Keesmaat: Tear Down This Wall

[Ref]

The annexing of Toronto has already begun. I refer you to one Doug Ford and all those who enjoin in and rah, rah his and their efforts to impose his and their will specifically and only in regard to Toronto. This is plain to see and feel.

Irregardless that you state that you don't give a shit what people think about your community nor that you are not threatened by outsiders to your community, when those outsiders actually start dictating and imposing their will upon you and your community, I am positive that you would not remain so congenial nor accepting.

Is the future of a decaying and antiquated municipally owned, operated and maintained 2km patch of an elevated roadway on Toronto's eastern waterfront really an issue of regional significance?

Decaying and antiquated are a good choice of words. When I lived in Toronto a few years back it was evident that the city was decaying and antiquated. Fast forward a few municipal governments of various political stripes and voila! It has only gotten worse. Even the long time locals such as yourself know this and it is evident that you are frustrated.

It has to be difficult to see your tax dollars being wasted on social programs that have lost their purpose and spun completely out of control, or consultants who consult on the consultants in a never ending cycle of useless bloated reports, or poorly planned infrastructure projects that end up going double or triple the amount over budget due to incompetency on the grandest scale.

Maybe it is time to actually look inward and see what others on the outside are seeing. Many of them are people who lived in the city and have seen it from different view points.

Toronto is a good city and could be much better. The 905'ers are not the enemy, the only enemy Toronto faces is itself.

 

[Anbarandy]

Decaying and antiquated are a good choice of words. When I lived in Toronto a few years back it was evident that the city was decaying and antiquated. Fast forward a few municipal governments of various political stripes and voila! It has only gotten worse. Even the long time locals such as yourself know this and it is evident that you are frustrated.

It has to be difficult to see your tax dollars being wasted on social programs that have lost their purpose and spun completely out of control, or consultants who consult on the consultants in a never ending cycle of useless bloated reports, or poorly planned infrastructure projects that end up going double or triple the amount over budget due to incompetency on the grandest scale.

Maybe it is time to actually look inward and see what others on the outside are seeing. Many of them are people who lived in the city and have seen it from different view points.

Toronto is a good city and could be much better. The 905'ers are not the enemy, the only enemy Toronto faces is itself.

Describing that 2km stretch of the eastern Gardiner as decaying and antiquated as in having used up it's lifespan and usefulness is correct as it is a redundant, wasteful and no longer needed relic of the past.

Describing Toronto as decaying and antiquated reveals so much about you, and is utterly laughable.

Your second paragraph reads like a Sue Anne Levy diatribe unworthy of reply. Thanks for confirming your motives.

Thanks for your insincere 'genuine caring' from afar for Toronto and your attempts to bait.

Have fun in Milton, Kirby or Tottenham or from wherever you reside.

tata

love Toronto.

 

[explorerzip]

The annexing of Toronto has already begun. I refer you to one Doug Ford and all those who enjoin in and rah, rah his and their efforts to impose his and their will specifically and only in regard to Toronto. This is plain to see and feel.

Irregardless that you state that you don't give a shit what people think about your community nor that you are not threatened by outsiders to your community, when those outsiders actually start dictating and imposing their will upon you and your community, I am positive that you would not remain so congenial nor accepting.

Is the future of a decaying and antiquated municipally owned, operated and maintained 2km patch of an elevated roadway on Toronto's eastern waterfront really an issue of regional significance?

Cool it with the drama already.

I agree that Doug Ford's meddling in the municipal election was nothing more than a vendetta against the city. I do, however, agree with the spirit of that action in that there are a number of councilors that should have lost their jobs years ago for doing nothing; Mammolitti immediately comes to mind.

There's no way to tell exactly how many vehicles come from outside the city, but that number cannot be not zero. Further, there are a number of GO buses routes that travel down the DVP and Gardiner into downtown from outside areas. So yes, a measly 2km patch of elevated roadway is an issue of regional significance.

 

[oldjones]

How are my examples impossibilities exactly? Call me overly cautious, but just because we "successfully" completed a project in one area does not guarantee we can repeat it. Each project has to be looked at on its own and very carefully. Past success does not guarantee future success.

