Whither the Gardiner?
Re Don’t worsen congestion, Editorial May 16 Your editorial was most disappointing. It shows lack of longterm thinking or understanding of our climate. Elevated highways are not suitable for our climate. They are too expensive to maintain and are hazards in winter. If built, they will be a heavy burden on future generations and blight a section of the city that is starting to realize its potential. It would be wilfully throwing good money after bad.
The stretch of Lakeshore between Parliament and the Don must be the ugliest of the whole expressway network due to the Gardiner overhead. Without it, the Keating channel would be opened and transformed along with the lower Don for the benefit of future generations.
The claim that by spending double the money to elevate the highway will shave a few minutes off commuter time is ludicrous. Both the Gardiner and DVP are clogged with traffic. How can a section in the middle make any difference?
If one is serious about tackling gridlock, the best solutions include: time of day tolls on expressways to maximize traffic flow; replacing traffic lights with more efficient traffic circles (that can cope with variable traffic flows and keep traffic on the move and do not fail in a power outage); and remove stop signs on arterial roads. John Newell, Toronto The economic benefits of replacing the Gardiner with a high volume at-grade boulevard are overwhelming. Almost $500 million cheaper, at least $100 million in additional public land sales, higher future job potential. On urban design and waterfront revitalization into the East Bayfront, Keating and Port Lands precincts, it is hands down superior.
On transportation, switching to a boulevard is predicted to add between two to three minutes to the peak morning commute for the 3 per cent who use the Gardiner. Is three minutes really too much of a price to pay? It isn’t as though the socalled hybrid alternative will improve congestion or reduce commute times. Neither option can do. That is why spending $500 million to buy three minutes is dead wrong.
The Gardiner is at capacity and has been for decades. No tinkering with it is going to change that. The only way to address congestion is to grow transit. Spending $500 million for the sake of two to three minutes on the Gardiner would be a marginal benefit for a small number of drivers, but $500 million spent on transit will help everyone — drivers included. Cynthia Wilkey, co-chair, West Don Lands Committee It’s disappointing to see the Star support the Gardiner hybrid and not the teardown.
First, the new boulevard to replace the Gardiner would, according to Mayor John Tory, “be clogged for hours each day with honking, exhaust-spewing, bumper-to-bumper traffic as vehicles . . . are funnelled on to a route punctuated by stoplights.” Since this Dantesque portrait is speculative, one might just as easily imagine that the new boulevard will be lightly travelled, as drivers will find new ways to get home, not wishing to be in this exhaust-spewing mess.
All any of us can do is imagine the future, so why choose to envision the worst possible one instead of working to secure the best one? Toronto clearly stands to benefit from cleaner air, a larger tax base — created from the vast swathes of land developed by being released from the Gardiner’s yoke — and greater pedestrian access.
As to increased congestion, drivers will adjust. They always do. People long for calm, green spaces — even drivers. Geoff Rytell, Toronto Commute times are only one factor in the decision of what to do with the Gardiner. The latest consultants’ report, coupled with the information imparted by the city of Toronto at a recent town hall I attended, highlights a number of other equally important factors including:
Cost: Toronto taxpayers — along with our kids and our grandkids — will pay $461million over 100 years to remove the Gardiner east of Jarvis and construct and maintain an eight-lane avenue. A reconfigured Gardiner will cost $919 million. The leave-as-is option will cost $864 million.
Opportunity: The hybrid option will create up to 2,100 new jobs by opening up new pockets of land. A tear down will create another 2,000.
Delays: The hybrid and teardown options option will take six years to complete. Hybrid construction will result in 18 months of detours versus three to four years for the tear down.
Streetscape: The Gardiner-free streetscape will be a landscaped eight-lane avenue, similar to University Ave.
What the report doesn’t capture is the impact to tourism. A beautiful waterfront area is likely to attract more tourists and encourage them to spend more money. Chicago’s waterfront is a must visit. Halifax spruced up their waterfront a long time ago and it’s now teeming with people. Hell, even Cleveland’s lakefront now pulls in the tourists.
I hope council makes an informed choice when they vote on this and don’t just pander to the fears of grumpy drivers. Ben Bull, Toronto We hear from architects, urban planners, developers, elected officials — even from newspaper columnists, but never from those most affected, the people of Toronto. Put the question on the ballot, and hold a referendum. Let the people speak. They are the ones who will pay for whatever is done. John M. Regan, Toronto Rather than merely assigning hundreds of millions of dollars to let a relatively small number of motorists have an easier drive into the core, we need to invest in transit, including having expedited busways on the Gardiner and the DVP.
We need to ensure a faster transit service and, rather than investing in an old-style “excessway,” let’s actually put money where Official Plans, etc. direct us.
Better yet, let’s actually have some money from those who use this limited-access road, as it’s unfair to have public monies going to private benefit with no user fees. Hamish Wilson, Toronto If the city chooses to remove the eastern section of the Gardiner Expressway, I suggest they replace it with two four-lane one-way streets rather than one eight-lane boulevard. Scott Heaslip, Stouffville, Ont. The deluxe solution that no one talks about is tunnelling the entire Gardiner from CNE to DVP. Since that will never happen, let’s do the eight-lane grade-level boulevard. But rather than inflicting it with dozens of traffic lights, why not send the north-south intersections under the boulevard? Better for users, pedestrians, transit — and surely cheaper. David Lowe, Etobicoke An unexplored area is the actual benefit of increased car congestion. Slower car travel times create more support for mass transit. Research shows humans have lived on average an hour away from work, thus higher congestion would make people live closer to downtown core, thus helping to reduce sprawl. Phillip Roh, Toronto