[howl]

About 50% of the daily users of the TTC have a Metropass. The reason: more use the TTC during the non-rush hour than most other North American transit agencies, except for New York City. However, the high farebox recovery ratio has to be used because of no operating subsidy from the province nor from the federal government, which NYC gets from their higher up governments.

What's needed is a "GTA Mobility card" and/or a "GTA Mobility Account” that can be used for ALL mobility choices in the region. It'll get you on a bus, subway, GO train. You could also use the same card/account to pay for toll and parking charges for automobiles. In addition you could use it for buying gas, coffee, movies, lunch etc. by creating agreements with retailers. The regulating authority (probably Metrolinx) could collect all the revenue in one pot and then invest it accordingly. This would make the use of transit easy for people in cars because they would already have the card in their pocket/purse. It would also allow the regulating authority to adjust fares to improve the flow of people (in cars, buses, subways) by influencing their choices thought financial incentive.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Yeah, but it's not like you just wave your hands and say 'presto-chango' and have that kind of card.

 

[howl]

Yeah, but it's not like you just wave your hands and say 'presto-chango' and have that kind of card.

The Presto card is only half the answer. Once you can pay of highway tolls, parking and other retail goods on your Presto card then they'll be able to use the card to influence travel patterns.

 

[Action Jackson]

Jackson, as someone from Oshawa wouldn't increased and improved GO service be appealing to you for commuting?

Of course. Note that I am NOT saying do this instead of fixing mass transit.

This thread has had a lot of people say there is no solutions that involve infrastructure. People changing their habits is hit and miss, which counts for both different driving habits and people leaving their cars at home and taking mass transit. I think there is ways of making for better vehicle flow in the city center. Thinking just about transit and paying for it from drivers is what is what is driving people like Ford in the first place. Every form of transport needs to be considered. I know I said that in the original post, but its worth saying again. There will always be lots of people who drive cars, and they will probably end up paying tolls or taxes to help fund transit expansion. We have a right-wing government in Ottawa and will probably be getting one next year at Queens Park, and have seen how popular a simple-minded loudmouth has become in the city itself. If you want to make drivers pay for transit expansions, you're gonna have make sure there is some benefit to them unless we want another such blowhard running again in 2014.

@ Asterix, I'll handle these one at a time.

1) On the Adelaide road, you would be lowering the road 10-12 feet. I KNOW there is more space than that because the PATH system, subway lines and others are deeper underground. Power, phone and other cables would probably have to be moved, yes, but that's simply a case of re-laying cables, which isn't difficult or expensive. As for people not being able to access those roads, that's the point. Adelaide then becomes a route for people crossing the core. Many cars jump off the DVP before it hits the Gardiner, and the idea is that people going to downtown locations on the western side of the core can go through more easily, with less potential traffic disruptions, thus taking traffic off of both surface streets and the Gardiner. Los Angeles does this with Grand Avenue and several of its cross streets, and it does work.

2) The garage would be built and operated by the city, large enough to handle 2000-2500 automobiles. Parking in Toronto costs a lot, this would cost less, thus making people consider dropping the cars there and walking to their destinations. Where exactly I would put it I'm not sure yet, it would take some looking.

3) The point is to get cars towards the places in downtown they want to go more easily. No, you haven't reduced the number of cars, and you'd still get backed up when you get into the city center. But giving an alternate route to the DVP, which is a jammed mess at any rush hour, will reduce commuting times, yes? People from the north end of the GTA (Vaughan, Markham and points north) have to use surface streets or the DVP/427 to get towards downtown. This route would take much of that traffic, putting the Allen Road to good use and reducing the load on the 427 and the DVP. I'm not assuming a lot more cars with these ideas - we'll have population growth, but if the city got its act together and got to building better TTC systems it would fix much of that - but some, and we already have an immense number of them moving into the city, true? Whether this would be a good investment for the number of commuters served would have to examined well, and building on the surface is not an option for all the obvious reasons.

4) I'm thinking going UP with these two lanes. Expanding the Gardiner on either side isn't an option - the area is too built up. I was thinking adding a second, smaller deck above the existing Gardiner for the express lanes. I would prefer burrowing under Lakeshore for this, but that would probably be far too much money to justify for the benefit. The idea is the same as the sunken Adelaide idea - a route that moves more smoothly and easily.

 

[Chuck]

Adelaide and all the other one way streets and even some two was streets would move a lot better if traffic lights were coordinated. The City claims that it has already done this on 15% of streets, but I don't think that any of those are located downtown.

