Roads: Keep the Gardiner, fix it, or get rid of it? (2005-2014)

[kEiThZ]

I never agreed with Miller's plan to tear down the Gardiner. I agreed with bike lanes on Jarvis and other stuff. But tearing down the Gardiner to replace it with a "grand boulevard" smacked of a "war on car" move.

Yes, it's probably mostly 905ers that use it. Yes, it's expensive to maintain. But a functional road grid is necessary for any city.

I have always maintained that the Gardiner should be buried and tolled. It gives us the road capacity we need. It gets the users to pay for it. And 905ers are far more used to paying tolls (with the 407) than 416 residents.

And do this after GO is electrified.

 

[pman]

and those that want live downtown while working in the suburbs? In all my years of commuting, the most startling development has been the 21st century surge in the reverse commute.

User pays, period. Charge equals direct cost plus some measure of externalities they impose. Car drivers (in any direction) impose negative externalities so the right charge is higher than capital and maintenance cost. It's not an "I hate the suburbs" thing, it's simply aligning private incentives with public costs.

 

[ssiguy2]

I never agreed with Miller's plan to tear down the Gardiner. I agreed with bike lanes on Jarvis and other stuff. But tearing down the Gardiner to replace it with a "grand boulevard" smacked of a "war on car" move.

Yes, it's probably mostly 905ers that use it. Yes, it's expensive to maintain. But a functional road grid is necessary for any city.

I have always maintained that the Gardiner should be buried and tolled. It gives us the road capacity we need. It gets the users to pay for it. And 905ers are far more used to paying tolls (with the 407) than 416 residents.

And do this after GO is electrified.

I don't think a tunnel is an option anymore. Due to incredibly poor planning the city has allowed condos to go right up against the Gardiner with no long term planning of the Gardiner itself. The city simply ignored the problems of the Gardiner and built around it. That, however, would make tunneling a logistical nightmare.

As far as getting rid of a public asset............what asset? Toronto does have a potential revenue stream from the Gardiner but doesn't use it because it would require political fortitude which Toronto hasn't had in 40 years. The Gardiner is a complete eyesore and damn expensive one but a neccesary one or atleast part of it is. Selling a revenue tool can be very dangerous but that doesn't apply to the Gardiner.

Sell it, get the buyer to tear down and clean up the Spadina/DVP section and have them sell the land to developers. The condos could go up on the former Spadina/DVP Gardiner section and Toronto would find itself with a truly accessible Waterfront and new revenue as opposed to a $500 million bill.

The Gardiner could be a city asset but it's not. It's like having a spare house but instead of renting it out you leave it vacant and all you get out of it is a yearly property tax bill.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The section between Cherry and Yonge is the worst part of the Gardiner, and it's still very possible to do something about it. Let's remember that the EA and Waterfront Toronto were very much about looking at creative solutions and maintaining capacity. No one solution had been settled on. With the renewed focus on transit to the center of the city, the winds are shifting.

 

[pman]

The section between Cherry and Yonge is the worst part of the Gardiner, and it's still very possible to do something about it. Let's remember that the EA and Waterfront Toronto were very much about looking at creative solutions and maintaining capacity. No one solution had been settled on. With the renewed focus on transit to the center of the city, the winds are shifting.

It's good to be reminded that even in Toronto sometimes positive change isn't outside the realm of possibility. Regarding the EA, I wonder if every single planning option needs to consider maintaining current automobile capacity. Given what we know about the successful and healthy world cities with which we compete, I would hope a discussion of tearing down part of the Gardiner would include the option of simply not replacing the traffic capacity (for example by widening Lakeshore or tunneling), and considering instead a mix of increased GO frequency, accelerated construction of DRL and expressway tolls / parking levies / congestion charge.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's interesting to see what various City Hall types are saying. Dim Denzil is quoted as opining that cities don't tear down infrastructure. Yet the WT site for the EA had a whole page of examples where cities demolished their elevated roads and made themselves better places as a result. He either has no idea what he is talking about, or lying. (Both are currently favorite strategies of conservatives in Canada and the USA.) But Doug Ford against all expectation is talking about building tunnels under the Lakeshore, to be paid for by tolls, and then tearing down the Gardiner. It's an idea worth looking at.

 

[ssiguy2]

Tearing down the Gardiner and building a tunnel may have been an option at one point but I'm not sure it is now. By allowing the condos to go up right against the Gardiner it is going to be a logistical nightmare and a damn expensive one. Not only would the city have to pay for the tunnel thru tolls but would also have to pay for the tearing down and clean up of the elevated structure itself. It will cost a small fortune and the tolls would have to be so incredibly high to pay for such an endevour that many would not take it but rather use local roads which just overburdens Lakeshore/King/Queen.

The Gardiner is nothing but a huge expense right now and those bills will keep rising. Get rid of it now, spare the city the bill and have a private developer take over the Yonge to QEW section and have them tear and clean up the DVP to Yonge section. At this point it's the only option Torontonians can afford and the best one for the City and the Waterfront.

 

[Dan416]

Does the existence of condos really preclude the possibility of a tunnel? I ask if any real engineering types would know.

