PDA

View Full Version : Gardiner Tear Down Poll



dunkalunk
2011-Apr-01, 01:00
Under what conditions would you consider it ideal to tear down the central portion of the Gardiner Expressway? Pick the options that you would include in your ideal solution.

RC8
2011-Apr-01, 01:09
http://www.toviaduct.com/skyPATH.htm

There aren't any good reasons not to that. The Gardiner should be torn down ASAP.

MapleLeafs
2011-Apr-01, 01:29
http://www.toviaduct.com/skyPATH.htm

There aren't any good reasons not to that. The Gardiner should be torn down ASAP.

Because the traffic isn't already bad enough, let's tear down the only expressway through downtown Toronto!

If you beautify the existing structure in a way that will be attractive to the eye in the long-term, I'd prefer that option. The ideal solution is to bury it, but of course that costs dollars that we don't have. Otherwise, keep it as is. No reason you couldn't keep it as is and upgrade transit.

RC8
2011-Apr-01, 01:43
Because the traffic isn't already bad enough, let's tear down the only expressway through downtown Toronto!

If you beautify the existing structure in a way that will be attractive to the eye in the long-term, I'd prefer that option. The ideal solution is to bury it, but of course that costs dollars that we don't have. Otherwise, keep it as is. No reason you couldn't keep it as is and upgrade transit.

You'd be building a replacement AND the road under the highway would remain and become a lot more usable - therefore relieving traffic.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-01, 01:46
http://www.toviaduct.com/skyPATH.htm

There aren't any good reasons not to that. The Gardiner should be torn down ASAP.

I don't know about other people, but I don't like the idea of elevating traffic in a new corridor, and also having elevated onramps snaking around buildings.


Before any major road modifications are done, its essential that transit improvements are in place, especially the DRL and GO Service expansion. I would also implement tolls on the Gardiner and DVP to help divert traffic flow and help subsidize the transit improvements.

I would reduce the Gardiner from 3 lanes to 2 lanes with bus bypass shoulders between Lakeshore Boulevard and Strachan Ave. The Gardiner would then continue past Strachan as a 4 lane at-grade Front Street. I'd also modify the street grid a bit downtown by converting Front and Wellington into opposing 2 lane one-way streets with a photo radar enforced speed limit of 50 km/h (Nothing Like Richmond and Adelaide Streets)

I would also keep the lane count on Lakeshore Boulevard at 6 along its entire length.

As long as you can still accomodate the same number of people who travel on the Gardiner by a different mode, I see no reason why major road works are needed.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-01, 01:53
If you beautify the existing structure in a way that will be attractive to the eye in the long-term, I'd prefer that option. The ideal solution is to bury it, but of course that costs dollars that we don't have. Otherwise, keep it as is. No reason you couldn't keep it as is and upgrade transit.

This is very true, transit service should be expanded greatly in the Downtown, and we should keep the existing Gardiner for as long as we can. But the existing structure's design life is running out. The costs of beautifying the structure and retrofit would not be worth it compared with the costs of removing it. There's no sense putting makeup on it, if its going to need retrofits every 20 years to stay aloft.

Automation Gallery
2011-Apr-01, 10:07
Bury the damn thing fom the CNE to the Don Valley, incorporate a Subway/LRT-Monorail system, build a grand avenue above, and "Bob's your uncle":D

Tuscani01
2011-Apr-01, 11:24
I picked 5 things that I'd like to see all at once.

DRL
Waterfront LRT (East and West)
Improve signal priority for streetcars
Improve GO Transit service
Beautify the existing elevated structure

PinkLucy
2011-Apr-01, 11:53
Agreed Tuscani, there should have been a "choose all that apply" option :)

Woodbridge_Heights
2011-Apr-01, 12:11
I voted:

DRL/GO Improvements/Waterfront LRT. I think all three are pretty self evident to any public transit planner. Given the way that the Queen/King streetcars are packed, the Southward expansion of the CBD, and the need for GO to become a commuting alternative for 416'ers not just 905'ers.

Also chose to beautify it, at least for the time being to minimize the visual effect it has until we can... Bury it and improve Lakeshore, which I see as the only way to take the revitalization of the waterfront to the 'next level'. A buried Gardiner with a grand avenue style Lakshore (a Lakeshore LRT from above) would do wonders for the area.

