Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[salsa]

Where does that 120,000 number come from? I don't see it anywhere in the presentation. The peak hour Gardiner East traffic volume is 5,200.

 

[bobbob911]

http://news.nationalpost.com/toront...of-gardiner-expressway-would-cost-919m-report

Refurbishing the Gardiner and remaking on and off ramps would cost $414 million in capital spending, plus $505 million in maintenance over the next 100 years, the plan says.

That’s almost double the cost of the revamped demolition plan. Under that proposal, the elevated Gardiner would be torn down at about Jarvis Street and a new, landscaped, eight-lane boulevard built. Estimated capital cost: $326 million, plus $125 million to maintain over 100 years.

So the *real* difference is about $90M plus some hooey 100-year prognostication of maintenance costs that isn't worth the paper its printed on......

$90M is about the same amount we just decided to spend to speed up current Gardiner construction, by the way. Was that even debated? It seemed to be decided almost immediately.

 

[rbt]

....repeatedly over the past few days I have seen (here and other places) the pro-tear down folks describe those 120k people a day as "a few drivers"....in the sentence "why would we spend and extra 500 million to save a few drivers 2 - 3 minutes" It is hardly the fault of those drivers, or current planners, that while 120k people a day is a large number it is not near the capacity of the road that was built decades ago.

No, it's not a few people and it isn't their fault that plans didn't pan out decades ago.

Nor will it be the fault of subway riders in Vaughan that they're using a horribly over-built piece of infrastructure.

Nor is it the cyclists fault that some of the winding bicycle paths in the suburbs aren't used very well.


It is, however, an inefficient use of resources to continue to invest in over-scaled infrastructure.

well if 120k vehicles are spending 3 minutes more each way per work day is that not 120k X 3 X 2 X 5 X 52 = 187,200,000 minutes (3,120,000 hours/130,000 days/356 years) of lost productivity per year? What is the cost of that?

Great question, and there is a cost to damn near everything that we do or don't do.

The question is could this money solve another problem with a higher cost? And if the benefit/cost threshold for the more expensive Gardner option is acceptable or reasonable for taxation, then why are we not immediately raising taxes to also solve those other problems?

 

[rbt]

So the *real* difference is about $90M plus some hooey 100-year prognostication of maintenance costs that isn't worth the paper its printed on.

SOGR costs are very real. We spend several times on Gardiner per km what we spend on the DVP per km for maintenance, and we have been for many decades.

If you believe there is gravy in the city budget, this is the kind of place where you find it. The SOGR work itself is very real but the value for money spent on this section is quite poor IMO.

If this value per $ ratio is acceptable, then we need to raise taxes significantly because there are a ton of things I'd like to see built that have similar ratios.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

http://news.nationalpost.com/toront...of-gardiner-expressway-would-cost-919m-report



So the *real* difference is about $90M plus some hooey 100-year prognostication of maintenance costs that isn't worth the paper its printed on......

$90M is about the same amount we just decided to spend to speed up current Gardiner construction, by the way. Was that even debated? It seemed to be decided almost immediately.

The whole reason we're having this debate is because the Gardiner is falling down. So, the maintenance costs of the elevated expressway over time are absolutely relevant, and I'm sure bobbob1952 was saying that it didn't matter that the expressway would drop chunks of concrete in 2015. But it does.

Thanks to hawc and others for the screen caps and debate. Although, vegeta -- why would you think that the experts, as they did this detailed study, didn't look at your alignment and it didn't work?

Anyway -- the 'hybrid' is not as bad as I expected, and if the pro-cars group on council win and they build it, tant pis. I much prefer the 'removal' layout for the growth potential and beautification, though.

One thing I could not abide is if they vote for the hybrid, then say we don't have the money to build it and we'll defer it until someone actually dies from concrete dropping. THAT would be off-the-charts craziness at this point.

DDA, hawc, others: I spent tons of time at Cherry, the Spit, biking along QQE, Don Trail, etc. This is a lovely part of town and will be unlocked into a jewel by urban renewal. Midges? pfft.

