[Rainforest]

The hybrid option is bankrupting the city. Unless the province steps in with funding, the prudent thing to do is tear it down and build a boulevard. There would be a modest savings, even with the sunk costs, plus increased development fees and property taxes from the newly developable land. The Gardiner is killing the budget so badly that no traffic situation is really able to justify its rebuild. I think it should be torn down regardless, but a 2km stretch of elevated expressway can't be 50% of the capital budget over 10 years. It's just not that important.

Although it is a good idea to upload the costs to the province or recover them via tolling - saying that a 5 km elevated segment is bankrupting the city is a major hyperbole. The city has a long list of other elevated structures: TTC, railroad bridges, other highways etc. If the tiny stretch of Gardiner was capable of bankrupting the city, the city would go bankrupt many decades ago.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Difficult to say when it will actually finish, but Metrolinx says it will roll out between 2025 and 2032.

The Ontario line follows the same route as the DVP, so it brings significant value to out of towners by pulling cars off that road. That said, the timing could be a disaster for period of a couple years.


At this point, I'm not sure it's a traffic related decision. The hybrid option is bankrupting the city. Unless the province steps in with funding, the prudent thing to do is tear it down and build a boulevard. There would be a modest savings, even with the sunk costs, plus increased development fees and property taxes from the newly developable land. The Gardiner is killing the budget so badly that no traffic situation is really able to justify its rebuild. I think it should be torn down regardless, but a 2km stretch of elevated expressway can't be 50% of the capital budget over 10 years. It's just not that important.

it's far from bankrupting the city, don't be dramatic.

As large as the Gardiner capital program is, it's pennies compared to the capital spending the city is spending on transit. The Bloor-Yonge Capacity expansion alone is basically equal to the entire Gardiner capital program. The TTC 10-year capital plan is roughly 15 times the size of the Gardiner program.

The only reason the Gardiner is "50%" of the transportation budget is because of accounting purposes where most major transportation expenses are separated out, which is really mostly transit.

 

[Northern Light]

it's far from bankrupting the city, don't be dramatic.

As large as the Gardiner capital program is, it's pennies compared to the capital spending the city is spending on transit. The Bloor-Yonge Capacity expansion alone is basically equal to the entire Gardiner capital program. The TTC 10-year capital plan is roughly 15 times the size of the Gardiner program.

The only reason the Gardiner is "50%" of the transportation budget is because of accounting purposes where most major transportation expenses are separated out, which is really mostly transit.

Your reply is also a tad misleading.

The TTC Capital program has significant non-City funding. (Provincial/Federal), in the case of Bloor-Yonge, the City is only on the hook for 1/3 of that sum.

By contrast, the City is largely funding the Gardiner on its own.

Also, I'm not going to look up every variation of the Gardiner spending plan, but I note in the 2016 approval report that the program stood at 2.3B which is 50% greater than Bloor-Yonge, back then.

****

No, the Gardiner program is not bankrupting the City, however, it is eating up a very large share of Transportation's capital budget; and I think one might fairly characterize the spending program as questionable prioritization in light of other needs.

 

[evandyk]

And I'm not sure of the exact number, but i think about 30-40 times more people walk through Bloor-Yonge every day than drive the Gardiner East, and about 70 times more people ride trains through it every day than drive the Gardiner E. The TTC as a whole serves probably almost 300 times more people a day than the Gardiner E, to put that 10 year 15X number in perspective.

 

[tsm1072]

There is already a boulevard that is 3-4 lanes per direction on the exact route of the Gardiner, it's called Lakeshore, and it is significantly worse for waterfront access and Pedestrian safety than the Gardiner. The best option seems like the hybrid option as it keeps the bulk of traffic away from city streets on a relatively small 2-lane per direction elevated roadway. Ideally you keep that option and drop lakeshore to 1-2 lanes per direction. You can use the extra space to enhance the public realm and make the area under and beside the Eastern Gardiner a much more pleasurable experience.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And I'm not sure of the exact number, but i think about 30-40 times more people walk through Bloor-Yonge every day than drive the Gardiner East, and about 70 times more people ride trains through it every day than drive the Gardiner E. The TTC as a whole serves probably almost 300 times more people a day than the Gardiner E, to put that 10 year 15X number in perspective.

