AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not really, the current "hybrid" plan only modifies the section between Cherry and DVP - not a complete rebuild in that format from say around Jarvis to DVP.
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter Haljackey
- Start date
Not really, the current "hybrid" plan only modifies the section between Cherry and DVP - not a complete rebuild in that format from say around Jarvis to DVP.
AoD
mdu
Active Member
The thing about this article is that it doesn't discuss that much about the traffic effects or transit implications, instead focusing on the effects to neighborhoods, and especially downtowns, of those cities. In that regard, the only highway that's guilty of those effects is the Allen, and I don't think "fixing it" is worth the money it would take to deck over. The DVP is tucked away in the valley, and there were never any neighborhoods south of the Gardiner downtown. Of course, that doesn't mean that the Gardiner shouldn't be torn down, simply due to maintenance cost and accessibility to the waterfront, but the article's reasons aren't quite the same as the ones in Toronto. Plus we'd have to deck over the USRC for any of the waterfront benefits to really present themselves.
darth_freeman
Active Member
@Northern Light isn't wrong, at least based on 2010 data:
Roads: Gardiner Expressway
Apologies if this was posted before, didn't see it, but 9 Ontario Liberal MP's have signed a letter advocating for removal: https://twitter.com/dmrider/status/606555535685517312urbantoronto.ca
Richmond ramp handled 40% of DVP southbound volume.
The Gardiner/DVP is basically a highway analogue of the YUS. Anyways, I think the Gardiner East (Phase 1 of the overall plan) is worth $300M.
F.G. Gardiner Expressway Strategic Rehabilitation Plan | Top100Projects
The City of Toronto is taking a proactive approach to managing the rehabilitation of the Gardiner to keep the roadway in safe and operable condition. City staff have evaluated the procurement options and are recommending an AFP approach to rehabilitate the Gardiner in the most efficient way for ...top100projects.ca
AoD
You've both been intentionally misled by groups like Waterfront Toronto when they use Origin/Destination statistics. Refer to my attachment (Insert B) to grasp just how much traffic the DVP and Gardiner carry in the average day.
The Gardiner (12 years ago) carries over 80,000 vehicles per direction (160,000 total) west of Bathurst. So while 14% of SB DVP traffic carries through the Gardiner west of Downtown, many more hop on the Gardiner on-ramps in that stretch. 14% + 10% + 25% = 49% take the DVP to Gardiner WB ramp, which is what people wanted to convert to a Boulevard.
In PM peak, 14% of Gardiner EB flows to DVP. But wait a minute, this section has over 110,000 vehicles per day. Waterfront Toronto conveniently ignores all traffic using the Gardiner EB on-ramps downtown when trying to justify its removal.
The busiest sections of Lake Shore Boulevard can only accommodate about 40,000 vehicles per day and they are at capacity.
Northern Light
Superstar
I haven't been mislead by anyone.
I know exactly what I'm reading, thank you.
The discussion here was not about turning the Gardiner at Bay Street into a boulevard.
The discussion was about turning the Gardiner at points east of Jarvis into a boulevard.
Nothing you stated changes the traffic volumes I indicated over the applicable section.
Lakeshore blvd is NOT at capacity in the applicable section either.
Northern Light
Superstar
ARG1
Senior Member
How cheap.
3x shorter than the 413, yet allegedly 1/6th the price?
Methinks the numbers people are throwing around for the 413 are a bit inflated.
Northern Light
Superstar
Or the bypass is low.
Neither has gone to tender; and Ontario has a history of projects ending up costing more than the winning bid too.
ARG1
Senior Member
The bypass is the only number that was dropped by the province. The number for the 413 is just online speculation. I trust the government a lot more than op-eds from thestar.
Northern Light
Superstar
Given that this government has proven to be untrustworthy and inaccurate on multiple occasions, that seems like an odd choice.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
$50 million /km is very reasonable for the Bradford Bypass. MTO is building the Highway 400 extension for about $12 million/km (source).
Bradford bypass will be a similar project as a 4 lane rural cross section, but with two freeway-freeway interchanges, which will increase costs a bit.
MTO built the 404 extension for $99 million in 2014. That's as little as $8m/km! But that extenion only featured one actual interchange and a handful of new structures so it's about as cheap as it gets.
The 413 would be similar, it's mostly a 4 lane rural cross section as proposed with a small section of 6 lanes from the 427 to 400. It does have 4 freeway-freeway interchanges though, but two are greenfield (not connecting to an existing highway) which make them cheaper. The biggest cost will likely be the 401 interchange which will have to be quite complex to fit into the existing interchange there.
Land costs are of course more significant too, especially for the 413 which runs through a lot of designated development areas which means land values will be high. The Bradford Bypass mostly runs through areas that aren't designated for development, which keeps land values down.
Going off of MTO's experience with the 401 extension, which saw about 65km of freeway constructed for about $4 billion, including 5 freeway-freeway interchanges, I imagine the 413 will be in the $3-4 billion range to construct. Much of which may be able to be financed by tolls like the 407 east, which means the "debt" load placed on the province will likely be closer to $1-2 billion.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
I thought that they'd acquired the land for the Bradford bypass years ago. So not in the costs, which is probably just construction.
413 would include land acquisition, and who knows what planning and design costs. Plus much further in the future, so it could include cost escalation as well.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It was already estimated to be in the 5B range back in 2011 (Option 4-2):
AoD
innsertnamehere
Superstar
That includes all projects involved in Option 4-2 scope, which includes widening Highway 401 from Milton to the 410, Widening the 400 to 12 lanes, widening the 410, widening the 407, etc.
using the cost units identified in the report for cost estimating, it would be about $2.5 billion for the 413 itself in 2010 dollars (assumes $14.5m/km for 4 lane freeway, $19m/km for 6 lane freeway, $150m/feeway interchange, $25m/regular interchange, $10m/overpass, $100m/major river bridge), with some margin for error thrown in there because it's a back of the napkin calculation.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Redirecting
www-bradfordtoday-ca.cdn.ampproject.org
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Errrr ...