News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 455     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

ssiguy2 said:
People use the San Francisco downtown Embarrco Freeway as a comparison to the Gardiner and there are indeed a lot of similarities but there is one VERY big difference................the Embarrco was an extension of the SF/Oakland bridge which already had a full BART line running under it. In other words a very extensive subway was already there before the tear down even started. From word GO San Franciscans had a viable, fast, frequent, and affordable option coming anywhere from where Embarrco traffic would originate.

Currently all Toronto has is a relatively infrequent and very expensive GO train most of which still only runs in rush hour.......not a realistic alternative to the car. That hopefully will change but Torontonians are use to transit promises that never materialize so when deciding on whether to keep or tear down the Gardiner they assume there will be no transit offered as an alternative.
Click to expand...
It's Embarcadero. Also, BART is a lot more similar to GO RER than it is to a subway. It's just as expensive as GO and the individual lines have 20 minute service (though the portion under the bay has frequent service since all lines converge at that point). GO RER will be just as good an alternative to the Gardiner as BART is an alternative for the Embarcadero Freeway.
 
I'm going to make an interesting suggestion: Remove the central portion between about Jarvis and Spadina, or at least from the central-west end of downtown (ie: Bay to Spadina). Two reasons for this:

1. Such a design change would likely affect people to the west and northwest. However unlike the east, this side of the city has far more transit improvements coming in the near future. Besides the Spadina line extension, we have frequent all day GO service coming between Union and Aurora, Bramalea, and Burlington. Meanwhile there are no plans for frequent service on the Richmond Hill line, and the DRL to Pape is decades away, let alone to Eglinton or Sheppard.

2. Another thing I dislike about the proposed takedown is that it disconnects the north/northeast areas of Toronto from downtown, while the west still has relatively easy access. This way the highway is removed right from the very heart of the city, and can perhaps work as a catalyst for responsible further east.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
LNahid2000 said:
It's Embarcadero. Also, BART is a lot more similar to GO RER than it is to a subway. It's just as expensive as GO and the individual lines have 20 minute service (though the portion under the bay has frequent service since all lines converge at that point). GO RER will be just as good an alternative to the Gardiner as BART is an alternative for the Embarcadero Freeway.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Embarcadero insight.........I could never remember how it was pronounced.

Anyway..........the BART from Oakland, as you stated, comes frequently due all the lines converging at the tunnel so service is frequent.

This, however, is my point.................SF were willing to let the freeway be ripped down because there were REAL alternatives already there. In Toronto there is no such alternative. There are lots of promises about Smart Track, GO, RER, DRL, and Waterfront LRT but they are exactly that, promises. After decades of endless discussions with nothing getting built Torontonians are justifiably cynical about politicians when they talk about transit improvements. Torontonians have heard it all before about improving transit that is one it's way but have been waiting for a generation to see any real improvements.

Seriously, how many downtown subway reports can one city produce? I think most Torontonians would rather see that small section of the Gardiner torn down if it meant a great new Waterfront but only if there is a viable alternative to taking your car which means transit. People are being told that their commute will not increase much but those figures are based on huge transit improvements already being in place. Unfortunately and justifiably people are making their decisions on the Gardiner based on the fact that there will be no transit improvements at all or at least not until well after the project is completed.

Due to the City making so many transit promises over the last few decades with almost no results people are assuming that will continue. People, even suburbanites, may not relish the idea of the Waterfront having concrete pillars beside it but see it as the only option because they do not believe that City Hall will deliver the transit promises it has made that help justify a blvd that would still be able to move people relatively quickly.
 
Electrify said:
I'm going to make an interesting suggestion: Remove the central portion between about Jarvis and Spadina, or at least from the central-west end of downtown (ie: Bay to Spadina). Two reasons for this:

1. Such a design change would likely affect people to the west and northwest. However unlike the east, this side of the city has far more transit improvements coming in the near future. Besides the Spadina line extension, we have frequent all day GO service coming between Union and Aurora, Bramalea, and Burlington. Meanwhile there are no plans for frequent service on the Richmond Hill line, and the DRL to Pape is decades away, let alone to Eglinton or Sheppard.

2. Another thing I dislike about the proposed takedown is that it disconnects the north/northeast areas of Toronto from downtown, while the west still has relatively easy access. This way the highway is removed right from the very heart of the city, and can perhaps work as a catalyst for responsible further east.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Electrify -- this is a very strange line of reasoning. The city doesn't need to refurbish -- at this time -- the central Gardiner. Also, that is an incredibly busy piece of highway. In contrast, the city does need to do a serious re-build of the traffic infrastructure from Jarvis east to the Don. Why would you propose a completely out-of-context teardown, other than some kind of misguided 'fairness' issue?
 
ssiguy2 said:
Thanks for the Embarcadero insight.........I could never remember how it was pronounced.

Anyway..........the BART from Oakland, as you stated, comes frequently due all the lines converging at the tunnel so service is frequent.

This, however, is my point.................SF were willing to let the freeway be ripped down because there were REAL alternatives already there. In Toronto there is no such alternative. There are lots of promises about Smart Track, GO, RER, DRL, and Waterfront LRT but they are exactly that, promises. After decades of endless discussions with nothing getting built Torontonians are justifiably cynical about politicians when they talk about transit improvements. Torontonians have heard it all before about improving transit that is one it's way but have been waiting for a generation to see any real improvements.

