News   Mar 28, 2024
 512     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 333     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 345     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

And the 407 lost money for it first 5 years. To set up the infrastructure (technology, phone centre, administrative office, etc) for one entry point, could be very very expensive (and if you are only charging a buck or two...well the tolls may never pay for the operation. How much will it cost to send a $1 bill to somebody?).
 
The 407 charges $3.50 for each trip taken without a transponder now..."video charges" or some nonsense. Assuming regular commuters don't make up the overwhelming percentage of people using the tollway, that's a big chunk of their revenue.
 
Tolls should only be charged during rush hour, so if you want to go downtown at night to club or go to the theatre or going to a restaurant then you won't be penalized. It's the rush hour commute that takes the greatest toll on the physical structure of the Gardiner I would imagine, with all those cars. And the toll should be similar to a TTC fare, say $2-3.
 
From the Post:

This idea's easy to shoot down

Kelly McParland, National Post
Published: Friday, September 29, 2006

Identifying the absurdities of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation's proposal to dismantle the easternmost portion of the Gardiner Expresssway is so easy it seems almost unfair.

Let's just go through a few in brief:

- Completing the project would require a decade of traffic chaos along the main route into and out of downtown, causing incalculable damage to Toronto's existing business infrastructure, entertainment industry and tourism aspirations. The Gardiner doesn't exist solely to accommodate commuters at rush hour, it's also the lifeline bringing in patrons who keep the food, cultural and sports businesses alive, and is the main means of access for tourists arriving by car or entering the city centre from Pearson airport. Toronto's status as Canada's corporate headquarters is also built on the assumption of reasonable access from outside the downtown core. Subjecting all these interests to 10 years of construction, gridlock and confusion would do damage that might never be repaired.

- The effectiveness of the plan depends on construction of the Front Street extension, a proposal so unattractive it's been on hold for years while the price -- already high -- escalates. The Front Street project would itself dump increased traffic onto residential areas on the west side of the city centre, negating the supposed benefits of altering the Gardiner.

- Anyone who thinks the Gardiner project could be completed for the unrealistically low estimate in the report should refer to the Front Street project, above. The price of that one has jumped from $170-million to $255-million in just a few years, frightening off both the provincial and federal governments, which refuse to pick up any of the extra costs. The Gardiner report suggests it can be partially replaced for $758-million, but no one has the faintest idea what the real cost would add up to a decade from now.

- Even at the lowball price estimate, the project's promoters have no real idea where the money would come from. Toll booths on the Don Valley, QEW and Highway 427? Good luck -- that should really help clear up the gridlock already slowly choking the city. Imposing a "gas tax" on the 905 region? Oh sure: who's going to organize the huge new bureaucracy needed to collect it, and -- better yet -- who's going to break that suggestion to Hazel McCallion?

- Torontonians who do not live by the downtown waterfront -- about 99% of the population -- gain nothing from altering the Gardiner other than some vague notion that it will "revitalize" the area. How this is to happen is not clear. The view from Front Street may improve somewhat, but there will still be a major road in the same location, producing the same amount of smog and noise and representing the same physical barrier between downtown and the lakeshore. The planners suggest the new road would be modelled after University Avenue, which is admittedly more attractive, but how many people make a special trip to University Avenue for the privilege of walking across it?

- Removing the Gardiner east of Spadina eliminates the only practical means of crossing the city other than the 401. The Don Valley-Gardiner combination acts as a safety valve siphoning some of the traffic from the northern corridor, and -- along with the 407 -- is the only alternative when weather or accidents close the 401.

OK, those are some of the drawbacks. The benefits -- um, well, let's think here. Other than the limited aesthetic improvement it's hard to think of any. The few people who live or work south of the highway wouldn't have to walk under it any more -- which would be nice for reporters at the Toronto Star heading out to lunch, possibly explaining that paper's enthusiasm for the plan -- but it would be a lot cheaper to stick a few more Starbucks along Queen's Quay.

