Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[DaveFlavanoid]

Here's a couple of random quotes to show how misinformed this whole debate is getting to be.

#1. Remove is not "fiscally conservative" (i.e. cheaper). The city is just torquing the data to make it seem that way, by including an unprecedented 100 years of O&M costs in the maintain option. OBVIOUSLY it is cheaper to keep the highway than tear it down.

#2 It is not a few people who use it daily, and their benefits are not small. By the City's data it is 110,000 people a day on Gardiner East. Even if removal costs them only 3 minutes a day (which we all know is too small), and they value their time at only $20/hour (too small), and they don't delay anybody else when they have to switch to surface roads, and we count these benefits for only 30 years (not the crazy 100 years that remove advocates are using), then what do we get?

This: The time lost if we remove the Gardiner is worth at least $1.2 billion to those drivers. Probably much more.This is far more than the cost of maintaining the expressway.

Please stop using these bad data to pretend tearing down a working piece of infrastructure is the low cost "responsible" thing to do.



This i the real story I think,. Remove advocates don't care about the numbers. They just hate cars.

And before you start going after me with ad hominem attacks: I live downtown, I commute by bike, my car often sits in its parking spot for a week or more before I get into it. I'm just trying to talk sense here.

I'm on the fence, probably leaning a little more towards removal. I typically run along the lakeshore out towards Woodbine in the morning, and I will agree that that part of the town is a mess during the morning commute, so I can't imagine it would get any better if the Gardiner was removed.

The reason I may lean towards removal is I do not like cars, as you mentioned - I think you are spot on with that opinion. If by removing it and congestion gets worse in that area, it could do two things. First, it could drill home the point to the politicians, that major investments in transit are needed. Secondly, it may encourage people to take transit, or make better decisions on where they live. Everyone has a reason for why they live and work in opposite ends of the city, but most of them are just excuses.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Bolding mine. This statement is incorrect. Relevant points from this (National Post) article:

There is definitely an exaggeration by extending the period to 100 years, but the "hybrid" option still costs more because it is basically a full reconstruction of the elevated road whereas the rebuilding portion of the removal option would be at ground level.

Would you mind posting your source for the 110,000 people per day? The above mentioned article has very different numbers:

Either your source, or the source in the article are very wrong.

k10ery just makes things up on occasion, I think for 'fun trolling' reasons. IIRC, he/she also had a lot of fun presenting the NPV data as 'essentially the same' when the 'keep the elevated' option was 30%ish more, because NPVing the data compressed the absolute numbers to an $80Mish difference.

OT: NPV of an investment makes sense, as the future cashflows are not as valuable currently as the current cashflows. But why would you present costs in that way, ever? Has an actuary ever weighed in on NPVing an infrastructure project with no future cashflows? What's the theory? #Askingforafriend

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The argument from some is that the eastern Gardiner is massively overbuilt for the level of traffic - you know, when people quote the 3% number and act like it's practically zero - when in reality that whole stretch is quite heavily used. Also, the section of Lakeshore east of the Don does not flow as well as people think.

I drove that section for years. Even in rush hour it was never particularly busy, as you said. In non-rush hour, as per the many, many photos on Twitter, Instagram and elsewhere, it is dead. FWIW, the whole point of re-doing the Lake Shore is to make traffic flow better from the east. And to say that the section east of the Don does not flow well right now without acknowledging the fact that the issue is construction on Carlaw and Leslie is a bit deceitful, no?

Don't worry. Your weekend travel down Woodbine, around Lake Shore, across the Don, and up the brand-spanking-new Cherry ramp will be a thing of beauty. Or, your travel down Woodbine, around Lake Shore, across the Don, down a 4-lanes-wide Lake Shore to Jarvis and up the Jarvis ramp will be... faster? maybe?

 

[aquateam]

So, there's room, as long as you don't mind figuring out where to put the Don from Don Mills to Eastern.

I'm not sure what you mean, there's no need to dredge or realign the river. By "ecosystem of the Don" I meant the Don ravine, not the Don river. Should have phrased that better.

In some places it is tight, where they would only be able to add 2 lanes instead of 4.

