News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Amare said:
In speaking about the Gardiner from the Ex to the DVP in specific (as was mentioned by @milkycontent), take that stretch down and think as to where all that traffic would "evaporate" to.
Click to expand...

Some of the "traffic" would evaporate because some of those drivers could now live in a building where an on-ramp used to be and so they can walk to work in the core. The assumption that the traffic pressure is fixed is incorrect, in my view. It's just not a metric I think we should be concerned with. Of course we'd want to continue expanding transit (LRT line that runs parallel with Lakeshore? Massive bus fleet in the interim?) but at the end of the day the car drivers will be fine. Private vehicles are already the most convenient way to get around, why should we prioritize their convenience over everything else?

To me, it simply does not matter that it would take drivers longer to get across town. The trade off of a more beautiful, walkable and livable core would be worth it.
 
DSC said:
Coming to Council next week - I doubt it will pass but..

Agenda Item History 2023.MM5.33

Agenda Item History 2023.MM5.33
secure.toronto.ca

MM5.33 - Getting the Gardiner Right: Moving Forward with a New Study on Better Options for the Gardiner East - by Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Amber Morley​

Notice of Motion
Consideration Type: ACTIONWards: All
Attention
* Notice of this Motion has been given.
* This Motion is subject to referral to the Executive Committee. A two-thirds vote is required to waive referral.

Recommendations​

Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Amber Morley, recommends that:

1. City Council request the General Manager, Transportation Services, to temporarily pause entering the City of Toronto into new contractual obligations regarding the Gardiner East of Jarvis, given that no new construction is scheduled until 2026, to allow for a comprehensive report, in consultation with the City Planning, Housing Secretariat, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Waterfront Toronto, and CreateTO, is provided to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee, including:

a. updated costs for the construction of the “Hybrid” and “Boulevard” options that consider inflation and supply chain issues;

b. updated lifecycle maintenance costs of the “Hybrid” and “Boulevard” options that consider inflation and supply chain issues;

c. a detailed analysis of the land value and additional housing that could be realized by opting for the at-grade boulevard; and

d. contemplation of any alternative option that maximizes existing investment and achieves a Hybrid that opens up more City land and minimizes lifecycle maintenance costs.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this is the type of immaturity that would lead me not to vote for Josh Matlow.

Is reconstructing the Gardiner East the correct decision? Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it can be debated endlessly, as shown here.

Has this exact decision and these exact issues come before Council dozens of times? Yes, ad nauseum. How did they vote? To reconstruct the Gardiner East.

In fact, we have had two general elections in which John Tory ran quite explicitly on a platform of reconstructing the Gardiner East. Spoiler alert: He won.

At some point, whether it is the right decision or not, the topic cannot be endlessly revisited. The request in this motion for "updated" costs is an absolute pretense for what is really political posturing.
 
mcornett said:
Honestly, this is the type of immaturity that would lead me not to vote for Josh Matlow.

Is reconstructing the Gardiner East the correct decision? Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it can be debated endlessly, as shown here.

Has this exact decision and these exact issues come before Council dozens of times? Yes, ad nauseum. How did they vote? To reconstruct the Gardiner East.

In fact, we have had two general elections in which John Tory ran quite explicitly on a platform of reconstructing the Gardiner East. Spoiler alert: He won.

At some point, whether it is the right decision or not, the topic cannot be endlessly revisited. The request in this motion for "updated" costs is an absolute pretense for what is really political posturing.
Click to expand...
This is a new council, and a new financial context. It seems entirely appropriate to reconsider an item that is by far the most expensive undertaking that the city has planned.
 
facepalming_brooklynite said:
This is a new council, and a new financial context. It seems entirely appropriate to reconsider an item that is by far the most expensive undertaking that the city has planned.
Click to expand...
I mean should we re-evaluate every major capital program the city has every new election?