The truth is this proposal is so senseless it's easy to understand why David Miller spent two years trying to keep it from council. The Mayor was right. The report should be shipped off to a dump somewhere, and buried with the rest of the city's unwanted trash.

- Kelly McParland is Politics Editor of the National Post. He lives in Oakville.

© National Post 2006
_________________________________________________

Deconstructing the arguments:

Completing the project would require a decade of traffic chaos along the main route into and out of downtown, causing incalculable damage to Toronto's existing business infrastructure, entertainment industry and tourism aspirations. The Gardiner doesn't exist solely to accommodate commuters at rush hour, it's also the lifeline bringing in patrons who keep the food, cultural and sports businesses alive, and is the main means of access for tourists arriving by car or entering the city centre from Pearson airport. Toronto's status as Canada's corporate headquarters is also built on the assumption of reasonable access from outside the downtown core. Subjecting all these interests to 10 years of construction, gridlock and confusion would do damage that might never be repaired.

That's tantamount to saying that one should never have needed surgery for a patient because it would result in a period of inconvience. In addition, isn't there more than enough capacity to handle the entertainment crowd at off peak hours? Somehow, I think our status is dependent on CEOs getting stuck on traffic jams on the Gardiner right now.

- The effectiveness of the plan depends on construction of the Front Street extension, a proposal so unattractive it's been on hold for years while the price -- already high -- escalates. The Front Street project would itself dump increased traffic onto residential areas on the west side of the city centre, negating the supposed benefits of altering the Gardiner.

While I am not a huge fan of FSE, the current design doesn't exactly "dump" traffic onto the residential areas to the West consider the system is more or less isolated. It also sounds rather cynical to raise this concern about the local residents consider the sheer impact the current expressway system had on the forementioned.

- Anyone who thinks the Gardiner project could be completed for the unrealistically low estimate in the report should refer to the Front Street project, above. The price of that one has jumped from $170-million to $255-million in just a few years, frightening off both the provincial and federal governments, which refuse to pick up any of the extra costs. The Gardiner report suggests it can be partially replaced for $758-million, but no one has the faintest idea what the real cost would add up to a decade from now.

Comparing the cost of FSE to the Gardiner project is rather unreasonable, considering the former requires mass acquisition of property, while the latter actually relasese it. In addition, the author would loathe to mention that tearing down the eastern stretch of the Gardiner between DVP and Leslie actually came in on time and budget.

- Even at the lowball price estimate, the project's promoters have no real idea where the money would come from. Toll booths on the Don Valley, QEW and Highway 427? Good luck -- that should really help clear up the gridlock already slowly choking the city. Imposing a "gas tax" on the 905 region? Oh sure: who's going to organize the huge new bureaucracy needed to collect it, and -- better yet -- who's going to break that suggestion to Hazel McCallion?

Obviously, the author isn't familiar with 407 ETR. As to Hazel, I hate to say, but the application of toll on a Toronto owned expressway isn't her business from a legal perspective.

- Torontonians who do not live by the downtown waterfront -- about 99% of the population -- gain nothing from altering the Gardiner other than some vague notion that it will "revitalize" the area. How this is to happen is not clear. The view from Front Street may improve somewhat, but there will still be a major road in the same location, producing the same amount of smog and noise and representing the same physical barrier between downtown and the lakeshore. The planners suggest the new road would be modelled after University Avenue, which is admittedly more attractive, but how many people make a special trip to University Avenue for the privilege of walking across it?

The majority of the population in the GTA doesn't use the Gardiner either, so clearly what we do to it is of no consequence to anybody. As to the effects - perhaps the said author should walk under the expressway for a good while to see just how "pleasant" it is? And for all the shortcomings of University Ave (a lot of which is induced by poor urban design of properties ALONG the roadway), it is well used both by pedestrians, particularly from a E-W perspective.

- Removing the Gardiner east of Spadina eliminates the only practical means of crossing the city other than the 401. The Don Valley-Gardiner combination acts as a safety valve siphoning some of the traffic from the northern corridor, and -- along with the 407 -- is the only alternative when weather or accidents close the 401.