Interesting historical footnote, the Don River actually was realigned in the 19th century.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I drove that section for years. Even in rush hour it was never particularly busy, as you said. In non-rush hour, as per the many, many photos on Twitter, Instagram and elsewhere, it is dead. FWIW, the whole point of re-doing the Lake Shore is to make traffic flow better from the east. And to say that the section east of the Don does not flow well right now without acknowledging the fact that the issue is construction on Carlaw and Leslie is a bit deceitful, no?

Says someone who lives in what, Bahamas? Things change and we are trying to forecast the situation in 2031, remember? I will grant that construction at Leslie is an issue, but my wife drives it every day and can confirm that even the light at Carlaw (where construction is not an issue now) has a ton of problems because of the abrupt transition from highway to city street. As neighbourhoods in the east end turn over and the TTC/GO/government of Ontario refuse to offer competitive commutes downtown and to points west, more and more people are driving this route.

Outside of rush hour most streets could qualify as "dead" according to your definition...

 

[salsa]

The argument from some is that the eastern Gardiner is massively overbuilt for the level of traffic - you know, when people quote the 3% number and act like it's practically zero - when in reality that whole stretch is quite heavily used. Also, the section of Lakeshore east of the Don does not flow as well as people think.

Believe what you want. Under the hybrid option, the highway will be shrunk to 4 lanes. That's about the same size as a rural highway in Sudbury. So much for "heavily used".

Would you mind posting your source for the 110,000 people per day? The above mentioned article has very different numbers:

Either your source, or the source in the article are very wrong.

The article has a typo. They meant 5,000 per hour (peak AM volume). I have no idea where that 6 figure exaggerated lie comes from, unless some people think it's morning rush hour 24 hours a day.

 

[CDL.TO]

Believe what you want. Under the hybrid option, the highway will be shrunk to 4 lanes. That's about the same size as a rural highway in Sudbury. So much for "heavily used".

I haven't heard this. All the renderings show 6 lanes.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

The article has a typo. They meant 5,000 per hour (peak AM volume). I have no idea where that 6 figure exaggerated lie comes from, unless some people think it's morning rush hour 24 hours a day.

That "6 figure exaggerated lie" is the AADT for the Gardiner East. Check out page 12; Gardiner East carries more traffic than GO Lakeshore West or East, possibly more than both combined.

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...diner East Public Forum #1 - Presentation.pdf

 

[achender]

Seems like the city's chief planner, Jen Keesmaat, has come out in favour of the remove option.

See this G&M article.

Toronto chief planner Jen Keesmaat is calling for the removal of the eastern Gardiner, putting her at odds with the mayor on one of the most important issues facing the city.

“Think about the city we want to be in the future,†she told a conference Friday. “We have an opportunity to create a grand new landscape in our city.â€

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Says someone who lives in what, Bahamas? Things change and we are trying to forecast the situation in 2031, remember? I will grant that construction at Leslie is an issue, but my wife drives it every day and can confirm that even the light at Carlaw (where construction is not an issue now) has a ton of problems because of the abrupt transition from highway to city street. As neighbourhoods in the east end turn over and the TTC/GO/government of Ontario refuse to offer competitive commutes downtown and to points west, more and more people are driving this route.

Outside of rush hour most streets could qualify as "dead" according to your definition...

As per my location in the upper right hand corner of each post, I live in Barbados these days. Last trip to Toronto was 4-8 May 2015. Three weeks ago. Stayed at the Radisson Admiral on QQ and didn't drive. Taxi to & from airport late in the evening, then early in the morning. Monday evening 9pm-ish southbound 427 & eastbound Gardiner busy but flowing, like eastern Gardiner during rush hour. Friday morning 6am westbound Gardiner & northbound 427 also busy but flowing. See? I can do anecdotal traffic reports, too...

Car drivers don't want roads to go away, and hate the fact that urban traffic studies say that the traffic goes away, because it's their drive that needs to 'go away', i.e. be re-routed to transit, a different route, whatever. But that's what happens, the populace adjusts and the world is a better place. Maybe even your world, as you figure out a way to spend less time in the car and more time with the family.