If humans always cope as you say, why is it so difficult to cope with the highway intact or in a slightly different spot? Is it really paramount to demolish this section to get going on other projects? Other than the recently opened Bentway, we haven't utilized the land beneath the Gardiner for whatever reason. I don't get why we have not been willing to do that.

If freeing up land for affordable housing was such a pressing issue, then why do we need to wait until the Gardiner comes down, win an Olympic bid, when Google / Amazon comes to town, etc. Why do we need wait until conditions are ideal before taking action? People clearly don't mind paying top dollar to live right next to the highway so there should be no reason for affordable units to be built there too.

Further, there are at least 6 or 7 city owned golf courses including: Centennial Park in Etobicoke, Tom O'Shanter in Scarborough, Don Valley in North York, etc. Do owe really need so many golf courses in the city. That land can certainly be used for other things like housing.

'Impossibilities' comes from you: They're "impossibilities" because you cite them to prove we cannot successfully demolish the Gardiner. But we did demolish the Eastern leg, in spite of people like you saying it was impossible, for all sorts of similar reasons. Although indeed there are no guarantees, in all likelihood, the Western can also be demolished by similarly enterprising efforts, It's for opponents like you to show how unconquerable any differences are; you haven'y so far. Absent those guarantees that no one can give, the differences can be overcome, just like all the other engineering challenges we've accomplished until now, from the pyramids to the Moon. We put it up, we can most certainly take it down.

We can also leave it up in the air, as it continues to crumble, spending ever larger amounts each year to maintain it, as the inconvenience of the traffic trying to use it and the road underneath it, gets progressively larger and costlier each year, and the demands for more roads in more places for more cars increase. Roads we can't afford because we're spending our scarce dollars to maintain a great long bridge over dry land. That would be a stupid as it sounds.

BTW, since you mentioned using that land for 'projects', most of it is already being used for a heavily travelled road. What isn't tends to be compromised by the decreasing slope of the road above, and quite undesirable, but it is certainly wiser to improve and use what you're stuck with, the section passing through the CNE gets used as storage f'r instance. But that and the Bentway exist only because the 'roof' comes free. No one would buy one at that price.

Your housing stuff makes sense, but for a thread on that topic.

 

[Anbarandy]

There's no way to tell exactly how many vehicles come from outside the city, but that number cannot be not zero. Further, there are a number of GO buses routes that travel down the DVP and Gardiner into downtown from outside areas. So yes, a measly 2km patch of elevated roadway is an issue of regional significance.

Paul Bedford, a former Toronto Chief Planner noted that the eastern Gardiner carries only 3% of drivers accessing downtown. A paltry and meager sum, that by any stretch of the imagination does not qualify this as an issue of regional significance by any stretch of the imagination.

Now if we were extract from that 3%, the %age of regional suburban drivers using the eastern Gardiner to access the downtown, that measly, paltry 3% would drop to mostly likely around 1%.

Once again, and this time all together, "that meager and paltry 1% using that 2km patch of the eastern Gardiner to access downtown, further confirms that it does not qualify this as an issue of regional significance by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically, 1% sums it all up.

 

[kkelso]

Paul Bedford, a former Toronto Chief Planner noted that the eastern Gardiner carries only 3% of drivers accessing downtown. A paltry and meager sum, that by any stretch of the imagination does not qualify this as an issue of regional significance by any stretch of the imagination.

Now if we were extract from that 3%, the %age of regional suburban drivers using the eastern Gardiner to access the downtown, that measly, paltry 3% would drop to mostly likely around 1%.

Once again, and this time all together, "that meager and paltry 1% using that 2km patch of the eastern Gardiner to access downtown, further confirms that it does not qualify this as an issue of regional significance by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically, 1% sums it all up.

Full disclosure, I'm not an Ontario resident and have not been for 15 years. However, I am a business owner & consultant who influences where North American businesses invest and grow, as well as being someone who enjoys spending his hard earned $$ in Toronto.

You city is a hellhole to get in and out of. This comment comes from someone who spent 85% of last year running in and out of NYC.