The crosstown function of the Gardiner is so poorly used, the traffic flow can be easily handled by a 4 lane roadway. And if one thinks that the Gardiner-DVP combo can realistically "siphon" crosstown traffic from 401 or 407 to a significant degree, they're obviously on crack.

- Kelly McParland is Politics Editor of the National Post. He lives in Oakville.

There, the vested interest. I'd be curious to know how the said individual goes to his office.

AoD
 
Probably one of the few people that actually uses the Gardiner as a through route (to get to the DVP), as the National Post is up at Don Mills and York Mills. Those who use it as a through route are probably the ones who would be most affected (an extra 6 minutes to the commute?)
 
From the Star:

Gardiner drives fiery debate
Councillors' positions reflect their ward locations in city
Waterfront group recommends razing of eastern section
Sep. 29, 2006. 05:34 AM
VANESSA LU
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

Any mention of taking down part of the Gardiner Expressway generates passionate debate.

"It's indispensable," says Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby, an Etobicoke politician whose constituents depend on the elevated expressway to come into the city.

"I think creating this grand avenue is not going to help the city. I see it contributing to further congestion and gridlock," said the Ward 4, Etobicoke Centre councillor.

But Councillor Kyle Rae, who represents a downtown Toronto ward and doesn't drive, argues that the Gardiner needs to come down.

"It's time for boldness. It's time for change," said Rae (Ward 27, Toronto Centre-Rosedale). "But the suburbs see the Gardiner as their aorta. They are not prepared to see change. They're stuck in the 1950s."

A decision on the Gardiner will be up to the next city council that will be elected on Nov. 13.

The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. is recommending that it be taken down east of Spadina Ave. and replaced with a 10-lane road from Simcoe St. to Jarvis St., and an eight-lane grand avenue — modelled after University Ave. — from Jarvis to the Don River.

Even though the price tag would be at least $758 million, and the project would take probably a decade to complete, waterfront officials think it's crucial and can't wait.

Further delay would mean rising costs and risking even more development such as condos that might make it even more difficult to take down sections of the expressway.

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, who fought for release of the report, argued city council needs to take bold action and find ways of saying yes.

"We shouldn't use the price tag as an excuse to throw it (the report) back into the filing cabinet."

But others like Councillor Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre), who drives the Gardiner every day from his Etobicoke home to city hall, thinks any talk about changing the Gardiner is premature.

He argues the city needs to go ahead with the Front St. extension — from Bathurst St. to Dufferin St. — which has been on hold pending a decision on the Gardiner.

Once the Front St. extension is built, he said, then the city can determine if traffic volumes warrant the Gardiner coming down.

Waterfront officials say any changes to the Gardiner cannot happen unless the Front St. extension, a two-kilometre four-lane road, is built. However, it's been on hold partly because cost estimates have escalated from $170 million to $255 million.

Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 30, Toronto-Danforth) worries that not enough planning is being done if the eastern expressway section comes down.

"Once you free the sky, you have all this land that people will want," said Fletcher, whose ward sits east of the Don River.

"It will not be pressure for nine-storey buildings. The pressure will be for high-rises, for big box stores."

Fletcher argues that when debating the future of the Gardiner, there needs to be discussion about what the grand avenue should look like.

AoD
 
What kind of idiot uses the Gardiner as a cross town route. They must surely be on crack. Not a chance in hell. Its funny how everyone who seems to be against the proposals are from outside the city. People who won't get any benefits. I'm sure if their house was next to it and were told that the property values would jump, they would be all over these proposals.
 
I find these proposals all quite laughable, none of them will succeed in anything that they are trying to attempt. Unless what they want is to restrict access to the waterfront, AND access to Downtown. Great way to run a city, must have been made by the same people that think the island airport is a bad idea.

I can think of quite a few ways the money for taking down the Gardiner could be better spent.
 
Hey there jayomatic, maybe one kind of idiot that uses the Gardiner as a through route is someone who lives in south Etobicoke or the Bloor West Village area or Parkdale, and who may want to go east. It's just that simple. Sure it may be crazy at rush hours, but there are lots of times during the day when the Gradiner and DVP are free-flowing enough that it is by far the best route between those areas and the east side of the city.

