Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[TKTKTK]

Nope. That's the whole point of the design.

A cost-effective, two-story tall tunnel? Tell us more! Is it cut and cover? I guess it would have to be, the boring machines must be expensive - they're not much smaller than the ones used for the chunnel (2 stories, is about 20 feet, right?)

I guess it would have to be even bigger than that though for a two-story driving tunnel; since you'd need the two story clearance above the roadway, and with tunnels being circular (though I guess you could make rectangular ones?). If you were to assume the roadway would be built just below the widest part of the tunnel, I'm guessing you'd need a round tunnel with a diameter of, what, 30 feet? 35 feet?

Big Tunnel!

 

[unimaginative2]

Sigh... how am I not surprised that you didn't read a damned thing that I wrote when I first suggested the idea? Using the low-clearance technique now being used in Paris, a standard bored tunnel size that normally accommodates two standard traffic lanes can be used to accommodate 6 reduced-clearance traffic lanes on two levels, slashing construction costs by a third for a comparable traffic throughput. And, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that the tunnel would not permit trucks wouldn't be a significant issue as they aren't a major presence on the central Gardiner anyway.

 

[TKTKTK]

Sigh... how am I not surprised that you didn't read a damned thing that I wrote when I first suggested the idea? Using the low-clearance technique now being used in Paris, a standard bored tunnel size that normally accommodates two standard traffic lanes can be used to accommodate 6 reduced-clearance traffic lanes on two levels, slashing construction costs by a third for a comparable traffic throughput. And, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that the tunnel would not permit trucks wouldn't be a significant issue as they aren't a major presence on the central Gardiner anyway.

Well, the tunnel you described earlier (in another thread, months ago) was, as you said, a low clearance tunnel. I guess I didn't think a 2-story tall tunnel would be considered low. I thought you must have been talking about a different tunnel.

You seem to be talking about a tunnel with two stories of traffic running in it. I'm talking about a 2-story tall tunnel. I'd LOVE to drive in a 2-story tall tunnel, but I still don't like the two-storied low clearance tunnel.

 

[TKTKTK]

Are you joking? Hilarious! This is the very same TKTK who expressed that lowering the clearance in a tunnel (to a level that is of course perfectly safe, just lower than usual) to save billions on construction costs would be frighteningly confining.

You were talking about a tunnel 2 stories high?! Sorry! I didn't realize it at the time. I'd drive in that!

Expensive though, eh?

Ahhh! Here is the source of confusion! At the time, I thought you were suggesting that since I thought the height of the Gardiner at that stretch (two stories) was more than high enough to drive under without feeling confined, that I should have found your low-clearance tunnel system equally non-confining. Then, somewhat shocked (note the ?!) I asked if, all along, you were talking about a tunnel 2 stories high?! (again! with the ?! !) because otherwise, what relevance did bringing that up have at all?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Star:

Gardiner plan cost increases to $360M
City memo outlines price tag for redoing highway's east section

Jul 10, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (3)
Vanessa Lu
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

The teardown of the Gardiner Expressway could cost as much as $360 million if the Richmond and Adelaide ramps to the Don Valley Parkway are widened, new documents suggest.

In a November 2007 memo, obtained by the Star under a freedom-of-information request, city officials outlined three options for the future of the elevated expressway – removing east of Jarvis St., removing only the central section between Simcoe and Jarvis Sts. plus building the Front St. extension, or modifying the York-Bay-Yonge eastbound spiral ramp.

The first option, which the mayor and Waterfront Toronto (the agency in charge of the waterfront) are now touting, includes replacing the Gardiner with an eight-lane boulevard at a cost of $360 million, the memo says.

Since plans for the dismantling were announced in late May, officials had said it would cost $200 million to $300 million. The increased $60 million cost is linked to redoing the Richmond-Adelaide ramps to and from the DVP.

Mayor David Miller and waterfront officials have insisted the actual price tag for removal of the Gardiner will be determined by an extensive environmental assessment, pegged at up to $11 million and taking up to five years to complete. The construction could take another three years beyond that.

The final decision on whether to go ahead with the environmental assessment will be made next Tuesday when city council meets.

The waterfront board of directors voted unanimously in favour last month.

The idea of removing the central section, pegged at $550 million, was dismissed because most of the area is already developed.

"Our ability to change the face of the lakeshore in that area is very limited," said John Kelly, the city's manager of infrastructure planning.

And council will also be considering a separate proposal next week to remove the spiral off-ramp at York-Bay-Yonge, estimated to cost $30 million, including building on an existing park.

Kelly said no decision has been made on whether the Richmond off-ramp and the Adelaide on-ramp need to be widened to two lanes.

"We still need to analyze exactly the people who are on that section of the Gardiner (to be torn down), where they are coming from and going to," he said.

"There's no point in upgrading that capacity at Richmond and Adelaide if it doesn't take any vehicles off the Gardiner."

