by Ford only a few months ago makes it possible for Chow to make this happen no matter how much Holyday and Burnside (plus others) complain.

Since the eventually removal of the Gardiner throughout the core is becoming increasingly an inevitability, treating it as such seems like the mature option. Breaking the highway down piecemeal only ensures that the potential for a grand reimagining of Lakeshore Blvd will not happen. Chow, or any other progressive such as Matlow, outright saying this would be met with fury from the province and suburbs, but it is ultimately needed and simply the best option for the city. And for anybody concerned about congestion or overflow into local streets, please read literally any study done on highway removal in the past 50 years.
Seems like a pointless endeavor. Drivers will just take the Gardiner to Cherry st., get on the boulevard, and then get back on at the DVP.
I know it's not popular, but I still support tunneling the elevated portion of the Gardiner from Dufferin St. to Queen St. E at the DVP. Getting rid of the Gardiner will make life more difficult for truck drivers who have to make deliveries into the downtown core.
 

Back
Top