Seriously, how many downtown subway reports can one city produce? I think most Torontonians would rather see that small section of the Gardiner torn down if it meant a great new Waterfront but only if there is a viable alternative to taking your car which means transit. People are being told that their commute will not increase much but those figures are based on huge transit improvements already being in place. Unfortunately and justifiably people are making their decisions on the Gardiner based on the fact that there will be no transit improvements at all or at least not until well after the project is completed.

Due to the City making so many transit promises over the last few decades with almost no results people are assuming that will continue. People, even suburbanites, may not relish the idea of the Waterfront having concrete pillars beside it but see it as the only option because they do not believe that City Hall will deliver the transit promises it has made that help justify a blvd that would still be able to move people relatively quickly.
Click to expand...

There is no alternative to driving downtown is what you're saying? The majority of people already take GO and TTC downtown..

I don't disagree that I'd like to see transit improvements, I'm just confused by the statement that there isn't transit going downtown when the majority of people already use transit to go downtown.

Or are you saying that GO isn't a "real" alternative like BART because it doesn't run all day both ways? I would argue that even in its current state it's a real alternative since it's been very successful (even though I'd obviously love to see more lines be all day two way like BART).
 
ehlow said:
There is no alternative to driving downtown is what you're saying? The majority of people already take GO and TTC downtown..

I don't disagree that I'd like to see transit improvements, I'm just confused by the statement that there isn't transit going downtown when the majority of people already use transit to go downtown.

Or are you saying that GO isn't a "real" alternative like BART because it doesn't run all day both ways? I would argue that even in its current state it's a real alternative since it's been very successful (even though I'd obviously love to see more lines be all day two way like BART).
Click to expand...

For many people the transit alternative is unpalatable - like 1.5-2 hours one way. Unfortunately much of the city was designed around the existing of the DVP/Gardiner...
 
Gardiner toll urged for non-Torontonians


Or province should take over highway


From the Toronto Sun, at this link:

Should tolls be imposed on the Gardiner Expressway? Councillors were talking about it on Tuesday ahead of next month’s debate on the future of the eastern leg of the elevated expressway.

  • Who wants to look at tolls?
Councillor James Pasternak argued the city should examine slapping tolls on non-Toronto residents who use the Gardiner, or handing the expressway over to the provincial government.
“I’ve got to make sure that we have the buy in,” Pasternak said. “Ideally, we want a formula that does tolls for non-residents. If you drive to the United States, there are all kinds of tolling mechanisms that give daily users an enormous break.
“Torontonians pay their fair share through the property tax base, we shouldn’t be going to them for more.”


  • Why do we need tolls?
The city is going to have to spend millions to tear down the eastern extremity of the Gardiner or millions more to build a hybrid option — a plan that allows for the city to open up land for development while ensuring the highway connects to the Don Valley Parkway. Pasternak said the only way the city can afford either option is by finding “a source of revenue outside the tax base.”


  • Why is the city on the hook for the Gardiner?
During his toll talk, Pasternak noted he thinks the only other option would be for Queen’s Park to take ownership from the city of the Gardiner and the Don Valley Parkway.
“I consider it somewhat historically unfair that if you go north of the 401 and take the 404 that’s a provincially serviced and maintained highway, if you go south of the 401 on the Don Valley Parkway all of a sudden that becomes a municipal responsibility,” the York Centre (Ward 10) councillor said. “Same with the QEW. Why is it the (provincially-owned) QEW through Mississauga and ... all of a sudden, it becomes the Gardiner when it hits Toronto. These are grossly unfair policies and they have to be revisited.”


  • What are other councillors saying?
Councillor Shelley Carroll said the city estimated in 2008 that it would cost $300 million to roll out tolls on the Gardiner, DVP, Hwy. 401 and Hwy. 427.
“It’s a very expensive proposition. You could only do it in partnership with the province and what we prefer to partner with the province on now is transit because that is what Torontonians and residents of the GTA are telling us they want,” Carroll said.
Councillor John Campbell questioned why the city wouldn’t toll everyone who uses the Gardiner.
“I don’t see why all residents and all users of the highway shouldn’t be paying for it,” Campbell said. “(The Gardiner) is a serious cash burden on the city. It is going to be an ongoing burden for as long as the road is in play and whether you’re coming from Peel, Durham, York or you’re from the City of Toronto, if you’re using the road, you’re causing wear-and-tear on the road.
“Basically the TTC is a user-pay system — 80% of the funding for the TTC comes out of the fare box. Why shouldn’t our roads be the same?”


  • What does the mayor think?
A spokesman for Mayor John Tory confirmed he’s opposed to putting tolls on the Gardiner.
Click to expand...

And non-residents of Toronto should pay an extra fare for using the TTC... or the province & federal governments should support the operating budget of the TTC.
 
Last edited:
John Tory put tolls on? John Tory is in favour of the Scarborough Subway which doubles the cost to save a few people 3 minutes. And the Gardiner East which doubles the cost to save a few people 3 minutes. And building SmartQuack through Eglinton West, which probably quadruples the cost of serving that corridor but won't even save a few people 3 minutes because it won't have many stations and service will be every 15 minutes instead of every 4 or 5.

I am not sure what passes for conservative these days, but it sure isn't saving money, or facing the truth about debt. His mayoralty is so far in favour of doubling the cost to make everyone happy. He's the mayor of dreamland.
 
W. K. Lis said:
And the non-Toronto drivers will continue to use Toronto roads for free?
Click to expand...

Some of the biggest losers of a tolled DVP/Gardiner is the potential decrease in users of downtown parking garages. The property management firms are probably going to fight teeth and nail to keep the highways as free as possible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top