Miller said his preference would be to keep the current ramps at Richmond and Adelaide.

"It has to be looked at. I would hope we don't (widen it)," he said.

Miller and Mark Wilson, chair of the waterfront board, yesterday took 13 city councillors on a bus tour of the area, pointing out what sections of the elevated highway would be removed.

"We want you to experience what is and imagine what could be," said Wilson, as cars zipped by on the Gardiner.

Miller emphasized the importance of the waterfront to the economic well-being of the city, noting that much development is planned for the eastern section, including condos, offices, cafes and restaurants.

"I think whether you live inside Toronto or outside Toronto, it's in your interest to have an amazing waterfront. It's in your interest to have Toronto be economically successful," he told reporters. "You need your heart to succeed. And Toronto is the heart of the urban area."

While officials have insisted the traffic impact of removing one chunk of the Gardiner will only add two minutes for drivers coming from Woodbine Ave. and Queen St. to King and Bay Sts., more studies are needed.

It is unclear how the new boulevard would meet the Don Valley Parkway, but it would likely include a two-lane ramp from the east and one from the west that would serve as a bridge over the Don River.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/457658

AoD

 

[Glen]

What I would like to see is some research on what must be developed to make this cost effective. Residential development is a loosing proposition for the city. So how much non residential development, which generates positive cash flow, must be in place to justify the expense. Spending $300 million, now $360 million, most likely to be upwards of $500 million, to loose more money is insanity.

 

[interchange42]

Residential development is a loosing proposition for the City? Do you have any figures/studies to back that assertion up?

42

 

[Glen]

Residential development is a loosing proposition for the City? Do you have any figures/studies to back that assertion up?

42

Here is simple calculation, take a look at Toronto's 2007 budget . The average residential property tax in the city is ~$2,179. Look at page 3, there is a graph showing you how your tax dollars are spent. Keep in mind that the figures represent only 42% of the actual cost. The first three items, Police, debt servicing and Fire, equal $1,024. The $1,024 is really only 42% of the actual cost as property tax represents only 42% of revenue and the city operates at a zero margin (less actually). So take that $1,042 and divide it by .42 and you can see that the cost to pay just those three things is $2,439. More that the average property tax revenue that the city will receive and excluding other expenses like the TTC, Social Services, Parks, Library, Health, etc. Keep in mind also that the averages include the non residential base. The residential sector makes for 80% of the assessment base, consumes 80% of expenditures yet supplies only 59% of the property tax revenue.

This scenario has been maintained by fees, draining of reserve funds, Provincial Grants and the over payment of taxes by the non residential properties. Now the reserves are empty, income from fees are negligible, the Province will not give anymore, 905 pooling is being phased out and the non residential tax base is over saturated. New residential development hurts Toronto's financial health and must be subsidised by the existing tax base.


It is similar to what the Urban Development Institute found for Vancouver......

Property Tax Imbalance

• Impact of converting 1-storey commercial
building to Residential Tower

• Business
Deemed Services Consumed: $71,695
Taxes Paid: $152,350
Excess Taxation: $80,655

• Residential
Municipal Services Consumed: $234,670
Taxes Paid: $129,750
Shortfall: $104,920

 

[Glen]

There is one way to make new residential properties revenue positive. Ensure that they have a minimal assessment value of $880,000 (2007 figures).

 

[interchange42]

And yet if we could double the number of people living within the 416, we would not double the costs of providing service to them. Some costs will certainly increase, but others will not, and each unit added to Toronto's finite area brings the average cost of providing service down. For example, add new buildings along existing streets, and you may need to increase bus frequencies, but you don't have to build a new street.

We would never be able to fill every redevelopment parcel in this city up with business uses - and we want a balance of uses to keep the city vibrant anyway. We may eventually be relieved of some of our tax burden in the future (the province may take back funding of some downloaded services), so it is possible that some costs may be reduced that way too. Finally, we must not stop encouraging new residential development in the city for other reasons too. If new development does not go here, then it will replace farmers fields and wooded lots in the sprawling suburbs and exurbs at a faster rate than is already the case, and that is unsustainable.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Out of curosity, what does "deemed services consumed" in the UDI report means? Resources directly consumed by the business? Is the locational advantages offered by having a large residential based in the area taken into account, for example?

In addition, the information provided tells me absolutely nothing about what the relationship between property assessment value and residential municipal service use (thus cost).

BTW, this is getting seriously OT.

AoD

 

[Glen]

And yet if we could double the number of people living within the 416, we would not double the costs of providing service to them. Some costs will certainly increase, but others will not, and each unit added to Toronto's finite area brings the average cost of providing service down. For example, add new buildings along existing streets, and you may need to increase bus frequencies, but you don't have to build a new street.