 

[balenciaga]

Perhaps we should examine the best and worst case scenarios for the city if this stretch of Gardiner is taken down.

Worst case:

With a major connection to the downtown severed, Richmond, Adelaide, and Lake Shore become chocked with congestion and gridlock. In addition, for crosstown commutes to and from the southwest, the 401, 427, and 403 become even more congested than they are now. Transit lines are operating at crush capacities at all times of day, and rush hour crowding makes people envy Tokyo's subways - at least there they have people to help shove you into the train! Eventually major white collar employment has enough of this, and even banking industries move to suburban office parks because its employees and deliveries cannot make it in on time. This loss of an economic anchor causes property values in the inner city to crash, and Toronto ends up looking like Detroit.

Obviously the outcome would be somewhere in the middle, but the question is where...

Your worse case scenario will never happen.

As you already mentioned, Tokyo needs special personnel to push people into the subway during rush hour. That didn't make Tokyo Detroit, didn it? Toronto is nowhere near that crowded. People complain they can't get into the subway during rush hour, but that's mostly because they expect too much personal space. There has never been once I was not able to get in the subway car during rush hour. No matter how many people there are, I always manage to get in. Just shove hard. Yes, my stomach sometimes ends up pushing against someone's butt, so what. it is a big city, you wanna plenty of space for you to stretch your legs, get your own car or the taxi.

Additionally Toronto passengers have the obnoxious habit of standing near the subway door when there is often plenty of space inside between the seats. It is rather annoying and inconsiderate, making the subway look more crowded than it really is, and it happens all the time.

Passengers will not quit their job just because the subway is too crowded. They will simply adjust their schedule by leaving earlier. Major banks, law and consulting/financial firms will never move to the suburbs because that equals suicide.

Property value will NOT drop due to this either. Downtown is where most amenities are, and people will always find it appealing. They will want to live downtown more if traffic becomes worse it at all.

 

[balenciaga]

It's interesting to see what various City Hall types are saying. Dim Denzil is quoted as opining that cities don't tear down infrastructure. Yet the WT site for the EA had a whole page of examples where cities demolished their elevated roads and made themselves better places as a result. He either has no idea what he is talking about, or lying. (Both are currently favorite strategies of conservatives in Canada and the USA.) But Doug Ford against all expectation is talking about building tunnels under the Lakeshore, to be paid for by tolls, and then tearing down the Gardiner. It's an idea worth looking at.

Denzil is BS. Cities around the world tear down highways all the time.
Making the Gardner an underground roll road is the most sane option, and I am with Ford on this.
Or just get rid of it completely if cost is the issue and charge a fee of $10 for entering downtown each time from Bathurst to the Don River south of Bloor. Maybe delivery trucks can be excepted. Wanna drive you car through downtown Toronto to another suburb, you are gonna pay for that for the unnecessary stress you put on the traffic.

In the end, downtown is not supposed to be used as a passby area. One is not supposed to drive into it in a personal vehicle either unless you are delivering goods or essential services (so trucks can be excepted).

 

[ssiguy2]

But the price tag is going to be enormous. I'm sure tunneling can be done but being right beside condos, the current Gardiner, and the rail corridor is going to be a nightmare. This tunnel would cost a fortune, take forever to build, but what's even worse is that it will bleed the city dry.

The cost of the toll would have to be huge to recover that kind of investment and the interest on it. It's not the same as tolling a bridge like Boston's Big Dig or Vancouver's Port Mann as all one would have to do is get off the QEW and take the Lakeshore/King/Queen and save the bucks. Tolls over bridges can work because people have no alternative, they have to get over the water but this is not the case with the Gardiner.

Another thing...........where exactly are they going to put this tunnel? How in god's name are they going to tunnel under Lakeshore and they certainly can't tunnel under the Gardiner itself, the rail corridor is off limits and CityPlace has taken up all spare space that was once available. If Toronto actually had a long term plan in place years ago before CityPlace and the surrounding area it would be much easier and cheaper to tunnel than it will be now. Alas that's transportation planning which Toronto just hasn't quite figured out.

 

[dunkalunk]

If there is going to be a tunnel, I think the most feasible option at this point would be to put it in an immersed tube just off the harbourfront, but even of then, a tunnel would be too expensive to justify the traffic volumes using it in my opinion.

My preferred option would be to build all of the transit options, build large parking structures at Exhibition and the bottom of the DVP hooked up to rapid Transit/GO, and to terminate the Gardiner at Front Street/Bathurst, and charge tolls for use of Toronto's municipal highways or implement a downtown parking levy.

 

[dunkalunk]

[duplicate]

 

[jamincan]

The cost of the toll would have to be huge to recover that kind of investment and the interest on it. It's not the same as tolling a bridge like Boston's Big Dig or Vancouver's Port Mann as all one would have to do is get off the QEW and take the Lakeshore/King/Queen and save the bucks. Tolls over bridges can work because people have no alternative, they have to get over the water but this is not the case with the Gardiner.

By that logic I guess the 407 must have been a resounding failure.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Expect traffic from the DVP to be almost non existent, as people would take Richmond across, as the distance isn't that far. But coming from the west the distance is too far and people will likely pay the toll.