Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[DarnDirtyApe]

So I actually drove downtown today (around 8:20-8:40) from Danforth & Woodbine to see conditions for myself. Traffic on Lakeshore east of the Don was very heavy, with traffic backed up at each intersection to the point where traffic would not clear in a full green cycle. There was also a long line of cars westbound at Carlaw waiting to make a left turn, spilling out beyond the length of the left turn lane. The on-ramp to the Gardiner was at capacity but moving well, while on the Gardiner itself traffic was heavy enough that cars were only travelling at around 70-80 km/h. When exiting at the Yonge/Bay/York exit traffic again backed up at the lights on Lakeshore as pedestrians held up the majority of cars who were turning right onto Bay or York. It took me two cycles to turn right onto York street.

TL;DR anyone who says that the area is "empty" or "hardly used" doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[cplchanb]

So I actually drove downtown today (around 8:20-8:40) from Danforth & Woodbine to see conditions for myself. Traffic on Lakeshore east of the Don was very heavy, with traffic backed up at each intersection to the point where traffic would not clear in a full green cycle. There was also a long line of cars westbound at Carlaw waiting to make a left turn, spilling out beyond the length of the left turn lane. The on-ramp to the Gardiner was at capacity but moving well, while on the Gardiner itself traffic was heavy enough that cars were only travelling at around 70-80 km/h. When exiting at the Yonge/Bay/York exit traffic again backed up at the lights on Lakeshore as pedestrians held up the majority of cars who were turning right onto Bay or York. It took me two cycles to turn right onto York street.

TL;DR anyone who says that the area is "empty" or "hardly used" doesn't know what they're talking about.

On that note, I really do wonder how many of the proponents for removal actually use the Gardiner often whether for commute or pleasure. It would seem that many would believe that they can just magically make a utopian
boulevard that has near perfect traffic flow. Sure it may be an eyesore and "land value" is wasted, but unless there is a more viable alternative to get from A-B that the current expressway provides (aka better transit options)
the GE is a vital link east/west.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Yup... and I should mention that even with traffic, parking, etc. I still saved about 5 minutes versus TTC, and I am within walking distance of the subway. Less transit accessible neighbourhood would be even more skewed towards driving because TTC travel times are so long.

 

[Tuscani01]

I use the East Gardiner regularly (Though I usually get off and use Lakeshore at Jarvis since the Gardiner is completely jammed from that point to around Dufferin).

If the Gardiner were to be torn down, I wouldn't really care at all. It would barely change anything for me, as the portion that is being considered for removal is the portion that I usually skip anyway.

I do have to say though, going Eastbound is a whole different story. I would miss it in that case, since the Eastbound Gardiner is always the fastest way through downtown. I even use it to get from Spadina to Yonge sometimes.

 

[aquateam]

I watched councillors Mihevc and Carroll on TV yesterday trying to justify demolishing the Gardiner yesterday. Their arguments sound ridiculous to me. Yes the Gardiner east of Jarvis has lower traffic volumes than the rest of the Gardiner but if you are crazy enough to demolish the Gardiner and dump all that traffic onto Lakeshore then the traffic will become much worse. The models that lowball the amount of traffic congestion this will cause assume that GO electrification, the downtown relief line and the Queen's Quay East LRT all get built which is unrealistic, obviously only the first one will get built in the next 10 years. Also there will be massive backups on DVP southbound and Gardiner eastbound near the ends of the highways due to traffic waiting at traffic lights. The traffic is awful enough in this city as it is and I absolutely do not support anything that intentionally makes it worse. Also we desperately need to widen the DVP and the DVP/404/401 interchange because the DVP is the single worst congested highway in the GTA, but these far left councillors would go nuts if we suggested that. It is time that we upload the DVP/Gardiner to the province in order to get rid of the tear down the Gardiner types permanently, get the DVP widened, improve the maintenance of the Gardiner and put and end to DVP/Gardiner closures for special events permanently.

I'm actually surprised that the city has resisted widening the DVP for so long. It's not like there are NIMBYs living in the valley, except for the occasional hobo.

The idea of highway reducing traffic is outdated and has been proven wrong. It is 2015 now. Stop living in the past.