The bloor-yonge rebuild is wildly expensive, and it's cost estimates are similarly old and likely undervalued. Does it seem appropriate the city should pause it for 2 years to "re-evaluate" it because there is a new council?

The big problem we have in this province is every major infrastructure decision, good or bad, gets "re-evaluated" every 4 years when a new government comes into town. Everything is constantly getting "re-evaluated", and nothing ever gets actually built.

Remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I mean should we re-evaluate every major capital program the city has every new election?

The bloor-yonge rebuild is wildly expensive, and it's cost estimates are similarly old and likely undervalued. Does it seem appropriate the city should pause it for 2 years to "re-evaluate" it because there is a new council?

The big problem we have in this province is every major infrastructure decision, good or bad, gets "re-evaluated" every 4 years when a new government comes into town. Everything is constantly getting "re-evaluated", and nothing ever gets actually built.

Remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...
I don't think we should compare investments in transit, which was woefully underfunded for decades, with maintaining an anachronism from our unfortunate past pivot to auto-centric infrastructure.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I mean should we re-evaluate every major capital program the city has every new election?

The bloor-yonge rebuild is wildly expensive, and it's cost estimates are similarly old and likely undervalued. Does it seem appropriate the city should pause it for 2 years to "re-evaluate" it because there is a new council?

The big problem we have in this province is every major infrastructure decision, good or bad, gets "re-evaluated" every 4 years when a new government comes into town. Everything is constantly getting "re-evaluated", and nothing ever gets actually built.

Remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. At some point we need to accept a decision has been made and proceed with the project.
If funding is a concern, string up speed cameras every few kms along the Gardiner and DVP and start putting that towards funding new transit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UD2
luk3yd said:
I couldn’t agree more. At some point we need to accept a decision has been made and proceed with the project.
If funding is a concern, string up speed cameras every few kms along the Gardiner and DVP and start putting that towards funding new transit.
Click to expand...
Or red light cameras at Front and Jarvis! (Or pretty much anywhere else downtown that is gridlocked on every light change.)
 
Streetcars and buses already have CCTVs. If the bus or streetcar could "bookmark" an infraction (such as illegal left turn, or blocking the intersection, or passing an open streetcar door), then we have another source of enforcement.
 
There would still be some terrible drivers who just can't help themselves, but it would be funny to see decades of bad driving behaviours end literally overnight if we rolled out this stuff broadly.
 
And any driver who cares about traffic flow should love the idea. At 50% of downtown intersections, the efficiency is half of what it should be because they're constantly gridlocked.
 
My kid is less than 4 and knows that rush hour at York and Adelaide means no cars (or more importantly, 503/504 buses!) can actually travel on York because drivers on Adelaide are always blocking the path.
 
Tolling and burying the remaining part of the Gardiner would be a lot more politically palatable if they felt the City was offering them a viable option but that is not the case right now. Even after new inner city stations and higher service, GO will still be a primarily longer distance service catering to suburbanites.

Right now that suburbanites feel they have no options because getting downtown is still too pricey with GO. By the time they pay for their GO & TTC fares, they are stuck with a $10 each way ticket. $20 in a single day still buys a lot of gas. As electric cars become more mainstream, that difference will become even more glaring. Yes there is parking but for many working in the inner city the employees often get free or heavily reduced rates.

A needed percentage of the Gardiner tolls should be put in place the exact SAME day as the tolls start and be put 100% towards complete GO/TTC fare integration. Not earlier or people will view it as going into the City general slush fund. Not later or people will view it as integration is "coming soon", "were studying it", or partial integration where the TTC fare is deducted from GO but rather they are exactly the same fare with no top-ups so that ALL Torontonians enjoy the same benefits regardless of their socio-economic status and view GO as still nothing more than a luxury liner.

If the average Torontonian sees {whether they live in the burbs or downtown} that tolls on the Gardiner make all their lives much cheaper, they couldn't give damn about the few people who have to pay a toll.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top