News   Nov 25, 2024
Toronto’s Construction Boom: Prioritizing Worker Safety in High-Risk Environments
 268     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
News Roundup for November 25, 2024
 456     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Highwire Act
 508     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

sixrings said:
what about San Fran? They are world class too.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute the great outcome of tearing down Embarcadero, but it's a rather different context. Not to say that I wouldn't be just as happy with tearing it down, but since that particular boat has sailed, I'd rather move on from there and not litigate the decision again.

Besides, I think putting a toll on it is probably more important than the long run than fighting to tear it down and lose the broader war.

AoD
 
I'm not sure that we're fighting for the same cause. My ideal transportation network provides a range of affordable options, by car, bus, subway, train or streetcar; keeps traffic moving and travel times reasonable; and minimizes impacts at street level in terms of safety and aesthetics. Boston's Big Dig was very expensive, but the outcome is a profound improvement in most of the categories I listed over what was there before. I know you'd like to shut down the Gardiner tunnel debate, but when you've seen what's been accomplished in other cities, it's hard to accept tolls on our city highways to pay for a short hybrid highway that meets few city objectives.

I stand by the idea of having toll tunnels under Adelaide and Richmond Streets, removing the elevated Gardiner after the tunnels are completed, and improving Lakeshore Blvd. I think such toll tunnels could extend northwest to the Allen and I've proposed routes. I think enough motorists would pay enough to use these routes to pay for the new highways and some new transit. I also don't think our planners and city government are up to this challenge. In that case, remove the elevated Gardiner east of Jarvis for now and spare us the tolls. Leave rights of way in place west of Bathurst, so that a future generation can improve quality of life in Toronto.
 
To tunnel would be ghastly expensive and time consuming. With new tolls there is no way, in hell, that people would support tolls on the Gardiner only to have it destroyed. Trenching it is the ONLY option that gets the highway out of the public realm at a far more affordable price than even a blvd, and is the only choice where property taxes from the current AND future Gardiner. It solves the issue of a fast connection and yet also takes the highway out of sight and out of mind.
 
I'm fine with something along the lines of your proposal or mine. The challenges of your option are closing the Gardiner during construction and possibly dealing with the water table. My option would create extra developable land along Lakeshore as we don't lose land to on/off ramps. Development builds property tax revenue. I don't think tolls are avoidable on a tunnel, but at least we get substantial improvements for the tolls, which would only be exacted on a short stretch of the Gardiner in the core. If we ever wanted to extend the tunnel northwest to the Allen, the option is always there. Since it would be new highway, no one would have reason to complain about tolls. I'd love to see the western leg of the DRL included in such a build, connecting with a DRL/GO RER station at Bathurst and Front, but those probably are pipe dreams. Let's start with a Gardiner tunnel and exits from the free stretch of the Gardiner and see how that goes.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Not to say that I wouldn't be just as happy with tearing it down, but since that particular boat has sailed, I'd rather move on from there and not litigate the decision again.
Click to expand...

I too thought that it had sailed but given the deeply divided 24-21 vote, and given that some councillors who voted with Tory to rebuild the Gardiner East are now questioning the $1 Billion price increase, it's becoming very likely that this issue will come to Council again and the Boulevard Option might have the support that it needs to pass.
 
MetroMan said:
I too thought that it had sailed but given the deeply divided 24-21 vote, and given that some councillors who voted with Tory to rebuild the Gardiner East are now questioning the $1 Billion price increase, it's becoming very likely that this issue will come to Council again and the Boulevard Option might have the support that it needs to pass.
Click to expand...

Very right. My guess is it would take more than just those three votes to swing it in the other direction, though -- between the Bloor bike lanes pilot and the tolls announcement, I imagine the car-loving Luddites on council are feeling particularly aggrieved lately. No Cho this time, though.

Yes (24):
Michelle Berardinetti, Jon Burnside, John Campbell, Christin Carmichael Greb, Raymond Cho, Josh Colle, Gary Crawford, Vincent Crisanti, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Justin J. Di Ciano, Frank Di Giorgio, Mark Grimes, Stephen Holyday, Jim Karygiannis, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Frances Nunziata (Chair), Cesar Palacio, James Pasternak, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, John Tory

No (21):
Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Shelley Carroll, Joe Cressy, Janet Davis, Sarah Doucette, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Rob Ford, Mary Fragedakis, Mike Layton, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Ron Moeser, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Michael Thompson, Kristyn Wong-Tam
 
MetroMan said:
I too thought that it had sailed but given the deeply divided 24-21 vote, and given that some councillors who voted with Tory to rebuild the Gardiner East are now questioning the $1 Billion price increase, it's becoming very likely that this issue will come to Council again and the Boulevard Option might have the support that it needs to pass.
Click to expand...

The hybrid may have won by just 3 votes, however the boulevard motion was defeated by a bigger margin, 26-19. If anything, council is more likely to simply switch back to the cheaper hybrid 1 option that didn't involve relocating the highway, if they want to save money. Throughout the whole Tory mayorship thus far, council has proven to be stubbornly unwilling to accept any increase in travel time for drivers.

gardiner-hybrid-options.jpg
 

Attachments

  • gardiner-hybrid-options.jpg
    gardiner-hybrid-options.jpg
    129.2 KB · Views: 475
ADRM said:
Very right. My guess is it would take more than just those three votes to swing it in the other direction, though -- between the Bloor bike lanes pilot and the tolls announcement, I imagine the car-loving Luddites on council are feeling particularly aggrieved lately. No Cho this time, though.