The $2.3 billion capital is for the entirety of the Gardiner however, which serves about 250,000 daily vehicle trips. This is about 1/3 of the total daily ridership of the TTC subway system. Gardiner east specifically serves about 110,000 daily vehicle trips. Bloor-Yonge serves about 200,000 daily passengers, so only about twice as much as Gardiner East. Definitely not 30-40x.

The TTC subway system capital plan as a whole is in the range of $60 billion over the next decade between expansion and maintenance, serving around a million daily passengers once complete.

The Gardiner maintenance program is $2.3 billion, serving 250,000 daily trips. Per trip it's far cheaper.

Getting into the weeds of who is paying for what is silly in my eyes, there is one taxpayer. Discussion on *who* should be paying for it is valid however, and I agree that the province should be owning and operating the Gardiner and DVP, not Toronto.. but at the end of the day the province is gifting the City $30 billion in new subway infrastructure at no cost to them so it sort of evens out..

 

[drum118]

The $2.3 billion capital is for the entirety of the Gardiner however, which serves about 250,000 daily vehicle trips. This is about 1/3 of the total daily ridership of the TTC subway system. Gardiner east specifically serves about 110,000 daily vehicle trips. Bloor-Yonge serves about 200,000 daily passengers, so only about twice as much as Gardiner East. Definitely not 30-40x.

The TTC subway system capital plan as a whole is in the range of $60 billion over the next decade between expansion and maintenance, serving around a million daily passengers once complete.

The Gardiner maintenance program is $2.3 billion, serving 250,000 daily trips. Per trip it's far cheaper.

Getting into the weeds of who is paying for what is silly in my eyes, there is one taxpayer. Discussion on *who* should be paying for it is valid however, and I agree that the province should be owning and operating the Gardiner and DVP, not Toronto.. but at the end of the day the province is gifting the City $30 billion in new subway infrastructure at no cost to them so it sort of evens out..

Miss leading numbers when 85% is for the west section only.

So 15% of drivers using the Gardiner eats up value funds to save them 5 extra minute travel time is more important than the city as whole is saying get out of our way as you don't count..

If every 10% of the cost to build the hybrid and the yearly maintenance cost would support 10 badly need projects for various sectors or support underfunded programs,

If other place around the world can removed their elevated highways along the waterfront with great results, so can we if we stop cratering to the car folks starting at Council.

 

[Ward8]

it's far from bankrupting the city, don't be dramatic.

As large as the Gardiner capital program is, it's pennies compared to the capital spending the city is spending on transit. The Bloor-Yonge Capacity expansion alone is basically equal to the entire Gardiner capital program. The TTC 10-year capital plan is roughly 15 times the size of the Gardiner program.

The city doesn't currently have enough money to cover the budget and is asking other levels of government for a bailout. The Gardiner is taking up more space than the rest of Toronto's roads, bridges and sidewalks combined. Bankruptcy isn't a technically correct term, but it's not really dramatic hyperbole either. It is a singularly bad project in the budget strain and the number of people it helps.

And the TTC comparison is an egregious apples to oranges comparison. The TTC capital plan is is funded by all three levels of government, and encompasses a city wide system. An equivalent comparison would have to include more roads than a small stretch of elevated expressway. Not to mention that this stretch of highway has a perfectly serviceable alternate plan that is much cheaper.

The TTC subway system capital plan as a whole is in the range of $60 billion over the next decade between expansion and maintenance, serving around a million daily passengers once complete.

The Gardiner maintenance program is $2.3 billion, serving 250,000 daily trips. Per trip it's far cheaper.

