Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Antiloop33rpm]

Except that the blocks suitable for development is periperial to the ROW, and not the ROW itself - which can't be sold simply because the space has to be there for the roadway.

True. But the width of the Gardiner/Lakeshore corridor does vary depending on the section of the roadway. There are some parts where new blocks may open up on the side that may or may not be useful to a new road/transit corridor. Also if the tunnel elements underneath are stacked and a surface road of only 6 lanes is constructed they could use some of the excess land to sell to developers and help cover some of the costs of the project. If all these considerations are taken in from the very start then it could far more effective raising funds and ensuring land requirements for the new transportation corridor are met.

I don't disagree with this view - in the perfect world, that's what should happen. However, if I am forced to choose between a scheme that could see the expressway torn down, and one that promises the world but have little chance of going forward, I will take the former first.

Except that you could do nothing and the Gardiner is still going to be torn down sooner rather than later. Just like any other piece of transportation infrastructure, it is going to reach the end of its lifespan and will have to be replaced. Since it is highly unlikely that anyone would consider replacing it with another elevated expressway it would probably result in a 10 lane super street. This outcome requires no effort whatsoever. So really you dont have to choose this option, it more than likely, simply will be.

Depending on the construction methods chosen, the negative impacts can be minimized - and this concern is still predicated upon the assumption that one go ahead with the whole project.

Minimize, but not eliminate. And some aspects, such as commuter traffic are going to be somewhat more difficult to deal with. When this project does start, in whatever form, it will be apparent to anyone travelling or walking in or near that area what is taking place.

I'd argue that politically it is close to impossible to sell the megaproject, and I believe the issue is far too important to put all the eggs in one basket.

Why? Toronto got money for the waterfront and has done well pushing ahead with its plans. It had plenty of support for it's Olympic bids which would have been biilion dollar projects. Expo, probably will turn out to be much the same. Money for arts and cultural institutions. Etc, etc, etc. I am not saying it would be simple to sell. But it is far from impossible. It can be sold to developers as a chance to aquire some new downtown land and add value to exisiting properties in the area. It can be sold to residents of Toronto as a way of opening up the waterfront and creating a beautiful downtown space. It can be sold to suburbanites and 905'ers as a way to provide vastly improved transit downtown and a new highway that even for a small toll they could use. It could be endorsed by te City of Toronto, the TTC, GO, VIA, and any other interested parties.

The main reason I can see that it might seem impossible to sell such a project is because no one has tried yet and no one has emmerged as a politcal leader who is willing to stand behind the idea. Toronto is a city with a lot of creative, intelligent and hard working people and with the proper team of people working on this project I cannot see why there wouldn't be a good chance of it being successful.

 

[samplain]

I sometimes use the Gardiner. Traffic jams happen and Id much rather be on the ground as opposed to suspended or in a tunnel.

Really, as a safety issue its much easier for emergency staff to have more than on-ramps to reach a scene.

 

[adma]

Just generally, odd how the events of the last week or two constitute an effective tipping point on behalf of removing the Gardiner...

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

^It is not that odd. The report which was finally released is at least a much clearer set of ideas and costs for the future of the Gardiner. It is a lot easier to support its removal when you actually have some concrete ideas in front of you too base your opinion on. And the collapse in Laval, which with 5 dead is very tragic, is going to ignite peoples emotions. Whether there really is a real reason to be concerned about aging transportation infrastructure and whether the Gardiner is in maintained at a low enough level that something like that would be possible, I don't know since I have not seen any reports on the subject. But that won't stop people from making those kinds of somewhat real assumptions or expressing concern about their own cities infrastructure.

So much of the debate on the Gardiner up until now has largely just been talk, visions, and what if's. The more details people have and the more they understand what tearing down the Gardiner would mean (or, what not tearing down the Gardiner), the more likely they will be to support the idea.

 

[cacruden]

I seem to remember CityTV reporting of safety concerns of the Gardiner a year+ ago..... very vague -- but I think there was decay and parts had fallen -- but not on anyone -- and nothing close to what happened in Laval.

Unless something major happens -- don't think it will have much if any affect on the discussion.

 

[Tuscani01]

I had a major shift in my opinion on what should happen to the Gardiner.

I favoured the tunnel, but now I must say lets repair it and leave it. NOTHING beats the view of driving into the city from the Gardiner, and this whole idea of it dividing the city from the waterfront is bull. I walked under it on saturday night and cant understand the reasoning behind that idea. Ugly it is, but its nothing that cant be fixed.

My idea is to light it up. Add some coloured lights to the supports. Make it a piece of art in the city. Add some grass and some shops in some areas and that will be good enough.

 

[adma]

A parallel viewpoint

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And on the matter of how to pay for it, from the Globe:

Dr. Gridlock
Who will pay to get rid of the Gardiner?

JEFF GRAY

At least two questions linger over the idea of tearing down the Gardiner Expressway -- leaving aside the issue's obvious use as a political symbol to pit suburban drivers against "downtown socialists" in the mayoral race.

Lingering question No. 1: Who would pay for it? This is the question asked by Mayor David Miller, who says he would favour a partial tear-down if the money question could be answered.

Question No. 2 is the one many drivers asked when the "secret" report on the Gardiner's future was released near the end of last month: Where would the cars go?

The other questions have largely been answered. The Gardiner is hideous, especially from the ground, and needs an average of at least $12-million a year in maintenance work. The city would never build such an expressway now.

