#GARDINEREAST REALITY CHECK
This CodeBlueTO Reality Check challenges misinformation that is clouding the upcoming decision about the fate of Gardiner East. CodeBlueTO is a group that provides grounded facts to inform public debate and correct the record. So, what’s the buzz, and what are the real facts behind that buzz?
1. The City of Toronto is thinking of taking down the whole Gardiner.
The City decision only concerns the stretch of the Gardiner Expressway that runs east of Jarvis. This section is known as the Gardiner East. There are two choices that are being considered:
remove/boulevard: takes down this stretch of the elevated Gardiner. Traffic moves to a redesigned Lake Shore Boulevard which includes smooth ramp connections to and from the DVP;
maintain/hybrid: the elevated highway as it is today, but the on-off ramps to Logan are removed, and moved to Cherry Street. New service roads are added to connect these ramps with the Lake Shore Boulevard.
2. The so-called “hybrid” design is an effective compromise between keeping the Gardiner East as it is and a complete removal.
The “hybrid” alternative that is before City Council is very different from the alternative that was proposed by First Gulf a year ago, and discussed by candidates during last fall’s municipal election campaign.
Today’s “hybrid” is essentially the Gardiner East exactly as it is now. The only change to the Gardiner structure is the removal of the Logan ramps (that take cars to South Riverdale and the Beach) and the addition of new ramps at Cherry Street. Other than moving the ramps, the so-called hybrid alternative is the same as “maintain”, which was rejected by City staff a year ago in favour of the “remove” alternative.
The current “hybrid” alternative is more like a very expensive rebranding of an old, rejected choice rather than any kind of meaningful compromise.
3. Toronto has a costly congestion problem. We need the Gardiner East to stay on top of that problem. (“We can’t afford to make the problem any worse.”)
Only 3% of peak morning commuter travel to the city’s core uses the Gardiner East – a tiny proportion. Neither keeping this stretch of the expressway up nor taking it down will solve our complex congestion problem.
The Gardiner has been at capacity for years. It is unable to absorb the growth in commuters coming downtown during morning peak travel. Neither of the two alternatives can change that.
Improved transit is one of the most important strategies for addressing congestion. Almost 70% of commuters come downtown in the morning peak period by transit. That percentage will continue to grow.
Ironically, fear of removal might end up limiting our ability to address congestion by throwing good money after bad for one mode of travel, leaving less money to spend on transit and other strategies for improving the ways most people get to and from work.
4. Taking the Gardiner East down will hurt Toronto’s global competitiveness.
As mentioned above, transit growth will be a much more important factor.
“[R]oad networks play a marginal role in the evaluation of Toronto’s competitiveness. Road networks are seen as subcomponents of broader factors that incorporate infrastructure and transportation issues. In these areas, issues like mass transit investment, quality housing, airports, and green space are much more impactful measures of a city’s competitiveness.”
– May, 2015 Alternative Solutions Evaluation Interim Report prepared for the City of Toronto
5 Commute times will go through the roof if the Gardiner East comes down.
According to the City’s Environmental Assessment, the difference in travel time between the two alternatives is estimated to be only 2–3 minutes.
CPCS – the consultants who analyzed the impact of the two options on goods movement for the EA - concluded that this only “marginally increased congestion”
Modeling for a study done by the University of Toronto on behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association (and others) found that – with optimized signals – peak hour travel could be slightly faster on Lake Shore Boulevard than it would be if the Gardiner were maintained.
“Can those supposed two to ten minute delays account for future innovation, unexpected mass changes in habit or political course corrections? Of course not.”
– John Lorinc, Tearing down Gardiner East is all in the numbers
6. Putting all of the Gardiner traffic on an 8-lane boulevard will create a bigger barrier to the waterfront, and be more dangerous.
With the Gardiner’s removal, the redesigned 8-lane boulevard would be 7 metres narrower than University Avenue and, like University, pedestrians would enjoy air and light as they cross.
The “hybrid” has a pedestrian crossing distance that is 7 metres wider than “remove” offers at Jarvis, and is 18 metres wider at Sherbourne. Lake Shore crossings would also continue to be peppered with supporting pillars, and dominated by the Gardiner structure above.
