Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Electrify]

I wrote a bit of an oped about the Gardiner on my YRT Busways Now Facebook page:

My position on the Gardiner
Before I begin, I need to stress I am one of the most pro-sustainable transportation people you will ever meet. I no longer own a car, and even when I did, I would walk, cycle, and take transit whenever possible. I started this Facebook page because I see the merits in attractive sustainable transportation and urban environments, and the need to invest in it. I am not a pro-car advocate of Ford Nation.

Despite this, there is a lot of discussion about the future of the eastern stretch of the Gardiner Expressway which I cannot get behind. This post may change your mind, or it may not. At the very least, I hope it will bring up some points that you never considered previously, and consider this and the subject of transit and transportation planning from more than a partisan “us versus them” frame which has dominated the discussion for the last 5 years - thanks in part to a crack smoking former mayor. That there is more than two visions for Toronto, based entirely on political stripes.

Much of the talk about removing the Gardiner is based around the idea that it is a relic from a previous age, and no longer serves a purpose. This line of reasoning is parroted by developers, planners, and journalists alike. That those who use the space will just have to pay a small price in the name of progress. However 60 years ago, this exact same line of reasoning was used to clear numerous historic neighbourhoods in Toronto and abroad in order to put in housing projects like Regent Park and Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis. It is the same line of reasoning that nearly saw such famous and historic neighbourhoods like Greenwich Village and North Boston wiped out. Simply replace “Gardiner” with “slums” and reread the first three sentences of this paragraph.

I’ll admit that this can be an apple to oranges comparison, but not as much as you may think. In both cases appreciated uses were ripped out in favour of developer profits. In fact in this case it is arguably worse; we are talking about removing a piece of public infrastructure for private profits rather than expropriating private dwellings in favour of public housing!

Cost is another factor which is brought up to support its demolition. That we are looking at about $500 million over the next 100 years to maintain this structure. While such a number sounds scary, that equates to only $5 million per year. How does this cost compare to other elevated stretches of the Gardiner? Or other highways in general? Have we become so penny wise and dollar foolish that we have no qualms about letting our infrastructure expire and rot away? Is this the kind of thinking that makes a world class city?

Perhaps the strongest case I’ve heard for its removal is that it is an underused piece of infrastructure, and a boulevard could handle the traffic demands. While this may be true, I ask if such a roadway SHOULD handle said demands? Most cities which have removed highways, have removed spurs which have served very limited purpose. This includes the far east stretch of the Gardiner which was removed earlier this century, a removal which I do in fact support. The stretch of Gardiner in question is one that connects the city’s regional highway network together. By removing this stretch, the western part of the Gardiner, and the core itself, no longer has a proper connection to the north-south DVP route.

Toronto planners, armchair and professional alike, seem to have an obsession with matching demand with capacity, whether it be roadways or public transit lines. While this is a very important factor in selecting infrastructure, it is not the only one. A cohesive network is just as important, if not more so. A network is only as strong as its weakest link. There are numerous other highways and roads which do not operate at near maximum capacity at rush hour, does this mean we should be rushing to remove them as well? It is this kind of thinking that has led to the region to having some of the worst commute times in the world.

And if new condos do get developed, both here and in the future Don Lands districts, it is questionable if this boulevard will be able to handle the increased traffic demands.

The final point I will bring up is that other cities have removed their highways and have been very satisfied with the results. This is great, but pretty much every locale which has done this has either a far more developed highway system, meaning that the loss to the transport network was able to be rerouted to another nearby part, and/or has a far more built out mass transit network. In this case, Toronto has neither. We decided to continue sprawling out without investing in highways or transit lines. The cost of this is having one of the widest highways in the world to the north (yet still unable to meet demand) and the Gardiner on our waterfront. Toronto lacks a much needed cross-downtown subway line or a rapid transit line through the northeast sector of the city. Such a line is optimistically about 15 years away, more likely 20 or more. In addition to this, the Richmond Hill GO line - the commuter train route which closest follows the affected corridor - is not slated for frequent service and electrification in the near future. Toronto is one of the fastest growing cities in the world, and we need to be investing in infrastructure, not removing it.

