Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

No one posted John Tory's Twitter essay from this afternoon??

There is a lot of discussion about the future of the #GardinerEast. It's time I let you know where I stand on this issue as Mayor. #topoli
There are 3 options for the Gardiner: maintain it, remove it or the hybrid option (remove a section but maintain connection to DVP). #topoli
I support the hybrid option for the #GardinerEast. This was not an easy decision. There are compelling arguments on all sides. #topoli
The hybrid option will keep people and goods moving in this city. It is vital to both quality of life and our economy. #topoli
The hybrid option will unlock development at the lands to the east of the Gardiner. This will create thousands of good jobs. #topoli
The hybrid option will help us build a truly great city in terms of urban design, whether you drive, cycle or move around on foot. #topoli
The hybrid option will give us the opportunity to do something unique with the space below and around the Gardiner. #topoli
Here's how the Netherlands, France and New York created urban spaces below and around elevated expressways: http://bit.ly/1L0g1MI #topoli
The hybrid option for #GardinerEast is the best option forward to keep our city moving, keep our economy strong & build a great city #topoli
Ultimately, the future of the #GardinerEast will be debated and decided by City Council. I look forward to a thoughtful debate. #topoli

Thoughtful, but wrong-headed and disappointing. Most of the benefits he lists (unlocks development, helps us with urban design etc.) are further accentuated under the remove option.
Similarly, it's true something creative can be done with the space under the Gardiner but it's hardly comparably to what could be done if it's not there at all. One would think that's obvious.
Oh, and of course he totally dodges how much cheaper the remove option is.

A sad state of affairs, as ever.

 

[k10ery]

You are stubbornly obtuse. As you say, I cannot win an argument with you using reason nor numbers.

If that means you don't even want to try, then I am truly disappointed.

 

[44 North]

I guess if TOry supports it, it's pretty much been decided. And I thought this quote was a bit harsh, but also somewhat true:

...the eight-lane roadway...would for all intents and purposes be a street-level expressway. Any notions of sipping a coffee in a cafe next to a busy, congested eight-lane highway should be put out of your mind because it is just not a reflection of reality.

more quotes here: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/12/tory-against-tearing-down-gardiner-expresssway

 

[salsa]

No one posted John Tory's Twitter essay from this afternoon??

"Not an easy decision" my ass. The mayor made up his mind a long time ago, then pretended to keep an "open mind" when the report came out, and is now resuming his support for the hybrid (i.e do almost nothing option) for his developer buddy First Gulf.

Oh, and of course he totally dodges how much cheaper the remove option is.

Considering he ran for office as a fiscal conservative, he has a lot to answer for with his support for Scarb subway, Eglinton West dumb track, and now the Gardiner expressway. But to be fair, at least he saved $10,000 by not installing a few electrical outlets in city hall.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Yes, I don't believe for a second Tory looked at the virtues of the alternatives. He will hand what they want to money and the suburbs. Watch again for the same at the island airport. Head waiter.

 

[mdrejhon]

It was the least riskiest answer and the least polarising. I now prefer remove, but, I am not against the Hybrid option.

I prefer a relatively unifying mayor, even of he makes a number of compromises. Ford caused far more hidden expense (stuff sich as the Transit City cancellation) than Tory has so far, so I am allright. He is helping hard-to-cancel initiatives forward like agreeing with GO RER) and I prefer that lesser waste more than a lot of the other historic wastes, whether it is the orphaned Sheppard stubway or Eglinton subway filled in the 90s, amongst other transit abortions. He is maddeningly imperfect, even lots of SmartTrack enhancements (except Eglinton which I still hope gets chopped), ehile sem redundant to RER, is extremely very sensible like the infill stations Metrolinx was not originally planning to do all, and he is smooth with facilitating both left and right where Ontario and Feds have been cold to each other.. Good riddance to yesterday's boondoggle inefficiencies, hello imperfect compromises that actually get done.

Tory, big beautification tip: LED colorchange light, like CN tower, on the underside of the Hybrid, please. It is highly successful as a viaduct beautifier in other cities.

 

[pman]

Yes, I don't believe for a second Tory looked at the virtues of the alternatives. He will hand what they want to money and the suburbs. Watch again for the same at the island airport. Head waiter.

A City Council dominated by a suburban majority will always make transport planning decisions exactly opposite to what expert consensus recommends. If we want a sane mobility strategy we either need to move these decisions to an unelected body like Metrolinx, or we need to de amalgamate and give the core City sole responsibility for its portions of the expressways and the ability to withhold funding for nutbar projects like the Scarborough subway.

 

[ssiguy2]

God this is confusing.............

So if the freeway will not be going about a block north and will stay where it is but pedestrianize Logan then this is not the hybrid proposed by First Gulf? If that's the case will Toronto still have the potential Broadview/QQ LRT ROW thru the Unilever lands and more importantly will First Gulf still build a new GO station with this hybrid#2 plan?

Also, because you can't see under the Gardiner with these plans..............what will happen to the area under the Gardiner. Will there be any lanes or purely become and urban and public covered space?

Thanks for the replies that does help and I had no idea First Gulf proposal of moving the Gardiner closer to the railway was no longer an option.

 

[salsa]

God this is confusing.............

So if the freeway will not be going about a block north and will stay where it is but pedestrianize Logan then this is not the hybrid proposed by First Gulf? If that's the case will Toronto still have the potential Broadview/QQ LRT ROW thru the Unilever lands and more importantly will First Gulf still build a new GO station with this hybrid#2 plan?