The only downtown street that was ever coordinated well was Jarvis - in the peak of the afternoon rush hour, one could travel 60 km/hr non stop from Queen to Bloor in a short 2 minutes. Not sure what it's like today, but to keep the city moving, we need to provide this same level of capacity on perhaps 5% of downtown streets at most - Jarvis, University, Richmond, and Adelaide - and even then only for 2 hours during rush hour. That's it, and you certainly don't need new highway lanes or streets buried in trenches to achieve this.

 

[spider]

Power, phone and other cables would probably have to be moved, yes, but that's simply a case of re-laying cables,

You forgot Gas, sewer and water lines, not so easy. Take a peek at in-progress photos of the Yonge Street subway project for some understanding of the complexity of such an undertaking

 

[Asterix]

1) On the Adelaide road, you would be lowering the road 10-12 feet. I KNOW there is more space than that because the PATH system, subway lines and others are deeper underground.

How deep?

How are you going to fit the existing over head above the PATH system or the subway, the roadbed underneath Adelaide (which is not inconsequential), enough vertical space for traffic on Adelaide and enough space for the roadbed for the routes crossing over Adelaide within 10 - 12 feet?

There is no physical way you can lower Adelaide enough to allow cross-streets to bridge it without cutting right through the PATH and subway tunnels.

Your significant issues with other buried utilities become irrelevant given this basic fact.

2) The garage would be built and operated by the city, large enough to handle 2000-2500 automobiles. Parking in Toronto costs a lot, this would cost less, thus making people consider dropping the cars there and walking to their destinations. Where exactly I would put it I'm not sure yet, it would take some looking.

So the city should be getting into the business of subsidizing a luxury car park with enough space for somewhere around a quarter of the workers in First Canadian Place (just one of dozens of downtown office buildings)? Using taxpayer funds to provide cheaper parking than available through city-owned Green P parking lots? And providing this cheaper parking will help reduce downtown traffic congestion?

As a city taxpayer, I'm just not keen on my tax dollars going to that silly scheme. Stop the gravy train indeed.

This isn't even touching on the topic of just how far potential commuters would be willing to walk from your luxury garage to their work. Saying "it's only half a mile" won't mean anything when people simply won't be interested. Just look at how long people will drive in circles around a shopping mall to find a space that will save them walking 50 extra meters.

3) The point is to get cars towards the places in downtown they want to go more easily. No, you haven't reduced the number of cars, and you'd still get backed up when you get into the city center. But giving an alternate route to the DVP, which is a jammed mess at any rush hour, will reduce commuting times, yes? People from the north end of the GTA (Vaughan, Markham and points north) have to use surface streets or the DVP/427 to get towards downtown. This route would take much of that traffic, putting the Allen Road to good use and reducing the load on the 427 and the DVP. I'm not assuming a lot more cars with these ideas - we'll have population growth, but if the city got its act together and got to building better TTC systems it would fix much of that - but some, and we already have an immense number of them moving into the city, true? Whether this would be a good investment for the number of commuters served would have to examined well, and building on the surface is not an option for all the obvious reasons.

Providing additional capacity to get to downtown will only result in induced demand - you will end up with more people trying to drive to downtown, resulting in the same level of congestion on those major feeder routes (DVP, 427, etc). But now you are trying to squeeze even more people into that downtown area that already doesn't have enough room for existing demand. You'll need to knock down dozens of buildings to build more of your luxury parking garages just to store all the vehicles during the day.

4) I'm thinking going UP with these two lanes. Expanding the Gardiner on either side isn't an option - the area is too built up. I was thinking adding a second, smaller deck above the existing Gardiner for the express lanes.

I'd suggest you seriously look at the logistics of how traffic is to be moved from one level to the other in your expanded Gardiner. You'd need up and down ramps all over the place just to provide even minimal access to any entrances/exits to the expressway.

 

[mangasparky]

A second deck to the Gardiner used as an express from the QEW / 427 interchange to the DVP would be awesome. With no on or off ramps would be perfect.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Isn't it fair to say that cities with vibrant downtowns generally are tough to drive in?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Isn't it fair to say that cities with vibrant downtowns generally are tough to drive in?

True. If a city is great to drive your car downtown, then there is nothing downtown to drive down to. It would be all parking lots.

 

[SlickFranky]

People need to stop trying to improve driving and start trying to improve transportation.

 

[Chuck]

People need to stop trying to improve driving and start trying to improve transportation.

95% of the Transportation Forum is dedicated to transit, biking, and pedestrians, so I believe that we've already got a very balanced perspective. I think it's more than fair to have a discussion about driving in this city as well.