Land use planning aside, a highway which could be theoretically removed is the 409 to the airport. Like the Gardiner, it is relatively underutilized. However unlike the Gardiner, the existing highway network could make up the slack for such a loss, as the 401 to the 427 could get you to the airport without having to contend with at-grade streets.

What is most telling too is that much of the condo development could still occur regardless of the Gardiner. Said buildings could face Queens Quay rather than Lake Shore Blvd, or new side streets between these two arterials. Development on Lake Shore would also likely be hampered due to the rail tracks immediately north of the proposed “grand boulevard.” And if the Gardiner is so underutilized, this could be an excellent opportunity to dedicate a lane to buses, perhaps create a bus rapid transit route to better meet the transportation needs of those in the lower east end of the city.

If you still support the removal of this stretch of highway, then more power to you. Looking at recent polls, its demise is more of a ‘when’ rather than an ‘if.’ And if its removal turns out to be the best thing which ever happened to this city, I will happily admit that I was on the wrong side of this. Still, this is a free country, and I am going to exercise my right to be on the less than popular side, but the side which I feel is right. If this essay post didn’t change your mind, I at least hope you found it to be an insightful critique of the removal option, one more worthy than those from pro-car lobbyists and conservative commentators on the subject.

https://www.facebook.com/YRTBN/posts/985966558082348

EDIT: Copy and paste didn't break paragraphs.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

How so? The Gardiner was fine.

It took me 40 minutes to get to work (normally 15-20), but all of the delay occured from Bayview/Bloor to Eglinton. There was no issue with the portion of the Gardiner in question. Southbound DVP seemed normal to me too. Nothing out of the ordinary South of Bloor.

Of course. But Tory will use this to justify keeping it, because the TTC "can fail at anytime."

 

[salsa]

Priorities.

 

[sixrings]

Priorities.

The Subway not working in my mind does not equal that we must keep up the eastern part of the Gardiner. First of all that would assume that a good percentage of those TTC riders had access to a car that they could have driven to work today. It also assumes that those with cars would be willing to pay downtown parking fees. It also assumes that those with the cars had easy access to the DVP/Gardiner. Many of those on that line would have come from West of Yonge and or Markham. It also assumes that those taking the TTC were primarily going to Union. If they were to get off anywhere before Welsley then how would the Gardiner if it remained up would help them? If anything it proves we need a DRL sooner than later.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I wrote a bit of an oped about the Gardiner on my YRT Busways Now Facebook page:



https://www.facebook.com/YRTBN/posts/985966558082348

EDIT: Copy and paste didn't break paragraphs.

So, just to humor me and my own POV, how would you interpret the following line of reasoning:

The removal of the Gardiner and subsequent development of the freed up lands would result in new communities, neighbourhoods and populations located in closer proximity to the downtown core who will not only come with great health and environmental benefits, it will contribute economically through private spending and investment, increased tax revenues and cultural production, but also represents a 'shift' away from suburban and car-oriented sprawl. Without these new developments, these future populations may otherwise locate themselves in suburban regions, costing our society due to sprawl and health/environmental related consequences, choosing to promote inefficient automobile-centric way of life and contributing further to road congestion across the city.

The problem with Regent Park and Robert Moses' highway building is that they both represented an old school of urban planning that presented an idealized version of what urban society ought to be. New Urbanists make the same mistake very often by pointing at beautiful European cities and built forms and forcing 'planned' replicas or imitations be built here with no regard as to why those European cities and built form came to be in the first place. They do not have any regard for the needs of the population, only the aesthetics of the planned development, and that is where they, like the planners of Regent Park, will fail. The development on the waterfront on the other hand represents a different line of thought - allowing the market to decide the purposes and needs of the population and thus what gets built. This is why we have Southcore's condo towers with large podiums and big box stores at ground level rather than the mom&pop shops, the daily needs of the population demands the former. Similarly, on the macro level the market is shifting as society re-prioritizes their wants and needs, and they want to locate closer to downtown, they want to live in walkable communities, they want to walk/bike/take transit to work, they want to free themselves from the burdens of car ownership and commuting by car. The old model of suburban living with a lawn of grass and white picket fence is shifting away and the condo boom downtown is the market deciding what is to replace it.

