k10ery said:
For sure, you have grounds to be skeptical of my argument.

In return I would say (as I have several times in the Gardiner thread): do not worry about the estimated cost differences of the different options. They are of such small magnitude they should not affect your thinking.

But to recap: in terms of capital cost, maintain is cheapest. Even incorporating O&M costs over 100 years and counting the capital costs of partial teardown, the hybrid option is only expected to be a little more. I mean really: a $100 million even with extreme assumptions to torque in favour of tear down. That's nothing. The expansion of night bus service announced this week will cost way more than that! Pretty much everything will.

Let's just stop worrying about the money. It's a red herring.
Click to expand...

Except that on top of the capital cost (and btw, I would be highly suspicious when someone tells me that keeping a bridge pushing 50+ years would be, in the long run, more cost effective than removal where that option exists (at that age range, you'd be looking at replacement costs, not simple maintenance - there are reasons why you don't see that many extant elevated expressway at that age). Case in point - the recent bout of Gardiner repairs:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...way_repairs_to_cost_more_and_take_longer.html

And that's a relatively short turnaround in terms of estimations - not 50 or 100 years ahead for the expressway. Besides, there is the opportunity cost of keeping it up, and that's not captured under the hybrid scenario.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ttk77 said:
Why do you keep stating this? Did the "maintain" option somehow get added back to the agenda? Of the only two options going before council that I'm aware of, "hybrid" and "removal", removal has the lower capital cost AND the lower maintenance cost.
Click to expand...

It seems strange that if we eliminate the cheapest option, then the "removal" is the cheapest option. I think if we take away the "removal" and add in the "burried" option, then the hybrid would be the cheapest.
 
BurlOak said:
It seems strange that if we eliminate the cheapest option, then the "removal" is the cheapest option. I think if we take away the "removal" and add in the "burried" option, then the hybrid would be the cheapest.
Click to expand...

Sure, but as far as I know only the "removal" and "hybrid" options are actually up for discussion in council. Any other option and we're probably back at the drawing board while they're "studied" for the next four years, and in the meantime the removal option will be forced on us as the Gardiner crumbles to dust and deadly chunks of falling concrete.
 
BurlOak said:
It seems strange that if we eliminate the cheapest option, then the "removal" is the cheapest option. I think if we take away the "removal" and add in the "burried" option, then the hybrid would be the cheapest.
Click to expand...

It does seem strange. They also eliminated the 'remove and don't build any boulevard at all' option, which would have opened up even more acreage for parks and bike trails, and would have been cheapest of all. I really don't get why Ford Nation didn't agitate for that, the cheapest of all options. A missed opportunity for them.

Or, we could stop with the garbage clown goofiness and agree to debate the two options actually on the table.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
It does seem strange. They also eliminated the 'remove and don't build any boulevard at all' option, which would have opened up even more acreage for parks and bike trails, and would have been cheapest of all. I really don't get why Ford Nation didn't agitate for that, the cheapest of all options. A missed opportunity for them.
Click to expand...

The sort of conservatism we are dealing with around transportation in Toronto isn't fiscal conservatism, it's good ol' I hate/fear/don't understand change of any kind. Leave me my 5000 pound SUV and the right to drive anywhere anytime at any cost.
 
CapitalSeven said:
The sort of conservatism we are dealing with around transportation in Toronto isn't fiscal conservatism, it's good ol' I hate/fear/don't understand change of any kind. Leave me my 5000 pound SUV and the right to drive anywhere anytime at any cost.
Click to expand...

Things are definitely backward when it comes to transportation, but I wouldn’t say it’s how you describe the situation. And really, I don’t see the Gardiner debate as being all that political. I live in Ward 28, I bike and describe myself as being left of centre and progressive - but I also drive and use the Gardiner (tho rarely ever the stretch between Jarvis and DVP). I support spending money to maintain/improve upon a grade-separated highway like that offered with the Hybrid. But at the same time, I’m very supportive of waterfront renewal (and would be 100% supportive of an idea like banning cars from surface streets in the East Bayfront altogether if it was offered). Is that Nayshunal?

Another example of TO backwardness: How using scarce dollars to extend a subway to some vacant fields in a former finance minister’s riding - in a city where car is king and few use transit - is ‘progressive’ and leftist. But extending a subway through Scarborough - where transit is somewhat popular, many don’t own cars or drive*, and the corridor req’d upgrading anyway - is somehow regressive and conservative... How that can be, I don’t know. And how tearing down the Gardiner, selling off the roadway allowance for condos – and adding more cars to the surface – is "progressive"...beats me.

* http://globalnews.ca/news/996589/map-carless-in-the-burbs/
 
Anyone see the video on CTV news last night? The good news is they stated they are on track for opening as planned...

The funny thing I noticed, during their brief coverage and pan of the area you can see a car driving along the streetcar tracks... I really hope once all the fences are down the separations seem more obvious because there seems to be far too many examples of these "lost" motorists.
 
Kraylin said:
Anyone see the video on CTV news last night? The good news is they stated they are on track for opening as planned...

The funny thing I noticed, during their brief coverage and pan of the area you can see a car driving along the streetcar tracks... I really hope once all the fences are down the separations seem more obvious because there seems to be far too many examples of these "lost" motorists.
Click to expand...

Video for those interested. Car is at 1m25s.
 
Transition to Two-Way Vehicular Traffic Operations on Queens Quay
June 1, 2015 – June 10, 2015

The transition back to two-way vehicular traffic operations on Queens Quay will commence on Monday June 1, 2015. Every day following, one additional Queens Quay intersection with the new traffic controllers and associated signal lights will be commissioned. The transition will commence at the east end with Bay and Queens Quay, and work west to Lower Spadina and Yo-Yo Ma Lane. By June 10, 2015 it is anticipated that two-way traffic operations will be fully commissioned for the entire Queens Quay Revitalization project site.