The remove alternative provides an opportunity to redesign the Lake Shore intersections – at Jarvis (one of Toronto’s most dangerous), Sherbourne, Parliament, and Cherry – making them safer and more functional for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
Removing the expressway’s supporting pillars, which affect sightlines and free turn lanes to ramps, will improve safety for all users, and reduce accidents that are a significant contributor to congestion.
7. Changing from an expressway to a boulevard will be unpleasant and frustrating for drivers. How will they connect with the DVP?
As with other major arterial roads further north, the Lake Shore will have direct ramps leading to and from the Don Valley Expressway.
Unlike the 401, the DVP, the 427 and the Allen Expressway, there are few drivers who complain about University Avenue being unpleasant and frustrating.
The beauty of a boulevard is that it allows drivers to take advantage of many route alternatives, rather than being stuck on an elevated expressway in a traffic jam with no off-ramp in sight.
8. Keeping Gardiner East up is more expensive, but it is a good investment for Toronto’s future.
Keeping the Gardiner East is inferior on many other measures of value to the City.
The maintain/hybrid alternative will cost $500 million more in construction and maintenance costs, and will take away at least $136 million in revenues from the sale of City-owned developable land. This doesn’t take into consideration lost annual revenue from related property taxes.
The choice comes down to a cheaper, more attractive option with many very real benefits for the city versus a few (hypothetical) minutes of travel time during rush hour for a very small group of commuters.
9. Large cities with elevated expressways need to keep those important access routes working to survive.
“On a macro scale, main congestion indicators for major US cities that have removed or do not have elevated urban freeways are comparable to those that have maintained elevated urban freeways.” (CPCS)
Toronto can simply look at other cities that have already taken the plunge and been the better for it: San Francisco, Seoul, and New York, for example. “While there were often fears of traffic ‘chaos’ following removal of elevated expressways in the case studies analyzed, traffic generally adjusted to the new reality without very significant disruption using the best alternate route available, adjusting trip time, or in some cases changing mode or avoiding trips all together.” (CPCS)
10. We need the hybrid alternative to support the development of an important new commercial centre being planned for the First Gulf Unilever site at Lake Shore and the Don Roadway.
Both options being considered by Council remove the on-off ramps from the Gardiner to Logan, which is what the developer is looking for.
11. Both alternatives, Gardiner East up or down, equally support Toronto’s investment in unlocking value in the waterfront and the Port Lands.
While both alternatives “unlock” the value of the Unilever site, the “hybrid” actually destroys or compromises value all along the route of the Gardiner East. This includes sites that are important to Port Lands renewal.
Instead of opening up the major north-south connections between the city and the waterfront to air and light, keeping the Gardiner East will those connections in the blighted state of unpleasant landscapes under an expressway.
Cherry Street – intended to be the primary transportation and transit Gateway to the Port Lands – is particularly compromised by the hybrid, which will worsen existing conditions by adding two-lane ramps to both sides of the already unattractive elevated expressway.
The Keating Channel Precinct aims to transform derelict waterfront lands into a connecting bridge of development between the city and the Port Lands. A particularly compelling feature includes the creation of a vibrant water’s edge along the Keating Channel. The “hybrid” seriously compromises that plan by introducing ramps and service roads that run the length of the precinct, destroying development sites and taking up much of the water’s edge on the north side of the Keating Channel. Removing the Gardiner would increase value and opportunity by opening up the whole precinct.
The new Villiers Island precinct in the revitalized Port Lands can have one of two views looking north across the Keating Channel:
- that of an elevated highway, service roads and ramps, or
- parkland, a promenade and other features created to highlight the area’s relationship to the lake and river.
Which one has greater value speaks for itself.
Choosing the so-called hybrid will also mean that there is less fiscal room in future to pay for the transit that is needed everywhere in the city, including in the Port Lands, where residents and business attracted to Toronto’s new blue edge will be expected to leave cars behind.
This is not a transportation engineering exercise. Instead, it is a referendum on the future of Toronto’s waterfront. Maintaining a 1960s vision of progress along our waterfront is not Toronto’s future – and it is certainly not worth an extra half-billion dollars.
After a dramatic grassroots effort to safeguard the public vision for our own Port Lands, Toronto is on the cusp of seeing a $1 billion renaturalization of the mouth of the Don River. Revitalization of the Port Lands will be the largest project of its kind in the world.
