Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Towered]

^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.

Maybe that's the strategy behind Sheppard! People transferring from the subway at Don Mills to the Sheppard East LRT will be so annoyed by the obvious difference in service that they'll demand completion of the full subway line

 

[Glen]

By that logic then no residents should be added anywhere in the city and Toronto should halt all residential growth.

Not until it is self sustaining or the city can attract a corresponding amount of ICI development that is necessary to subsidize it.

Toronto cannot afford to grow.

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.

The city does not have to provide police, ambulance, fire, social, shelter, parks, TTC, solid waste management, transportation infrastructure, library, children's services, public health, homes for the aged, etc., service for vacant land. They can just mow the weeds.

Providing those services amounts to over $5,400 per household. If the residential development envisioned meets the Toronto average assessment values they will produce $2,200 in property tax. No matter how you slice it, adding new residential development does not improve the finances of the city. For the same reasons eating twenty boxes of 'diet/light' chocolates will not make you skinny.

 

[Dilla]

North and East

If the mayor wants to proceed anyway, we should ask for a referendum by all residents living east and north of DVP in such an event.

What about the rest of us? Or is the referendum only for the area which you think will vote with you? Why would the people who live all the way up there get more of a say than the people who live right next to this thing?

Tear her down, I say!

 

[CDL.TO]

Not until it is self sustaining or the city can attract a corresponding amount of ICI development that is necessary to subsidize it.

Toronto cannot afford to grow.


The city does not have to provide police, ambulance, fire, social, shelter, parks, TTC, solid waste management, transportation infrastructure, library, children's services, public health, homes for the aged, etc., service for vacant land. They can just mow the weeds.

Providing those services amounts to over $5,400 per household. If the residential development envisioned meets the Toronto average assessment values they will produce $2,200 in property tax. No matter how you slice it, adding new residential development does not improve the finances of the city. For the same reasons eating twenty boxes of 'diet/light' chocolates will not make you skinny.

That's a nice way of selectively choosing statistics. You completely ignore the differences in social service costs and tax rates between different forms of residential development. No one is calling for the waterfront to be served with low-density single-family detached housing. Infrastructure for police, ambulance, fire, transportation, schools all already exist in these areas. And multi-unit residential developments pay for their own solid waste removal. Most of those costs simply don't exist for these areas.

You don't seem to understand the difference between fixed costs and variable costs.

 

[Glen]

That's a nice way of selectively choosing statistics. You completely ignore the differences in social service costs and tax rates between different forms of residential development. No one is calling for the waterfront to be served with low-density single-family detached housing. Infrastructure for police, ambulance, fire, transportation, schools all already exist in these areas. And multi-unit residential developments pay for their own solid waste removal. Most of those costs simply don't exist for these areas.

You don't seem to understand the difference between fixed costs and variable costs.

The numbers are averages nothing more. The majority of cost do not scale with density. Schools were left out the equation as we are talking about the services provided by the city from the city's portion of property tax. Does building higher density housing alleviate the need for welfare? Should those residents be served by a lesser degree wrt? Should the facilities, services and infrastructure existing in the area be diluted to support new residents? Have a look at the chart on page 3 here and show me what you think can scale and to what extent.

Yes density does confer cost savings. The gulf is so wide though, that it will not be bridged by its benefits. That is my point. The average cost to provide police, fire, ambulance and social services alone, which do not scale with density, will not be recovered by the new found tax revenue. The first two items on chart 3 in the above linked paper (police and debt service), cost the city nearly $2,000 per year per household.

Even mayor Miller gets it.

Employment growth within the city is important for fiscal, social and
environmental reasons. A shrinking business and property tax base diminishes
Toronto’s ability to adequately provide the social services and other public
amenities that are the hallmark of a just and caring society.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

I agree, that's the type of small-minded, self-centred thinking when projects like this are for the greater good and a huge exercise in city building.

 

[DSC]

Of course it should be torn down but remember that an Environmental Assessment must also consider the "do nothing" option so if you have strong views on why it should stay this is the time to raise them.

 

[Archivist]

Thanks Trekker for this post. It reminds me to make my views known adamently and frequently. I can't wait to see the Gardiner go, and if there are people like you out there in numbers, I better be noisy.

 

[Panzerfaust]

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.

You're forgetting the provisions for a future swan boat line along the Gardiner Corridor. It could follow that ramp into the lake and run straight to the islands! Think about how useful this could be!