You are very right to bring up the failures of the old school of urban planning espoused by Robert Moses and proponents of community housing projects everywhere, they are very relevant lessons today that to my disappointment I see many New Urbanists failing to grasp. I am steadfast in my belief that by not tearing down the Gardiner we are going against the economic needs and trends of our society. Retaining the Gardiner is in other words, imposing an unnecessary roadblock to the organic growth and transition of the market with an idealized version of what ought to be without regard to the changing needs of society. Just like Regent Park and other misguided planned projects, retaining the Gardiner will be an ultimately unsuccessful exercise and a missed opportunity.


(Hehe, I just realized I made retaining the Gardiner sound like a socialist exercise, how do you like that pro-Gardiner conservatives? )

P.S. You cited that other highway removal projects were just spurs and that those cities have other highways to compensate. I refer you to the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, it was a big piece of infrastructure like the Gardiner, and its urban renewal has been an outstanding success. After Seoul removed the highway, downtown businesses reported increased value and efficiency and the city reported lower levels of congestion in surrounding roads and Seoul's downtown does not have other nearby highways.

 

[Tuscani01]

If anything it proves we need a DRL sooner than later.

And how would the DRL have helped if the entire subway network was shut down? The DRL would have been shut down too. If anything, the shutdown shows why we should be moving forward with Transit City. Having a network of various forms of transit is the best way to prevent major issues like the one experienced this morning.

 

[sixrings]

And how would the DRL have helped if the entire subway network was shut down? The DRL would have been shut down too. If anything, the shutdown shows why we should be moving forward with Transit City. Having a network of various forms of transit is the best way to prevent major issues like the one experienced this morning.

correct... i was just advocating for as many transit options as possible. We can build more transit but we cant build more roads... The best we can do is maintain them. And then the question is, is it really worth it when we have other priorities that take massive funding.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

P.S. You cited that other highway removal projects were just spurs and that those cities have other highways to compensate. I refer you to the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, it was a big piece of infrastructure like the Gardiner, and its urban renewal has been an outstanding success. After Seoul removed the highway, downtown businesses reported increased value and efficiency and the city reported lower levels of congestion in surrounding roads and Seoul's downtown does not have other nearby highways.

You know that the Chegonggyecheon was a stub, right? Seoul has several ring roads that were not touched, including several that run along both edges of the Han river. Seoul also has a car ownership rate around 20 per 100 residents and 18 different metro lines. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison...

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

You know that the Chegonggyecheon was a stub, right? Seoul has several ring roads that were not touched, including several that run along both edges of the Han river. Seoul also has a car ownership rate around 20 per 100 residents and 18 different metro lines. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison...

True enough on the subway front. On the highway front, my understanding is that Seoul has ring highways but only the Cheongyecheon actually penetrated to the downtown CBD.

Maybe not an apples to apples comparison, but the point is the sky didn't fall down and the Gardiner is still to be replaced by an 8-lane boulevard with the remove option.

 

[arcum]

So, just to humor me and my own POV, how would you interpret the following line of reasoning:

The removal of the Gardiner and subsequent development of the freed up lands would result in new communities, neighbourhoods and populations located in closer proximity to the downtown core who will not only come with great health and environmental benefits, it will contribute economically through private spending and investment, increased tax revenues and cultural production, but also represents a 'shift' away from suburban and car-oriented sprawl.

My only concern is instead of this wonderful Utopia of urban circle-jerk you have described, we may just get another neighbourhood of cheaply built shoebox sized condos with a Tim Hortons and overpriced Grocery Store on the ground floor. All the developers care about is maximizing their profits. The City of Toronto will have to step up and set some lands aside from affordable housing, schools, office space, and other services, etc. etc.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Also, I would happily pay a toll to keep the Gardiner up. Of course that's never been on the table because that's not what removal advocates want. The cost is just a convenient excuse.