The last item I chose was the Front St. extension. I know this a politically disliked option in this forum however I really feel like an opportunity was missed when this project got canned. Think about it, I remember reading that demand on the eastern portion of the Gardiner is much lower than on the Western end because the Richmond/Wellington ramps allows drivers on the DVP to access the CBD without needing the Gardiner. A Front st. ext would accomplish the same for the West end, allowing drivers to access the DT core without using the central Gardiner to do so. The extension may actually reduce demand on the cetral Gardiner to the point that a replacement may not be needed if it is torn down.

W. K. Lis
2011-Apr-01, 12:51
Crude oil went from $83 a barrel in October to $105 in March ($107 on April 1st so far.) Only millionaires, like the Ford brothers, will continue to use the Gardiner in any form in the coming years.

Might as well tear the Gardiner down and put all the money saved from not supporting expressways in transit improvements instead.

leopetr
2011-Apr-01, 12:52
Demolish Lakeshore Boulevard first.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-01, 12:54
The last item I chose was the Front St. extension. I know this a politically disliked option in this forum however I really feel like an opportunity was missed when this project got canned. Think about it, I remember reading that demand on the eastern portion of the Gardiner is much lower than on the Western end because the Richmond/Wellington ramps allows drivers on the DVP to access the CBD without needing the Gardiner. A Front st. ext would accomplish the same for the West end, allowing drivers to access the DT core without using the central Gardiner to do so. The extension may actually reduce demand on the cetral Gardiner to the point that a replacement may not be needed if it is torn down.

Agreed.

The Front Street Extension doesn't necessarily need to look like what was proposed:
http://www.toronto.ca/waterfront/images/front_extension_large.jpg

Instead, if traffic volumes are projected to be low enough, the central portion of the Gardiner could just be demolished, and the Gardiner could be run straight into Front Street.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2452/frontmod.jpg
Local traffic would use the Front Street Ramps, while through traffic would use Lakeshore Boulevard.

Lizthevw
2011-Apr-01, 13:15
Bizarrely, I've learned to like the Gardiner. Leave it as it is, but build right up to it along its length, and no one will notice it, it will remain a viable route, and it won't cost the world to replace. Heck, in places we could build right over top of it, which would remove it from sight, and reduce weather factors, and free up new development land.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-01, 16:52
Toll and bury.

Riverdale Rink Rat
2011-Apr-01, 16:59
Bizarrely, I've learned to like the Gardiner. Leave it as it is, but build right up to it along its length, and no one will notice it, it will remain a viable route, and it won't cost the world to replace. Heck, in places we could build right over top of it, which would remove it from sight, and reduce weather factors, and free up new development land.

I find the angst over the Gardiner a little bemusing. I find it quite easy to ignore, except when I use it to go Carlaw to Bathurst. Any and all money that would be spent on demolishing the Gardiner and building the alternatives (whether public transit or roadway) could be used to complete all the Waterfront Toronto QQ and Don mouth projects, and our harbour would be such a draw, 'Gardiner angst' would be a thing of the past.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-01, 17:05
Crude oil went from $83 a barrel in October to $105 in March ($107 on April 1st so far.) Only millionaires, like the Ford brothers, will continue to use the Gardiner in any form in the coming years.

Might as well tear the Gardiner down and put all the money saved from not supporting expressways in transit improvements instead.

They have traffic in european cities where gas costs 2-3X the price here. Cars aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-01, 17:33
Keep in mind that the annual cost in 2004 to maintain the Gardiner was $12 million. Also, any construction on the central portion could be the push to get Toronto to toll the Gardiner and DVP.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-01, 19:13
... any construction on the central portion could be the push to get Toronto to toll the Gardiner and DVP.

Which is exactly what they should do.

Amy Rose
2011-Apr-01, 21:05
Waterfront using TTC gauge, since imo, anything rail south of Bloor that is not commuter should be compatible with the current streetcar system for detour and route flexibility purposes

doady
2011-Apr-01, 23:08
I'd rather the Gardiner be kept for new and tolls be added to it to fund transit improvements. Once transit is improved, and the Gardiner becomes underused, and the land around it becomes further intensified, then maybe it can come down, but that should be a long term thing, not short term.

sodapop
2011-Apr-01, 23:23
my ideal plan for the gardiner would be to tunnel the central portion of it (although that probably will never happen) and build the downtown relief line, i can see the drl being built by 2030? or am i being to optimistic :D you never know in toronto

rbt
2011-Apr-01, 23:27
Toll Gardiner and reduce LakeShore to 1 lane traffic and one lane parking (bumpouts at intersections) in each direction. Reduce all lights to standard 60 to 90 second timing found everywhere else in the city.

