[drum118]

Right now, its a need for a few and waste money for the many as well not creating space for everyone.

Yes transit must increase. With the currenting thinking and funding, at city hall it will happen in 2150

While cities removed elevated structures on their waterfront for vehicles as well removed them for better use of land, Toronto wants to keeping doing it at great yearly cost and waste land.

The waterfront was to have seen an east LRT line on the waterfront come 2014, yet here we are still talking about it to the point we may see it by 2031 at double to triple the original cost.

Its not a right to drive or have roads for vehicle's, but a privilege.

 

[abovegrade]

It seems like a difficult decision even for myself, while I partially support the removal of the gardiner I also see massive potential issues with removing it.

First of all I think we should have a more robust public transportation network before we even dare remove the gardiner.

There are many possible solutions to this situation, but also alot of possible problems like what @innsertnamehere said in his post about padestrian safety, especially with construction booming downtown.

I think it would be a longer term investment to tear it down for the public good. I fear that it will be this way for decades, and will be integrated into new neighbourhoods/ be harder throughout time if we don't tear it down sooner rather than later. Of course I agree with what you said about public transit, but isn't that already coming to the eastern portion?

 

[drum118]

I think it would be a longer term investment to tear it down for the public good. I fear that it will be this way for decades, and will be integrated into new neighbourhoods/ be harder throughout time if we don't tear it down sooner rather than later. Of course I agree with what you said about public transit, but isn't that already coming to the eastern portion?

Transit may get to Cherry St around 2031 and not on the radar east of that anymore. Using Commissioner St to Leslie only may happen 2040-50, but still doesn't help the east end at all

 

[afransen]

The Liberals vetoed tolls on the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway, to entice the 905 drivers (voters) who generally use those expressways. The City of Toronto should try it again, with the (Progressive) Conservatives. If that fails, try it again after the next provincial election in June 4, 2026 or earlier.

Perhaps another pitch can be made when GO Expansion service improvements become more evident, with GTHA fare integration in place. It's madness that an expensive piece of infrastructure like a elevated downtown highway is allowed to operate so poorly because we're afraid to charge people to use it. It's not as if most folks don't have to pay for parking once they are downtown anyway.

 

[Wahed]

I mean if you ramp down from Cherry, you would basically just ramp right back up again immediately afterwards. I'm really not sure how much that would save, and it would make the Gardiner feel like a roller coaster ride. Looking at the renderings in the presentation above, it looks like it would be at-grade for literally a single block.

deferring the elevated connection to the DVP would destroy traffic in the area. The "time added" number for commuters would be a whole lot more than 5 mins. The intersection of the DVP and Lakeshore would also just be insane in terms of volume, completely hostile to pedestrians and cyclists with cars desperately trying to clear turning movements on an intersection which is vastly overloaded.

The point of the presentation is that we are deep into this now, there isn't much point of reverting course on it. Ultimately the rebuilt Gardiner is going to be much smaller than it's existing configuration and will represent only a marginal, if any, additional cost over at-grading it.

Under my proposed plan, when you ramp down from cherry you wouldn't ramp back up, there's is no where to ramp. You would travel at grade to the dvp (the dvp is at grade not elevated).

Yes there will be time added to commuters, but previous studies have shown that this stretch of Gardiner is travelled by a limited number of drivers.

While we may be "deep into this now", that's no reason to be blind to opportunities to reduce spending moving forward.

The report by city staff didn't contain any info on how the components that have been completed performed versus their budget. The report also did not address whether the hybrid 3 elevated structure can be completed within the remaining budget. What happens when the cost estimates to complete the remaining work come in and they exceed the budget? Do we just throw our hands up in the air saying 'were in to deep" and continue to throw money at the Gardiner? I don't think so, and believe it's wise to look for alternatives.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If they are getting rid of the Scarborough Rapid Transit Line (Line 3), we can get rid of the Gardiner Expressway.

 

[tstormers]

If they are getting rid of the Scarborough Rapid Transit Line (Line 3), we can get rid of the Gardiner Expressway.

They aren't getting rid of it, they are building an extension of Line 2 to replace it. Less stops and different route.

 

[Ward8]

And again, it's very important to frame this discussion properly in what is actually being discussed. The options are not spending $2 billion to rehabilitate the Gardiner or $0 to not. The original option in 2016 was to spend $2 billion to keep the east Gardiner, or $1.7 billion (IIRC) to demolish and construct an urban boulevard in the east end. $300 million difference, and that was in 2016.