 

[nfitz]

95% of the Transportation Forum is dedicated to transit, biking, and pedestrians, so I believe that we've already got a very balanced perspective. I think it's more than fair to have a discussion about driving in this city as well.

Well said. We'd be fools to ignore that there are issues on our roads, that can be improved.

The recent reconnection of both Simcoe and Dufferin are good examples of this. The latter will also help with transit, cutting back on some of the traffic jams that impact the 501 streetcar.

 

[Action Jackson]

How deep?

How are you going to fit the existing over head above the PATH system or the subway, the roadbed underneath Adelaide (which is not inconsequential), enough vertical space for traffic on Adelaide and enough space for the roadbed for the routes crossing over Adelaide within 10 - 12 feet?

There is no physical way you can lower Adelaide enough to allow cross-streets to bridge it without cutting right through the PATH and subway tunnels.

Your significant issues with other buried utilities become irrelevant given this basic fact.

OK, if that is the case, then why not lower it some and have the overpasses go up a few then? Say, lower the road five feet and have the cross streets go up five feet to go over. I know the subway and PATH tunnels are considerably deeper than 10-12 feet underground, but whatever, you're not considering the idea anyways. As for gas, water and sewer mains, the water mains are needing replacement in much of the city anyways, and it's not that difficult to deal with the gas and sewer mains. The Yonge Subway construction photos are part of the reason I don't think this is that difficult. It would be a major undertaking, yes. A big job, but a fairly straightforward (and thus, not that pricey) one. You have to do a fair bit of excavation, but the other tasks aren't that difficult.

So the city should be getting into the business of subsidizing a luxury car park with enough space for somewhere around a quarter of the workers in First Canadian Place (just one of dozens of downtown office buildings)? Using taxpayer funds to provide cheaper parking than available through city-owned Green P parking lots? And providing this cheaper parking will help reduce downtown traffic congestion?

As a city taxpayer, I'm just not keen on my tax dollars going to that silly scheme. Stop the gravy train indeed.

You got a better idea? The whole point of that idea is to have people leave their cars further from the core and take the TTC or GO Transit the rest of the way, rather than driving right into the core and adding to the congestion. I went for the better car park because it requires less land (and thus is easier to find a location for) and its more likely to be used by people.

This isn't even touching on the topic of just how far potential commuters would be willing to walk from your luxury garage to their work. Saying "it's only half a mile" won't mean anything when people simply won't be interested. Just look at how long people will drive in circles around a shopping mall to find a space that will save them walking 50 extra meters.

See the above point. Out here in Oshawa, people drive to the GO Station, and take the train in. Thus, they are not adding to the traffic congestion. I made the parking structure idea with the same idea - people dump their cars outside of the city center, and take PATH or transit the rest of the way.

Providing additional capacity to get to downtown will only result in induced demand - you will end up with more people trying to drive to downtown, resulting in the same level of congestion on those major feeder routes (DVP, 427, etc). But now you are trying to squeeze even more people into that downtown area that already doesn't have enough room for existing demand. You'll need to knock down dozens of buildings to build more of your luxury parking garages just to store all the vehicles during the day.

No matter the transit improvements, with the city growing, you'll have as many cars to deal with, maybe more. Period. That said, the transit improvements will take a fair bit of the slack. You do both, and you get considerably greater capacity, this not only handling the traffic caused by growth, but also reducing the problems with traffic that we have now. I think a highway along the hydro corridor in Scarborough is a good idea for the exact same reason. Transit improvements will help the gridlock, but its not sufficient to handle the entire problem. Combining both, however, would make a lot of headway.

I'd suggest you seriously look at the logistics of how traffic is to be moved from one level to the other in your expanded Gardiner. You'd need up and down ramps all over the place just to provide even minimal access to any entrances/exits to the expressway.

As the top ramp would be an express route, with only four lanes, I did take this into account. The idea is that there would be two sets of express transfer ramps, plus one at each end. The first would split from the DVP, with new on-ramps in both directions, allowing traffic from the DVP to choose the collectors or express. At the other end, the second deck would start just past Jameson, which would require an underpass at Dufferin both otherwise few difficulties. The two sets would be at Bathurst (all-new interchange built here) and Sherbourne - between the two, there is little room for new ramps. The new lanes are on the upper deck, in the center of the Gardiner. Those using the DVP for downtown can jump off the express at Sherbourne and get off at Bay, while those moving further west could get off at Bathurst. The same is true for those going east. This way, you reduce congestion on the Gardiner. And I am well aware of traffic flow - that's why I proposed this stuff, it would actually work. The Gardiner was designed for 70,000 cars a day, and it today serves over 200,000. With all the money in the world, I'd build the Toronto Viaduct idea and scrap the Gardiner altogether, but I'm aware how pricey that would end up being.

