|
Miller wants to tear down Gardiner (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| bluE_Neon |
It's all politics. Burying it would cost the government 2 billion dollars. If Gardiner would be a tunnel, Toronto would defintely make a bit step up the ladder of a raising megacity. Ffs, they want to build Toronto's skyline but yet they can't understand the fundamentals of construction anarchy. Building another boulevard would be a disaster. Doesn't matter if you have 6 or 10 lines if lights are controlling traffic :rolleyes: Gardiner these days is just as busy as 401, in it's peak hours. I'd say if tunnel was under construction, extend it with another 2 extra lines. City's growing and the future has to be measured. At least Americans have that figured out with Beltways.
P.S. Construction disasters never happen, it's miserable management. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by bluE_Neon
It's all politics. Burying it would cost the government 2 billion dollars. If Gardiner would be a tunnel, Toronto would defintely make a bit step up the ladder of a raising megacity. Ffs, they want to build Toronto's skyline but yet they can't understand the fundamentals of construction anarchy. Building another boulevard would be a disaster. Doesn't matter if you have 6 or 10 lines if lights are controlling traffic :rolleyes: Gardiner these days is just as busy as 401, in it's peak hours. I'd say if tunnel was under construction, extend it with another 2 extra lines. City's growing and the future has to be measured. At least Americans have that figured out with Beltways.
P.S. Construction disasters never happen, it's miserable management. |
im all for the viaduct proposal. It makes a landmark out of a transportation link... and it works! |
|
|
| bluE_Neon |
| I think that'd be an amazing proposal. They'd have to be extremely high because of the skyline considered as an obsticale, unless it's build outside of Toronto, on water near the T.O. islands and a seperate highway is connected into the city core. That would mean building a tunnel. Anyhow, a tunnel is needed either way because politians wouldn't want a viaduct right in the city, not that theres anything wrong with that either. Politians are ignorant in that field, go figure. |
|
|
| malek |
Jayx1 I feel your sorrow, we have the same problem here in MTL but multiplied twice!
The city wants to dismantle a highway and turn it into a boulevard because its not letting the citizen access the waterfront, the problem is that no one lives there(!!!).
The province wants to turn another very congested boulevard into a highway but the city refuses the project. The city argues again that it cuts access to the water, well the waterfront is the very busy port of montreal, all concrete and industrial, nothing to see anyways, and this has been hanging on for 30 years.
Sometimes i feel city-level politicians are still hippies with peace and flowers tatooed on their heart and refuse to see whats clear. Congested roads create more pollution than a freeflowing highway. |
|
|
| itikia |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Time2Burn ruling with an iron fist |
Did someone say IRON FIST??? :D :D
In any case, the viaduct option, at first glance, seems like a very good alternative to the proposals laid out in the report released. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
get ready for some more annoying news... and once again the Viaduct option is not mentioned..
| quote: |
$758M to tear down Gardiner
From burying it to doing nothing, plans exist. But where's the money?
Sep. 27, 2006. 08:00 PM
VANESSA LU
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
A proposal to tear down the Gardiner Expressway east of Spadina Ave. would cost at least $758 million and almost a decade to complete, but waterfront officials think it crucial to revitalization efforts.
“The Gardiner may be useful, but it’s an eyesore,” said John Campbell, president and CEO of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. “It’s ugly.”
The final decision, however, rests with city council – likely sometime in 2007. But a seven-volume, 564-page report released today outlines various options including doing nothing; spending $1.5 billion to tear it down and replace it with underground and surface roads; or redoing some ramps.
The option recommended by the waterfront corporation was the $758 million plan to remove the elevated portion of the expressway from Spadina to the Don River. Included in the cost estimate is $11 million for an environment assessment, which could take three years to complete.
It’s a hot potato issue that politicians are reluctant to tackle, especially in an election year. In fact, the report, which cost $1 million simply to write, was delivered to city officials two years ago.
But it has never been publicly released or discussed. Even councillors had not seen a copy of it until today, despite a great hue and cry to get it released.
Although he made waterfront redevelopment a key election plank in 2003, Toronto Mayor David Miller said there are more important things to worry about than the highway on the city’s front porch.
“If we could remove the part of the Gardiner that is in the vicinity of where the waterfront’s going to be revitalized, it would be terrific. But you can’t do it unless there’s a business plan and unless there’s money, and there’s no money right now.
“It would be a very good thing to do in terms of city building and the waterfront,” Miller told reporters. “It appears from the waterfront report you could address transportation needs, but without money … it’s just a theoretical concern.”
A $758 million expenditure would be almost exactly what the city of Toronto spends every year on the city’s police force. It’s also about 10 per cent of the annual city budget.
Miller has actively fought for more funding from senior levels of government on some issues, but not this one.
“This is a lower priority, for example, than fighting for public transit funding,” he explained. “We have basic things that have to get done in this city that we don’t have funding for.”
Councillor Jane Pitfield, a candidate for mayor, also argued that there are “more important priorities’” right now than talking about taking down the Gardiner.
She is in favour of having the issue become a referendum question on the 2010 municipal election ballot. Calling the Gardiner “a major east-west transportation artery” she said she doesn’t accept the “excuse” that the Gardiner is “ugly.”
The report recommends taking down the Gardiner from east of Spadina, explaining that many of the cars coming in from the west have already exited by the time they get that far. Traffic from Simcoe St. to Jarvis St. would be rerouted to 10 lanes of traffic at street level; five lanes going east and, a solid city block away, five lanes going west. An eight-lane roadway modelled after University Ave. would be built from Jarvis St. to the Don River.
