Criteria Groups

There has been much talk of funding changes to Gardiner and Lakeshore by putting tolls on the roads. I get the impression that much of the motivation for this is to 'punish the drivers'. That somehow drivers are not paying their fair share. Drivers do pay their fair share and more, but more on that later. The costs of changing the Gardiner/Lakeshore are not to benefit drivers, it's quite the opposite. Proposed transportation changes are designed to benefit those who want to profit from the development of the formerly industrial lands of the south Don Valley and the lakeshore. Developers, contractors, home (condo) buyers and recreation-seekers, not to mention taxing-politicians, will be the beneficiaries of this redevelopment. They are the ones who should pay the costs, all the costs. Penalizing drivers with tolls seems politically correct these days but it is more a strategm to take focus off the developers et al who will profit greatly. It is they who should pay.

Drivers pay lots for the privelege of driving now -- gas taxes, license fees, taxes on buying and servicing, and now a tax for just owning a car in Toronto. Each level of government -- federal, provincial and now municipal -- have added these taxes and fees to their general revenues, and are now crying about lacking funds for transportation infrastructure. Their mismanagement of the monies collected should not be viewed as an opportunity to add more costs yet again to the drivers on our already paid-for roads.

[updated 2009-05-15 09:37]

I do not know where to put my remarks, has anyone studied the impact of the failure to extend the Spadina Expressway ??????? I haven't heard of any problem, when my new Coucillor was campaigning he boasted of stopping the Spadina, if we do not miss it, why do we keep the Gardiner ???

[updated 2009-05-04 20:52]

The transportation criteria needs to consider more than just impacts to traffic flow through the area and downtown. The question should be asked: what if the Gardiner was never there? The answer would likely be that persons accessing downtown would use alternate means of transportation. The ability to replace the Gardiner's auto capacity with alternative means of transport should be a consideration, and the costs of such considered in the economics criteria.

[updated 2009-04-29 13:28]

Clearly several of the commenters here and elsewhere don't like cars and find their lives work quite well getting around on bikes or the TTC. That's fine if your life is neighbourhood and downtown-centric. Many of us, though, have places to go, people to see, things to do and stuff to take with us that would be extremely difficult to accomplish and/or way more time consuming without driving, due to the distances involved. I take the subway if I'm basically going downtown and coming home. However when I need to go to other places after work, transit frequently doesn't cut it.
Every major city that I’ve been in has at at least 2 highways that bypass the city and at least one near the downtown. Toronto currently has the QEW/Gardiner/DVP to 401 eastbound route, along with QEW/403 (or 427)/401 eastbound from the southwest and the 401 or 407 from the more northwest. If the Gardiner no longer connects with the DVP, then all traffic from the southwest will end up on the 401, rendering it virtually impassable. For example, as I live near High Park, the best route for me to take to get to Markham, where my mother lives, is the Gardiner/DVP/404 and I see many other cars using that route to get from one end of the city to the other without going into the downtown area. Trashing the Gardiner will only add to congestion. Having Lakeshore Blvd. and the Gardiner as parallel options is actually great design. It’s like the parallel subway lines in New York - express trains only stop at the major stations and local trains stop at every station, so the express trains get from one end to the other much faster and are much more efficient for people going to a major stop or from one end to the other. Montreal is like that, too - express roads and local roads in parallel - works very well. Montreal is much better served by expressways (and subways, for that matter).

[updated 2009-04-28 23:54]

I'm concerned that the "Transportation" criterion will result in a pro-car bias. Reducing car capacity on the Gardiner would help the transportation network of the city by moving more people onto transit.

[updated 2009-04-27 10:48]

I appreciate that there is a lot to consider here, but there must be some of these factors that weigh more than others. I would appreciate knowing which ones are the city's priorities.

[updated 2009-04-25 23:56]

Reduced pollution attributable to increased ridership on the GO TRAIN should be weighed against the increase in NOISE pollution caused by increased GO TRAIN use. Indeed, some say that tearing down the Gardiner will force people to take the GO Train but what about the neighbourhoods through which the GO TRAINS travel through. GO TRAINS create significant noise and vibration.

The Metrolinx report released last year indicated that GO TRAIN trip frequency would ultimately be in the order of 1 train each 5 minutes. If left unchecked, this would create a significant nuisance for many Toronto residents. I believe that such noise pollution needs to be taken into account in determining what to do with the Gardiner. At the very least, sound attenuation barriers and other ways of reducing noise pollution should also be examined.

Transit for the sake of tansit is not always the best route. Challenes posed by public transit should not be ignored.

[updated 2009-04-23 21:51]

I'm concerned that the focus on waterfront renewal and beautification (all good stuff) will swamp the main idea of moving traffic around our city. If you can't get downtown, or if you can't move through it, it it will not prosper. Modern cities with graceful elevated expressways become functional showpieces.

[updated 2009-04-23 11:32]