[TheTigerMaster]

Bloor-Yonge station moves more people in a few minutes, than that part of the Gardiner does in a whole hour. "Not that significant" is right.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

By the way, our debt ceiling will have to be considered with this. The Scarborough Subway and SmartTrack have already matched our debt ceiling. I'm not sure how the City is going to figure out how to pay for another billion dollars infrastructure project.

 

[nfitz]

By the way, our debt ceiling will have to be considered with this. The Scarborough Subway and SmartTrack have already matched our debt ceiling. I'm not sure how the City is going to figure out how to pay for another billion dollars infrastructure project.

A vehicle tax or a toll on that piece of highway comes to mind.

 

[hawc]

I would hugely appreciate if anyone on here can post images of what the 3 options will look like.

None of the news organizations have been able to do so. And even Urban Toronto only has some rough guesses from over a year ago.

Can some PLEASE post what each option will actually look like!

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I would be happy with a toll - after all, it's only fair that those who use infrastructure should pay for it.

This stretch of the Gardiner is always green on Google maps because it's oversized relative to other choke points in the road network, such as the DVP, the central 2 lane section of the Gardiner, and the intersections and on-ramps downtown. That doesn't mean it isn't heavily used, it's just not congested. Do we really want to intentionally create a road that will be always be at capacity? It just seems very short-sighted.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I would hugely appreciate if anyone on here can post images of what the 3 options will look like.

None of the news organizations have been able to do so. And even Urban Toronto only has some rough guesses from over a year ago.

Can some PLEASE post what each option will actually look like!

See the original presentation:

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...s/TRN - presentation - PIC 3 - 2014 02 06.pdf

The hybrid option came after that, so you will have to wait till later today for a good representation.

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Your sob story is nice and all, but we don't build infrastructure for individuals. If you have to move, well too bad.

Obviously there's a need to balance the costs and benefits of any major infrastructure project, but I think that you underestimate the importance of the eastern Gardiner because you don't personally benefit from it. Maybe because you don't live in the affected area, don't have a car and don't have family spread across the GTA? Of course, as you say we don't build infrastructure for individuals. How would you feel if the city decided to rip up the roads and sidewalks outside where you live because not many people use them?

 

[bobbob911]

$900MM includes maintenance costs for *ONE HUNDRED YEARS* - a preposterous assumption of any kind of accuracy:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...-to-be-given-gardiner-expressway-options.html

But the estimated “100-year cost” — broken down into $415 million for capital construction and a further $505 million for operating and maintenance — is almost double the $470-million long-term cost of tearing down elevated Gardiner east of Jarvis St. and replacing it with a boulevard.

I believe it was earlier claimed the capital costs for teardown and boulevard construction was something like $240MM.

So in fact, the decision to keep vs tear down is really a $150MM capital difference, plus some incremental estimated maintenance cost (perhaps a couple million per year averaged over the 100-year term, almost certainly backloaded).

Now what do you think?

 

[hawc]

I would be happy with a toll - after all, it's only fair that those who use infrastructure should pay for it.

Absolutely. Of course, then, let's put a toll on public schools and healthcare too. Because it's only fair that people who use it more should pay for it. Let's also put a toll on public parks, bikes lanes, and other things that some people use and others don't. I don't have any kids, yet my taxes pay for other people's kids to go to public school. I've never been to the emergency room of a hospital, yet my taxes pay for other people who use it. Let's put a toll on bike lanes and public parks. We spend millions building and upkeeping those things yet not everyone uses them, so let's put tolls on all those things too. It's only fair that those who use those things should pay for it and those who don't shouldn't.

Or...... let's agree that we've already paid those 'tolls' through our property taxes and shouldn't be re-taxed on them again.

Come on knock it off with the toll nonsense, because it's a slippery slope. One can very quickly argue that every city service should have an additional user tax because not EVERYONE uses all things equally.

 

[salsa]

I would hugely appreciate if anyone on here can post images of what the 3 options will look like.

None of the news organizations have been able to do so. And even Urban Toronto only has some rough guesses from over a year ago.

Can some PLEASE post what each option will actually look like!

I found these renderings from an old presentation in Feb 2014, but they should be more or less the same as the latest report.