- I can't drive into Toronto without a traffic jam unless I do so late at night
- Pearson is expensive + slow and you still have to get into the city somehow
- I can't take a train in because there's nowhere to park at the train stations

The only bearable way to get into town is to land on the island, but Porter doesn't fly everywhere.

I don't pretend to understand the full breadth of this Gardiner debate, but I can't believe that you aren't talking about ways to IMPROVE the flow of traffic into your city.

KK

 

[explorerzip]

Paul Bedford, a former Toronto Chief Planner noted that the eastern Gardiner carries only 3% of drivers accessing downtown. A paltry and meager sum, that by any stretch of the imagination does not qualify this as an issue of regional significance by any stretch of the imagination.

Now if we were extract from that 3%, the %age of regional suburban drivers using the eastern Gardiner to access the downtown, that measly, paltry 3% would drop to mostly likely around 1%.

Once again, and this time all together, "that meager and paltry 1% using that 2km patch of the eastern Gardiner to access downtown, further confirms that it does not qualify this as an issue of regional significance by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically, 1% sums it all up.

You do realize that these numbers are estimates right? Whatever figure you can dig up is totally meaningless without context. Further, Paul Bedford was the planner until 2004 or almost 15 years ago. Is that data (if you can even call it data) still relevant today? Truth is we don't have the slightest clue what the actual numbers that come from outside because we haven't been keeping records. Now if we had an electronic toll system like the 407, then we would have that data.

Whatever the actual percentage is, GO transit is part of it. GO has bus routes that operate on the DVP / Gardiner so demolishing it does have significance to them and their customers.

 

[explorerzip]

'Impossibilities' comes from you: They're "impossibilities" because you cite them to prove we cannot successfully demolish the Gardiner. But we did demolish the Eastern leg, in spite of people like you saying it was impossible, for all sorts of similar reasons. Although indeed there are no guarantees, in all likelihood, the Western can also be demolished by similarly enterprising efforts, It's for opponents like you to show how unconquerable any differences are; you haven'y so far. Absent those guarantees that no one can give, the differences can be overcome, just like all the other engineering challenges we've accomplished until now, from the pyramids to the Moon. We put it up, we can most certainly take it down.

We can also leave it up in the air, as it continues to crumble, spending ever larger amounts each year to maintain it, as the inconvenience of the traffic trying to use it and the road underneath it, gets progressively larger and costlier each year, and the demands for more roads in more places for more cars increase. Roads we can't afford because we're spending our scarce dollars to maintain a great long bridge over dry land. That would be a stupid as it sounds.

BTW, since you mentioned using that land for 'projects', most of it is already being used for a heavily travelled road. What isn't tends to be compromised by the decreasing slope of the road above, and quite undesirable, but it is certainly wiser to improve and use what you're stuck with, the section passing through the CNE gets used as storage f'r instance. But that and the Bentway exist only because the 'roof' comes free. No one would buy one at that price.

Your housing stuff makes sense, but for a thread on that topic.

Maybe you misunderstand me because I did not express myself clearly. Or maybe you think that anyone who raises concerns however legitimate is automatically wrong. If that's your attitude, then it's no wonder the Gardiner and city infrastructure is in the sorry state that it's in. There can never be any meaningful discussion if one side's concerns are automatically discounted no matter how legitimate they are.

Please show me where I said that this project is "impossible." I said that it will cause a lot of disruption for an extended period of time during construction, which is undeniable. I also said that I'm not confident that the city is able to complete this any more efficiently vs any other previous project. Those statements are very different than saying the project is "impossible" or the city cannot complete it at all. Hire an army of people with pickaxes and they can certainly demolish anything. It will take decades to complete, but it's still "possible." Since no engineering challenge is beyond our grasp as you say, then repairing, refurbishing (or whatever buzzword you want to use) is also possible.

I mentioned the land around the highway 'for projects' because Keesmat claims that demolishing free up acres. Like you said, most of the land is already occupied by Lakeshore so I have no idea where she got that number. If we move the highway to the surface then we haven't freed up anything. The only way I can see us freeing anything up is for the city to expropriate the parking lots for cruise boats, the concrete tower used to store cement (I think) at the foot of Parliament street or perhaps fill in the Keating Channel. Why aren't these ideas part of this discussion if freeing up land is so important?

