Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[k10ery]

Umm... your sarcasm is worth a 25% discount? How else is $326M = $414M? And, if you get out of your car, you will stop the noxious fumes, and then people won't die. But that wasn't your point, I know. The 'people dying' meme was just a way for you to try and get back to your main point -- don't get in the way of my driving from point A to point B, because that's important to me.

I've missed you, Ratty.

-Mole

 

[ssiguy2]

Of the three options, I don't think the "maintain" will be adopted. Even those who still want a fast rout downtown acknowledge that the Gardiner is an eyesore and something has to be done. Really it's just 2 realistic options.....removal or the hybrid.

The removal is pretty easy to understand but I'm still a little confused about what exactly the hybrid option is about. I know it will mean tearing down the current section near the Waterfront and building a newer connection further north near the railway lands but after that I'm stumped.

Will this new built section also be an elevated freeway? What happens to the current Lakeshore that runs underneath the Gardiner which I have always considered a bigger psychological barrier to the Waterfront than either the rail corridor or the Gardiner? If it's still a freeway will it also be elevated or more at-grade or semi ditched?

I would appreciate the answers as I looked at the designs but it still left me with questions.

One advantage of the hybrid {which I don't support} that will give it more support from Tory is that First Gulf has said it will allow an extension for a streetcar to hook up Queen's Quay LRT {if it ever gets built} and Broadview Station which is a real bonus. Probably an even bigger reason Tory would support a hybrid option is that First Gulf has promised to build a new GO station which effectively means ST and this saves the City/Metrolinx/Queen's Park big bucks in construction costs and land acquisition. This is not only an important economic reason for the hybrid but also makes building ST much easier.

If ST needs that land for a stations, First Gulf will not be in a very pleasant mood when negotiating for the land values and access points after they offered to build a brand new GO station and Broadway/QQ LRT ROW and the City turned them down. The City could use ultimate domain but First Gulf certainly has the financial means to keep that argument going in the courts for a very long time.

 

[k10ery]

Umm - its $342MM for maintain, $326MM for teardown. A difference of $16MM which is certainly in the margin of error for these estimates.

Even the $88MM spread for the hybrid option is a trivial amount over the financing term that would be used to do this construction (at least 30 years like the scarborough subway - possibly 50)

Agreed. Even $88 million is small change for transportation planning.

But it's a hell of a big gift to First Gulf, who as far as I can tell are the only reason the hybrid option even exists.

 

[bobbob911]

Of the three options, I don't think the "maintain" will be adopted. Even those who still want a fast rout downtown acknowledge that the Gardiner is an eyesore and something has to be done. Really it's just 2 realistic options.....removal or the hybrid.

Don't be so sure - the due diligence on the hybrid option may turn up any number of gotchas that drive the price up or make it unfeasible. Right now its a sketch on a napkin. In contrast, there are *zero* unknowns with maintain. There's nothing hiding in the weeds to derail it if the decision was made.

By the way, I don't acknowledge that the Gardiner is an eyesore - at least, not any more of an eyesore than the wall of condos and wide expanse of train tracks that fall immediately to the south of it. Not any more of an eyesore than the El train tracks in Chicago. Not any more of an eyesore than a whole lot of essential infrastructure that most cities have.

 

[salsa]

to understand but I'm still a little confused about what exactly the hybrid option is about. I know it will mean tearing down the current section near the Waterfront and building a newer connection further north near the railway lands but after that I'm stumped.

What you describe with the hybrid was only what was promised in the election.

John Tory was foolish to trumpet his preference for the hybrid option so many months before the facts were actually available, because it turns out most of the benefits that were originally promised are not gonna pan out. Shifting the whole thing up to the rail corridor is deemed unfeasible because the DVP ramps would turn too sharply to maintain high speeds, and it would interfere with a planned stormwater facility. Therefore the highway and it's DVP ramps would be rebuilt in exactly the same location. The only real change is the removal of the Logan ramps which will be replaced by a new one at Cherry St, and the only real benefit of this proposal is that it saves motorists a couple of minutes.

The ultimate decision in council will come down to what benefits they care most about. If fiscal prudence and having a nice waterfront takes a back seat to saving motorists a couple minutes, then they will vote for the hybrid.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm not necessarily saying this should be a consideration here in Toronto Canada, but one issue with highway infrastructure that doesn't come up for us is the national security argument. In larger more powerful countries highway infrastructure is not just a local traffic consideration, it is also a national security consideration. Actually, isn't the whole idea of a highway system in large part rooted in the military industrial complex? I think the debate would be very different if this was Paris, Moscow, New York or Beijing and military / security concerns would be in play in this decision. Actually, if you think about it, it is kind of cute how not only is that not a consideration when we are talking about the Gardiner but it doesn't even enter into our minds. It shows how out of sight and irrelevant the military is in most Canadian's lives.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I've missed you, Ratty.

-Mole

Hahahaha....