I'm almost always a pedestrian in this area so my thoughts may be biased :)

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-02, 00:41
Why are the transit options on here? They are needed irrespective of what's done with the Gardiner.

I would suggest that all the transit options on the list need to be built. And the Gardiner should be tolled and buried with a proper 6 lane Lakeshore (3 in each direction) built on top (acting as a collectors lanes of sorts), with bikes lanes, wide sidewalks and maybe even parking lanes.

Memph
2011-Apr-02, 01:34
When I walk to the waterfront, I find the highway up above much less of a bother than the highway that is Lakeshore Road that I have to cross on foot... I'm not sure what the speed limits are there but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of cars go at 80-90km/h. I think (along with transit improvements) that slowing down Lakeshore and have more frequent pedestrian crossings would be better. It's quite awful at Lower Sherbourne.

GTS
2011-Apr-02, 06:44
Hope they tear down the elevated portion of the Gardiner. I wonder if they can put the elevated portion in a trench from Dufferin to the DVP with the downtown portion in a well ventilated tunnel? I read about Korea tearing down one of there elevated expresways and it has been quite a success I heard- they didn't replace that one with an at grade expressway either- they turned the Cheonggyecheon creek area into a park!! I don't think that is necessary for the Gardiner though, but, an at grade expressway, or one in a trench and tunnel, would enhance Toronto's visual appeal greatly. This solution isn't perfect but it is better then leaving it as is.

Towered
2011-Apr-02, 20:31
Once again, you guys are all looking at the wrong section of the Gardiner to bury, the elevated one, when the area where it really cuts off the city from the waterfront is south of Parkdale, Sunnyside, where it's at grade. If anything, the part that should be tunneled is from the Humber to Dufferin.

Memph
2011-Apr-03, 14:12
Would it make that much of a difference to bury the Humber-Dufferin section if the rail and Lakeshore are stil there though? The bridges that cross it seem nice enough for pedestrians. And you'd still have the on/off ramps coming out of the tunnel.

Chuck
2011-Apr-03, 16:57
The Gardiner should be torn down and NOT replaced, but only when the costs to maintain it become unmanageable, possibly in 10-15 years. In the mean time, let's make it obsolete by upgrading transit (GO and local), building the Front St. extension, improving traffic flow on one way streets, and reworking Lakeshore Blvd. To spend money on tunneling, trenching, or rebuilding the Gardiner would be a colossal waste.

West Street in NYC would be a great example to follow. It may be 10 lanes wide with fast moving traffic, but it's well landscaped with a wide median, has great walking trails along the river, and signaling is flawless - by grouping traffic into pulses that almost never have to stop, a pedestrian either sees heavy traffic or no traffic at all when it's time to cross.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-04, 10:31
Once again, you guys are all looking at the wrong section of the Gardiner to bury, the elevated one, when the area where it really cuts off the city from the waterfront is south of Parkdale, Sunnyside, where it's at grade. If anything, the part that should be tunneled is from the Humber to Dufferin.


Would it make that much of a difference to bury the Humber-Dufferin section if the rail and Lakeshore are stil there though? The bridges that cross it seem nice enough for pedestrians. And you'd still have the on/off ramps coming out of the tunnel.

This is why I've always maintained that the entire Gardiner and the rail corridor need to be buried. I don't believe it'd be sufficient to bury just the elevated portion or bury anything and leave the rail corridor untouched.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-04, 10:38
The Gardiner should be torn down and NOT replaced, but only when the costs to maintain it become unmanageable, possibly in 10-15 years. In the mean time, let's make it obsolete by upgrading transit (GO and local), building the Front St. extension, improving traffic flow on one way streets, and reworking Lakeshore Blvd. To spend money on tunneling, trenching, or rebuilding the Gardiner would be a colossal waste.

