|
|
|
Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
just east of the creek
Active Member
As I was headed down the DVP late last night and jumping on the Gardner (at a steady 90 klicks with lots of traffic in all directions - so after 10 p.m.), I was indulging in a bit of what if in regards to the future of the G. What if the G was trenched from the east side of the DVP to the Ex with enhanced river valley access to the mouth of the Don, a lovely boulevard above, housing, and streetcars….but $$$$. How about if we tolled from the 401 southbound through the DVP and the G west to the 427. Good idea if Doug goes for it, but we are still left with the G in place. How about if we just pulled down the G? That would be certainly popular in some quarters. And less so in others. And I think it’s far too simplistic to just blame the 905ers, the outer Toronto burbs and the ’elites’ (whoever they may be, after Galen that is) for the existence of the G. Yes commuters, yes business in general (how are you getting your fresh Ontario Asparagus to the St Lawrence Market in a timely fashion?)(or your tourists for that matter), yes car owners, yes…yes..yes. There will be pushback from all of those groups and more. And the region does not have the transit system to replace the access. Maybe the Lakeshore line yes. But to replace these volumes…? And the other regions - not close. And in the city, say the north west and the northeast - coming, but still much work to be done.
And perhaps it was decided to pull down the G. Is that the only measure taken locally?Or do you wrap that decision in a package of congestion charges for the ‘downtown’ area, increased parking rates or parking taxation, acceleration of separated transit and bicycle infrastructure and service (underlined with a Capital S), absolute transit priority…in part to deal with the spillover of traffic from the congested G replacement.And let’s not forget about the increasing public anxiety about safety on public transit and in public spaces. A real concern for many.
And would Doug let you do that? I think not. I think he would step in and overrule the city. Maybe, just maybe, the province would upload the G. Better for the cities financial structure, perhaps not so favourable a result for the long term relationship of the G and the city. But I think the reality of the situation is the province would block the removal of the G full stop. And then we would be back to where we are today.
Currently I think that pulling down the G is a pipe dream, a bit like HSR through the booming metropolis of Sharbot Lake. Most of us think that there would be a lot of advantages to pulling down the G on certain levels, almost regardless of the plan proposed. In an ideal political environment , say a provincial election, would you get announcements and promises to ‘study’ the idea. Yes, sure, perhaps, if there are more votes to gain in a certain constituency then to lose. But actually saying yes, putting up billions to invest in the replacement infrastructures in a timely fashion, I’m not so sure.
I would just add that the CIBC buildings are very impressive when viewed from the G westbound. Looking forwards to the twinning of the towers.
And perhaps it was decided to pull down the G. Is that the only measure taken locally?Or do you wrap that decision in a package of congestion charges for the ‘downtown’ area, increased parking rates or parking taxation, acceleration of separated transit and bicycle infrastructure and service (underlined with a Capital S), absolute transit priority…in part to deal with the spillover of traffic from the congested G replacement.And let’s not forget about the increasing public anxiety about safety on public transit and in public spaces. A real concern for many.
And would Doug let you do that? I think not. I think he would step in and overrule the city. Maybe, just maybe, the province would upload the G. Better for the cities financial structure, perhaps not so favourable a result for the long term relationship of the G and the city. But I think the reality of the situation is the province would block the removal of the G full stop. And then we would be back to where we are today.
Currently I think that pulling down the G is a pipe dream, a bit like HSR through the booming metropolis of Sharbot Lake. Most of us think that there would be a lot of advantages to pulling down the G on certain levels, almost regardless of the plan proposed. In an ideal political environment , say a provincial election, would you get announcements and promises to ‘study’ the idea. Yes, sure, perhaps, if there are more votes to gain in a certain constituency then to lose. But actually saying yes, putting up billions to invest in the replacement infrastructures in a timely fashion, I’m not so sure.
I would just add that the CIBC buildings are very impressive when viewed from the G westbound. Looking forwards to the twinning of the towers.
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
There was "lots of traffic" on the Gardiner East?
In my experience, the stretch between Jarvis and the DVP is always empty, in both directions.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
it's particularly empty right now as the Lakeshore ramps have been closed.
evandyk
Senior Member
It was actually quite jammed up last night because of the Jays and Raptors both playing. But that's what it takes to get busy, it's not busy on a normal day.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
The two games ended within a minute of each other. I was flipping between the two on TV - saw the Raptors season end, then went right back to the Jays game to see the last pitch (it's that time of year when side-by-side TVs are established).
Rainforest
Senior Member
My take: build the hybrid option as designed, then set tolls on both the Gardiner and the DVP. If the province vetoes those tolls, then reduce the speed limit to 60 kph and enforce that new limit.