Yes (24):
Michelle Berardinetti, Jon Burnside, John Campbell, Christin Carmichael Greb, Raymond Cho, Josh Colle, Gary Crawford, Vincent Crisanti, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Justin J. Di Ciano, Frank Di Giorgio, Mark Grimes, Stephen Holyday, Jim Karygiannis, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Frances Nunziata (Chair), Cesar Palacio, James Pasternak, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, John Tory

No (21):
Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Shelley Carroll, Joe Cressy, Janet Davis, Sarah Doucette, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Rob Ford, Mary Fragedakis, Mike Layton, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Ron Moeser, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Michael Thompson, Kristyn Wong-Tam
Click to expand...

No Cho, but also no Rob Ford. Wild card: now there's Mike Ford. He's been surprisingly progressive and willing to listen to evidence. Worth noting that staff recommended the boulevard option.

Di Giorgio, Chin Lee, Shiner, Grimes, Crawford, Pasternak and Colle sounded open to considering the boulevard option and/or often balk at high price tags. I think there's a good chance that this will either be debated again by this council or re-litigated over and over like the Scarborough subway through the next term(s) after 2018.
 
Right, so revisit the tear-down boulevard option east of Jarvis and leave rights of way in place for potential tunnels years down the line. Leave tolls off the table unless there is clear evidence that most (all?) of this revenue would go to transit, as the boulevard option reduces maintenance costs on the Gardiner. After several years the tear down of the Gardiner and construction of a boulevard east of Jarvis could be paid for by the current budget allocation towards the Gardiner. Tory's main motive for tolls is rescuing his hybrid scheme, a plan that should be sacrificed to build transit.
 
Although not ideal, another alternative that has not been considered would be building a ground level boulevard with no stops by ending Shernourne and Parliament at Lakeshore and building an under pass for Cherry. This would be the cheapest option, it would eliminate elevated expressway maintenance costs going forward and would result in no increased travel time.

Sherbourne could divert west to a Jarvis on ramp and Parliament could divert East to the new Cherry underpass where a DVP on ramp would begin. Queens Quay could continue East to Cherry instead of ending at Parliament.
 
Euphoria said:
I'm fine with something along the lines of your proposal or mine. The challenges of your option are closing the Gardiner during construction and possibly dealing with the water table.
Click to expand...


I will assume you are referring to my idea of a trenched highway under developments. The developments/highway can be built over a few years and then when completed the old Gardiner torn down. The water table would not be an issue at all nearer the ral corridor as the highway doesn't have to be any deeper than a standard 2 storey underground garage. Let the developers pay for and for an added bonus the city gets both the old and new Gardiner corridors as property tax revenue. Buy any land required for the new corridor and GIVE the land to the developers and tell them they can basically build what they want but in exchange for the free land you have to build the Gardiner under your development. Once completed and the new trenched Gardiner is open the city can tear down the old one and sell the land to equate to the amount they had to give to the developers on the new Gardiner route.

Basically Toronto will have to borrow upfront to buy and then give the land to the developers but only for max 4 years when they get it all back by selling the current elevated corridor. A trench is vastly easier and less expensive to build and doesn't require the massive expense of needing air vents etc required by a tunnel. The trench doesn't need to be unseen for the whole distance but rather just the length of the one building/complex and then a pleasant green way/pedestrian walkway over some of the exposed portions between the buildings. The only thing the City may have to do is give a waiver on providing parking under the buildings which seems reasonable and is better for the neighbourhood to boot.

I bet developers would jump at the chance of getting free land and not incurring any more expense than putting up a garage which they have to do at every development regardless. It would probably end up being cheaper as a 4 lane corridor isn't near as large as most parking garages nor would it require expensive ramps/elevators etc to serve it.

It's a very cheap alternative that also has the most benefits and made even better by the fact that any cost over-runs are, like any condo cost over-runs, are the developers problem and not the City. Every developers has built these damn things hundreds of times so they know how to build them and build them on budget and on time.
 
Euphoria said:
Right, so revisit the tear-down boulevard option east of Jarvis and leave rights of way in place for potential tunnels years down the line. Leave tolls off the table unless there is clear evidence that most (all?) of this revenue would go to transit, as the boulevard option reduces maintenance costs on the Gardiner. After several years the tear down of the Gardiner and construction of a boulevard east of Jarvis could be paid for by the current budget allocation towards the Gardiner. Tory's main motive for tolls is rescuing his hybrid scheme, a plan that should be sacrificed to build transit.
Click to expand...

<giggle> So... no tolls, but tunnels. Perhaps we should invest a Bank of Toronto and start printing Torollers to pay for the scheme?

I'd rather see the Gardiner torn down, but if Tory institutes a toll to pay for the reconstruction, that's about the best one can expect from the car-driving crowd. It would put the price of the rebuild on the users, which is kind of what you'd like.

Start the tolling now. Put it in a separate bank account. Go pay-as-you-go with Gardiner reconstruction. Our car-driving grandchildren can finish the payments.
 
Maybe Rocco rossie and euphoria have converted me. Then again maybe I think Blackberry is going to make a come back.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top