West Street in NYC would be a great example to follow. It may be 10 lanes wide with fast moving traffic, but it's well landscaped with a wide median, has great walking trails along the river, and signaling is flawless - by grouping traffic into pulses that almost never have to stop, a pedestrian either sees heavy traffic or no traffic at all when it's time to cross.

I know people like to believe that Toronto could survive without the Gardiner. It can't. Even if there was all day regional express service from GO.

Also, who says tunnelling, burying, etc. has to be paid for by the taxpayer? Bury the whole thing and toll it. Let the motorists pay for it.

Automation Gallery
2011-Apr-04, 18:39
I know people like to believe that Toronto could survive without the Gardiner. It can't. Even if there was all day regional express service from GO.

Also, who says tunnelling, burying, etc. has to be paid for by the taxpayer? Bury the whole thing and toll it. Let the motorists pay for it.

Right-on that i agree, and surprised we have gone this long without any mention...very smart way of making money to build pay and maintain it. At first motorists will bitch and complain but after a couple years it will be long forgotten as the registers ring in the cash.

GraphicMatt
2011-Apr-04, 19:58
Let's just talk about the section between the DVP and Jarvis Street for a second. Built at a time when there was to be a Scarborough expressway, it's a massive piece of infrastructure that is the least-used section of the highway.

We should absolutely look at our options for this stretch, yes? Ranging from complete removal (replaced with something at grade) to a realignment that moves it away from the water. We'd be stupid not to consider this, given the potential for redevelopment, etc.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-04, 20:18
I know people like to believe that Toronto could survive without the Gardiner. It can't. Even if there was all day regional express service from GO.

Also, who says tunnelling, burying, etc. has to be paid for by the taxpayer? Bury the whole thing and toll it. Let the motorists pay for it.

I'd say that at least in the interim, increasing parking rates would be a better income generator than highway tolling, not that we shouldn't do both. Highway tolling mostly effects peak usage, while increasing parking rates is better at controlling discretionary car trips and the decision to own a car (or two). Toronto definitely does have some wiggle room when compared with other North American cities (In Particular, Calgary). See Here. (http://www.colliers.com/Country/UnitedStates/content/colliersparkingratesurvey2010.pdf)

The thing with road tolling is, is that people expect an increase in the level of service to justify the tolling. You could widen the highway, or improve its safety and throughput, but then you would end up with traffic flooding onto Downtown Streets with nowhere to go. Improving the traffic flow on the highway would also be counterintuitive to expanding transit. I could be misjudging the way people think though.

I think people could survive without the Gardiner, but it'll take massive transit improvement, $2/barrel oil, and a chunk of it to fall onto LSB for them to realize it.

TKTKTK
2011-Apr-04, 20:22
Crude oil went from $83 a barrel in October to $105 in March ($107 on April 1st so far.) Only millionaires, like the Ford brothers, will continue to use the Gardiner in any form in the coming years.

Might as well tear the Gardiner down and put all the money saved from not supporting expressways in transit improvements instead.

lol, April Fools! Gas is more expensive in Europe than it is here, by far and yet...they still have cars and drive :) The future's going to look a lot like now, not identical but not the crazy car-free future that people dream about.

TKTKTK
2011-Apr-04, 20:33
Let's just talk about the section between the DVP and Jarvis Street for a second. Built at a time when there was to be a Scarborough expressway, it's a massive piece of infrastructure that is the least-used section of the highway.

We should absolutely look at our options for this stretch, yes? Ranging from complete removal (replaced with something at grade) to a realignment that moves it away from the water. We'd be stupid not to consider this, given the potential for redevelopment, etc.

It might be the least used stretch of that highway, but it still sees an awful lot of traffic. Most cars aren't getting off at Richmond or Lake Shore, they continue around the flyramps onto the Gardiner. I can understand simplifying this transition a bit — and there IS excess capacity — but I can't see getting rid of it entirely and creating an illogical break in our highways. It makes far more sense to have this traffic skirt residential areas than descend from the heavens and plow right through it.

It also seems like the wrong project to get really fussed about. The city needs a hundred things before it needs to get rid of the Gardiner.

GraphicMatt
2011-Apr-04, 20:52
With the amount of waterfront development taking place or set to take place, it's an important thing to consider -- whether the Gardiner stays or goes (or changes) in this eastern stretch vastly changes plans.

