[DarnDirtyApe]

Wow that was very well written.

It's well written, but he's relying on the same spin that everyone else is using:

- Focus on the 5,200 peak AM commuters rather than total usage (>100,000 AADT per day)
- Rely on questionable computer model forecasting 2031 results assuming full transit build-out (as we've seen with the SSE and other studies, these models can be gamed to provide the desired result)
- Ridiculous 100 year cost estimate that doesn't take time value of money into account
- Falling for pretty rendering of Boulevard vs. ugly rendering of elevated highway (how many times do we have to fall for deceptive renderings?)

He also misunderstands the "52 seconds per vehicle trip" line - that refers to the average total increase for all vehicle trips in the study area, not just those on the eastbound Gardiner. Assuming no impact to vehicles traveling in other areas of the city, the correct math would be to take 1016 hours and divide by 5200 cars plus growth in traffic to the year 2031. With no growth in vehicle trips that is 11 minutes per car of additional travel time.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Why the heck does total daily usage matter? We measure transport capacity at, in this case, vehicles moved at peak point, hour and direction.

To illustrate this point, a roadway with 100,000 daily users moving 4,200 vehicles at peak point, hour and direction requires completely different infrastructure than a roadway with 100,000 users per day that moves 40,000 vehicles at peak point, hour and direction. The latter requires far more extensive infrastructure.

a 1 km roadway with 100,000 daily users needs very different infrastructure than a 1,000 km roadway with 100,000 daily users.

The number of vehicles moved per day is fodder for the media. It has little bearing on actual planning.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Why the heck does total daily usage matter? We measure transport capacity at, in this case, vehicles moved at peak point, hour and direction.

To illustrate this point, a roadway with 100,000 daily users moving 4,200 vehicles at peak point, hour and direction requires completely different infrastructure than a roadway with 100,000 users per day that moves 40,000 vehicles at peak point, hour and direction. The latter requires far more extensive infrastructure

It matters because that's how many people will be affected. We're not talking about turning the Gardiner into a boulevard from 8-9AM every day...

Has off-peak travel time been studied at all?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's well written, but he's relying on the same spin that everyone else is using:
- Falling for pretty rendering of Boulevard vs. ugly rendering of elevated highway (how many times do we have to fall for deceptive renderings?)

It doesn't take a rendering to communicate a University Ave. analogue would be more desirable than the current Gardiner East. And I think he is being generous - the "hybrid" rendering he referred to is actually the "replace", which has been discounted as an option (like we are going to get those relatively pretty Y columns in hybrid - that would cost you an extra B).

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It matters because that's how many people will be affected. We're not talking about turning the Gardiner into a boulevard from 8-9AM every day...

Yeah?

Millions of people use the 50,000 km pan American highway. Should we design that entire route to be a 40 lane super highway now?

Like I said before, people moved per day has little bearing on the design.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

It doesn't take a rendering to communicate a University Ave. analogue would be more desirable than the current Gardiner East. And I think he is being generous - the "hybrid" rendering he referred to is actually the "replace", which has been discounted as an option (like we are going to get those relatively pretty Y columns in hybrid, ever).

AoD

No, but we are going to get a stretch of Lakeshore (around Cherry) where the Gardiner runs south of a beautiful tree-lined Lakeshore avenue that has just as much chance of looking like that rendering.

Considering that even University avenue doesn't look as good as that rendering I think my position is much more realistic. And University avenue has a fraction of the traffic that this boulevard will.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

No, but we are going to get a stretch of Lakeshore (around Cherry) where the Gardiner runs south of a beautiful tree-lined Lakeshore avenue that has just as much chance of looking like that rendering.

Considering that even University avenue doesn't look as good as that rendering I think my position is much more realistic. And University avenue has a fraction of the traffic that this boulevard will.

If you can seriously argue with a straight face that the Gardiner, even after post-deck rehab, is a superior urban experience to University Avenue even with an extra lane, I can't help you. And yes, since we are talking about costs, I'd be curious how much it'd cost to dress up the Gardiner in the hybrid scenario, in an apples to apples urban quality comparison (i.e. extensive landscaping, etc). That's what the van Nostrand crowd was putting forth for years.

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Yeah?

Millions of people use the 50,000 km pan American highway. Should we design that entire route to be a 40 lane super highway now?

Like I said before, people moved per day has little bearing on the design.

That's a ridiculous comparison - we're talking about a 2km stretch of highway here. The eastern Gardiner has higher traffic levels than many sections of 400-series highway in the GTA, yet the provincial government thinks they are worth maintaining and extending.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

If you can seriously argue with a straight face that the Gardiner, even after post-deck rehab, is a superior urban experience to University Avenue even with an extra lane, I can't help you.

AoD

I'm saying that if you think the rendering will come to fruition then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. Obviously it will look better, but don't fall for pretty pictures.

 

[salsa]

It matters because that's how many people will be affected. We're not talking about turning the Gardiner into a boulevard from 8-9AM every day...

Affected as in "I might lose a minute or two" at most. Big whoop.

Has off-peak travel time been studied at all?

Last time I checked, off peak traffic conditions are better than rush hour 99% of the time.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Affected as in "I might lose a minute or two" at most. Big whoop.

Last time I checked, off peak traffic conditions are better than rush hour 99% of the time.

Uh, more like 10 minutes, twice a day, every day. Unless you actually believe the computer models, like the one that said the Scarborough subway extension will be a stunning success because 100% of Markham commuters will suddenly start using it.. It's funny how people change their opinions when it's their pet cause that's dependent on manipulated figures.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm saying that if you think the rendering will come to fruition then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. Obviously it will look better, but don't fall for pretty pictures.

I think I will take my chances with the WT lot, thanks - they have a far better record of delivering the goods (pardon the pun) than I don't know, the Gardiner?

That's a ridiculous comparison - we're talking about a 2km stretch of highway here. The eastern Gardiner has higher traffic levels than many sections of 400-series highway in the GTA, yet the provincial government thinks they are worth maintaining and extending.

That's also a ridiculous comparison - we have multiple transit lines stuffed beyond capacity - each with daily ridership way beyond what the Gardiner can hope to see, and yet the province and the city see fit to do absolutely nothing about them with any degree of urgency. So yes, please tell me that somehow keeping a minor segment of an expressway up should somehow be the preoccupation of this mayor and this council.

AoD

 

[arcum]

That's also a ridiculous comparison - we have multiple transit lines stuffed beyond capacity - each with daily ridership way beyond what the Gardiner can hope to see, and yet the province and the city see fit to do absolutely nothing about them with any degree of urgency. So yes, please tell me that somehow keeping a minor segment of an expressway up should somehow be the preoccupation of this mayor and this council.
AoD

Noting that the Gardiner has higher volumes than many 400 series highways is not ridiculous.

Discounting the Gardiner as a "minor segment of an expressway" is more ridiculous.

Regarding the renderings of the boulevard, they all seem to be omitting the massive 6-track rail corridor directly adjacent to it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Noting that the Gardiner has higher volumes than many 400 series highways is not ridiculous.

Discounting the Gardiner as a "minor segment of an expressway" is more ridiculous.

Regarding the renderings of the boulevard, they all seem to be omitting the massive 6-track rail corridor directly adjacent to it.

The Gardiner itself - no, it's not minor; the Gardiner East? You bet - there is a reason why the opponents of removal resorted to using the Western Gardiner to masquerade as the eastern portion in their pro-hybrid stance.

The profile image for the GardinerHybrid twitter account - care to inform where it was taken?

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Paula Feltcher has endorsed removal.