Again this is misleading. You're taking trip numbers from the entire Gardiner (which according to the city is 140k trips per day, not 250k. I've found 200k elsewhere thats the highest i can find quickly) and applying those numbers to justify the rebuild of the eastern section which carries much fewer trips per day. The relevant comparison is between the rebuild option and the boulevard option, both in ridership and cost. As Drum notes, the bulk of the budget is going to the rebuild, and the capacity that it provides over a wider lakeshore. As far as I can tell, we don't know what that number is, but the boulevard option doesn't cut capacity to zero, and it is fully capable of handling all non peak vehicle trips. The bulk of the spending is going towards a very small number of the overall trips. It's not good value for money at all, and it deeply hampers the city's ability to repair and maintain the rest of the roads.

 

[just east of the creek]

The city doesn't currently have enough money to cover the budget and is asking other levels of government for a bailout. The Gardiner is taking up more space than the rest of Toronto's roads, bridges and sidewalks combined. Bankruptcy isn't a technically correct term, but it's not really dramatic hyperbole either. It is a singularly bad project in the budget strain and the number of people it helps.

And the TTC comparison is an egregious apples to oranges comparison. The TTC capital plan is is funded by all three levels of government, and encompasses a city wide system. An equivalent comparison would have to include more roads than a small stretch of elevated expressway. Not to mention that this stretch of highway has a perfectly serviceable alternate plan that is much cheaper.


Again this is misleading. You're taking trip numbers from the entire Gardiner (which according to the city is 140k trips per day, not 250k. I've found 200k elsewhere thats the highest i can find quickly) and applying those numbers to justify the rebuild of the eastern section which carries much fewer trips per day. The relevant comparison is between the rebuild option and the boulevard option, both in ridership and cost. As Drum notes, the bulk of the budget is going to the rebuild, and the capacity that it provides over a wider lakeshore. As far as I can tell, we don't know what that number is, but the boulevard option doesn't cut capacity to zero, and it is fully capable of handling all non peak vehicle trips. The bulk of the spending is going towards a very small number of the overall trips. It's not good value for money at all, and it deeply hampers the city's ability to repair and maintain the rest of the roads.

I have seen the variance in trip numbers as well. It would be nice to have more confidence in what they are, what they mean. 140,000 is a weekday average? from a measurement not defined by the City. Some studies quote figures of 200,000 trips per day in certain locations. Steve Munro had some interesting data from 2011 that indicated eastbound and westbound trips at peak were not so far apart in numbers. Waterfront Toronto suggests their modelling will show that the Gardiner (east Side) will not be missed. And UrbanToronto has discussions going back to 2015 discussing numbers and what they are or might be. Since this has been a full scale discussion since about 2015, I do not see it slowing down anytime soon.

 

[drum118]

I have seen the variance in trip numbers as well. It would be nice to have more confidence in what they are, what they mean. 140,000 is a weekday average? from a measurement not defined by the City. Some studies quote figures of 200,000 trips per day in certain locations. Steve Munro had some interesting data from 2011 that indicated eastbound and westbound trips at peak were not so far apart in numbers. Waterfront Toronto suggests their modelling will show that the Gardiner (east Side) will not be missed. And UrbanToronto has discussions going back to 2015 discussing numbers and what they are or might be. Since this has been a full scale discussion since about 2015, I do not see it slowing down anytime soon.

Working with Waterfront Toronto since 2004, they have been clear that the east Gardiner had to go as the numbers did not support it as well being poorly use for land use.

Over the years, numbers came up while working on various project that range from 25-35,000 daily use, with about 20% using it to bypass the 401 or used the old lake Shore ramp. These numbers come from counter place on the the road as well looking a plate numbers. When we did the EA for QQW redevelopment, all plates numbers were looked at over a number of periods to see who was using QQW in the first place with 65% being non locals bypass the Lake Shore or the Gardiner itself. It also supported the reduction of the lanes since only 675 would be using it hourly max outside special events.

The idea for an new Lake Shore east was to do an University style by pushing far north to the rail embankment with an focus on pedestrians crossing it having more rights than traffic. The 2004 Transit Master Plan originally had an LRT going east to Woodbine more of an express line and connecting to Queen and Kingston Rd that was approved by TTC commissioners and Council. The LRT line was removed by TTC staff when the province during the EA approval stage requested the plan to be split into 3 section. It wasn't know to most parties of the removal of the LRT line until a few years when the Cherry St Line EA started..