The schedule for this work is from June 1 to June 10. Expect daily changes at the following intersections:

  • Bay Street – signals activated Monday June 1
  • York Street - signals activated Tuesday June 2
  • Queens Quay Terminal - signals activated Wednesday June 3
  • Lower Simcoe Street - signals activated Thursday June 4
  • Robertson Crescent East - signals activated Friday June 5
  • Rees/Robertson Crescent West - signals activated Saturday June 6
  • HTO Park / EMS - signals activated Monday June 8
  • Spadina, TTC Loop & Crossover (Yo-Yo Ma) - signals activated Wednesday June 10

The sequence of work at each intersection each day, is as follows:

  • Beacon Utility crews will arrive at 7:30am, along with PDO – Paid Duty Officers.
  • The intersection traffic signal lights will be powered off, and existing wiring connections terminated.
  • Crews will begin to remove the traffic controller cabinets, and place the new programmed controller cabinets in their place.
  • Crews will begin to reconnect all new wiring and electrical connections from the handwells, controllers, and traffic signal poles.
  • Crews will energize the new traffic controllers, and verify the new timing programs. They will reenergize the new traffic signal lights, and run multiple verification tests.
  • All pedestrians and vehicular traffic should ignore these signals and obey the PDO’s working the intersection.
  • Once all tests have been completed and verified, the new controllers and intersection signal lights will be commissioned.
  • This sequence of work will require 4-6 hours to complete each day. The permanent traffic controllers and signal lights should be fully operational by the end of each day.
 
Another example of TO backwardness: How using scarce dollars to extend a subway to some vacant fields in a former finance minister’s riding - in a city where car is king and few use transit - is ‘progressive’ and leftist. But extending a subway through Scarborough - where transit is somewhat popular, many don’t own cars or drive*, and the corridor req’d upgrading anyway - is somehow regressive and conservative...
Click to expand...

I have a hard time understanding why people make it seem the main purpose was to extend the subway to Vaughan. It wasn't. York University was the main reason. The two additional stops north of York were a minor consideration in the grand scheme of things.
 
44 North said:
Things are definitely backward when it comes to transportation, but I wouldn’t say it’s how you describe the situation. And really, I don’t see the Gardiner debate as being all that political. I live in Ward 28, I bike and describe myself as being left of centre and progressive - but I also drive and use the Gardiner (tho rarely ever the stretch between Jarvis and DVP). I support spending money to maintain/improve upon a grade-separated highway like that offered with the Hybrid. But at the same time, I’m very supportive of waterfront renewal (and would be 100% supportive of an idea like banning cars from surface streets in the East Bayfront altogether if it was offered). Is that Nayshunal?

Another example of TO backwardness: How using scarce dollars to extend a subway to some vacant fields in a former finance minister’s riding - in a city where car is king and few use transit - is ‘progressive’ and leftist. But extending a subway through Scarborough - where transit is somewhat popular, many don’t own cars or drive*, and the corridor req’d upgrading anyway - is somehow regressive and conservative... How that can be, I don’t know. And how tearing down the Gardiner, selling off the roadway allowance for condos – and adding more cars to the surface – is "progressive"...beats me.

* http://globalnews.ca/news/996589/map-carless-in-the-burbs/
Click to expand...

That is a seriously weird mash-up of distorted views on what is considered 'progressive' when it comes to Toronto transit. You're pretty much wrong on every aspect. The whole point of the subway extension to York University was, y'know, to get students to York University. That's a progressive idea. The Ontario gov't's insistence on a subway to a mall in Vaughn is not any progressive's plan. Then you conflate the Scarborough subway plan -- again, dreamed up by a political cabal no one could call progressive -- as being progressive, when a fully functional LRT plan which would have served many more stops, including a college campus, but was killed because the then-Mayor didn't know that most of the route was not on Eglinton Avenue. In both cases, the progressive plan was vastly more fiscally responsible than the chosen alternative.

So: you can describe yourself as 'left of centre and progressive' all you want -- and you may very well be on issues such as income inequality or what have you -- but on transit you are a uninformed, unreconstructed car-first conservative.
 
"The funny thing I noticed, during their brief coverage and pan of the area you can see a car driving along the streetcar tracks... I really hope once all the fences are down the separations seem more obvious because there seems to be far too many examples of these "lost" motorists."

That's not as funny as people in my area sometimes trying to turn right in their cars up a contra-flow bike lane. I'm not commenting on the positives or negatives of contra-flow bike lanes but you would think people could tell the difference between a bike lane and a traffic lane!
 
TrickyRicky said:
"The funny thing I noticed, during their brief coverage and pan of the area you can see a car driving along the streetcar tracks... I really hope once all the fences are down the separations seem more obvious because there seems to be far too many examples of these "lost" motorists."

That's not as funny as people in my area sometimes trying to turn right in their cars up a contra-flow bike lane. I'm not commenting on the positives or negatives of contra-flow bike lanes but you would think people could tell the difference between a bike lane and a traffic lane!
Click to expand...

I think the issue right now is primarily that motorists approach and want to go East, and since the road is one way west only, instead of going around and back up to Lakeshore or whatnot they decide the rules don't apply to them and take a shortcut through the ROW. Once the road is two-way I foresee this happening much less frequently--not disappearing, certainly, but instead of occurring at least once every 3-5 minutes by my current estimation hopefully it'll go down to once every few hours.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top