Skip to main content

The project to fix the main part of the Gardiner was expected to last 20 years. That schedule was expected to be slashed to 12 years, and Thursday’s decision by city council could cut the timeline to six years.

J.P. MOCZULSKI/The Globe and Mail

Toronto is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more to speed up repairs to the city's waterfront highway, handing the project to the private sector in a bid to mitigate risk.

The aging Gardiner Expressway needs substantial rehabilitation work. The project to fix the main part of the highway was originally expected to last 20 years, starting later this decade. That schedule was to be slashed to 12 years through the use of different construction techniques. Thursday's decision by city council could cut the timeline to six years.

But the latest acceleration of the schedule adds an estimated cost of $300-million.

Story continues below advertisement

"Public-sector projects … have repeatedly and consistently been massively over budget and way out of time-schedule, and I don't think we can afford to continue that way," Mayor John Tory said. "What we're doing here – with some additional cost, I admit that – is buying insurance of an on-time, on-budget completion of that project."

Thursday's decision to switch to a so-called "alternative-financing" model means the private sector will bid on both the rehabilitation and maintenance of the Gardiner. The cost of the project had been estimated at $3.8-billion. Using the private sector will allow the city to apply for federal assistance, though, which could amount to as much as $800-million.

This work is distinct from the debate over what to do with the eastern portion of the Gardiner. In June, council voted to replace that stretch of the highway with a new elevated highway, and the process of where it should run, and at what cost, is still under way.

The alternative-financing proposal proved much less contentious than some other issues related the Gardiner. It passed easily at council, though not before a series of councillors raised warnings.

Among them was Gord Perks, who suggested that the estimated savings were generated by people, in the private sector and various levels of government, whose jobs relied on the success of the public-private partnership model. And he noted the secrecy behind how those people arrived at the presumed savings.

"These are not actual costs, they are assessments of risk," Mr. Perks said. "I cannot show my constituents how it is that this assessment of risk was arrived at."

Fellow councillor Shelley Carroll successfully convinced her colleagues that there should be a closer look at the methodology behind the proposal's value-for-money analysis. She argued that doing this peer review won't add any time to the project's schedule.

Story continues below advertisement

"This can happen in tandem with the work that still has to be completed," she said. "If they go the academic route, as opposed to the private sector, that shortens the procurement period and the city manager assures me there's enough money right now in the ancillary costs part of this proposal to absorb that."

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies