From the Post:
This idea's easy to shoot down
Kelly McParland, National Post
Published: Friday, September 29, 2006
Identifying the absurdities of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation's proposal to dismantle the easternmost portion of the Gardiner Expresssway is so easy it seems almost unfair.
Let's just go through a few in brief:
- Completing the project would require a decade of traffic chaos along the main route into and out of downtown, causing incalculable damage to Toronto's existing business infrastructure, entertainment industry and tourism aspirations. The Gardiner doesn't exist solely to accommodate commuters at rush hour, it's also the lifeline bringing in patrons who keep the food, cultural and sports businesses alive, and is the main means of access for tourists arriving by car or entering the city centre from Pearson airport. Toronto's status as Canada's corporate headquarters is also built on the assumption of reasonable access from outside the downtown core. Subjecting all these interests to 10 years of construction, gridlock and confusion would do damage that might never be repaired.
- The effectiveness of the plan depends on construction of the Front Street extension, a proposal so unattractive it's been on hold for years while the price -- already high -- escalates. The Front Street project would itself dump increased traffic onto residential areas on the west side of the city centre, negating the supposed benefits of altering the Gardiner.
- Anyone who thinks the Gardiner project could be completed for the unrealistically low estimate in the report should refer to the Front Street project, above. The price of that one has jumped from $170-million to $255-million in just a few years, frightening off both the provincial and federal governments, which refuse to pick up any of the extra costs. The Gardiner report suggests it can be partially replaced for $758-million, but no one has the faintest idea what the real cost would add up to a decade from now.
- Even at the lowball price estimate, the project's promoters have no real idea where the money would come from. Toll booths on the Don Valley, QEW and Highway 427? Good luck -- that should really help clear up the gridlock already slowly choking the city. Imposing a "gas tax" on the 905 region? Oh sure: who's going to organize the huge new bureaucracy needed to collect it, and -- better yet -- who's going to break that suggestion to Hazel McCallion?
- Torontonians who do not live by the downtown waterfront -- about 99% of the population -- gain nothing from altering the Gardiner other than some vague notion that it will "revitalize" the area. How this is to happen is not clear. The view from Front Street may improve somewhat, but there will still be a major road in the same location, producing the same amount of smog and noise and representing the same physical barrier between downtown and the lakeshore. The planners suggest the new road would be modelled after University Avenue, which is admittedly more attractive, but how many people make a special trip to University Avenue for the privilege of walking across it?
- Removing the Gardiner east of Spadina eliminates the only practical means of crossing the city other than the 401. The Don Valley-Gardiner combination acts as a safety valve siphoning some of the traffic from the northern corridor, and -- along with the 407 -- is the only alternative when weather or accidents close the 401.
OK, those are some of the drawbacks. The benefits -- um, well, let's think here. Other than the limited aesthetic improvement it's hard to think of any. The few people who live or work south of the highway wouldn't have to walk under it any more -- which would be nice for reporters at the Toronto Star heading out to lunch, possibly explaining that paper's enthusiasm for the plan -- but it would be a lot cheaper to stick a few more Starbucks along Queen's Quay.
The truth is this proposal is so senseless it's easy to understand why David Miller spent two years trying to keep it from council. The Mayor was right. The report should be shipped off to a dump somewhere, and buried with the rest of the city's unwanted trash.
- Kelly McParland is Politics Editor of the National Post. He lives in
Oakville.
© National Post 2006
_________________________________________________
Deconstructing the arguments:
Completing the project would require a decade of traffic chaos along the main route into and out of downtown, causing incalculable damage to Toronto's existing business infrastructure, entertainment industry and tourism aspirations. The Gardiner doesn't exist solely to accommodate commuters at rush hour, it's also the lifeline bringing in patrons who keep the food, cultural and sports businesses alive, and is the main means of access for tourists arriving by car or entering the city centre from Pearson airport. Toronto's status as Canada's corporate headquarters is also built on the assumption of reasonable access from outside the downtown core. Subjecting all these interests to 10 years of construction, gridlock and confusion would do damage that might never be repaired.