Tear down the entire Gardiner and close the DVP. Real cities are for people, not cars. It si time for Toronto become a real city again.

I don't like the whole "real cities do this" argument. Isn't that what Rob Ford and Mel Lastman argued, that "real cities don't build LRT"?

That being said, highways to downtown have a long track record of hollowing out the core and displacing economic activity to the suburbs, as seen in Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland. In all these cases, the metropolitan area grew but the inner city shrank.

There's not enough space to widen the DVP, as has been explained every time we have a new Council, as the new Councillors have the same 'brilliant new idea no one has ever thought of before'.

Amazing how Doady's solution sounds so much more radical than 'spend billions to put cars in the sky', but is probably not really.

There is room. It just goes against the city's policy of not increasing car capacity to the core, and it would cut into the ecosystem of the Don.

While we are debating keeping up the Gardiner, other cities are converting their overpass freeways into parks.

There are some great views from the Gardiner. Too bad the remove option doesn't include an elevated linear park.

 

[Flint]

I use the Gardiner every day from DVP to Kipling and I'm strongly in favour of removing it to the point where I wrote a report for school regarding the issue.

Yes it'll make my commute longer. Currently it takes me 30-40 minutes to get to work. For me, the benefits to the city if it is removed greatly outweighs the benefits to the few of us that use it daily.

 

[cplchanb]

I use the Gardiner every day from DVP to Kipling and I'm strongly in favour of removing it to the point where I wrote a report for school regarding the issue.

Yes it'll make my commute longer. Currently it takes me 30-40 minutes to get to work. For me, the benefits to the city if it is removed greatly outweighs the benefits to the few of us that use it daily.

You may say this now, but I am curious if you and other like minded would share the same sentiment once the reality sets in for commute times getting extended by an indeterminable amount (based on actual realtime) pedestrian flow and traffic signals amongst other factors. I must say for me at least, the stress of cars not moving far outweighs the subway going slower and stopping more because that at least is controlled and in most cases, guaranteed. If you look at how hwy 7 now, that could give you a rough idea how traffic would look like, but in this case would probably be double the density both car and people at the very least

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm actually surprised that the city has resisted widening the DVP for so long. It's not like there are NIMBYs living in the valley, except for the occasional hobo.

There is room. It just goes against the city's policy of not increasing car capacity to the core, and it would cut into the ecosystem of the Don.

So, there's room, as long as you don't mind figuring out where to put the Don from Don Mills to Eastern.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

So I actually drove downtown today (around 8:20-8:40) from Danforth & Woodbine to see conditions for myself. Traffic on Lakeshore east of the Don was very heavy, with traffic backed up at each intersection to the point where traffic would not clear in a full green cycle. There was also a long line of cars westbound at Carlaw waiting to make a left turn, spilling out beyond the length of the left turn lane. The on-ramp to the Gardiner was at capacity but moving well, while on the Gardiner itself traffic was heavy enough that cars were only travelling at around 70-80 km/h. When exiting at the Yonge/Bay/York exit traffic again backed up at the lights on Lakeshore as pedestrians held up the majority of cars who were turning right onto Bay or York. It took me two cycles to turn right onto York street.

TL;DR anyone who says that the area is "empty" or "hardly used" doesn't know what they're talking about.

So, you drove downtown in rush hour and it was busy? And despite this, it took you no more than two light cycles at any intersection? And the Gardiner westbound to downtown in rush hour from Carlaw to York ran at 80km/h?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Matt Elliott's Metro column

http://metronews.ca/voices/torys-to...-john-tory-is-heading-in-the-wrong-direction/

Pro-Remove option, naturally, or I wouldn't be linking it, right? Didn't see this linked before.

Bonus link back to UT 3C Lakeshore Waterfront plans for Lower Don Lands. Apparently, their lawyer was pissed at the committee meeting as the proposed Cherry ramps cut into their project, big time.

 

[k10ery]

Amazes me how fiscal conservatives hate fiscally conservative options.

For me, the benefits to the city if it is removed greatly outweighs the benefits to the few of us that use it daily.

Here's a couple of random quotes to show how misinformed this whole debate is getting to be.