 

[Jonny5]

Whenever we are discussing transit projects and the need to end congestion, we often here about how time is money and that the cumulative lost time that people/goods/services spent on our roads costs us +/-$6B a year in lost productivity (the number often moves around but that is the common refrain).....well if 120k vehicles are spending 3 minutes more each way per work day is that not 120k X 3 X 2 X 5 X 52 = 187,200,000 minutes (3,120,000 hours/130,000 days/356 years) of lost productivity per year? What is the cost of that?

Zero.

Like all "lost productivity studies" these numbers laughably ignore the fact that these people will still produce as much as they always have and the 3 minutes will come from their non-productive times.

 

[jaybe]

What's your basis for that, given studies by experts say otherwise?

And why would you take the Gardiner to get to the core from the DVP? It's faster to take Richmond/Adelaide.

I commute to the core from the DVP. Getting to King and Bay from the Richmond exit takes much longer than getting to King and Bay from the Yonge/York and Gardiner exit. Readers of this site should know better than most that there is significant development in flight or planned for the south-east core. Projects on Front, Wellington, Richmond and Adelaide will rightly convert these streets into much more pedestrian friendly roads. In the future they will be even less of a replacement for a torn-down Gardiner.

The same is happening along the east Bayfront. There are significant plans that will urbanize Queens Quay East and dampen traffic in the area.

All this to say that there is no way that commuters will experience a 2-3 minute additional drive to get along a "6 lane boulevard" if we follow the proposal to tear down the Gardiner from the Don River to Jarvis. The best comparison is University Avenue. In the middle of the day it takes roughly 20 minutes to get up University Avenue, another "6 lane boulevard", from Front to Bloor. This isn't during rush hour.

 

[TOareaFan]

Zero.

Like all "lost productivity studies" these numbers laughably ignore the fact that these people will still produce as much as they always have and the 3 minutes will come from their non-productive times.

Ok....then we should 100% discount/ignore these same figures when they are used to justify the billions being spent on transit projects? Or are they only useless when considering road expenditures?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Not to mention all the future property tax revenues from the freed up lands.

I can't believe this wasn't added to the pros for Remove.

 

[jaybe]

And here's the one thing everyone cares about most:

I'm really struggling with the assessment that commute times will increase by 3 minutes if the Gardiner is torn down. Here is why:

Last summer when the Gardiner was closed for repairs it took me 40 minutes to get from BMO field to the DVP after a TFC game. It would normally have taken about 10 minutes. The Gardiner/DVP is packed after Jays games, Leaf's games and concerts. If the proposal to tear down the Gardiner were to proceed there would be intensive development of the east Bayfront. This additional development would add to/slow the traffic in the east Lakeshore area and residents of the area would be inundated with traffic passing through to get to the DVP.

Advisors talk about how most downtown bound drivers on the DVP exit at Richmond. I challenge the stats. I take the trip everyday. I see more cars continuing southbound and into the core rather than exiting at Richmond. Richmond brings you to the north part of the core. It is very slow to get to King and Bay if you exit at Richmond during rush hour.

After many years of minimal development activity in the south-east core there are multiple residential projects in flight or planned for Front, Wellington, Richmond and Adelaide east. With the additional residents these roadways will become more pedestrian and slower for cars. They will not be an effective substitute for a torn-down Gardiner.

The northbound DVP is almost as busy as the southbound DVP during the morning rush hour. That means that many residents of the condos' sprouting in the core or who live west of the core are commuting to work outside of the core. The additional condo developments downtown will add to the traffic. Tearing down the Gardiner will dramatically interrupt their commute.

The west Gardiner was called an eyesore and an obstruction to development along the waterfront. The past 10-15 years has demonstrated that the Gardiner is irrelevant as significant development has occurred in and around the west Gardiner. I worked at Bay and Queens Quay for 10 years and would regularly walk into the core. The real obstruction between the core and the waterfront was the 100M walk in loud, ugly and dark corridors under the railway lines. The argument that the Gardiner obstructs access to the waterfront is a red herring as the rail lines on the east bayfront aren't going anywhere.

