News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Salsa, I've read about the funding tools, all of which involve either added taxes or placing tolls on existing highways. My plan requires neither, since the new expressway wouldn't follow an existing route. Tolls could be at least as high as on the 407 and construction costs could be amortized. Interest rates are low. I don't expect too many people to see the value of such a project. Too much lack of imagination out there.
 
How much did the Gardiner cost to build in today's dollars?

Also, would this potentially quality for infrastructure funding from the Feds? That could significantly reduce the burden on the city, and it's nearly shovel ready.
 
Last edited:
Original cost in mid 60's was $110 million, approx. $800 million in today's dollars. Here's a question : Why don't any of the plans reposition the Gardiner over the train tracks east of the distillery, so that we have one eyesore rather than two?
 
Why don't any of the plans reposition the Gardiner over the train tracks east of the distillery, so that we have one eyesore rather than two?
Isn't that what the "Green Gardiner" plan presented on Pages 3 and 4 of the presentation show? They explain why it's been eliminated (the biggie being the $¾-billion cost above the current plan.

upload_2016-1-19_18-53-59.png


upload_2016-1-19_18-54-30.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-1-19_18-53-59.png
    upload_2016-1-19_18-53-59.png
    521.2 KB · Views: 639
  • upload_2016-1-19_18-54-30.png
    upload_2016-1-19_18-54-30.png
    100 KB · Views: 612
Salsa, I've read about the funding tools, all of which involve either added taxes or placing tolls on existing highways. My plan requires neither, since the new expressway wouldn't follow an existing route. Tolls could be at least as high as on the 407 and construction costs could be amortized. Interest rates are low. I don't expect too many people to see the value of such a project. Too much lack of imagination out there.

Tolls would need to be in the $20 to $25 per vehicle range for the toll to cover capital, ongoing maintenance, and the cost of collecting the toll itself for a Bathurst to Yonge tunnel with similar on/off ramp capacity as today.

Oddly, the tunnel is pretty cheap. It's all the connections in/out of it that really bump up the price but a Gardiner without exits downtown isn't particularly useful.
 
Maybe savings from canceling Scarborough subway and building LRT would pay for those on/off ramps and DRL stations along the tunnel.
 
With the current make up of council, what are the chances that the least worst option will be picked? Not going to hold my breath on this one.
 
I know it's a bigger, longer term project, but I still think any further remediation of the Gardiner should be done in conjunction with DRL and some form of underground toll highway through the core, maybe connected to a Front Street Extension (the original vision), and ideally providing a connection to the Allen. Pricey but doable with tolls and diversion of funds from less impactful projects (for example, Scarborough subway). Remaining gaps in the system would be mostly filled by ST, which will likely be complete before any of these other projects. The elevated Gardiner needs to go eventually, but doesn't need to until the alternate route is complete. I wonder if the tolls through the core portion could be temporary, the stretch between Front Extension and DVP, and be eliminated once the construction costs are covered. Only remove elevated Gardiner at that point, such that there is always a toll free connection between west Gardiner and DVP. I realize this could take 20-30 years, but at least it will be done right. Instead we'll throw money at a lackluster hybrid that will have to go eventually. That land is too precious for that kind of blight.
 
I know it's a bigger, longer term project, but I still think any further remediation of the Gardiner should be done in conjunction with DRL and some form of underground toll highway through the core, maybe connected to a Front Street Extension (the original vision), and ideally providing a connection to the Allen. Pricey but doable with tolls and diversion of funds from less impactful projects (for example, Scarborough subway). Remaining gaps in the system would be mostly filled by ST, which will likely be complete before any of these other projects. The elevated Gardiner needs to go eventually, but doesn't need to until the alternate route is complete. I wonder if the tolls through the core portion could be temporary, the stretch between Front Extension and DVP, and be eliminated once the construction costs are covered. Only remove elevated Gardiner at that point, such that there is always a toll free connection between west Gardiner and DVP. I realize this could take 20-30 years, but at least it will be done right. Instead we'll throw money at a lackluster hybrid that will have to go eventually. That land is too precious for that kind of blight.
Rocco Rossi, is that you?
 
With the current make up of council, what are the chances that the least worst option will be picked? Not going to hold my breath on this one.
About zero. Wait until the North York crowd finds out the option staff prefers requires a reduction in speed on the ramp from DVP to Gardiner. They'll go apeshit.
 
About zero. Wait until the North York crowd finds out the option staff prefers requires a reduction in speed on the ramp from DVP to Gardiner. They'll go apeshit.
From 60 km/hr to 50 km/hr? With a 130-metre radius on the curve, it only need last for 200 metres, as opposed the the 70 km/hr limit for 300 metres on the existing 190-metre radius curve. With that 10 km/hr change in speed, the ramp will 14.7 seconds - an extra 2.5 seconds than if it was done at 60 km/hr.

However, the existing ramp is longer, and currently takes 17.9 seconds at 60 km/hr. So surely the travel time will be quicker - especially as the entire curve to the south is gone, so the actual distance travelled is shorter.

The important issue is the change in travel time. Which is 0 minutes.
 
From 60 km/hr to 50 km/hr? With a 130-metre radius on the curve, it only need last for 200 metres, as opposed the the 70 km/hr limit for 300 metres on the existing 190-metre radius curve. With that 10 km/hr change in speed, the ramp will 14.7 seconds - an extra 2.5 seconds than if it was done at 60 km/hr.

However, the existing ramp is longer, and currently takes 17.9 seconds at 60 km/hr. So surely the travel time will be quicker - especially as the entire curve to the south is gone, so the actual distance travelled is shorter.

The important issue is the change in travel time. Which is 0 minutes.
The "one car ahead" type of drivers don't do this kind of math. Logic isn't going to work for them.
 

Back
Top