[Eug]

But then you have to pay for both options. Based on the price and the scarce advantages of the hybrid, this would be doubly stupid.

Not saying this is you, but people keep throwing around this $500 million number, but that makes no sense to me, since it's based on 100 years of maintenance.

IOW, I think there is a lot of fudging going on both sides, on multiple points, two of which are delay times and costs.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Not saying this is you, but people keep throwing around this $500 million number, but that makes no sense to me, since it's based on 100 years of maintenance.

IOW, I think there is a lot of fudging going on both sides, on multiple points, two of which are delay times and costs.

But you're quoting the longest delay time as not just fact, but probably low at peak delay times. Then you're being totally skeptical about the higher cost. Can you not see how you're cherry picking as bad or worse than the 'remove' supporters?

 

[clarkburglar]

Not saying this is you, but people keep throwing around this $500 million number, but that makes no sense to me, since it's based on 100 years of maintenance.

IOW, I think there is a lot of fudging going on both sides, on multiple points, two of which are delay times and costs.

I don't consider trusting the city staff reports and studies to be fudging, and even if the price was equal there's no sense in building the hybrid. It only slimly beats the boulevard on transportation, and by every single other metric the boulevard is a better option.

To prefer the hybrid is to value the commute times of a minuscule fraction of commuters over all these other advantages. Are these 5-6000 suburban commuters really worth a worse pedestrian experience for the entire city? is it worth high maintenance costs? is it worth relieving traffic? is it worth removing a barrier to the waterfront? is it worth sacrificing what would be a boon to our economy? is it worth significantly reducing toronto's green house gas emissions?

That last one isn't stressed enough in my opinion.

Climate change is extremely serious and we had an opportunity to reduce our environmental footprint, while improving the economy, improving our quality of life, etc.. We said no. Canada's record on climate change has been abysmal, and we need to start factoring it into our thinking and our policy making.

 

[Eug]

I don't consider trusting the city staff reports and studies to be fudging, and even if the price was equal there's no sense in building the hybrid. It only slimly beats the boulevard on transportation, and by every single other metric the boulevard is a better option.

To prefer the hybrid is to value the commute times of a minuscule fraction of commuters over all these other advantages. Are these 5-6000 suburban commuters really worth a worse pedestrian experience for the entire city? is it worth high maintenance costs? is it worth relieving traffic? is it worth removing a barrier to the waterfront? is it worth sacrificing what would be a boon to our economy?

While it true Tory was pandering outer Toronto voters, I think he was pandering even more to industry. And to be honest, I think they have a point.

is it worth significantly reducing toronto's green house gas emissions?

That last one isn't stressed enough in my opinion.

Climate change is extremely serious and we had an opportunity to reduce our environmental footprint, while improving the economy, improving our quality of life, etc.. We said no. Canada's record on climate change has been abysmal, and we need to start factoring it into our thinking and our policy making.

The answer to climate change is to build proper transit, not to fret about 1.7 km of roadway.

BTW, yes I drive, but I drive a plug-in Prius.

 

[junior43]

I don't consider trusting the city staff reports and studies to be fudging, and even if the price was equal there's no sense in building the hybrid. It only slimly beats the boulevard on transportation, and by every single other metric the boulevard is a better option.

To prefer the hybrid is to value the commute times of a minuscule fraction of commuters over all these other advantages. Are these 5-6000 suburban commuters really worth a worse pedestrian experience for the entire city? is it worth high maintenance costs? is it worth relieving traffic? is it worth removing a barrier to the waterfront? is it worth sacrificing what would be a boon to our economy? is it worth significantly reducing toronto's green house gas emissions?
That last one isn't stressed enough in my opinion.

Climate change is extremely serious and we had an opportunity to reduce our environmental footprint, while improving the economy, improving our quality of life, etc.. We said no. Canada's record on climate change has been abysmal, and we need to start factoring it into our thinking and our policy making.

Honest question, how does this reduce pollution? (I'm assuming that's what you mean by GHG's)

My thinking may be oversimplified, but here goes.

Currently these 5000 cars/trucks drive by on an underused piece of the Gardiner. Most here say it is rarely stop and go at anytime of the day, so cruise by at 90kmh. With the remove option, there will be somewhere between 3-5 new streets lights on the boulevard, so I'm assuming every car will get caught at least once by a red light - if not 2. With acceleration of vehicles causing more pollution than cruising at 90kmh, how does it reduce pollution?

 

[Eug]

But you're quoting the longest delay time as not just fact, but probably low at peak delay times. Then you're being totally skeptical about the higher cost. Can you not see how you're cherry picking as bad or worse than the 'remove' supporters?

No what I meant about the cost is the $500 million number is quite misleading, because it's a cumulative cost, over 100 years. In other words (oversimplification here), it averages out to $5 million per year. As others have already mentioned it's not as if going with remove means we free up $500 million to build a new LRT line or whatever in 2017. To get that $500 million, you'd have to save up for the better part of a century.

 

[niwell]

To prefer the hybrid is to value the commute times of a minuscule fraction of commuters over all these other advantages. Are these 5-6000 suburban commuters really worth a worse pedestrian experience for the entire city? is it worth high maintenance costs? is it worth relieving traffic? is it worth removing a barrier to the waterfront? is it worth sacrificing what would be a boon to our economy? is it worth significantly reducing toronto's green house gas emissions?