I think Glen's a leftover from the Robert Moses era...

This is the same fellow who thinks all transit expansion in Toronto should be halted and all the money should go to the 905 because "Toronto has no growth". It's been established in other threads that arguing with him is pointless.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

If the mayor wants to proceed anyway, we should ask for a referendum by all residents living east and north of DVP in such an event.

AhAHAHAHAHHA! You're about as democratic as a likudnik. Why not just limit the referendum to people who agree with your views?

Is George Bush:

1. a great president?

or

2. the greatest president?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

You're forgetting the provisions for a future swan boat line along the Gardiner Corridor. It could follow that ramp into the lake and run straight to the islands! Think about how useful this could be!

lol!!!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The mayor David Miller's recent consent to the waterfront developers' proposal to permanently dismantle the vital link of DVP to the Gardiner expressway represents a vicious sellout of all the residents of GTA living east and north of DVP and 404.

Interesting you should call Waterfrontoronto "developers", when it really is a public agency. As to "vicious sellout" - it wasn't like David Miller OR WT is 1. answerable to the residents of the GTA (note: NOT City of Toronto, but the GTA) at large and 2. has promised the said residents eternal access to the expressway.

The dismantling of the ramp amounts to pulling the plug on the only rink road for Toronto and will result in tremendous loss of time and inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of residents living east and north of DVP and 404 regardless of how they (the city hall and the developers) spin the issues.

"Tremendous" loss of time and inconvenience? By what standard, when the modeling done so far suggest nothing in the realm of tremendous. And arent' we a little self-important? Perhaps you should blame your follow road users for wanting to travel during rush hour at the same time and insisting on engaging in single-occupancy vehicular use. Spin, you say?

I am calling upon all concerned residents and current users of the DVP to unite together and use our tax payers' rights to prevent this irresponsible act from undermining the quality our daily lives.

Taxpayers' right? To do what? Last time I've checked, a good chunk of the said users didn't spend a dime of the tax dollar maintaining the DVP or Gardiner. As to the quality of your daily lives - well, you chose to drive during rush hour, didn't you? What did you expect? Spending down the highway at 100kph? Sorry, but you are the cause of your own misery.

If the mayor wants to proceed anyway, we should ask for a referendum by all residents living east and north of DVP in such an event. We should also make sure that any future mayor understand the importance of this issue if they want to be re-elected.

Interesting that you chose such a selective act of emancipation...then again, I suppose those who benefits from Gardiner's removal aren't exactly worthy to be empowered given the importance of your highness needs.

Failing that we should ask for a change to the city election act to make sure that no corporation, unions or institutions can make political contributions to any candidate running for city hall office. We should also put a limit of 100 dollars per candidate per tax payer of the amount of political contributions each person can make in order to make sure that the city hall politician be accountable to the average tax payer and not the corporate lobbyists. If Barack Obama can amase millions from less than 100 dollar donations, why can't we have the same system in Toronto?

Accountable to the "average tax payer", what does the latter mean, exactly? Interesting that your unit of donation is "per taxpayer" - speaks plenty about your views of democratic decision making. Oh and let's not soil Obama's name - your cause has nothing to do with his.

Oh and I guess I must thank you for engaging us - now I am much more inclined to actively participate in the process and otherwise write to the various councillors, MPPs and the mayor - to encourage them that this is indeed the right decision.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Trekker - you won't find aaaaaannny support here

There is only one solution to the Gardiner. It MUST be torn down. San Francisco did it, so we must too!!!!!!!!! If we tear down the Gardiner we'll find a ferry terminal!!!


Hahaha,

The Gardiner isn't going anywhere. The EA will put this to bed.

 

[TKTKTK]

But I guess you won't listen.

Right back at you Kettle.

ohhh Avatar insults. oooooooo I'm sooooo bad.

 

[TKTKTK]

Last ditch effort, for what it's worth: The losses to shop A (resulting from missing B shoppers) are made up by A shoppers which used to shop in B. I thought that was clear.

It was clear. Replace 'Shop A' with 'Toronto' and 'Shop B' with Markham.

Toronto loses the business, Markham gains it. How does that benefit Toronto? It doesn't.

You're assuming, for some reason, that areas outside of Toronto are as big a draw for Torontonians as Toronto is for those who live outside the city. I think that's pretty obviously not the case