Waterfront officials estimate that the changes would add four minutes to the current 14-minute, morning rush hour trip for in-bound traffic from the Humber River to King and Bay, and an additional two minutes for outbound traffic. In the evening, it would take an additional five minutes for traffic into the downtown, but outbound traffic would remain the same, at an estimated 18 minutes.
That’s because the waterfront corporation is counting on the Front St. extension — which would handle a big chunk of existing expressway traffic — being built. However, plans for the two-kilometre road from Bathurst to Dufferin have been on hold for years because of escalating costs.
Originally one of the waterfront corporation’s key priority projects – the price tag for the Front St. extension has skyrocketed from $170 million to $255 million. However, councillors have also been concerned about rising costs so its future is on hold until city council makes a final decision on the Gardiner.
The Front St. extension would take four years to complete, and the teardown of the Gardiner — in three major chunks — at least five years.
Any proposal to tear down or alter the Gardiner is sure to generate public and political opposition. Nearly three-quarters of all Gardiner users do not live in Toronto, but work in the city. As well, recent traffic studies show just as many people are leaving the downtown core in the morning as are coming in to the downtown.
Campbell argues the time is now to act, noting that as more development takes place near the Gardiner, it will become harder to take it down.
“This is the opportune time,” he said. “For me, it’s a question of what kind of city do you want.”
Campbell argued that the city should invest in public transit instead of meeting car demand. “What’s the cost of being a city like L.A. or Las Vegas, or another city with a better quality of place.”
The report also warns that “time is of the essence,” noting that costs will only continue to escalate once the corridor is built up further, and “the missed opportunities greater, and the benefit less.”
However, the biggest stumbling block to any changes to the elevated expressway is how to pay for any improvements. Construction on the Gardiner began in 1956 and it was fully opened in 1965 at a cost of $103 million in 1960 dollars. If city council choses to do nothing, it still costs about $12 million a year for maintenance and repairs.
The report does not closely examine how to pay for the proposed solutions.
It suggests a variety of ways are possible, including imposing an extra gasoline tax in the Golden Horseshoe area, or imposing a parking surcharge in downtown Toronto.
Setting up road tolls on the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 427 and Don Valley Parkway could raise up to $130 million a year, it says.
The report also estimates that property values along the lakeshore will increase if the road system is improved, which will generate and extra $12.4 million a year in property taxes.
Waterfront officials also acknowledge that the $758 million price tag is an underestimate since the report was first written with inflation and rising construction costs.
It’s unlikely that the other levels of governments would be eager to jump in with cash even though both are committed to waterfront revitalization.
“It’s premature for the province or the federal government to venture an opinion until the city decides what they want to do with a city roadway,” said Ontario Public Infrastructure and Renewal Minister David Caplan.
“We’ll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.”
Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby, who chairs the city’s economic development and parks committee, argues that the Gardiner should stay up, possibly with some changes to the ramps.
“I think the Gardiner is indispensable,” she said. “I think creating this grand avenue is not going to help the city. I see it contributing to further congestion and gridlock.”
Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, who fought for the release of the report, argued city council needs to take bold action and find ways of saying yes.
“We shouldn’t use the price tag as an excuse to throw it (the report) back into the filing cabinet.”
with files from Jim Byers, John Spears, Donovan Vincent, Paul Moloney and Kerry Gillespie
|
source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=968793972154
|
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: |
Hi Emilio,
I really appreciate your interest on the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct proposal, and for taking the time to contact us. As for your concern about the media attention on the TWV, I have been working to contact them and I've managed to get some attention, like a short story on the National Post, and a very good article on Eye Weekly magazine.
I have also contacted some Toronto councillors and candidates for this election, and I have got a very positive reaction from the ones who have responded, especially mayoral candidate Jane Pitfield, who liked the proposal, much more than dismantling or tunneling the Gardiner.
I am still working to get more media and political attention, as I am assured that the TWV is a far better proposal to the issue with the Gardiner and the rail corridor.
In the mean time, I invite you to get involved in this effort by promoting the TWV, and by giving any future suggestions or concerns you might have. The lines are open.
Best regards,
Jose R. Gutierrez
T.O. Viaduct
[email protected]
www.toviaduct.com
|
|
|
|
| Spam |
| Tearing down an important downtown artery road because it's "ugly" would be a very short-sighted thing to do. Before they tear down ANY peice of the Gardiner, they would need to vastly improve public transportation. Make THAT a priority first, then focus on the ugly roadways that are required at the moment to handle the large volume of cars coming into and out of the city. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
its time to make this a wedge issue for the election.
Miller is playing it off so that he can get into power again and then tear it down. Dont trust that sneaky weasel. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Tearing down an important downtown artery road because it's "ugly" would be a very short-sighted thing to do. Before they tear down ANY peice of the Gardiner, they would need to vastly improve public transportation. Make THAT a priority first, then focus on the ugly roadways that are required at the moment to handle the large volume of cars coming into and out of the city. |
Not if they're going to go about it like the TTC did when they got their shot in the arm from the government.
According to a friend of mine, they didn't even tender the contract out for the new TTC subway cars.
They just gave it all to Bombardier.
I mean, what kind of cronyism is in this place?? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Not if they're going to go about it like the TTC did when they got their shot in the arm from the government.
According to a friend of mine, they didn't even tender the contract out for the new TTC subway cars.
They just gave it all to Bombardier.
I mean, what kind of cronyism is in this place?? |
there are so many reasons why miller has got to go in Nov |
|
|
|
|