I was slightly in favour of the teardown, but I think this is huge hyperbole. A 1.7km portion of elevated expressway, of which only a small portion directly abuts the waterfront is not a dealbreaker for the future of the city. If it ends up being built as proposed there are any number of options as to how to treat the areas underneath as effective and engaging public space. If done properly I actually believe it could end up being a more interesting space than a standard boulevard.

Similarly greenhouse gases is a red herring in this case. I can't see traffic decreasing appreciably enough to make a difference, much less a significant difference.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Honest question, how does this reduce pollution? (I'm assuming that's what you mean by GHG's)

My thinking may be oversimplified, but here goes.

Currently these 5000 cars/trucks drive by on an underused piece of the Gardiner. Most here say it is rarely stop and go at anytime of the day, so cruise by at 90kmh. With the remove option, there will be somewhere between 3-5 new streets lights on the boulevard, so I'm assuming every car will get caught at least once by a red light - if not 2. With acceleration of vehicles causing more pollution than cruising at 90kmh, how does it reduce pollution?

It has to be on the assumption that fewer people overall will drive... funny that this is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the presentations though.

 

[clarkburglar]

While it true Tory was pandering outer Toronto voters, I think he was pandering even more to industry. And to be honest, I think they have a point.

Based on what? The evidence in the city report showed an improvement to the economy

The answer to climate change is to build proper transit, not to fret about 1.7 km of roadway.

BTW, yes I drive, but I drive a plug-in Prius.

I never said that it was the answer to climate change, I said that climate change should be factored into our policy making. Which is wasn't. Also I think you're downplaying the impact that a small stretch of highway has on the environment. Read the city reports and i think you be surprised at it's significance. Moreover, the effect on health is huge as well. Out of 11 health categories the "Hybrid" is best in only one. Should this not have been a part of the decision? Also, the adverse health effects cost the city money.

Hybrid proponents need to answer this question honestly, with a yes or a no: Are the combined advantages of the numerous ways in which the Boulevard outperforms the modified Gardiner (health, ecofootprint, economy, traffic, waterfront, pedestrians, etc.) less important than the single advantage of slightly shorter commute times for 3% of commuters.

 

[adHominem]

To get that $500 million, you'd have to save up for the better part of a century.

Sure, if anyone ever paid for big infrastructure things with cash up front, instead of financing it with debt. Which just got more difficult for us to do, as the extra cost of the hybrid puts the city that much closer to our debt ceiling.

 

[clarkburglar]

I was slightly in favour of the teardown, but I think this is huge hyperbole. A 1.7km portion of elevated expressway, of which only a small portion directly abuts the waterfront is not a dealbreaker for the future of the city. If it ends up being built as proposed there are any number of options as to how to treat the areas underneath as effective and engaging public space. If done properly I actually believe it could end up being a more interesting space than a standard boulevard.

I didn't say it was a dealbreaker i said it's worse for pedestrian experience. Most of the Gardiner East goes right overtop of Lakeshore blvd so there are barely any places that they'll be able to make into an interesting public spaces.

Similarly greenhouse gases is a red herring in this case. I can't see traffic decreasing appreciably enough to make a difference, much less a significant difference.

The studies found that it made a difference. The "hybrid" was only better than the boulevard in 1 of 11 health categories

 

[clarkburglar]

It has to be on the assumption that fewer people overall will drive... funny that this is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the presentations though.

It's not an assumption. Theres an incredible amount of research that shows how removing roads decreases car dependancy, and improves traffic congestion. In San Francisco, traffic improved by over 20 percent when the embarcadero was replaced by a boulevard

 

[BayStBoi]

I don't consider trusting the city staff reports and studies to be fudging, and even if the price was equal there's no sense in building the hybrid. It only slimly beats the boulevard on transportation, and by every single other metric the boulevard is a better option.

To prefer the hybrid is to value the commute times of a minuscule fraction of commuters over all these other advantages. Are these 5-6000 suburban commuters really worth a worse pedestrian experience for the entire city?

There's another fudge. It's not just 5-6K commuters... that's the number per hour during rush hour. Over the course of the day, the number has been shown to be in excess of 100K.

 

[allabootmatt]

Tory is simply Ford in a better suit. He's a mayor exclusively for the suburbs, and he willfully disregards latte-sipping (his reference in a Gardiner debate) elite stuff like data, analysis and expert advice.

Everyone here knows that Tory lives at Bloor and Bedford, right?

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

It's not an assumption. Theres an incredible amount of research that shows how removing roads decreases car dependancy, and improves traffic congestion. In San Francisco, traffic improved by over 20 percent when the embarcadero was replaced by a boulevard

Unless you can see the future it is an assumption. There may be a lot of research to support that assumption, but it is still an assumption. Also, it is not something that was ever explicitly argued as a reason to tear down the Gardiner.

On the capital budget issue, the actual difference between Hybrid and Remove is $128MM-$21MM=$107MM above the current long term capital budget. This money would be spent between 2020 and 2026. That is the additional impact on the debt ceiling.