[DSC]

Info on Gardiner deck replacement: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.PW19.2

 

[W. K. Lis]

No they shouldn't. The point of regional roads in the 905 is to distinguish which roads are the responsibility of the individual municipalities and which roads are the responsibility of the regional municipality. Yonge Street, for example, is RR 1 north of Steeles. That's not meant to make Yonge Street easier to identify. It's just done to clarify that York Region is responsible for operating and maintaining the road, rather than seven different cities, towns and townships each operating a little segment of it.

That system isn't really relevant in Toronto. Even pre-amalgamation, Metro wasn't responsible for any local roads. The only roads they were responsible were the DVP, Gardiner, Black Creek Drive and Allen Road.

Myself, I think the Toronto "Regional" Road numbers should match the TTC route numbers, or vice versa. But first they have to clean up the current TTC route number mix.

 

[amnesiajune]

Myself, I think the Toronto "Regional" Road numbers should match the TTC route numbers, or vice versa. But first they have to clean up the current TTC route number mix.

What's the point of doing this?

 

[ShonTron]

County Road numbers are quite useful in counties - where they're generally maintained at a higher level than township roads, and provide useful connections between towns and villages and provincial highways. Until the late 1990s, the hierarchy of provincial highways and country roads/secondary highways made for a good network for wayfinding (the Harris-era downloads wrecked a lot of this).

In rural areas, county road numbers are still very useful. But they're not as necessary for wayfinding in urban and suburban regions where street and road names are more prominent. Hamiltonno longer signs the old Hamilton-Wentworth regional road numbers except for the main routes, many of which are former highways.

Is there any need for Toronto to do this? No. Metro never marked the roads that it maintained (versus streets maintained by the cities and boroughs).

 

[DSC]

Myself, I think the Toronto "Regional" Road numbers should match the TTC route numbers, or vice versa. But first they have to clean up the current TTC route number mix.

Why? (And how would they deal with a road that has several bus routes on it and .....) as they say "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

 

[ADRM]

Reminder that today is the last day to write to explain what a horrendous mistake it is to do anything other than remove the Gardiner East. We can still get this right:

As required under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Gardiner EA will be available for public review and comment from January 27, 2017 to March 17, 2017.

A hard copy of the Gardiner EA can be viewed at the MOECC (135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor), Toronto City Hall Library (100 Queen Street West, Main Floor), Waterfront Toronto (20 Bay Street, Suite 1310), during regular business hours. An electronic copy of the Gardiner EA can also be viewed on the Gardiner East website Document Library or Participate page.

Anyone wishing to provide comments about the EA must submit their comments in writing to the MOECC by March 17, 2017. All comments must be submitted to:

Ms. Dorothy Moszynski, Project Officer
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
Email address:Dorothy.moszynski@ontario.ca
Tel: 416-314-3352/1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452
A copy of all comments will be forwarded to the Proponents for their consideration.

If you have any questions or need further information about this project, please contact the Facilitator’s Office at info@gardinereast.ca or call 416-479-0662.

 

[Palma]

Reminder that today is the last day to write to explain what a horrendous mistake it is to do anything other than remove the Gardiner East. We can still get this right:
.

Will it really do anything to change direction? The only thing I see that would help is if parts of it start to actually break off (of course without any cars on there when that happens)

 

[ADRM]

Will it really do anything to change direction? The only thing I see that would help is if parts of it start to actually break off (of course without any cars on there when that happens)

It can't hurt.

 

[salsa]

Reminder that today is the last day to write to explain what a horrendous mistake it is to do anything other than remove the Gardiner East. We can still get this right:

I'm reposting this excellent twitter summary of our situation, for those who haven't seen it. Huge credit to @g_meslin.

****************

• In 2009, City Council and Ministry of Environment approved the Terms of Reference for the Gardiner East EA, framed as being "intended to ensure that strong city building objectives remain at the centre of the technical analysis, and that a successful urban environment characterized by design excellence results from this effort."
• EA study goals: Revitalize waterfront - Reconnect city with lake - Balance modes - Achieve sustainability - Create value
• Per the Terms of Reference: "The project goals provide the basis from which alternatives are developed, assessed and evaluated." And "these goals shape the preferred design and provide guidance and direction to the study and project." In other words the preferred alternative – the 'Hybrid' now before the Ministry – should have been shaped by and reflect the EA’s stated goals.
• The original alternatives (remove, replace, improve) were not arbitrary – they were informed by studies undertaken by Waterfront Toronto and the City, based on case studies from other cities having dealt with aged elevated roadways, public consultation, and the EA’s goals themselves.
  
• ‘Remove’ was WT's original preference, but they “committed to conducting a fair and unbiased evaluation of all the options”

****************

• In 2013 Council allocated money to undertake the EA and Integrated Urban Design Study.
• The evaluation process lasted 9 months and included technical analyses, peer reviews, and three rounds of consultation.
• The consultant included respected specialist firms in a number of disciplines, who identified the Remove alternative as the preferred option.

****************

• And then the gong show really began. At the last minute, with the Remove recommendation before Committee, a private party (First Gulf) introduced a new option for consideration.
  
• First Gulf CEO submitted a letter to Committee introducing the ‘Maintain Plus’ option – later rebranded as the ‘hybrid’.
  