Here's a satellite image of the stretch in question -- it's the widest part of the downtown Gardiner:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/981/screenshot20110404at750.png (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20110404at750.png/)

TKTKTK
2011-Apr-04, 21:25
With the amount of waterfront development taking place or set to take place, it's an important thing to consider -- whether the Gardiner stays or goes (or changes) in this eastern stretch vastly changes plans.

It hasn't seemed to matter that much so far — as that whole parcel of land is going ahead and being developed. :) But I've never understood the wisdom of blighting existing neighbourhoods so we can have a clean slate for one that doesn't exist yet — when the more logical course of action would be to plan those new neighbourhoods around a piece of infrastructure that is older than most of us on this forum.

You could probably condense two flyramps down to one larger one — but surely those millions of dollars could be better used on a new streetcar line, or some transit improvement? Any improvement scenario I come up with is quickly chased away by thoughts of us picking paint colours while the house rots around us.


Here's a satellite image of the stretch in question -- it's the widest part of the downtown Gardiner:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/981/screenshot20110404at750.png (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20110404at750.png/)

And not to nitpick, but it's not the widest part :) It's the tallest part. Widest part is either right by the Roundhouse, or at the point where the West-bound Lake Shore rises up to join the Gardiner for a bit (you know, depending on how you want to define the Gardiner). Maybe that thicket of ramps by Yonge...?

Woodbridge_Heights
2011-Apr-06, 22:52
Once again, you guys are all looking at the wrong section of the Gardiner to bury, the elevated one, when the area where it really cuts off the city from the waterfront is south of Parkdale, Sunnyside, where it's at grade. If anything, the part that should be tunneled is from the Humber to Dufferin.

Bridge over the Humber bay (from around Park Lawn to Marylinn Park) and into a tunnel through the central section. Rebuild Lakeshore into a grand avenue with in median LRT.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-07, 00:55
I applaud your sense of imagination, but unless Toronto becomes Dubai rich, its never going to happen, especially when there is an already existing parallel route.

Filip
2011-Apr-07, 03:57
Bridge over the Humber bay (from around Park Lawn to Marylinn Park) and into a tunnel through the central section. Rebuild Lakeshore into a grand avenue with in median LRT.

Lots and lots of condos in the way there.

rbt
2011-Apr-07, 09:32
I applaud your sense of imagination, but unless Toronto becomes Dubai rich, its never going to happen, especially when there is an already existing parallel route.

Toronto is Dubai rich. Richer in fact by about 30% if you go with 2008 GDP numbers.

Big difference in 1) wealth distribution and 2) mindset toward savings. Emirates royalty, the owners of most of Dubai, believe pretty strongly in spending their entire income and only have so many ways to spend $2B increments locally. Ontario money tends to get reinvested. Our companies keep larger "rainy day" funds and tend to be market traded instead of individually owned/controlled.

Our banks, for example, have stashed away tens of billions in the last 4 years. If bank owners were a handful of individuals who demanded large dividend payments and spent those dividends within the borders of Toronto on visible infrastructure; we would have some pretty wacky things being built right now. Eglinton Subway would be a single years "excess revenue" expenditure.

Woodbridge_Heights
2011-Apr-07, 13:53
I applaud your sense of imagination, but unless Toronto becomes Dubai rich, its never going to happen, especially when there is an already existing parallel route.

Unique problems require imaginative solutions. Just imagine a grand Lakeshore blvd snaking along the shore from the Humber bay into the downtown core. For all the talk of the regenerative powers of LRT this plan would bring parkdale back to promenence in the city.

Yes it's expensive but so was adding the lower deck to the Bloor viaduct.

It's a real shame WaterfronTO didn't start on this plan (at least the tunnel) before all the issues came up from Boston's big dig. The problems from that project have made people wary of taking on a similar project here.

TOareaFan
2011-Apr-07, 14:39
Our banks, for example, have stashed away tens of billions in the last 4 years. If bank owners were a handful of individuals who demanded large dividend payments and spent those dividends within the borders of Toronto on visible infrastructure; we would have some pretty wacky things being built right now. Eglinton Subway would be a single years "excess revenue" expenditure.