Numbers for the western section of the Gardiner has been between 150-200,000 daily with higher numbers for special events like sports games as well other things. More in the range of 175,000 today.

End of the day, peak numbers skew the real numbers, but its clearly the east has to go. To think what that area will look like, just look at Harbour St with that ramp gone an a park being built in place of part of it.

 

[whydidimakethis]

The only problem with removing Gardiner East is that it severs the connection to the DVP. I would replace the section east of Jarvis with a short tunnel with only 2 lanes in each direction (similar to Seattle's SR-99) coming back up on the east side of the don. Local traffic would be sent onto a redesigned Lakeshore. Pros: Frees up valuable land, maintains connection to DVP, no ugly flyover at the mouth of the Don. Cons: Cost.

 

[drum118]

The only problem with removing Gardiner East is that it severs the connection to the DVP. I would replace the section east of Jarvis with a short tunnel with only 2 lanes in each direction (similar to Seattle's SR-99) coming back up on the east side of the don. Local traffic would be sent onto a redesigned Lakeshore. Pros: Frees up valuable land, maintains connection to DVP, no ugly flyover at the mouth of the Don. Cons: Cost.
View attachment 458135

There are 2 ways to connect to the DVP from the new Lake Shore. One updating the current connection. 2: Use a short flyover.

 

[blacksquirrels]

tearing this thing down was always the painfully obvious decision. one of easiest choices city council has ever been presented with, but it's no surprise they went with the hybrid option. never forget the brilliant minds that voted yes for this.

 

[Rainforest]

^ I could see the benefit of reworking the whole DVP and Gardiner system, turning them into two separate access roads into downtown. Each road with several in/out rumps to regular streets, and no direct connection between the two. That would totally shift through traffic elsewhere, and actually improve the access to waterfront.

But I don't see how the boulevard plan is a step up over the current plan.

 

[just east of the creek]

Working with Waterfront Toronto since 2004, they have been clear that the east Gardiner had to go as the numbers did not support it as well being poorly use for land use.

Over the years, numbers came up while working on various project that range from 25-35,000 daily use, with about 20% using it to bypass the 401 or used the old lake Shore ramp. These numbers come from counter place on the the road as well looking a plate numbers. When we did the EA for QQW redevelopment, all plates numbers were looked at over a number of periods to see who was using QQW in the first place with 65% being non locals bypass the Lake Shore or the Gardiner itself. It also supported the reduction of the lanes since only 675 would be using it hourly max outside special events.

The idea for an new Lake Shore east was to do an University style by pushing far north to the rail embankment with an focus on pedestrians crossing it having more rights than traffic. The 2004 Transit Master Plan originally had an LRT going east to Woodbine more of an express line and connecting to Queen and Kingston Rd that was approved by TTC commissioners and Council. The LRT line was removed by TTC staff when the province during the EA approval stage requested the plan to be split into 3 section. It wasn't know to most parties of the removal of the LRT line until a few years when the Cherry St Line EA started..

Numbers for the western section of the Gardiner has been between 150-200,000 daily with higher numbers for special events like sports games as well other things. More in the range of 175,000 today.

End of the day, peak numbers skew the real numbers, but its clearly the east has to go. To think what that area will look like, just look at Harbour St with that ramp gone an a park being built in place of part of it.

Thanks Drum. Thanks for the review.

The problem with working for a living and having to send working hours, well, working, is that it cuts into valuable time that could be spent on UrbanToronto. There is a lot of information on UT and trying to stay somewhat current can be challenging (in a positive way). When we had many more zoom meetings in my working life, it was easier to manage fitting in UT time. Now that clients feel that face to face is a viable meeting proposition (for them), its harder. The upside of course, is that moving around and in and out of the City and the GTA allows one to detour down Eglington or Hurontario (as an example) to see what's what Not always the direct route, but the level of interest is higher.

Thanks for your insight on this topic.