A toll has not been on the table because you are the only car driver in Toronto willing to pay a toll. Tolls are off the table because car drivers have forced them off the table, not transit advocates. I'd be happy to put a toll on all of Ontario's highways to pay for transit. It's a hugely unpopular idea.

... My experience on Lakeshore east of the Don is that there's often severe congestion all the way to Woodbine, yet the road is intentionally narrowed to two lanes because the city allowed houses to be built directly on Lakeshore. I can see something similar happen here.

That's ridiculous. They're building an 8-lane boulevard, and you know it.

But I'm curious about your other statement. Where on Lake Shore or Woodbine is the road 'intentionally narrowed to two lanes'? Woodbine south of Queen is five lanes (NB turning lane onto Queen EB.) Lake Shore is four lanes to the split at Knox, where you're still four but you have turning lanes, median, bike paths, etc. Where is the intentional narrowing of which you speak?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

My only concern is instead of this wonderful Utopia of urban circle-jerk you have described, we may just get another neighbourhood of cheaply built shoebox sized condos with a Tim Hortons and overpriced Grocery Store on the ground floor. All the developers care about is maximizing their profits. The City of Toronto will have to step up and set some lands aside from affordable housing, schools, office space, and other services, etc. etc.

Which Waterfront Toronto does. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant about 'condos are bad, so we need a crumbling highway...'

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

A toll has not been on the table because you are the only car driver in Toronto willing to pay a toll. Tolls are off the table because car drivers have forced them off the table, not transit advocates. I'd be happy to put a toll on all of Ontario's highways to pay for transit. It's a hugely unpopular idea.

You're probably right, although I wonder if people would really rather have no highway than a toll highway. People are weird that way...

That's ridiculous. They're building an 8-lane boulevard, and you know it.

But I'm curious about your other statement. Where on Lake Shore or Woodbine is the road 'intentionally narrowed to two lanes'? Woodbine south of Queen is five lanes (NB turning lane onto Queen EB.) Lake Shore is four lanes to the split at Knox, where you're still four but you have turning lanes, median, bike paths, etc. Where is the intentional narrowing of which you speak?

I'm talking east of Knox where there are just two lanes in each direction despite a generous ROW. Then east of Coxwell the speed limit drops to 50 and trucks are forced on to Coxwell/Eastern/Kingston. Finally with off-peak street parking on Woodbine it's often one lane southbound and two northbound. I would call that intentional narrowing and traffic calming as I cannot drive on the bike path. It's understandable that local residents don't want cars racing through the area, but unfortunately Toronto's perpetual underinvestment in infrastructure means few alternatives for getting around that part of town.

Once condos go up on the "new" Lakeshore Blvd. and residents complain that they're living on a pseudo-highway I can see calls for on-street parking, bike lanes and various traffic calming measures. A limited access highway is really the only sure way to prevent "urbanist creep".

 

[sixrings]

A toll has not been on the table because you are the only car driver in Toronto willing to pay a toll. Tolls are off the table because car drivers have forced them off the table, not transit advocates. I'd be happy to put a toll on all of Ontario's highways to pay for transit. It's a hugely unpopular idea.

I drive daily and would be happy to pay a toll if it went to transit and helped getting more cars off the roads.

 

[salsa]

True enough on the subway front. On the highway front, my understanding is that Seoul has ring highways but only the Cheongyecheon actually penetrated to the downtown CBD.

Maybe not an apples to apples comparison, but the point is the sky didn't fall down and the Gardiner is still to be replaced by an 8-lane boulevard with the remove option.

Seoul is just one of dozens of cities that have removed an expressway. But no matter how good or bad the transit is, the arguments from pro-highway people are always the same. They see the existing road and all the traffic it carries, and can't comprehend the idea that you can tear down the highway and everything will be fine. They will say that the cars will have to go somewhere, that traffic doesn't just disappear, that side streets will be flooded with traffic, that not everyone takes transit, that we are not like [insert other city here], that congestion is bad enough already, and what about the trucks etc. The detractors were proven wrong in every single city, but alas we hear the exact same arguments being made here in Toronto, for a piece of highway that carries even less traffic than most of the demolished expressways.