You do understand that, while our banks came through the fiscal/credit crises in pretty good shape, the resistance to increasing dividends (which I presume is the stashing away that you refer to) was necessary to build their Tier I capital levels to the new benchmarks required by international banking rules and regulations. Tier I capital level requirements increase in 2012 under Basel III. Now that those levels have been reached, all of the big 5 are talking about some level of dividend increase.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-07, 14:58
But is the Humber bay section of the waterfront really a problem? There is already a plan to revitalize Lakeshore West. Even if you were to move the Gardiner out to a bridge in the bay, you would still have pedestrian access issues caused by the rail corridor.

Also, how is a person supposed to cross a grand boulevard in one phase? This is barely doable on University Ave now.

sixrings
2011-Apr-07, 15:30
I dont like the idea of Tolling the roads to pay for a tunneled portion.... To me it makes sense to maintain it and Toll the roads to finance the DRL... The Tolls can only pay for one thing and as much as I understand peoples want for a Tunnel we NEED a DRL....

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-07, 15:38
I dont like the idea of Tolling the roads to pay for a tunneled portion.... To me it makes sense to maintain it and Toll the roads to finance the DRL... The Tolls can only pay for one thing and as much as I understand peoples want for a Tunnel we NEED a DRL....

+1, and also a parking levy

Mapleson
2011-Apr-07, 15:47
I'd say that at least in the interim, increasing parking rates would be a better income generator than highway tolling, not that we shouldn't do both. Highway tolling mostly effects peak usage, while increasing parking rates is better at controlling discretionary car trips and the decision to own a car (or two). Toronto definitely does have some wiggle room when compared with other North American cities (In Particular, Calgary). See Here. (http://www.colliers.com/Country/UnitedStates/content/colliersparkingratesurvey2010.pdf)

The thing with road tolling is, is that people expect an increase in the level of service to justify the tolling. You could widen the highway, or improve its safety and throughput, but then you would end up with traffic flooding onto Downtown Streets with nowhere to go. Improving the traffic flow on the highway would also be counterintuitive to expanding transit. I could be misjudging the way people think though.

I think people could survive without the Gardiner, but it'll take massive transit improvement, $2/barrel oil, and a chunk of it to fall onto LSB for them to realize it.Did you mean $200/barrel oil? Because I think cheaper oil would mean more drivers, not less. It's the whole reason we have petrol stations instead of ethonol stations (gas was $0.05/gal in the US when Ford started mass production, which undercut his theory of farmers making their own corn-based fuel).

The Gardiner would look fine if there wasn't $200 million in backlog repairs. Sightlines aren't going to get much better with it gone because of all condos down there. A belowgrade highway would be more expensive than a DRL per kilometre, and we all know how well that's been funded. They didn't tear down the Golden Gate Bridge just because the BART had a tunnel under the bay, both are usually packed at rush hour now. The Gardiner would still be packed at rush hour even with a DRL, and I for one would rather have the two options of packed road or packed subway, than the one option of packed subway road.

rbt
2011-Apr-07, 16:29
You do understand that, while our banks came through the fiscal/credit crises in pretty good shape, the resistance to increasing dividends (which I presume is the stashing away that you refer to) was necessary to build their Tier I capital levels to the new benchmarks required by international banking rules and regulations. Tier I capital level requirements increase in 2012 under Basel III. Now that those levels have been reached, all of the big 5 are talking about some level of dividend increase.

Sure, and glad of it. Banks are handy things to have reliable.

Many Dubai banks have the government or a Sheikh as a primary shareholder. Their profits, those large dividend payments that Canadian banks are about to put out, typically go toward city building exercises. Canadian Bank dividends probably aren't going to be building much in the way of infrastructure within Toronto; I know mine certainly won't be.

We have every bit as much money, we just distribute and spend it differently.

GraphicMatt
2011-Apr-07, 17:17
We have every bit as much money, we just distribute and spend it differently.

Even at the governmental level, we have a ton of fiscal capacity for capital projects. We'll spend 30 billion dollars on fighter jets over the next decade or so. An investment that size in Canada's major cities would be transformative and provide a significant ROI through increased economic activity.

Canada's governance model is a relic of the pre-urbanized Canada.

Filip
2011-Apr-07, 19:04
Even at the governmental level, we have a ton of fiscal capacity for capital projects. We'll spend 30 billion dollars on fighter jets over the next decade or so. An investment that size in Canada's major cities would be transformative and provide a significant ROI through increased economic activity.