But make no mistake, Gardiner eastbound from 427 to Spadina is never 'dead' during daylight hours and is severely congested during rush hour. Gardiner westbound from the Leslie stump to Yonge is rarely congested even in rush hour, and is often dead, even during the day.

 

[nfitz]

I will grant that construction at Leslie is an issue, but my wife drives it every day and can confirm that even the light at Carlaw (where construction is not an issue now) has a ton of problems because of the abrupt transition from highway to city street.

Doesn't seem any worse than me (other than the Leslie construction issues). It's never horrific heading westbound.

And it's an infinite improvement traffic-wise over what it was before the piece of Gardiner between the DVP and Leslie was knocked down!

 

[salsa]

I haven't heard this. All the renderings show 6 lanes.

I got it from this display board at the public meeting. I was told that the hybrid option technically falls under the "improve" alternative. Another interesting thing is that Lakeshore Blvd is currently 45.4 metres wide, but with the teardown alternative it becomes 37.7 metres wide. This should debunk the false claim by 44 North and others that Lakeshore would become substantially wider and thus less pedestrian friendly.

That "6 figure exaggerated lie" is the AADT for the Gardiner East. Check out page 12; Gardiner East carries more traffic than GO Lakeshore West or East, possibly more than both combined.

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...diner East Public Forum #1 - Presentation.pdf

Thank you. For whatever reason, the only number that is cited these days is the peak hour volume of 5,200 vehicles per hour, although ultimately it's the peak hour volume that roads are designed for. Also note that GO ridership is higher today than several years ago when your numbers came out, and will double in the not too distant future.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

True, I thought those numbers for GO seemed pretty low. For me the peak hour AM volume is less of a big deal anyway, it's those weekday/weekend afternoons that seem to be the worst for some reason. The combination of commuters plus leisure travelers seems to have a worse impact on traffic even though the volume numbers are lower. Perhaps volumes are lower because the cars can't get through the traffic cordon!

If/when GO RER is actually up and running and the DRL is built I'd be much more likely to support removal because more people (i.e., me) will actually have palatable options for getting around the region, but I'm skeptical that either of those will actually get built as currently proposed. As it stands now occasional travelers have little incentive to take alternatives since TTC is too slow and GO is too expensive (and sometimes too slow as well). Maybe we do "hybrid" and in 30 years we'll be having this discussion again...

 

[muller877]

I got it from this display board at the public meeting. I was told that the hybrid option technically falls under the "improve" alternative. Another interesting thing is that Lakeshore Blvd is currently 45.4 metres wide, but with the teardown alternative it becomes 37.7 metres wide. This should debunk the false claim by 44 North and others that Lakeshore would become substantially wider and thus less pedestrian friendly. .

Currently 45.4 meters wide in the east...that's 10 lanes of traffic (4.6 meters is one lane). Normally it's only 6 lanes wide. (my BS meter is in the red...we all know the answer that city hall staff want) So it may includes the median, the bike lanes, the pillars for the Gardiner, etc.

On a future basis 37.7 meters would be 8 lanes with no turning lanes and NO MEDIAN.

When I say Lakeshore will be substantially wider and busier we are only looking at the road, not the road plus everything else. 6 lanes (plus turning lanes) is a lot easier to cross for pedestrians then 8 lanes (plus turning lanes) with significantly more traffic turning north.

 

[salsa]

Currently 45.4 meters wide in the east...that's 10 lanes of traffic (4.6 meters is one lane). Normally it's only 6 lanes wide. (my BS meter is in the red...we all know the answer that city hall staff want) So it may includes the median, the bike lanes, the pillars for the Gardiner, etc.

On a future basis 37.7 meters would be 8 lanes with no turning lanes and NO MEDIAN.

When I say Lakeshore will be substantially wider and busier we are only looking at the road, not the road plus everything else. 6 lanes (plus turning lanes) is a lot easier to cross for pedestrians then 8 lanes (plus turning lanes) with significantly more traffic turning north.

The road widths are curb to curb. In the slide I posted the number includes the landscaped median, 8 traffic lanes plus a turning lane for the remove option.