• Committee then decided not to take the recommendation of staff and the EA consultants...instead they referred the item and asked staff to evaluate the new option that ‘combines the maintain and replace components’. After a rigorous evaluation process, a new option provided by a private interest cut to the front of the line.
• Over the year that followed, all pretense of ‘fair and unbiased’ went out the window.

****************

• The optimized Boulevard design was shown to have 2031 inbound travel times only 2-3 minutes longer than the Hybrid alternative. But a CAA-commissioned study emerged that muddied the waters with some references to 10-minute travel time increases.
• This was my letter to the authors of the CAA study (Eric Miller, et al.) asking for clarification of their numbers. It was never provided.
• Despite having staff’s analysis available, guess which numbers John Tory used repeatedly to make his case?

The Gardiner East was also shown to carry a very small share of inbound traffic to Downtown on any given day.

But for deputy mayor DMW, the ‘real people’ knew how important the Gardiner was. Oh, and those 20 minute delays!

Expert consultants pointed to a known phenomenon, often referred to as ‘traffic evaporation’. But some Councillors, on instinct, just knew better…

Other Councillors made up claims such as these…

And staff in the Mayor’s office preferred the opinion of their San Francisco cab drivers to those of staff and consultants.

And all throughout, private sector lobbying was intense – by the CAA, First Gulf, and others. This included astroturf social media campaigns and a last minute Campaign Research poll used to pressure wavering Councillors.


****************

And let’s not forget that the City’s Medical Officer of Health prepared a report, evaluating the options through a public health lens. John Tory's allies on the Board of Health blocked that report from going before Council.

This is the ‘fair and unbiased’ climate in which a decision on Council’s preferred alternative was eventually made.


****************

Eventually, the consultant team completed their expanded scope of work. These are their findings:

• Transportation & Infrastructure – Hybrid preferred (although not for cycling, pedestrians, or safety criteria)
• Urban Design – Remove/Boulevard preferred (overall and on all criteria groups)
  
• Environment – Remove/Boulevard preferred.
  
• Economic – Remove/Boulevard preferred (and Hybrid costs keep climbing).
  
• EA Goals – Remove/Boulevard preferred FOR ALL FIVE OF THE GOALS.

The Remove option was preferred or equally preferred for more lenses, criteria groups, criteria, and for all of the EA’s goals compared to the Hybrid. And yet the consultant team, this time around, was not able to make a recommendation.

• “In making the decision, what needs to be taken into account are the values, goals and priorities of those who represent the affected public”. What they are saying is, ‘this is politicized, do what you want’.
• Finally, staff’s recommendation to Council was simply to make a decision on either Remove or Hybrid. It was a non-recommendation.
• On June 10, 2015 Council selected the Hybrid option on the basis of greater emphasis on the transportation and infrastructure lens. Which meant turning a blind eye to the other three lenses, and the EA’s stated goals.
  
• A process that was meant to be fair & unbiased, to ensure public betterment, and to protect a broadly defined ‘environment’, was instead politicized and biased, served private interests, and seemed to define the environment narrowly as motor vehicle movement.

****************

Let's be clear: The process found a preferred alternative. Staff/consultants didn't recommend it. Council chose the other option. I hope this makes you angry. I’m angry. In a just world this would be criminal. And if you are angry, vent that anger productively – submit your comments as part of the Ministry review. Share this and ask people to participate. If you are an industry professional, give the Ministry your professional opinion. Tell them the process was flawed. Tell them Council selected the wrong alternative, in defiance of the project's terms and purpose. Tell the Ministry to refer to tribunal. If a process that so clearly points to one outcome can be railroaded to another, why bother with the process?

 

[ADRM]

That is an excellent take.

 

[amnesiajune]

I'll just say this again - What would you rather have by the lake: this road or this road? People love to romanticize the "boulevard", but in reality it would be Highway 7 - two-stage crossings for pedestrians and eight lanes of busy traffic moving at 70-80 km/h between the city and the lake. The barrier will still be there, but instead of a bridge it'll literally be a wall.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I'll just say this again - What would you rather have by the lake: this road or this road? People love to romanticize the "boulevard", but in reality it would be Highway 7 - two-stage crossings for pedestrians and eight lanes of busy traffic moving at 70-80 km/h between the city and the lake. The barrier will still be there, but instead of a bridge it'll literally be a wall.

Excellent point some poel seem to think taking down the gardiner will work like a magic wand and all the acras that use it will disappear.

 

[PinkLucy]

Lake Shore is already somewhat of a pedestrian impediment with some two-stage crossings and 6 lanes of busy traffic moving quickly.

 

[salsa]

I'll just say this again - What would you rather have by the lake: this road or this road?

I'll take the one that doesn't have the hulking concrete eyesore on top. The one that doesn't have three stage crossings or missing crosswalks in some areas. The one that also has bike lanes, trees and a quality public realm that you happen to get while spending much less money than the alternative, and that was deemed to be far more preferable in almost every possible way by a highly competent team of consultants whose work was peer reviewed twice and went through multiple rounds of public consultation. That's not to say that I will love the end result or that it will suddenly become my favourite street, but it's the best we can do.

By the way, Spadina & Lakeshore (from your link) has got to be the single worst intersection in the entire city. One that's rivalled only by other terrible intersections along the Gardiner. You want to talk about a "literally wall", this right here is more like it. So between that or a boulevard, it's really should have been a no brainer.

 

[TransitBart]

As divisive as ever.