#1. Remove is not "fiscally conservative" (i.e. cheaper). The city is just torquing the data to make it seem that way, by including an unprecedented 100 years of O&M costs in the maintain option. OBVIOUSLY it is cheaper to keep the highway than tear it down.

#2 It is not a few people who use it daily, and their benefits are not small. By the City's data it is 110,000 people a day on Gardiner East. Even if removal costs them only 3 minutes a day (which we all know is too small), and they value their time at only $20/hour (too small), and they don't delay anybody else when they have to switch to surface roads, and we count these benefits for only 30 years (not the crazy 100 years that remove advocates are using), then what do we get?

This: The time lost if we remove the Gardiner is worth at least $1.2 billion to those drivers. Probably much more.This is far more than the cost of maintaining the expressway.

Please stop using these bad data to pretend tearing down a working piece of infrastructure is the low cost "responsible" thing to do.

Real cities are for people, not cars. It si time for Toronto become a real city again.

This i the real story I think,. Remove advocates don't care about the numbers. They just hate cars.

And before you start going after me with ad hominem attacks: I live downtown, I commute by bike, my car often sits in its parking spot for a week or more before I get into it. I'm just trying to talk sense here.

 

[cplchanb]

A real city must and always will be supported by its surrounding suburbs and hence access into the city must be supported by either expressways or efficient transit, if not both. Since the latter is rather weak for Toronto with no relief in the near future, the former needs to be bolstered to accommodate. To claim that we can urbanize and tear down expressways with no realistic way of backing up traffic present and future is short sighted and is purely a utopian fantasy.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

So, you drove downtown in rush hour and it was busy? And despite this, it took you no more than two light cycles at any intersection? And the Gardiner westbound to downtown in rush hour from Carlaw to York ran at 80km/h?

The argument from some is that the eastern Gardiner is massively overbuilt for the level of traffic - you know, when people quote the 3% number and act like it's practically zero - when in reality that whole stretch is quite heavily used. Also, the section of Lakeshore east of the Don does not flow as well as people think.

 

[WislaHD]

Bonus link back to UT 3C Lakeshore Waterfront plans for Lower Don Lands. Apparently, their lawyer was pissed at the committee meeting as the proposed Cherry ramps cut into their project, big time.

I actually ended up watching most of the committee meeting in the background while doing other work yesterday, and this is correct. More pertinently, she claimed that her client had no knowledge of the changes done to the Hybrid option since First Gulf proposed it last year, nor have they been consulted at any point in the new Hybrid proposal.

Here is the link to when the lawyer was brought before the committee. (6:09:15)

Other notable speakers at the committee were:

Michael Kirkland, TKP Architects, speaks in favor of the removal option at (4:49:42)
Paul Bedford, former Toronto City Planner under Lastman era, speaks in favor of the removal option at (5:24:05)

 

[ttk77]

Here's a couple of random quotes to show how misinformed this whole debate is getting to be.

#1. Remove is not "fiscally conservative" (i.e. cheaper). The city is just torquing the data to make it seem that way, by including an unprecedented 100 years of O&M costs in the maintain option. OBVIOUSLY it is cheaper to keep the highway than tear it down.

Bolding mine. This statement is incorrect. Relevant points from this (National Post) article:

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.

There is definitely an exaggeration by extending the period to 100 years, but the "hybrid" option still costs more because it is basically a full reconstruction of the elevated road whereas the rebuilding portion of the removal option would be at ground level.

#2 It is not a few people who use it daily, and their benefits are not small. By the City's data it is 110,000 people a day on Gardiner East. Even if removal costs them only 3 minutes a day (which we all know is too small), and they value their time at only $20/hour (too small), and they don't delay anybody else when they have to switch to surface roads, and we count these benefits for only 30 years (not the crazy 100 years that remove advocates are using), then what do we get?

Would you mind posting your source for the 110,000 people per day? The above mentioned article has very different numbers:

The demolition plan would increase commute times by between three and five minutes for some drivers by 2031, according to projections. At present, only three per cent of downtown-bound commuters, or about 5,000 cars a day, use that stretch of the Gardiner, which suggests few would be affected.

Either your source, or the source in the article are very wrong.