Taking some of it down could turn worthless tracts of land into valuable real estate, spur the city's notoriously sluggish waterfront revitalization and would, proponents argue, help transform Toronto's neglected rust-belt lake shore into a playground for a post-industrial, 21st-century city of knowledge workers. It is widely assumed that the city has to accommodate population growth with public transit, not more room for cars.

Let's say city hall finds the courage to come out boldly in favour of taking down the Gardiner, and wants an answer to question No. 1.

The Gardiner report conservatively estimates the cost at $758-million for the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp.'s preferred option, which would tear down the expressway east of Spadina Avenue. Two five-lane, one-way thoroughfares and a showpiece eight-lane "Great Street" would replace it.

The report, while failing to include a real "business plan," does include suggestions as to how the money could be found, other than in an unlikely cheque from another level of government.

One suggestion is for the city to turn the Gardiner and the Don Valley Parkway into toll roads -- using Highway-407-style automated billing technology, of course -- and use the revenue to pay back part of the cost. The report suggests tolls could raise $131-million a year if set at around the cost of a TTC fare. This alone, the report says "could fund $1.5-billion in capital cost." Any surplus revenue raised could then go into public transit.

The mayor, however, immediately rejected using tolls to pay for tearing down the Gardiner. And while the age when all major roads are pay-as-you-go may be coming as a way to combat congestion -- witness the downtown charges on drivers in London and Stockholm -- the political headache of making suburban drivers pay to get rid of their beloved Gardiner could be a whopper. (In peak times, 70 per cent of Gardiner drivers come from outside the 416 area code.) Never mind the griping from at least five years of construction-related traffic delays.

"[Tolling] is usually associated with the establishment of a higher level of service and, politically, more acceptable where a reasonable alternative to the tolled facility is available," the report reads. Killing off the Gardiner will do many things, but it will not result in a "higher level of service" for drivers. Same goes for a special parking levy, also floated in the document.

More promising is the idea, also suggested in the plan, to use creative new financing tools to get at the future spike in waterfront property taxes that would result from the project. Called tax incentive financing, the idea -- already being tested at the provincial level -- would essentially mean taking out a mortgage, and paying it off with the richer tax take to come.

The report guesses that this could bring in the equivalent of $30-million to $40-million a year, enough to offset at least some of the costs, but not enough to pay the whole shot.

Next week, Dr. Gridlock will take a look at lingering question No. 2 -- where would the cars go? -- and try to make sense of the computerized traffic-modelling studies in the report, which suggest the Gardiner could be taken down without causing traffic chaos.

A belated thanks to all of the readers who wrote in to correct Dr. Gridlock's column of Sept. 18, in which I accidentally referred to the TTC's "narrower" track gauge. The TTC's gauge is actually wider than the standard railway gauge.

AoD

 

[BrianHawkins1]

"My idea is to light it up. Add some coloured lights to the supports. Make it a piece of art in the city."

Good idea - if done right, could be very cool.

 

[roch5220]

"[Tolling] is usually associated with the establishment of a higher level of service and, politically, more acceptable where a reasonable alternative to the tolled facility is available," the report reads. Killing off the Gardiner will do many things, but it will not result in a "higher level of service" for drivers.

I agree with this. Until GO service is where it should be (ie. smaller trains, greater frequency - with adequate parking), tolls would not be fair on commutters.

On the flip side, maybe a GTA income tax of 50 basis points with the receipts going to the greater toronto transit authority is what is need (instead of a city of Toronto tax, that would shift jobs even further to 905).

 

[SD2]

I favoured the tunnel, but now I must say lets repair it and leave it. NOTHING beats the view of driving into the city from the Gardiner, and this whole idea of it dividing the city from the waterfront is bull. I walked under it on saturday night and cant understand the reasoning behind that idea. Ugly it is, but its nothing that cant be fixed.

It's not a barrier in the most basic sense, but it is a barrier overall.

My idea is to light it up. Add some coloured lights to the supports. Make it a piece of art in the city. Add some grass and some shops in some areas and that will be good enough.

The only problem with these revitalization ideas is that the Gardiner is on the latter half of it's lifespan...it's going to have to come down eventually. The cost to redo it and maintain it will come close to just getting rid of it (or exceed it).

 

[Degnaw]

[Tolling] is usually associated with the establishment of a higher level of service and, politically, more acceptable where a reasonable alternative to the tolled facility is available

My response to that is, why do TTC riders have to pay $2.75 to get on a bus when there is no cheaper alternative, yet drivers get the roads for free? I'm not saying to make every single road in the country toll roads, just major highways in the 416 AND 905 so transit riders have cheaper fares.

 

[El Chico905]

Driving on the roads is not free, drivers pay extra tax on gas, and there are licencing fees as well.

 

[Degnaw]

^i agree that driving is more expensive than public transit, but its the phychological feeling that public transit costs more. When driving the only real cost that you SEE is that of gas, which is "much easier on the wallet" than the $2.75 to get on a bus. The insurance, liscencing, and gas taxes that makes driving more expensive is sortof hidden because you usually do not pay it straight out of your wallet. I think that if drivers have to physically take $3 out of their wallet to get on the highway, they would be discouraged (thats my opinion on tolls, most of you may disagree).

 

[ganjavih]

I wonder what would happen if we just got rid of it and did nothing else.