If building affordable housing is really her rationale for removing the Gardiner then developing underutilized should also be part of the discussion. I don't think she has said anything about this. Surely, we can build housing or whatever much faster and with less effort and money on underutilized land? That would certainly be faster than demolishing, expropriating and rehabilitating land used for parking lots and truck lots and filling the Keating channel.

You do bring up a good point about spending ever larger amounts each year to maintain the elevated portion. That raises the more important question of why we allowed the Gardiner or infrastructure to deteriorate so badly in the first place. Continuous maintenance and investing in technology improvements would have been much cheaper for the city in the long run. Instead we've had multiple administrations promising low or tax freezes for decades. It's not surprising that the infrastructure is crumbling. We need to have the discussion about tolling the highway regardless if it's in the air, ground or underground. At least that puts some of the cost of maintaining the road on the vehicles that use it, which is fair.

 

[Anbarandy]

You do realize that these numbers are estimates right? Whatever figure you can dig up is totally meaningless without context. Further, Paul Bedford was the planner until 2004 or almost 15 years ago. Is that data (if you can even call it data) still relevant today? Truth is we don't have the slightest clue what the actual numbers that come from outside because we haven't been keeping records. Now if we had an electronic toll system like the 407, then we would have that data.

Whatever the actual percentage is, GO transit is part of it. GO has bus routes that operate on the DVP / Gardiner so demolishing it does have significance to them and their customers.

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...tion Planning Technical Report 2016-11-07.pdf

There is a lot of data.

Some will have you believe that the data is 'cooked', 'fudged' and 'baked'.

Some will have you believe that the study is but another example in a long line of a gross and wasteful misuse of tax dollars.

Some will have you believe that a fact and evidence based decision making model is for the birds.

 

[explorerzip]

http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...tion Planning Technical Report 2016-11-07.pdf

There is a lot of data.

Some will have you believe that the data is 'cooked', 'fudged' and 'baked'.

Some will have you believe that the study is but another one in a long line of a wasteful misuse of tax dollars.

Some will have you believe that a fact and evidence based decision making model is for the birds.

The data in this document is taken from a computer model of estimated traffic conditions and is a forecast. That's even specified on page 1 of the document.

Transportation modeling was undertaken at two levels:


• A macroscopic model providing estimates of travel to, from and through the downtown area on the road and transit network, with travel estimates prepared at a regional scale; and
• A microscopic simulation of traffic flows and traffic operations on roadways in the study area.

Besides, my earlier point was that we currently have no way of knowing where vehicles are originating from or going to when using the DVP / Gardiner. Vehicles don't have signs on them telling you where they are coming from. I know that GO buses have route signs on them, but I believe they display the destination and not the originating station. An electronic toll system would at least collect data about the entry and exit points of vehicles. So you would be able to make slightly better assumptions of their origin points.

It should be obvious, but the city uses modeling software because it's the only feasible way to make an estimate of the traffic flow. Even if we hire people to manually count cars travelling on the DVP / Gardiner, you still would not know where the origin or destination points are.

Regardless, the report also specifies the study area of Spadina Avenue to the west, Woodbine Avenue to the east, Dundas Street to the north, and Lake Ontario to the south.

 

[Anbarandy]

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-79902.pdf

 

[explorerzip]

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-79902.pdf

Once again, the data in this document are estimates and is stated as such several times. Further, we still have no idea where these cars are originating from (outside or inside city limits) or where they are going to (downtown, or other locations.) According to this report, there are an estimated 625,000 vehicles that travel on the section East of Jarvis Street per week or 32 million per year. Maybe that number is relatively small compared to the section West of Jarvis, but that is still a significant amount of cars, buses and trucks.

 

[Anbarandy]

Obviously this is a mug's game.

Vital number to remember is 1% as in the %age of value this issue quantifies as a regional matter.

 

[explorerzip]

Obviously this is a mug's game.

Vital number to remember is 1% as in the %age of value this issue quantifies as a regional matter.

So why do we need to reach a certain threshold before this qualifies as a regional matter? Any number you might come up with is completely arbitrary.