20% of all motorists that take the Gardiner do not get off downtown in fact. Granted that at least 20% of the people in this city are idiotic to some degree, but they can't all be driving the Gardiner as a through route. Maybe some of them are writing without thinking first.

42
 
Increasingly, the public mood is moving towards deciding which method we use to get rid of this eyesore, rather than discussing whether it should be removed at all. When I came to Toronto in 1970 the idea of removing it wasn't even on the public radar. Gradually, perception has changed.
 
Sure...

What is the goal of removing the highway?

-To improve access to the Waterfront.

Removing an elevated expressway (which people can already walk under) and widening Lakeshore (a real "barrier") and diverting traffic onto Lakeshore will be more of a barrier then the Gardiner ever could be. 10 lanes, the main artery to downtown, two expessways will effectively terminate onto this road.

Alternatives are 30% exiting on the Front extension, but without major improvements to GO and TTC, 70% of the current Gardiner traffic will go on to Lakeshore. I can't be the only one that sees the problem that this will cause. It's more incentive to companies to move to the 905 area with the traiffic nighmare that will ensue.

In short the ~ 700 million (which I'm sure will expand to over 1 billion, as very few projects of this kind come in on time and on budget) could fund GO trnsit, and part of the DRL to improve connections to the downtown. The Gardiner being a barrier to the lake is a myth, Lakeshore, The Condos, and Rail tracks are the true axis of evil in this case.
 
I'm not convinced getting rid of the Gardiner is a good idea.

First of all, the real barrier to the lake is the Lakeshore. You don't have to cross the Gardiner where it is elevated, you go under it (obviously). The problem is that it's so ugly, dilapidated and pedestrian unfriendly underneath it that no one in their right mind wants to walk there. Plus the Lakeshore is under there, too.

A tremendous amound of work could be done to open up the space south of Front stretching to the waterfront (including under the Gardiner) and make it much more pedestrian friendly. Grass, trees, benches, nice wide sidewalks, whatever. Anything would be better than what is there now. It's brutal.

Also, I don't know that a Great Street would do the trick. As the Post article said, it would be another huge barrier to cross to get to and from the waterfront.

Plus, to tear down the Gardiner would cost one hell of a lot more than 758 million dollars if you ask me.
 
I didn't mean taking the gardiner from something like etobicoke to downtown. I'm talking about how the article makes it sound like its a logical cross town route like the 401. For someone going from Hamilton to Montreal, I'd be very surprised if someone would take the gardiner and dvp as a cross town route. Being from the Hamilton region myself I know of nobody who thinks they would gain any time taking this way. Even when i drive from downtown to the humber its always a toss of the dice to see if i risk taking the gardiner at all. The fact that if you decide to take the gardiner and get on at Spadina, your stuck until you get to Dunn Ave. I think having options of using city streets would probably help the traffic situation.
 
El Chico:

Removing an elevated expressway (which people can already walk under) and widening Lakeshore (a real "barrier") and diverting traffic onto Lakeshore will be more of a barrier then the Gardiner ever could be. 10 lanes, the main artery to downtown, two expessways will effectively terminate onto this road.

Barrier doesn't just mean something you can't walk across - it also refers to psychological barriers. Having a hulking structure blocking one's view along a linear route can easily be considered as one.

As it stand right now, one can walk underneath the expressway at multiple points - why does it still felt oppressive to do so? The location of Lakeshore isn't the only reason.

Alternatives are 30% exiting on the Front extension, but without major improvements to GO and TTC, 70% of the current Gardiner traffic will go on to Lakeshore. I can't be the only one that sees the problem that this will cause. It's more incentive to companies to move to the 905 area with the traiffic nighmare that will ensue.

The traffic nightmare already exist everyday during the rush, both on the corridor in question and on the avenues to which it feeds from. Changing it to an at-grade roadway would make no difference to such whatsoever.

AoD
 

Back
Top