If they are a city property .. then they are policed by TPS rather than OPP, and the city can set the speed limit as it sees. Lower speed results in a lesser wear and tear and thus lower maintenance costs, at least in theory. I don't want to see anything as dramatic as blocking the highways; the traffic will still move at 60 kph, but the change will be noticeable enough to pressure the province. Either upload and deal with the maintenance costs yourself, or let the city collect the tolls and put them to some good use.
If they are a city property .. then they are policed by TPS rather than OPP, and the city can set the speed limit as it sees. Lower speed results in a lesser wear and tear and thus lower maintenance costs, at least in theory. I don't want to see anything as dramatic as blocking the highways; the traffic will still move at 60 kph, but the change will be noticeable enough to pressure the province. Either upload and deal with the maintenance costs yourself, or let the city collect the tolls and put them to some good use.
robmausser
Senior Member
If the province wont allow tolls, set the speed limit to 90kmh, then set random sections to 50kmh and put speed cameras on those sections.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,630
- Reaction score
- 25,380
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
Surprise, surprise. Staff now need MORE $$$ to fix the section from Cherry to the Don! Odd (!!) this was not revealed in March when Staff reported on the Gardiner Costs!
GG3.9 - Emergency Non-Competitive Contract with Grascan Construction Limited/Torbridge Construction Limited to Repair F.G. Gardiner Expressway Concrete Bents from Cherry Street to the Don Valley Parkway
Consideration Type: ACTION Ward: 10 - Spadina - Fort YorkOrigin
(April 3, 2023) Report from the Interim Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the Chief Procurement Officer, Purchasing and Materials ManagementRecommendations
The Interim Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the Chief Procurement Officer, Purchasing and Materials Management recommend that:1. City Council receive this report for information.
Summary
The purpose of this report is to advise Toronto City Council, pursuant to Chapter 195 of the Toronto Municipal Code (Purchasing By-Law, Section 195-7.4), of a non-competitive contract with Grascan Construction Limited/Torbridge Construction Limited, to procure construction services to repair deteriorated F.G. Gardiner Expressway concrete bents from Cherry Street to the Don Valley Parkway, for a total value of $3,678,065 excluding Harmonized Sales Tax ($3,742,799 net of Harmonized Sales Tax recoveries).The issuance of this non-competitive construction contract was as a matter of extreme urgency, as the condition of the concrete bents was significantly deteriorated, and repairs are required to maintain public safety and mitigate further damages.
This repair was deemed an emergency by the former Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, under Chapter 195-7.1 (G) of the Municipal Code. Reporting back to City Council is required in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 195, Purchasing, Article 7, Section 195-7.4(B) where a non-competitive contract exceeds $500,000.
Financial Impact
The total emergency non-competitive contract (Purchase Order Number 6054363) was issued for $3,678,065 net of all applicable taxes and charges under the emergency provision of the Purchasing By-Law. The cost to the City is $3,742,799 net of Harmonized Sales Tax recoveries.The emergency contract is funded from the 2023-2032 Approved Capital Budget and Plan for Transportation Services (F.G. Gardiner Rehabilitation) as summarized in Table 1 below:
Table 1 - Financial Impact Summary
| WBS Element and Description | 2023 | Total (Net of HST Recoveries) |
| CTP122-08-35 F.G. Gardiner Rehabilitation | $3,742,799 | $3,742,799 |
The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
note that this is not related to the part that has already been rehabilitated - this is emergency maintenance on the bents on the part of the highway which is due to be demolished in a few years. I suspect this is being contracted as they are worried about structural integrity of the structure until such time it's ready to be demolished..
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,630
- Reaction score
- 25,380
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
Yes, I realise this but if Staff were being totally open they would have noted this in their March Report.
Amare
Senior Member
Well if City Council decides to dither on section of the Gardiner some more, there's going to be a lot more of this emergency money being spent to keep that whole stretch up (similar to the Scarborough RT saga).
This should serve as a warning more than anything, that the realignment needs to happen real soon before the thing crumbles.
This should serve as a warning more than anything, that the realignment needs to happen real soon before the thing crumbles.
milkycontent
Active Member
A perfect opportunity to save some money see what would happen if we don't rebuild. Instead of wasting money maintaining a section we're gonna tear down in a few years, just close this section and let the drivers figure out other routes. Call it a pilot project!
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
"Drivers dismount and push vehicle on sidewalk"
rdaner
Senior Member
And you could turn it into a temporary version of Promenade Plantée in Paris or the Highline in New York.