The Gardiner is an effective piece of infrastructure. I support the hybrid solution that involves realigning a portion of the Gardiner east of Jarvis up tight with the rail lines. Yes, it is more costly. Bottom line, it will be used for 100+ years. This is a very long-term decision and needs to be taken with future growth and development in mind.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Thanks to hawc and others for the screen caps and debate. Although, vegeta -- why would you think that the experts, as they did this detailed study, didn't look at your alignment and it didn't work?

I imagine that they did, but I'd love to know just how comprehensive that analyses was and get a through explanation as to why they settled on the proposed aliment for the hybrid option. I don't think that's asking for to much and a little transparency would be nice, perhaps even from an unofficial source... (afterall, I do my fair share). On the other hand I'm certainly not waiting with baited breath, I doubt we'll ever hear anything from them in regards to those quires.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I commute to the core from the DVP. Getting to King and Bay from the Richmond exit takes much longer than getting to King and Bay from the Yonge/York and Gardiner exit. Readers of this site should know better than most that there is significant development in flight or planned for the south-east core. Projects on Front, Wellington, Richmond and Adelaide will rightly convert these streets into much more pedestrian friendly roads. In the future they will be even less of a replacement for a torn-down Gardiner.

The same is happening along the east Bayfront. There are significant plans that will urbanize Queens Quay East and dampen traffic in the area.

All this to say that there is no way that commuters will experience a 2-3 minute additional drive to get along a "6 lane boulevard" if we follow the proposal to tear down the Gardiner from the Don River to Jarvis. The best comparison is University Avenue. In the middle of the day it takes roughly 20 minutes to get up University Avenue, another "6 lane boulevard", from Front to Bloor. This isn't during rush hour.

Again with the 'experts are lying to us' anti-vaxxers' posts. There are reasons to be for or against these proposals, and projections need to be understood to be just that: estimates of future behaviour, not written in stone guarantees. But the people who put together these studies aren't doing it just for the fun of it. They're really trying to lay out the feasible options.

 

[LNahid2000]

I commute to the core from the DVP. Getting to King and Bay from the Richmond exit takes much longer than getting to King and Bay from the Yonge/York and Gardiner exit. Readers of this site should know better than most that there is significant development in flight or planned for the south-east core. Projects on Front, Wellington, Richmond and Adelaide will rightly convert these streets into much more pedestrian friendly roads. In the future they will be even less of a replacement for a torn-down Gardiner.

The same is happening along the east Bayfront. There are significant plans that will urbanize Queens Quay East and dampen traffic in the area.

All this to say that there is no way that commuters will experience a 2-3 minute additional drive to get along a "6 lane boulevard" if we follow the proposal to tear down the Gardiner from the Don River to Jarvis. The best comparison is University Avenue. In the middle of the day it takes roughly 20 minutes to get up University Avenue, another "6 lane boulevard", from Front to Bloor. This isn't during rush hour.

So it's the middle of the day and Google is reporting 10 minutes to get from Union to Bloor on University. I find their travel estimates are usually very accurate.

http://goo.gl/maps/Kv8FK

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I imagine that they did, but I'd love to know just how comprehensive that analyses was and get a through explanation as to why they settled on the proposed aliment for the hybrid option. I don't think that's asking for to much and a little transparency would be nice, perhaps even from an unofficial source... (afterall, I do my fair share). On the other hand I'm certainly not waiting with baited breath, I doubt we'll ever hear anything from them in regards to those quires.

It's a set of PowerPoint slide renderings made into a presentation. I'd expect that, if you want a more thorough explanation, you can ask them directly and they'll be happy to oblige. They will definitely do so for Council. Did you go to the meeting or send an e-mail?

Although, if you do go ask them directly, you might want to brush your teeth first.... ;-) (Sorry, that's a very lame 'bated breath' joke...)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The end product EA report is standardized - it will contain a significant amount of technical details.

AoD