|
|
|
- Thread starter M II A II R II K
- Start date
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Well the alternative is not exactly free because of the gas money that would have to be spent to go around it anyway, and plus maybe a $50 charge per car is not that unreasonable, especially since unlike the Confederation Bridge it would be heavily trafficked, so there's profit by a lot of volume there.
And plus underneath the road part of it would have train tracks for passenger and freight services.
Tewder
Senior Member
I don't like the idea of the intrusion of a bridge in Lake Ontario.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Measuring on live maps from downtown near Gardiner/York to QEW/406 it would be about 52 KM for the bridge vs 104 KM for the QEW route. Toyota Corolla gets 5.6 L per 100 KM... average gas price in Toronto right now is 96.23 cents per litre. so the gas price would be $2.80 for the bridge versus $5.60 for the QEW route.
Kiwi
Active Member
GO Ferry would be a great step.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
M II A II R II K said:
Not that many people are going to spend $50 to go to St.Catherines in a car. Therefore, the bridge will not be that heavily used and the price would need to be higher to recoup costs. There was a ferry from Toronto to Rochester and it wasn't heavily used and the start up costs were significantly less than this bridge and the number vehicles the required to fill a boat are small compared to the volume you are expecting on this bridge.
So to save $2.80 in gas and half an hour it will cost $100. Why haven't they built this sooner? All of a sudden, because this bridge is considered a relative bargain, maglev seems like the vision Metrolinx should be implementing. The amount a person will pay to save half an hour has been grossly underestimated. A maglev on land could make the trip in 15 minutes, twice as fast as a car on the bridge. The huge volumes of passengers expected would pay it off quickly. Wow, the government has no vision.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Those people who are on day trips or on vacations might be more likely to pay the toll that time as an exception, also those who have to commute that route every day since it's a drag to have to drive it twice a day.
Also if there's a mass migration on the other side because of this bridge then that would result in much larger numbers of people using the bridge, which would also increase the Niagara Region's tax base, and some of that extra tax money could go towards upkeep of the bridge, and potentially bring the toll fee down significantly.
Also if there's a mass migration on the other side because of this bridge then that would result in much larger numbers of people using the bridge, which would also increase the Niagara Region's tax base, and some of that extra tax money could go towards upkeep of the bridge, and potentially bring the toll fee down significantly.
jn_12
Senior Member
The number of people who commute from Niagara to downtown Toronto is negligible. And no one on a day trip or a vacation is going to spend $50 to save 30 minutes. $10 maybe. But ask yourself the question whether you would pay $50 to take the bridge. The rationale just isn't there.
So you want the Niagara Region to become a bedroom community, and in return you want to take some of that new tax base you just imposed and force them to pay for the bridge? See folks, I told you that if you can't spell St. Catharines you probably don't have a clue what things are like down in the peninsula. The theory proves itself again.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
You really can't compare the Rochester-Toronto Ferry to a potential St. Catherines Ferry:
-For anyone going west of Rochester, the ferry is completely out of the way.
-The Niagara Region in both the United States and Canada including Buffalo encompasses a population of around 2 million, while the Rochester area only encompasses 1 million.
-The Rochester ferry involved a border crossing, while the St. Catherines ferry doesn't
If there can be a reasonable case built for an all-Canaidan passenger/auto ferry between the north and south shore of Lake Ontario, then by all means, build it.
-For anyone going west of Rochester, the ferry is completely out of the way.
-The Niagara Region in both the United States and Canada including Buffalo encompasses a population of around 2 million, while the Rochester area only encompasses 1 million.
-The Rochester ferry involved a border crossing, while the St. Catherines ferry doesn't
If there can be a reasonable case built for an all-Canaidan passenger/auto ferry between the north and south shore of Lake Ontario, then by all means, build it.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
$50 * 2 times a day * 250 workdays = $25,000 a year in tolls... plus about $3600 per month to park ($305 per month average unreserved) and about $1400 in gas. A commuter would be looking at $30,000 per year or $120 per work day not including wear & tear/car payments/regular maintenance.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
The trick would be to bring the toll fee down considerably in an economical fashion, and there may be enough traffic over time to make it work. Also it would work to free up space on the QEW as well.
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
A Lake Ontario Bridge crossing...
Everyone: A Lake Ontario bridge crossing would be too expensive to be worthwhile and require possibly a bridge/tunnel type or even pontoon style construction. Ferries would be much,much cheaper and do the job...
LI MIKE
Everyone: A Lake Ontario bridge crossing would be too expensive to be worthwhile and require possibly a bridge/tunnel type or even pontoon style construction. Ferries would be much,much cheaper and do the job...
LI MIKE
dunkalunk
Senior Member
While we're on the subject of outlandish infrastucture projects that would replace a mid-peninsula highway, why not a tunnel under Hamilton Harbour that would hook up directly with the Burlington Skyway and Highway 6? The tunnel could also be combined with a rail corridor, providing a bypass of the Bayview Junction for both freight and passenger rail.
urbanfan89
Active Member
This idea sounds like the Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line, except more outlandish. The population around Tokyo Bay is 30+ million, and the bridge/tunnel across the bay cost $11.2 billion USD at opening, and is 14 km long in total. It cuts a whole hour on the drive between Tokyo and Chiba, both business/industrial centres of global importance. The toll for using the crossing is 3000 yen for cash, 2300 yen for ETC, and 1000 yen on weekends and holidays. Japan is littered with white elephant projects like those, which greatly contribute to their massive public debt which is nearing 200% of GDP.
Needless to say a similar project in the Golden Horseshoe of 8 million and three times as long, costing four times to build, is not going to fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Bay_Aqua-Line
Needless to say a similar project in the Golden Horseshoe of 8 million and three times as long, costing four times to build, is not going to fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Bay_Aqua-Line
adma
Superstar
Yeah, sure. And waste valuable Niagara agricultural land through sprawl. You've got to remember: beyond the costs involved in building a crossing, you'd probably be up against the kind of protest that'd make the anti-Spadina Expressway movement blush.
Heck, while you're at it, you might as well advocating reviving the Spadina.