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm not necessarily saying this should be a consideration here in Toronto Canada, but one issue with highway infrastructure that doesn't come up for us is the national security argument. In larger more powerful countries highway infrastructure is not just a local traffic consideration, it is also a national security consideration. Actually, isn't the whole idea of a highway system in large part rooted in the military industrial complex? I think the debate would be very different if this was Paris, Moscow, New York or Beijing and military / security concerns would be in play in this decision. Actually, if you think about it, it is kind of cute how not only is that not a consideration when we are talking about the Gardiner but it doesn't even enter into our minds. It shows how out of sight and irrelevant the military is in most Canadian's lives.

Wait, what? Other than Baron Haussmann bulldozing the slums for Napoleon, what 'military / security concern' is met by roadways through major cities?

Are you suggesting that a 'tank-ready' highway to downtown is considered necessary in any of those cities you cite?

ETA: I guess, if you were worried about insurrection? In Toronto?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Umm - its $342MM for maintain, $326MM for teardown. A difference of $16MM which is certainly in the margin of error for these estimates.

Even the $88MM spread for the hybrid option is a trivial amount over the financing term that would be used to do this construction (at least 30 years like the scarborough subway - possibly 50)

There is no 'maintain' option, as it kills the value of the soap plant site. And, now you're playing with figures again. You can't take the 'today' costs and spread them over 30 or 50 or 100 years without adding back all the other future costs, and we get back to the $500M difference argument.

Check out the Transferium report -- they're planning to park 6000 cars! Free parking for everyone! And a straight shot north on the DVP after work! And an office right there! What more could car commuters want? ;-)

 

[aquateam]

Wait, what? Other than Baron Haussmann bulldozing the slums for Napoleon, what 'military / security concern' is met by roadways through major cities?

Are you suggesting that a 'tank-ready' highway to downtown is considered necessary in any of those cities you cite?

It all makes sense now. Removing the Gardiner is part of a literal war on the car. The pinkos are trying to prevent surburban army tanks from entering the downtown to subdue the cyclist rebellion.

 

[k10ery]

There is no 'maintain' option, as it kills the value of the soap plant site.

Good Lord, has First Gulf hired you as a lobbyist too? If they want to spend $88 million to enhance their real estate investment then fine, but why should it be our money?

And, now you're playing with figures again. You can't take the 'today' costs and spread them over 30 or 50 or 100 years without adding back all the other future costs, and we get back to the $500M difference argument.

The other future costs which I think we've mostly agreed are highly conjectural, and also rather small expressed on an annual basis. Face it, you lost this one, Ratty.

 

[CDL.TO]

The name "hybrid", even if unintentional, is amazing marketing. It says "Let's meet in the middle. A nice compromise. Some people get some of what they want, others get some of what they want, but no one wins outright. If you don't like it you're just being unreasonable.". It's perfect for someone like Tory who's trying to convey a centrist image.

It's not really much of a hybrid, though.

 

[44 North]

Although SouthCore has already expanded downtown dramatically, I think a CBD hub on the east side of the Don would be a dramatic, positive makeover for Toronto, and would really allow the full Waterfront Toronto vision unfold.

The Unilever site isn't even part of WT's jurisdiction. The plans for there are a new idea, and were never included in Toronto or WT's visions. If we were to have a downtown east CBD, I think the Lower Don Lands and Keating District would be way more optimal. Obviously transit is an issue, and the height restrictions due to BB flightpaths. But it's way better than the Unilever site. Lakefront + riverfront, good views of downtown, ferries, docks, greenspace...all it needs is an elevated light metro, and it could be our version of Canary Wharf.

***
One thing I particularly like about the Gardiner is its gritty urban-ness. An elevated expressway - for all its faults - is pretty unique. And something only really found in large older North American cities. Not to mention the views on it are amazing. If we tear it down and create a wider nondescript pseudo-highway/avenue, the result is pretty suburban and boring. Regardless, we'll have a fancy picturesque tree-lined blvd a block south.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Good Lord, has First Gulf hired you as a lobbyist too? If they want to spend $88 million to enhance their real estate investment then fine, but why should it be our money?



The other future costs which I think we've mostly agreed are highly conjectural, and also rather small expressed on an annual basis. Face it, you lost this one, Ratty.

You are stubbornly obtuse. As you say, I cannot win an argument with you using reason nor numbers.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

The name "hybrid", even if unintentional, is amazing marketing. It says "Let's meet in the middle. A nice compromise. Some people get some of what they want, others get some of what they want, but no one wins outright. If you don't like it you're just being unreasonable.". It's perfect for someone like Tory who's trying to convey a centrist image.

It's not really much of a hybrid, though.

Exactly. Brilliant work on their part to get people to see at as a "hybrid" option when it is clearly not.

I don't think any of these options are the best option. I still think burying it is what should be done. But that is also several fold more expensive then these options being presented. I think they should just maintain it as it is for a while until RER and other rail upgrades are in place a decade from now. Then decide what to do at that point. There is only one chance to get this right and I don't think they will get it right at this point in time.