Also, because you can't see under the Gardiner with these plans..............what will happen to the area under the Gardiner. Will there be any lanes or purely become and urban and public covered space?

Thanks for the replies that does help and I had no idea First Gulf proposal of moving the Gardiner closer to the railway was no longer an option.

This PDF presented during the public consultation in April should help you understand the proposal. Both options will allow development of the Unilever lands as well as new roads and transit in the area. However public spaces or public realm improvements will require additional money and are not part of the plan at the moment.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

A City Council dominated by a suburban majority will always make transport planning decisions exactly opposite to what expert consensus recommends.

What's the "expert consensus"? Is it the city staff report or the totally different numbers in the U of T report? Is it the opinions of the Richard Florida-Ken Greenberg crowd? And who is to say anyone's numbers are accurate representations of a hypothetical reality?

I think this city has talked about the Gardiner for so long that "remove" is the way to go and one would think a fiscal conservative would give more weight to cost considerations, so don't get me wrong. But I don't think there's a simple "expert consensus" out there, despite the obvious fact most people on this board would feel there is.

I'm still hoping they do the right thing but disappointed (though not entirely surprised) with how it's gone.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The hybrid is worse than keeping it as in some ways - you'd have that butt ugly new on and off ramps to boot.

AoD

 

[k10ery]

This PDF presented during the public consultation in April should help you understand the proposal. Both options will allow development of the Unilever lands as well as new roads and transit in the area. However public spaces or public realm improvements will require additional money and are not part of the plan at the moment.

Thanks for sending that. I did not realize that the costs we have been quoting were undiscounted totals, instead of net present values. That's meaningless - it's like adding apples and oranges together. Obviously money spent far in the future is better than money spent today. Ignoring this, the city was doing its best yet again to torque the numbers in favour of Remove.

In net present values, it is like this. For capital costs alone:

Maintain: $207 million
Remove: $221 million
Hybrid: $260 million

If you include that crazy 100 years of maintenance, it is:

Maintain: $291 million
Remove: $240 million
Hybrid: $336 million

So the first thing to note is that MAINTAIN IS ACTUALLY CHEAPER THAN REMOVE based on capital costs. (But the cost differences between all three options are incredibly small - all within the reports own margin of error. For all intents, we should treat the 3 as costing the same, and just ignore the money.)

The second thing is that Hybrid is looking better to me. There is a lot of city-owned land around the First Gulf site whose value would increase if the Logan ramps came down. I would still like to see FG contributing to the demolition costs through additional development charges, but I can really see the benefits in that neighbourhood.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It's also worth mentioning (again bearing in mind that I support "remove") that all these travel estimates are contingent on transit (ie DRL and Waterfront LRT) being built by 2031. One would like to think the money "saved" by not going hybrid would go to transit but you can't bank on anything in this region. The lack of a comprehensive, (and funded) regional transportation plan makes it harder to generate a real consensus on the way to go, as much as I'd like to see it all gone.

 

[44 North]

A City Council dominated by a suburban majority will always make transport planning decisions exactly opposite to what expert consensus recommends. If we want a sane mobility strategy we either need to move these decisions to an unelected body like Metrolinx, or we need to de amalgamate and give the core City sole responsibility for its portions of the expressways and the ability to withhold funding for nutbar projects like the Scarborough subway.

I dunno. This "expert consensus" is pretty swift to tell this "suburban majority" what they want to hear. It was like that before, it's like that today. That's why we have no Queen Subway - but Line 1 has been extended six times (soon seven). Why Yonge reached capacity 30yrs ago - but we have no relief line on Don Mills (and possibly never will). Why downtown was the dumping ground for homeless shelters and relegated to a dark future with no growth expected - but we created shiny new suburban downtown "centres". Why we have a perpetual operating deficit and high fares coming at the expense of short-trip riders - but outer 416 politicians can look good that their residents can ride +20km or cheap. And so forth.

The appointed experts (be it the Prov, Metro, politicians, Metrolinx, Neptis) are generally unwavering in their support of the suburbs, and will oftentimes skew their reports in favour of this. Our history is a testament to that.

 

[ssiguy2]

Thanks for the PDF link Salsa.

I think total removal is the way to go both from an urban design and economic case. The hybrid definitely keeps traffic moving which is about it's only positive point.

When looking at the PDF I was shocked to see that under the hybrid plan the area under the Gardiner still has car lanes in it. If the business community states that they need the connection maintained to have thru traffic from the DVP to the West Gardiner then that's all it should be. There should be no on/off ramps at all and absolutely no under Gardiner lanes, not one.

If Tory and company get their way with the hybrid then the other councillors should put in a caveat that the Gardiner to DVP is an express route and after the DVP/Gard interchange the next stop would be Jervis/Yonge and nothing else. Lakeshore must be pedestrianized and have a level crossing at Logan to get rid of those god awful ramps, which gladly both proposals include.

If the business community keeps saying that they need a freeway connection then that's all it should be............a DVP/Gard non-stop to Jervis and nothing in between. Another caveat should be that 100% of the land under the Gardiner must be public space and a significant proportion of the initial capitol costs must go to a very enticing urban space and not just a bunch of pretty lights.

Of the railway tracks, Gardiner, and Lakeshore I have always thought that Lakeshore was the biggest psychological barrier to the Waterfront of the three. If the hybrid is choosen they should put these strong caveats in with it in order to pass or the city will just be left with the same ugly entry to the Waterfront that it has now.

To pay for the total renewal of the under parts of the Gardiner they should put up a toll at the base of the Gardiner and the DVP.............if people demand the most expensive option of the 2 then it should be those beneficiaries who pay for it.