News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 480     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 588     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 2.1K     1 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Tulse said:
I'm not quite sure I follow the details here -- how is this related to the Hybrid Option?
Click to expand...

One ramp would divide the 3C property in two, significantly reducing the development potential. The land between the ramp and the new viaduct might not have any development value beyond green space. I'd guess the losses would in the tens of millions, but that's just speculation. The city could pay a settlement, but these additional costs should be factored with the significant additional costs of the hybrid option. 3C's situation also shows how the hybrid option limits waterfront development and revitalization potential.
 
junctionist said:
One ramp would divide the 3C property in two, significantly reducing the development potential. The land between the ramp and the new viaduct might not have any development value beyond green space. I'd guess the losses would in the tens of millions, but that's just speculation. The city could pay a settlement, but these additional costs should be factored with the significant additional costs of the hybrid option. 3C's situation also shows how the hybrid option limits waterfront development and revitalization potential.
Click to expand...

thats gotta suck for who ever owns the piece of land
 
Trench it.

Trenching turns the current Gardiner lands into a tax revenue base.

Toronto already has a great example of how a building can be beautiful, functional, carry seamless transport.................it's called Union station.

the difference is that trenching is a fraction the cost of tunneling and much faster and easier to build. Give the money to the developers for condos/commercial etc and let them build what they will but with the proviso they pay for the portion of trenched highway under their development.

In the case of the Gardiner you really could have your cake and eat it too if Toronto would get away from this all or nothing mentality.
 
Developers have way too much power when it comes to these sorts of things.

John Tory raises a good point: development has flourished next to the Gardiner west of Yonge, so why would east of Yonge be any different?
 
arcum said:
Developers have way too much power when it comes to these sorts of things.

John Tory raises a good point: development has flourished next to the Gardiner west of Yonge, so why would east of Yonge be any different?
Click to expand...
Because the road and new ramps go right through the vacant land at the "Home Depot lands" - between Cherry & Parliament - and the road runs along the Keating Channel which has the potential to be prime residential land..
 
It appears that the boulevard side of council has enough of a vote count to defer the decision. God knows that this has been studied to death but a "defer" will allow both sides to escape the limelight and reach a compromise, whatever that may be. I won't be surprised if Tory tries to ram in through anyway, however enough of those undecideds don't like either option so it's looking likely that this will be kicked further down the road.

In the end, I'd be happy with an 8 lane boulevard that is left with a 60km/hr speed limit and priority East/West traffic signals. At the far end of the scale, to appease Hybrid supporting councillors, an extreme compromise could be to have no traffic lights and speed up lanes at major intersections — essentially street level "ramps". The boulevard can then gradually become urbanized and made pedestrian friendly as the area is built up and transit alternatives like SmartTrack and the DRL start coming online.
 
MetroMan said:
It appears that the boulevard side of council has enough of a vote count to defer the decision. God knows that this has been studied to death but a "defer" will allow both sides to escape the limelight and reach a compromise, whatever that may be. I won't be surprised if Tory tries to ram in through anyway, however enough of those undecideds don't like either option so it's looking likely that this will be kicked further down the road.
Click to expand...

Since this is his first major issue, a deferral would be quite the defeat for Tory.

How does the deferral process work? Does a Councillor simply need to pass a motion proposing deferral, and get at least 23 councillors to support?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Since this is his first major issue, a deferral would be quite the defeat for Tory.

How does the deferral process work? Does a Councillor simply need to pass a motion proposing deferral, and get at least 23 councillors to support?
Click to expand...

I don't think Tory has control over all the pro-Hybrid councilors. At least some, along with the on-the-fence councilors, would vote for deferral along with (?) the pro-boulevard councilors?
 
Councillors will submit amendments throughout the day. If none of those amendments pass, the deferral will be introduced and voted on. Even though city staff has warned against deferring this any further, there appears to be a majority in favour of just that, including Rob Ford.

A deferral would be a defeat for John Tory. He still has a grasp (barely) of what appears to be a majority of city council but he's lost a lot of goodwill from the other side. He's burned significant political capital that he'll desperately need to get SmartTrack built. This all demonstrates how Tory is just a lousy politician. His poor intuition regularly puts him on the wrong side of both public and political support.

Compared to what he just put himself though, it would've been relatively easy to sit down with each councillor and find compromise options. Instead, he started a needless war that has significant public opposition.
 
Last edited:
MetroMan said:
Councillors will submit amendments throughout the day. If none of those amendments pass, the deferral will be introduced and voted on. Even though city staff has warned against deferring this any further, there appears to be a majority in favour of just that, including Rob Ford.
Click to expand...

Why has staff recommended against deferral?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top