Note that your earlier claim that cars will "just get dumped onto the Lakeshore right at the Don Roadway a la Allen Expressway at Eglinton" is completely false.

 

[rbt]

So in fact, the decision to keep vs tear down is really a $150MM capital difference, plus some incremental estimated maintenance cost (perhaps a couple million per year averaged over the 100-year term, almost certainly backloaded).

The cities motivation for the initial Gardiner EA is that Gardiner's SOGR costs are 20x the DVP's per km; and that was before the $1B deck rebuild project was funded. I thought everybody knew (Miller certainly made it clear years ago, though he muddied it with neighbourhood building afterwards) that maintenance was the main problem.

We have a bad habit of diving underground or elevating where it isn't necessary; then complaining about the resulting tax load. Rob Ford wasn't wrong about there being a few hundred million in gravy in the budget. The challenge is much of it is in the form of maintenance on over-built infrastructure; but he'd get all starry eye'd for those same kinds of mega-projects.

 

[salsa]

This stretch of the Gardiner is always green on Google maps because it's oversized relative to other choke points in the road network, such as the DVP, the central 2 lane section of the Gardiner, and the intersections and on-ramps downtown. That doesn't mean it isn't heavily used, it's just not congested. Do we really want to intentionally create a road that will be always be at capacity? It just seems very short-sighted.

I generally agree with that viewpoint, but in this case having that extra capacity would cost a lot of money and would be bad for the waterfront, aesthetics, and development potential. Lets not forget that even the replace option would have less traffic lanes than today. It really ain't as heavily used as you make it out to be.

 

[bobbob911]

The motivation for looking at it is Gardiner SOGR costs are 20x the DVP's per km. I thought everybody knew (Miller certainly made it clear years ago, though he muddied it with neighbourhood building afterwards) that maintenance was the main problem.

Whether or not that is true, these numbers suggest maintenance of a newly built raised section will be approx $500MM over 100 years, vs $250MM over 100 years for the surface level boulevard. In other words, 2X not 20X. I have no idea how this breaks down on a shorter term scale.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

$900MM includes maintenance costs for *ONE HUNDRED YEARS* - a preposterous assumption of any kind of accuracy:

I believe it was earlier claimed the capital costs for teardown and boulevard construction was something like $240MM.

So in fact, the decision to keep vs tear down is really a $150MM capital difference, plus some incremental estimated maintenance cost (perhaps a couple million per year averaged over the 100-year term, almost certainly backloaded).

It's more than that. As outlined in the PIC, the remove option is superior for safety, cycling and pedestrian movements, social/health, natural environment, official plan, neighbourhood plan, public realm, street front, land sale revenue, and local economy criteria. You would pay more to forego those benefits and prioritize cars.

Social/health is a big one that should be given some considerable weight IMO. This is an expressway serving residents from other regions in the city, but it is the people that move into the new East Bayfront, Canary District and Lower Don neighbourhoods that have to live with it. The remove option will have less nitrous oxide (13-36 t/y) and particulate matter (1.6-5.1 t/y) emissions, as well as less noise (7 or 8 db). Is it fair to impose those impacts on these residents, just to save a few minutes in a car?

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Absolutely. Of course, then, let's put a toll on public schools and healthcare too. Because it's only fair that people who use it more should pay for it. Let's also put a toll on public parks, bikes lanes, and other things that some people use and others don't. I don't have any kids, yet my taxes pay for other people's kids to go to public school. I've never been to the emergency room of a hospital, yet my taxes pay for other people who use it. Let's put a toll on bike lanes and public parks. We spend millions building and upkeeping those things yet not everyone uses them, so let's put tolls on all those things too. It's only fair that those who use those things should pay for it and those who don't shouldn't.

Or...... let's agree that we've already paid those 'tolls' through our property taxes and shouldn't be re-taxed on them again.

Come on knock it off with the toll nonsense, because it's a slippery slope. One can very quickly argue that every city service should have an additional user tax because not EVERYONE uses all things equally.

My comment was in response to those who don't think city funds should be used to fix the Gardiner - it's the middle ground between the two extremes. Homeowners already pay for water, sewer, and garbage collection and we haven't fallen down any slipper slopes. I think it's safe to say that the current consensus in Ontario is that education and health care meet the definition of "public good" and should not be operated on a user-pay basis.