Yes there are some economies of scale that can and are achieved with increased density. The problem is that in Toronto the gulf is so wide between citizen centred service expenses and the revenue that said citizen's provide that it will not be bridged by efficiencies. Furthermore I don't think that you can benefit as much as you think from density, as far as cost efficiencies. Compare per person expenses in Toronto to those of Mississauga or Vaughan. You will see that they are comparable.

We would never be able to fill every redevelopment parcel in this city up with business uses - and we want a balance of uses to keep the city vibrant anyway. We may eventually be relieved of some of our tax burden in the future (the province may take back funding of some downloaded services), so it is possible that some costs may be reduced that way too. Finally, we must not stop encouraging new residential development in the city for other reasons too. If new development does not go here, then it will replace farmers fields and wooded lots in the sprawling suburbs and exurbs at a faster rate than is already the case, and that is unsustainable.

42

Ideally yes, this and most areas are best served by mixed uses. But that was not my point. Toronto has priced itself out the non residential market, with some exceptions (see Nowlan). The reality is that for companies that do not benefit from being in the city, they have decided to move or locate elsewhere. Which is why most talk of developing mixed use neighborhoods in Toronto is academic. Most non residential development in Toronto is not viable. So the only think that will be built in the reclaimed areas is residential which, going back to me previous post, need to be subsidised.

Recall that Toronto's official plan had projected the city would have ~1.55 million jobs by now. We are approx. 300,000 less than that.

 

[Glen]

Is the locational advantages offered by having a large residential based in the area taken into account, for example?

It is implicit in assessment values.

 

[TKTKTK]

Some pictures of the Gardiner in my neighbourhood (taken yesterday)

The Gardiner, as seen from Cherry Street.

The Gardiner and Parliament Street.

The Gardiner, looking east

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Thanks for the pics TKTKTK

From the Star:

City okays Gardiner plan

Council approves environmental assessment to gauge viability of changing highway's east section

Jul 16, 2008 04:30 AM
Vanessa Lu
City Hall Bureau Chief

The eastern section of the Gardiner Expressway may eventually be torn down, but a final decision on its future won't be made for years, probably by another crop of politicians.

In the course of a five-hour debate yesterday that ranged from questions about whether the entire elevated expressway would eventually be dismantled to talk of the glorious waterfront that could be, city council voted 30-11 to do an environmental assessment, which will take up to $11 million and four years to complete.

Waterfront Toronto and city officials will now spend about a year to set the scope of the study, which will include everything from traffic impact to cost.

"If people want to look at tunnels, then tunnels will be looked at. If people want to look at ameloriating the north-south access, it will be looked at," said Waterfront Toronto chair Mark Wilson.

The proposal calls for tearing down the Gardiner east of Jarvis St. and replacing it with an eight-lane boulevard, which should encourage development along the corridor. Ramps will need to be added to ensure access to and from the Don Valley Parkway, with the possibility of widening lanes at Richmond and Adelaide Sts.

Officials estimate it would cost about $300 million to do the project, with construction taking another four years. Contingencies for inflation have been built into the figure, though an estimated $60 million price tag for Richmond-Adelaide ramps isn't included.

Mayor David Miller, who has been pushing the project, called it a bold decision, noting strong support from councillors across the city.

"It's about building a 21st century city," he told reporters. "Should we allow our waterfront to remain industrial, underutilized under a rusting expressway, built at a time when the waterfront was only industrial, or should we create amazing public spaces? That's what it's about."

Council also voted 35-6 to go ahead with a separate environmental assessment to replace the spiral York-Bay-Yonge ramp with a straight one.

The city estimates it would cost $25 million to $30 million to replace the current eastbound off-ramp – used by 20,000 drivers a day – that often causes bottlenecks in the morning rush hour.

That amount would cover design, demolition and construction costs, plus creating a 0.8-hectare park on the site. The environmental assessment could take up to 18 months. Actual construction would be spread out over two years.

It remains unclear how the expressway teardown and construction would be funded, given that the federal and provincial governments haven't signed on.

Wilson said the environmental assessment will put a final figure on the cost, noting "before you start asking people for money, you need to have a definitive figure in mind."

While most councillors said they saw the importance of studying the idea, others deem it unnecessary.

"If you're going to have a great city, you need great roads," said Councillor Doug Holyday, noting the increase in traffic congestion would affect industries that depend on just-in-time delivery.

He also fears the spillover effect on traffic along Highways 427 and 401 as motorists tried to avoid the downtown core.

Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby worried that council's decision not to spend money on repairs for that section would further the argument that it's too costly to keep up.

"You can read the tea leaves," she said. "Who are we kidding? It's all there."

But Councillor Peter Milczyn insisted this was an important step in the waterfront's future.

"You can't simply say the status quo is fine, because it isn't. And you can't, out of fear of any change, say, 'We won't contemplate change,' because that leads to decline."

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/460984

AoD