 

[Asterix]

OK, if that is the case, then why not lower it some and have the overpasses go up a few then? Say, lower the road five feet and have the cross streets go up five feet to go over. I know the subway and PATH tunnels are considerably deeper than 10-12 feet underground, but whatever, you're not considering the idea anyways.

I'd suggest you check out some of the PATH, particularly under your designated streets. It isn't as deep as you think it is. While it's floor level may be more than 12 feet underground, it is still basically one floor down. There is very little, if any, extraneous depth between the road bed on the surface and the top of the PATH ceiling structure.

But lets assume you've got five feet to play with to lower the road. The clearance to the cross-over street is going to be at least 12 - 14 feet (at a bare, very conservative minimum). Then you've got 2 - 3 feet minimum for the road bed of the crossing structure.

So now with Adelaide lowered 5 feet, you've got to raise the cross-streets at least 10 feet (3m). Think of the size of hill that puts on those 4 or so cross-streets (including Yonge). Even with a very excessive grade of 10%, you need to start your climb 30m before the start of the intersection on both sides of Adelaide. No small feat for construction (and completely trashing any kind of pedestrian experience).

Not only that, but anything more than 4 or 5 feet in height for your cross-over is going to result in blinding drivers to whatever is on the other side of the hill.

It would be a major undertaking, yes. A big job, but a fairly straightforward (and thus, not that pricey) one. You have to do a fair bit of excavation, but the other tasks aren't that difficult.

As for your buried utilities, any obvious problems they present are dwarfed by those outlined above, so no not fairly straightforward and quite difficult.

You got a better idea? The whole point of that idea is to have people leave their cars further from the core and take the TTC or GO Transit the rest of the way, rather than driving right into the core and adding to the congestion. I went for the better car park because it requires less land (and thus is easier to find a location for) and its more likely to be used by people.

You missed several of the points I previously made:

- As a Toronto taxpayer, I simply can not support the huge subsidy the city would be spending to buy desirable land, to build a massive luxury parking garage and then to undercut city owned profitable parking lots, all for the benefit of non-Toronto taxpayers.

- What is your definition of 'the core'? There are simply no remotely reasonable sites for your gravy train parking garage within practical walking distance (let alone PATH accessibility) for the vast majority of users you would be targeting. Taking transit the rest of their journey would be the only option. But since they are going to be taking transit anyways, why not build this parking structure out where it is more appropriate, near to Downsview, Finch or Kipling stations?

There are far better (ie economical and efficient) uses of land in 'the core' than for city subsidized parking garages. If the city chooses to follow that path rather than develop more tax-producing alternatives, then that is a fundamentally flawed plan.

No matter the transit improvements, with the city growing, you'll have as many cars to deal with, maybe more. Period. That said, the transit improvements will take a fair bit of the slack. You do both, and you get considerably greater capacity, this not only handling the traffic caused by growth, but also reducing the problems with traffic that we have now.

True, with a growing city there is going to be more overall demand. But I simply can not endorse a scheme that attempts to make it easier to drive into the city at the very explicit expense of pedestrians, transit and city taxpayers, which is what your Adelaide trench and gravy train parking garage plan require.

I think a highway along the hydro corridor in Scarborough is a good idea for the exact same reason. Transit improvements will help the gridlock, but its not sufficient to handle the entire problem. Combining both, however, would make a lot of headway.

Have you looked at the numbers that would be helped, broken down for transit and private car and the corresponding dollar cost per person helped by your plans? I'd wager you would be spending far more per user to help your car driver than you would for any other city user. What makes those individuals privileged to so much more government largess?

At the other end, the second deck would start just past Jameson, which would require an underpass at Dufferin both otherwise few difficulties.

Don't even need to touch the rest of the scheme. This part right here is so much of a 'huh?'

The Gardiner is trenched at Dufferin, yet you think there can be a second level forming to the west from around Jameson (ignoring the Lakeshore overpass)? How exactly is that supposed to work without bending the space-time continuum?

And since we're talking about a trenched street, here's another number for you:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...XbCvY6orVppO2UwQuZs0Q&cbp=12,209.56,,2,-11.72

Minimum cross-over clearance (such as you'd need on your trenched Adelaide) is looking to be at least 6m (20 feet). Instead of 10 foot hills on the cross-streets, you now need to raise them at least 20 feet and would now need to be starting the very steep climb far enough out so that you'd be cutting off Temperance on Yonge and Lombard on Church southbound.