[EnviroTO]

People have definitely argued to tear down the portion of the Gardiner east of the DVP because it's "under capacity". Ditto for the Allen.

OK, those segments I can understand being stated as under capacity. I thought he was suggesting the argument for the elevated Gardiner in its entirety has something to do with being "under capacity". Even the arguments for removal of the Allen and the Gardiner east of the DVP have more to do with aesthetics and neighbourhood building than freeway under utilization.

 

[Hipster Duck]

There's little reason for anyone who lives outside of the City of Toronto to be using the section of Gardiner between Jarvis and the DVP on a regular basis other than to head downtown, which they can still do using the upgraded Richmond/Adelaide ramp.

What about a Mississaugan traveling to Eglinton and Don Mills or the Danforth? What about someone from Durham or York going to the South Kingsway or Park Lawn area? What about a resident of the Beaches or southwestern Scarborough heading anywhere to the west? It is part of the regional transportation infrastructure; such is the nature of a freeway.

 

[nfitz]

People have definitely argued to tear down the portion of the Gardiner east of the DVP because it's "under capacity".

Umm ... we did rip down the Gardiner east of the DVP ... I guess you haven't used the Leslie/Gardiner interchange recently ...

 

[nfitz]

What about a Mississaugan traveling to Eglinton and Don Mills or the Danforth?

That would be local transportation to those areas; or they can use the 401/DVP, which is shorter for some trips to Mississauga.

What about someone from Durham or York going to the South Kingsway or Park Lawn area?

On a regular basis? They can take the 401/427. They can always drive down Lakeshore for the few metres that is a 10-lane surface street and not an 8-lane expressway.

What about a resident of the Beaches or southwestern Scarborough heading anywhere to the west?

That would be me. Instead of the Lakeshore converting to the Gardiner at the Don Roadway, it would instead go 1 interchange further west at Jarvis; hardly a big deal with the 10-lane artery they are planning to construct. Hardly a big deal ... they earlier removal of the Leslie interchange actually improved traffic in the area (because it removed the bottleneck on the off-ramp).

Note, though, that earlier I was arguing against the removal of the Gardiner ... I'm simply saying it isn't a regional highway, any more than Ford Drive is, even though I personally often drive down it heading from Toronto to Kitchener.

 

[cfloryan]

The Gardiner isn't a major transportation corridor for the GTA; if that were the case, it would be a provincial highway, rather than city-owned. The province clearly supports it not being a provincial highway as they downloaded a portion of the QEW to the city a few years ago.

That's just the province being cheap and downloading whatever they think they can get away with to save money. Downloading is to a large degree independent of whether roads were mostly used by locals or motorists from other cities. The Gardiner is a very efficient way of people coming in on the QEW to continue east to areas like Don Mills, The Beaches, East York and many parts of Scarborough. And when the 401 gets clogged or has a traffic accident, the Gardiner/DVP is a great way of avoiding that mess for people heading from the QEW to points east of Scarborough (Pickering, Oshawa, Ottawa, Montreal...). It's an important part of the regional highway network.

 

[nfitz]

Then the province should upload it ... and pay for it.

Otherwise, I don't to pay my municipal taxes to support regional infrastructure.

 

[Electrify]

It is possible to have a rational conversation about transportation infrastructure without it turning into a goddamn philosophical debate about cars and trains and whatever.

The Gardiner East of Jarvis has significantly more capacity than it will ever need. It was built with the assumption that it would connect to the Scarborough expressway. It will also, in the next few decades, require significant maintenance work. Should we look at options that might improve the pedestrian/cycling experience and maybe allow for new development or should we just put our fingers in our ears and keep the status quo?

You do make some good points. I remember when the plans were first announced, on the board I posted at someone misinterpreted it as building an extended offramp from the DVP to the Gardiner at Jarvis above the railway tracks. Almost everyone who I have shared this with thinks it is a very good idea...

That would be local transportation to those areas; or they can use the 401/DVP, which is shorter for some trips to Mississauga.

On a regular basis? They can take the 401/427. They can always drive down Lakeshore for the few metres that is a 10-lane surface street and not an 8-lane expressway.

That would be me. Instead of the Lakeshore converting to the Gardiner at the Don Roadway, it would instead go 1 interchange further west at Jarvis; hardly a big deal with the 10-lane artery they are planning to construct. Hardly a big deal ... they earlier removal of the Leslie interchange actually improved traffic in the area (because it removed the bottleneck on the off-ramp).

Note, though, that earlier I was arguing against the removal of the Gardiner ... I'm simply saying it isn't a regional highway, any more than Ford Drive is, even though I personally often drive down it heading from Toronto to Kitchener.

Keep in mind that the 401 does not have tons of unused capacity ready to swallow up any excess crosstown traffic which used to use the Gardiner/DVP. Many times when I've had to go to south Etobicoke, I take that route because it is far more scenic than the 401.

 

[nfitz]

Keep in mind that the 401 does not have tons of unused capacity ready to swallow up any excess crosstown traffic which used to use the Gardiner/DVP. Many times when I've had to go to south Etobicoke, I take that route because it is far more scenic than the 401.

Very little traffic on the Gardiner at the Humber is still there at Jarvis, and even fewer is still on the DVP at Eglinton. Probably less than the lane that was recently added to the 401.

I can't imagine it's a great choice in rush-hour ... perhaps off-peak, but then there aren't the capacity issues on the 401.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe they could replace the Gardiner with a tube in the lake, better than the GO Boat.

 

[StIdes]

Boring - no really boring a big tunnel like they did in KL is more interesting than the "Big Dig"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_Tunnel

Why can malaysias build a massive project like this for 500mil and it costs us like 2 billion to build a 2km subway.

 

[picard102]

Why can malaysias build a massive project like this for 500mil and it costs us like 2 billion to build a 2km subway.

Likely becuase we're required to pay workers.

 

[StIdes]

Likely becuase we're required to pay workers.

even 200 workers @ $50/hr for 24 hours a day for 4 years (the length of time to complete the smart tunnel) is only $350,400,000. That is grossly overpaying at that. So workers pay still has nothing to do with why a massive project like the smart tunnel cost $500mil and the sheppard stubway cost 2 billion. Also construction started on the sheppard line in 1998 so that is 2 bil in 1998-2002 dollars. The smart tunnel was paid for with 2003-2007 dollars.

 

[rbt]

even 200 workers @ $50/hr for 24 hours a day for 4 years (the length of time to complete the smart tunnel) is only $350,400,000. That is grossly overpaying at that. So workers pay still has nothing to do with why a massive project like the smart tunnel cost $500mil and the sheppard stubway cost 2 billion. Also construction started on the sheppard line in 1998 so that is 2 bil in 1998-2002 dollars. The smart tunnel was paid for with 2003-2007 dollars.

There are far more than 200 workers involved. You've forgotten the entire supply line of materials required and disposal.

I've been lead to believe that a large chunk of Ontario construction costs are environmental in nature (safe disposal of excess material) and safety (pretty low death rates for construction activities).

 

[mangasparky]

StIdes.. 50/hr wouldn't be grossly overpaying your skilled trades, by todays standards you would be under paying them, and by a significant amount. Also, 200 workers would probably take 25 years to complete the project.

 

[Asterix]

StIdes.. 50/hr wouldn't be grossly overpaying your skilled trades, by todays standards you would be under paying them, and by a significant amount.

Also, would that $50/hr be the gross rate paid to the workers or including all the overhead like payroll taxes, employer EI contributions, health benefits, pension (if any)? Often those can double the salary that the employee actually gets paid (gross, not net).