Canada's governance model is a relic of the pre-urbanized Canada.

I completely agree.

While it is necessary to replace these aging fighters as none of us want a repeat of the Seaking fiasco (Chretien canceled a Mulroney-led effort to replace aging military helicopters and eventually they just started falling out of the sky killing our soldiers), it does seem a bit forced considering our cities are facing incredible infrastructure problems.

Canada is just such a wealthy country with just embarrassing urban infrastructure. I still find it hard to believe that we do not have at least electrified the Via Corridor after most of this planet has, including Eastern Europe in the 1960s. What boggles my mind is what possesses all parties (including the Liberals) to spend such effort pandering to rural interests. Our cities are the drivers of our economy and have considerably more political seats at stake than rural ridings which can stretch for hundreds of kilometres.

BMO
2011-Apr-07, 20:08
I completely agree.

While it is necessary to replace these aging fighters as none of us want a repeat of the Seaking fiasco (Chretien canceled a Mulroney-led effort to replace aging military helicopters and eventually they just started falling out of the sky killing our soldiers), it does seem a bit forced considering our cities are facing incredible infrastructure problems.

Canada is just such a wealthy country with just embarrassing urban infrastructure. I still find it hard to believe that we do not have at least electrified the Via Corridor after most of this planet has, including Eastern Europe in the 1960s. What boggles my mind is what possesses all parties (including the Liberals) to spend such effort pandering to rural interests. Our cities are the drivers of our economy and have considerably more political seats at stake than rural ridings which can stretch for hundreds of kilometres.

they have to pander to rural concerns, because how the seat system works in parliament is that there aren't an equivalent proportion of city seats to rural seats, so even if proportionally more ppl live in cities, the seat system doesn't necessarily reflect that, in turn to give rural residents more influence, otherwise all the money would be focused solely on cities.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-08, 00:01
Did you mean $200/barrel oil? Because I think cheaper oil would mean more drivers, not less. It's the whole reason we have petrol stations instead of ethonol stations (gas was $0.05/gal in the US when Ford started mass production, which undercut his theory of farmers making their own corn-based fuel).

The Gardiner would look fine if there wasn't $200 million in backlog repairs. Sightlines aren't going to get much better with it gone because of all condos down there. A belowgrade highway would be more expensive than a DRL per kilometre, and we all know how well that's been funded. They didn't tear down the Golden Gate Bridge just because the BART had a tunnel under the bay, both are usually packed at rush hour now. The Gardiner would still be packed at rush hour even with a DRL, and I for one would rather have the two options of packed road or packed subway, than the one option of packed subway road.

Yes, i got confused between $2/litre gas and $200/barrel oil while typing :P.

When you said Golden Gate Bridge, did you mean Bay Bridge? The Golden Gate Bridge and BART tunnel serve two completely different corridors.

While I'd like to see the Gardiner be gotten rid of eventually, I could only advocate for it if the traffic volumes suggest that it is no longer worth the cost of upkeep. For that, we would need more than just a DRL, but also frequent EMU service on GO, Waterfront East and West LRTs and improved signal priority on streetcars and buses.

Automation Gallery
2011-Apr-08, 00:26
I dont like the idea of Tolling the roads to pay for a tunneled portion.... To me it makes sense to maintain it and Toll the roads to finance the DRL... The Tolls can only pay for one thing and as much as I understand peoples want for a Tunnel we NEED a DRL....

Yeah but tell the general public ( motorists-private/commercial ) that you are about to toll old infastructure ( in this case the Gardiner Expy.) to build something ( DRL) that has nothing to do with the improvements of the roadway and that also might take 15-20 years to complete..now that does not make sense. Why is not a precentage of the 407 profits going into future planned GTA transportation.

dunkalunk
2011-Apr-08, 01:28
Why is not a precentage of the 407 profits going into future planned GTA transportation.

Because Harris leased it for 99 years to a private consortium.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-08, 12:53
Even at the governmental level, we have a ton of fiscal capacity for capital projects. We'll spend 30 billion dollars on fighter jets over the next decade or so.

Actually, that's 30 billion over 30+ years. Just to correct the record. And that's the PBO numbers. An accounting method not applied to a single defence project prior, in Canada....which is why DND maintains that the costs will be around 18-20 billion. Acquisition will still be about 9-10 billion till 2020. And incidentally, we do actually have a relatively low defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP (some of the lowest in the developed world).