This is pretty far off according to the news at the time. Removal was approximately 50% less than the "hybrid" option. The other important note is that the maintenance costs are significantly cheaper and the land that is opened up creates space for major development. The development charges and property taxes would be a major revenue generator for the city beyond the lower capital costs. It's unknown what the exact savings would be, but when compared to the astonishingly high price tag of the elevated option, along with the incredibly poor value per dollar, it doesn't surprise me that the removal option has gained so much traction in the general public.

 

[innsertnamehere]

This is pretty far off according to the news at the time. Removal was approximately 50% less than the "hybrid" option. The other important note is that the maintenance costs are significantly cheaper and the land that is opened up creates space for major development. The development charges and property taxes would be a major revenue generator for the city beyond the lower capital costs. It's unknown what the exact savings would be, but when compared to the astonishingly high price tag of the elevated option, along with the incredibly poor value per dollar, it doesn't surprise me that the removal option has gained so much traction in the general public.

50% less of the gardiner east component, which was IIRC around $700 million of the $2 billion cost.

The other $1.3 billion is getting spent rehabilitating the rest of the highway, which is not being questioned for removal.

It bothers the living hell out of me to see people going around equating that removing the eastern Gardiner would instantly save $2 billion - because it's absolutely not true, nor was it in 2016. Today - it would likely actually cost more up front than rebuilding.

 

[Ward8]

50% less of the gardiner east component, which was IIRC around $700 million of the $2 billion cost.

According to a quick google search, the east section is about a billion and the remove is mid 400s. No one is saying it is a difference of 2B to zero. But the savings would be significant, especially if you factor in the potential for housing revenue. Not to mention the benefit of affordable housing on city owned land. I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that the demo option would be more expensive upfront, has the city staff given any indication of this?

 

[drum118]

50% less of the gardiner east component, which was IIRC around $700 million of the $2 billion cost.

The other $1.3 billion is getting spent rehabilitating the rest of the highway, which is not being questioned for removal.

It bothers the living hell out of me to see people going around equating that removing the eastern Gardiner would instantly save $2 billion - because it's absolutely not true, nor was it in 2016. Today - it would likely actually cost more up front than rebuilding.

Please tell us what is the cost to tear it down and the cost to build the hybrid option??? No way in hell is it more costlier to tear it down than building the hybrid.

There will be some extra cost for the Lake Shore to deal with the removal of the elevated section and between it and the tear down, it will still be well below the cost of building the hybrid option.

At the same time, eliminated the high cost to maintain the hybrid option to the lower cost for the Lake Shore. On top of that, the city gains development fees for new developments that will replace the hybrid option as well yearly taxes from the developments to could go toward maintaining the Lake Shore with extra funds being use elsewhere for the city budget.

Sorry, but to save 5 minutes for a few driver is a totally waste of money to build the hybrid option. Money should be spent on people who spend well more than 5 minutes using transit or walking than driving.

 

[Rainforest]

it doesn't surprise me that the removal option has gained so much traction in the general public.

If you ask the general public, 95% will not know what's that all about.

 

[milkycontent]

Tear the whole thing down from the Ex to the DVP, I don't really care what happens to "traffic." To me, it's a simple question of priorities. Being able to drive across downtown quickly is just not as important as building a beautiful, pedestrian-friendly public realm and as much housing as possible near existing jobs and amenities in the central part of the city.

 

[kev1n1m]

Tear the whole thing down from the Ex to the DVP, I don't really care what happens to "traffic." To me, it's a simple question of priorities. Being able to drive across downtown quickly is just not as important as building a beautiful, pedestrian-friendly public realm and as much housing as possible near existing jobs and amenities in the central part of the city.

Sadly there are thousands of suburban voters that feel it is their god given right to drive downtown without traffic in 1 and 2 occupant vehicles along highways that closely trace public transit routes. And to oppose that selfishness you get called a communist.

 

[Amare]

Tear the whole thing down from the Ex to the DVP, I don't really care what happens to "traffic." To me, it's a simple question of priorities. Being able to drive across downtown quickly is just not as important as building a beautiful, pedestrian-friendly public realm and as much housing as possible near existing jobs and amenities in the central part of the city.

Sadly there are thousands of suburban voters that feel it is their god given right to drive downtown without traffic in 1 and 2 occupant vehicles along highways that closely trace public transit routes. And to oppose that selfishness you get called a communist.

You both realize that Toronto is a city with barely any transit alternatives right?

What do you expect that everyone would magically funnel to the Bloor-Danforth line and/or Lakeshore lines and the rest of the city's arterial routes would be unscathed? Just look at how much of a zoo it is when the city shuts down the Gardiner for it's annual cleaning and tell us all it's a good idea to "tear the thing down from the Ex to DVP".

I myself dont drive in the city and heavily rely on the transit system, and I realize how shortsighted and boneheaded it would be to teardown significant stretches of the Gardiner.