News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 310     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 2.2K     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2K     4 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

It will come down soon enough on its own. The cost of maintaining it will, sooner or later, out-weight the cost of keeping it. Tokyo might have an extensive system of elevated roads like this but how much salt do they use?
 
As a driver, I say tear it down. To drive from Yonge to the DVP on the Lakeshore takes 5 minutes. It takes 2 minutes on the Gardiner. For an additional few minutes added to each trip, we can be well on our way to developing the waterfront.

But having said that, the last thing I would want to see is the Gardiner torn down, and nothing built on the waterfront for another 20 years. If the Gardiner is going to be razed, then fine. But they'd better start work on the waterfront immediately thereafter otherwise it would be an absolutely senseless destruction of road capacity.
 
When the east Gardiner is torn down, the role of Adelaide and Richmond wil pick up. The complex ramps to those streets should remain into the medium-term future at least, and would have more of an impact in a way than the direct DVP-Gardiner ramps.

The elimination of the Gardiner east of Jarvis should immediately help with the Don Naturalization as well and indirectly help the lower Donlands development and even start momentum into the near-side Portlands.
 
I think that removing the Gardiner East from Jarvis is a trojan horse for taking the whole thing apart.

Nobody on Waterfront Toronto, nor the mayor, nor anybody on council for that matter have the political capital to propose a Grand Project such as removing the entire Gardiner.

Taking down the part that is the least used is absolutely doable and it's refreshing to see most of city council agreeing on something as potential contentious as this topic. Once the proof of concept is shown, and once this gets going, the momentum will lead to removing the central portion as well.
 
I agree, let's take it down. It's a fact of life that if you choose to live further from the employment, retail and cultural centre that is downtown, you'll have to travel longer to get there. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people will be adversely affected as the city develops the city centres like North York or Scarbourough and improves transit through LRT. GO Transit should be improved in the future as well. We should rally for the city to become more competitive in attracting businesses to bolster those city centres, and to complete that Sheppard line and build better LRT lines, not a few more St. Clair ROW-style lines. The dismantling of the Gardiner is important for promoting urban living in Toronto, and fortunately if public transit is further developed, suburban commuters won't be doomed either.
 
^Exactly. That is why it is such a great strategy. The same thing was done in France when the TGV was first put in service. They ran service so that part of the trip was on a classic line, the other part on a new line that could demonstrate the speed of the service if money was put into infrastructure. All you had to do was take the train and you would experience the difference first hand. After that, it became easy to gain the funding for more LGVs. I would guess the Gardiner, as you said, will turn out much the same if this project gets underway.
 
TKTKTK: We all want to see Toronto increase in density. That's not going to happen if we continue to restrict access to Toronto from the rest of the region. What a hoot! Suddenly expressways are the bringers of density. Yes, as we've said a hundred times, traffic does just go away. I will repeat it again - IT. GOES. AWAY.

But I guess you won't listen. I see why your avatar is appropriate.
 
MetroMan said:
The amount of land that's going to be reclaimed along the water and even just on the Gardiner/DVP interchange is enormous. The property taxes that will be generated along that route will more than pay for this project and continue doing so for generations to come.
Click to expand...


How is that? Toronto's development charges do not cover actual expenses. Residential properties also do not cover operating expenses. Unless development here is ICI or residents agree to go without services (police, fire, libraries, etc.), your point is simply not true.
 
You don't see how several kilometers of prime waterfront land can generate valuable property taxes year after year that will pay for this project and eventually become pure profit to the city since these will be property taxes which they never had?
 
totally full of shit i am!

whoever built the gardiner had some serious foresight. they should have left that section of the gardiner that ended in mid air at leslie. it was built in anticipation of flying cars in the future.

since there will be a redesign at the end of the DVP, i say we follow the example of the expressway "ending in the air" at leslie. this event presents a unique opportunity for us to pave the DVP straight into lake ontario. this way when the amphibious auto market explodes people can drive across the inner harbor. of course we'll have to salt the lake in the winter.

now that's foresight. :D
 
MetroMan said:
You don't see how several kilometers of prime waterfront land can generate valuable property taxes year after year that will pay for this project and eventually become pure profit to the city since these will be property taxes which they never had?
Click to expand...

No, it will not if it is residential development. Yes, it will produce new tax revenue that was not there before. It will also create new spending pressures that are were also not needed. At present, Toronto's rate of property taxation on residential property does not recover the 'citizen centred' services that the city provides. So I repeat, unless those new residents are are willing to pay tax and not receive services from the city, they will be produce a negative return for the city.
 
Glen said:
No, it will not if it is residential development. Yes, it will produce new tax revenue that was not there before. It will also create new spending pressures that are were also not needed. At present, Toronto's rate of property taxation on residential property does not recover the 'citizen centred' services that the city provides. So I repeat, unless those new residents are are willing to pay tax and not receive services from the city, they will be produce a negative return for the city.
Click to expand...

By that logic then no residents should be added anywhere in the city and Toronto should halt all residential growth. I think the point that MetroMan is trying to get at is that in comparison to the current situation which is lots of vacant, not overly desireable land with a crumbling, expensive freeway to up keep, the alternative does in fact create far more returns for the city. In terms of cost savings from not having to maintain the Gardiner, and in increases in property taxes from not only higher land values than would exist if the freeway remained, but also from new land that will be freed up for additional development. If the area was jammed with industry it might be different, but its not, and in the this case it is fairly clear that tearing down the Gardiner makes much more sense in economic terms than keeping it up.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top