An investment that size in Canada's major cities would be transformative and provide a significant ROI through increased economic activity.

Canada's governance model is a relic of the pre-urbanized Canada.

It's not an either/or proposition. The federal government's first and foremost responsibility remains the security of the state.

That said, investment in urban regeneration and infrastructure needs to be made too. This is why I have maintained that the provinces should step up and take up the tax room being vacated by the feds. I am all for Ontario raising the HST to 15%. The provinces are bucking their responsibility to raise and spend revenues on municipalities (who are creations of the provinces). And the conveniently blaming the feds. The provinces should step up and raise corporate income taxes, personal income taxes and sales taxes as the feds are cutting them.

kEiThZ
2011-Apr-08, 12:59
I completely agree.

While it is necessary to replace these aging fighters as none of us want a repeat of the Seaking fiasco (Chretien canceled a Mulroney-led effort to replace aging military helicopters and eventually they just started falling out of the sky killing our soldiers), it does seem a bit forced considering our cities are facing incredible infrastructure problems.

Canada is just such a wealthy country with just embarrassing urban infrastructure. I still find it hard to believe that we do not have at least electrified the Via Corridor after most of this planet has, including Eastern Europe in the 1960s. What boggles my mind is what possesses all parties (including the Liberals) to spend such effort pandering to rural interests. Our cities are the drivers of our economy and have considerably more political seats at stake than rural ridings which can stretch for hundreds of kilometres.

It's not that they are necessarily pandering to rural interests. They just aren't pandering to big city interests. They pander to the 905 for example. And to smaller cities (Kingston, Fredricton, Moncton, etc.) throughout Canada.

Mapleson
2011-Apr-08, 18:53
When you said Golden Gate Bridge, did you mean Bay Bridge? The Golden Gate Bridge and BART tunnel serve two completely different corridors.

While I'd like to see the Gardiner be gotten rid of eventually, I could only advocate for it if the traffic volumes suggest that it is no longer worth the cost of upkeep. For that, we would need more than just a DRL, but also frequent EMU service on GO, Waterfront East and West LRTs and improved signal priority on streetcars and buses.That'd be the one.

Interesting tidbit I came across "GO now carries 19% of inbound commuters to downtown, while the Gardiner carries 8%. The TTC carries 47% of commuters and other auto routes account for 26% of inbound traffic, according to 2006 figures."


That said, investment in urban regeneration and infrastructure needs to be made too. This is why I have maintained that the provinces should step up and take up the tax room being vacated by the feds. I am all for Ontario raising the HST to 15%. The provinces are bucking their responsibility to raise and spend revenues on municipalities (who are creations of the provinces). And the conveniently blaming the feds. The provinces should step up and raise corporate income taxes, personal income taxes and sales taxes as the feds are cutting them.I agree, but the masses would revolt and elect Doug Ford as Premier. People want better services, but they don't want to pay for them. It's a common conversation I have when people start to complain taxes are too high. They aren't we are adding debt rather than paying it off and just prolonging the system of needs outstripping resources.

Toronto1
2011-Apr-10, 15:15
That'd be the one.

Interesting tidbit I came across "GO now carries 19% of inbound commuters to downtown, while the Gardiner carries 8%. The TTC carries 47% of commuters and other auto routes account for 26% of inbound traffic, according to 2006 figures."

This statistic was used by Mayor Miller, Waterfront Toronto, et al. when the most recent debate occurred about a year ago. It's a bit misleading, in my view anyway, as a number of DVP users exit at the Richmond Street off-ramp to enter downtown. Of course, that means that they are not using the Gardiner Expressway, but it does not mean that they are not using downtown highway network. After all, the Gardiner on-ramp is less than a minute down the road from Richmond. The Gardiner and the DVP are really one system where they merge downtown and, as such, true usage of our urban highway is somewhere between 8% and 26%. The remainder of the "other auto routes" are comprised of local roads that would have been used regardless by people who live close enough to downtown that they do not need to use a highway.

GO Transit usage into the core has certainly increased as the suburbs have expanded. I'm certain that the TTC has brought more commuters downtown with the YUS and BD, and all of its surface routes, than the Gardiner and the DVP, for as long as all of this infrastructure has existed.