That's tantamount to saying that one should never have needed surgery for a patient because it would result in a period of inconvience. In addition, isn't there more than enough capacity to handle the entertainment crowd at off peak hours? Somehow, I think our status is dependent on CEOs getting stuck on traffic jams on the Gardiner right now.
- The effectiveness of the plan depends on construction of the Front Street extension, a proposal so unattractive it's been on hold for years while the price -- already high -- escalates. The Front Street project would itself dump increased traffic onto residential areas on the west side of the city centre, negating the supposed benefits of altering the Gardiner.
While I am not a huge fan of FSE, the current design doesn't exactly "dump" traffic onto the residential areas to the West consider the system is more or less isolated. It also sounds rather cynical to raise this concern about the local residents consider the sheer impact the current expressway system had on the forementioned.
- Anyone who thinks the Gardiner project could be completed for the unrealistically low estimate in the report should refer to the Front Street project, above. The price of that one has jumped from $170-million to $255-million in just a few years, frightening off both the provincial and federal governments, which refuse to pick up any of the extra costs. The Gardiner report suggests it can be partially replaced for $758-million, but no one has the faintest idea what the real cost would add up to a decade from now.
Comparing the cost of FSE to the Gardiner project is rather unreasonable, considering the former requires mass acquisition of property, while the latter actually
relasese it. In addition, the author would loathe to mention that tearing down the eastern stretch of the Gardiner between DVP and Leslie actually came in on time and budget.
- Even at the lowball price estimate, the project's promoters have no real idea where the money would come from. Toll booths on the Don Valley, QEW and Highway 427? Good luck -- that should really help clear up the gridlock already slowly choking the city. Imposing a "gas tax" on the 905 region? Oh sure: who's going to organize the huge new bureaucracy needed to collect it, and -- better yet -- who's going to break that suggestion to Hazel McCallion?
Obviously, the author isn't familiar with 407 ETR. As to Hazel, I hate to say, but the application of toll on a Toronto owned expressway isn't her business from a legal perspective.
- Torontonians who do not live by the downtown waterfront -- about 99% of the population -- gain nothing from altering the Gardiner other than some vague notion that it will "revitalize" the area. How this is to happen is not clear. The view from Front Street may improve somewhat, but there will still be a major road in the same location, producing the same amount of smog and noise and representing the same physical barrier between downtown and the lakeshore. The planners suggest the new road would be modelled after University Avenue, which is admittedly more attractive, but how many people make a special trip to University Avenue for the privilege of walking across it?
The majority of the population in the GTA doesn't use the Gardiner either, so clearly what we do to it is of no consequence to anybody. As to the effects - perhaps the said author should walk under the expressway for a good while to see just how "pleasant" it is? And for all the shortcomings of University Ave (a lot of which is induced by poor urban design of properties ALONG the roadway), it is well used both by pedestrians, particularly from a E-W perspective.
- Removing the Gardiner east of Spadina eliminates the only practical means of crossing the city other than the 401. The Don Valley-Gardiner combination acts as a safety valve siphoning some of the traffic from the northern corridor, and -- along with the 407 -- is the only alternative when weather or accidents close the 401.
The crosstown function of the Gardiner is so poorly used, the traffic flow can be easily handled by a 4 lane roadway. And if one thinks that the Gardiner-DVP combo can realistically "siphon" crosstown traffic from 401 or 407 to a significant degree, they're obviously on crack.
- Kelly McParland is Politics Editor of the National Post. He lives in Oakville.
There, the vested interest. I'd be curious to know how the said individual goes to his office.
AoD
and diverting traffic onto Lakeshore will be more of a barrier then the Gardiner ever could be. 10 lanes, the main artery to downtown, two expessways will effectively terminate onto this road.