1.3K 
On June 10th, Toronto City Council will hold a historic vote on the future of the Gardiner Expressway East, deciding whether to demolish ('remove' option) or retain ('hybrid' option) the elevated highway. As the vote approaches, the debate surrounding the issue continues to intensify, but the facts about congestion, spending, and urban development are clear: the Gardiner East should be torn down.
Last week, UrbanToronto endorsed the remove option for the Gardiner East, joining many City Councilors, urban planners, former Mayors, the Ontario Liberal MPs, and major publications (including The Toronto Star and The Globe & Mail) in expressing support for what is both the less expensive and more development and investment-friendly option. Taking into consideration the report presented by city staff, it is clear that the minimal benefit of retaining an elevated expressway—in the form of marginally reduced commute times—is worth neither the increased expense nor the opportunity cost.
Replacing the expressway with a grand boulevard would allow for urban development and waterfront revitalization, making walkable new neighbourhoods and providing—through development and new businesses—a direct economic benefit to the city, while potentially driving new tourism.
*
In principle, the debate about the future of the Gardiner east of Jarvis rests on a few simple premises, namely commute times, cost of the project, cost of maintenance, and the kind of city we want in that area.
Those who favour the 'hybrid' option—championed by Mayor John Tory—argue that lower commute times (compared to the boulevard that would replace the highway) are worth the greater costs of maintaining an elevated expressway, while the removal of some off-ramps would allow for re-development of the Unilever site, bringing substantial investment to the area.
Proponents of the 'remove' option, meanwhile, argue that—despite small increases in commute times—the urban re-development made possible by removing an elevated highway would be a boon to the city, citing the success of similar projects in Seoul, New York, San Francisco, and other cities. New commercial and cultural activity would be possible for the first time. Likewise, the lower maintenance costs of a boulevard (as opposed to an elevated highway) add up to hundreds of million dollars of savings for the city, which could be re-invested in any myriad of ways. The Unilever site would be developed either way.
Abstractly, these two positions are both reasonable. Prioritizing commute times and automobile accessibility is fair when those interests are common to many residents, and—even though many urban theorists have argued that car culture has significant (and perhaps inherent) socio-economic harms—it is not surprising that car users worry about their commute times, and that politicians serve to represent their interests. Neither party deserves to be condemned for this. However, despite the suggestions that automobile culture harms the economic health of urban areas, the removal of the Gardiner East should not be seen as evidence of a cultural "war on the car" that many of our politicians (most notably our former Mayor) warned of.
While automobile culture is almost certainly not a particularly good conduit for urban vibrancy, support for the removal option is not primarily driven by some leftist socio-cultural paradigm of what city life should be. Rather, with the city staff report projecting commutes would increase by a maximum of 3 minutes, and an average of only 52 seconds (!), a simple cost-benefit analysis suggests that the millions of additional dollars spent re-building and maintaining an elevated expressway would be an inefficient expense.
The removal option is—rhetoric notwithstanding—the most fiscally conservative and investment friendly course of action available. 52 seconds are not worth half a billion dollars in additional construction and maintenance expenses, and they are not worth additional millions of lost development potential.
*
As evidence mounts from city staff reports and other city experiences, it becomes increasingly difficult to defend a hybrid proposal. Taking into account the information provided by the city staff report, prominent centrist Councillor Josh Matlow has changed his position on the issue, and now advocates the removal option. Matlow's argument is not primarily motivated by city-building or good urbanism (though he does advocate these goals), but by the simple economic inefficiency of the hybrid option.
"As a car driver, I like (the Gardiner)," Matlow writes, admitting that he initially supported the hybrid option as the Gardiner East was debated. Removing an existing piece of infrastracture that serves thousands of people "felt wrong" to Matlow, especially since—unlike the Spadina Expressway in the 70s—the existence of the highway does not threaten existing neighborhoods. The Gardiner is, after all, already there.
However, after reviewing the report, Matlow was, like many Torontonians, surprised to find that the costly hybrid option presents so few benefits to commuters. While some commutes would take up to 3 minutes longer, the average drive would be lengthened by only 52 seconds. With the total capital and maintenance costs of the hybrid option coming in at a staggering $919 million (compared to $416 million for the remove option), Matlow was no longer able to justify the expense.
Meanwhile, with the 12 acres of land made available for development with the boulevard option, Matlow argues that the city would be wrong not to take advantage of the potential income (through development fees and property taxes) that would become available.
Matlow also notes that the number of rush-hour commuters that use the portion of the Gardiner in question stands at only 5,200, meaning that only a very small number of residents would be served by the almost billion-dollar reconstruction. The hybrid option not only adds a significant tax burden to Toronto residents, but also closes the door on revenue from new developments, costing the city and its taxpayers a close to billion dollars, while providing very little in exchange.
*
While Toronto's current Mayor prides himself on fiscal responsibility and good business acumen, the hybrid option that he so fervently advocates represents a poor investment. The popularity of his stance is predicated upon rhetoric rather than facts. While, barring miraculous happenings, the boulevard will not become a Canadian Champs-Élysées (the other side is not without its own outlandish rhetoric), it will certainly not substantially increase commute times, and it will not cost the city millions of dollars in lost productivity. Rather, it will save hundreds of millions of dollars, provide new revenue, and become a potential conduit for better city living.
Years ago, Rob Ford was wrong when he warned us about the 'gravy train' taking over city hall, but, under John Tory, his more urbane, sophisticated, and (supposedly) financially savvy successor, we may well be building ourselves a gravy highway.
*
If you feel strongly about this issue, please contact your Mayor and city councilors here to make your voices heard.
