[11th]

Why is that 'dangerous ground to tread on'? How is my advocating for the Boulevard solution on rational grounds in my self-interest? As you've pointed out before, I currently live in Barbados. With the exception of probably moving back to Toronto soon, and paying higher property taxes with less to show for it in the way of transit due to Tory and the Council's transit and road infrastructure choices, I have little to no self-interest. I do care about Toronto, though, and I have seen how fabulous the Waterfront can be when WT is given a chance to do the things it was mandated to do. So I advocate for less costly, higher value, more aesthetically pleasing designs to make Toronto a better place.

You, on the other hand, are extrapolating from your own experience that it will be more difficult for people to drive across the city to see their family and friends. You don't seem to have any other argument for keeping the current status quo. How else am I to take your statements?

You've mistaken me for arcum?
I don't think it's the correct wording for it, but "self interest" in this case meaning it does not effect you - as in "do I have to care if I don't use it? or it doesn't effect me?"
Everyone will enjoy a redeveloped waterfront, even those who might drive through this portion of the Gardiner. It's not as though those drivers do not care.

 

[11th]

I was assuming there's to be a lane reduction. But I'm more talking about an actual reduction in the size of the structure. In the earlier studies, the "Improve" option showed the road deck minimized. But is that idea still on the table as part of the Hybrid?

If they want to retain a shoulder lane, they might be able to reduce the structure by 40% in width? Right now it's 4 lanes each way (one of which is blocked off), and I'm not sure if they have a shoulder lane.

 

[arcum]

You're assuming that the Boulevard wouldn't still be the fastest any more. In the off peak, the boulevard will make a difference of only a few seconds. Besides, even in you example you add the dump truck to some local streets but remove it from others.

Ah, so the difference with a 100+km/h freeway and a 60km/h boulevard with 5 traffic signals is only a few seconds now. It pains me to see how deluded some people are when trying to analyze traffic matters.

Bottom line is converting the Gardiner to a boulevard will divert vehicles onto other local streets at all times of the day. There is no denying that.

 

[CDL.TO]

You shouldn't speed. Gardiner's speed limit right now is 90 km/h.

And yes, at night it really will be only a few seconds.

What I find delusional is how much people get worked up by having to *possibly* stop at traffic lights.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

You're assuming that the Boulevard wouldn't still be the fastest any more. In the off peak, the boulevard will make a difference of only a few seconds. Besides, even in you example you add the dump truck to some local streets but remove it from others.

Have you ever used Google Maps? A 3 minute difference in travel time along a particular corridor can result in a completely different route becoming optimal. That dump truck could easily end up chugging along Rosedale Valley Road or cruising along Dundas after driving down River street. There are hundreds of route permutations that will become more appealing if the Gardiner comes down...

 

[11th]

I don't think that's Hybrid - it's Rebuild.

AoD

This is getting confusing.
I thought rebuild = maintain = keeping the current route, hybrid = removing the section east of DVP, and remove = removing section east of Jarvis.

 

[CDL.TO]

Have you ever used Google Maps? A 3 minute difference in travel time along a particular corridor can result in a completely different route becoming optimal. That dump truck could easily end up chugging along Rosedale Valley Road or cruising along Dundas after driving down River street. There are hundreds of route permutations that will become more appealing if the Gardiner comes down...

I'm not denying that. I'm suggesting that the effect is being overstated and that the number of trips that will now have a faster trip via other routes is managable.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is getting confusing.
I thought rebuild = maintain = keeping the current route, hybrid = removing the section east of DVP, and remove = removing section east of Jarvis.

Nope, the Hybrid option as proposed does not foresee any lanes being removed from the Gardiner - the rebuild option (which has been excluded) turns it into a 2 lane (each one) elevated highway. Hybrid in essence is maintain with additional off ramps.

AoD

 

[arcum]

Good graphs.

I really do not think that total daily users is the right stat to analyze though. We should be looking at peak-hour usage.

You'd make a great politician. The total daily users graph makes it look like we'll be affecting tons of people! Let's just forget about it and only show the peak hour graph where it looks like only a tiny fraction of people will be affected!

 

[44 North]

What I find delusional is how much people get worked up by having to *possibly* stop at traffic lights.

Not to muddy the waters, but I hate having to stop - whether at traffic lights, or when on a limited-access highway. I would much, much, much rather a steady...20-30km/h than 60-0-60. From just about every metric (fuel consumption, wear/tear, aggravation) slow and steady is much more preferable than bringing a vehicle to a complete stop, then having to bring that several tons of vehicle back into motion.

I really do not think that total daily users is the right stat to analyze though. We should be looking at peak-hour usage.

I think contextually, off-peak is important to the debate. Unlike public transit, there are a significant number of users of our highway system that aren't 9-5 commuters. How many for the Gardiner, I don't know. But just glancing at it at any given time (in this case, off-peak), it's easy to see how many buses, trucks, delivery vehicles, construction vehicles, on-call businesses etc are on there. Many actually coordinate their schedules in order to use the highway off-peak.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You'd make a great politician. The total daily users graph makes it look like we'll be affecting tons of people! Let's just forget about it and only show the peak hour graph where it looks like only a tiny fraction of people will be affected!

Affect to what degree off peak? Should we concern ourselves if it adds one or two minute to trip time, to the extent that we should ignore the opportunity cost?

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I'm not denying that. I'm suggesting that the effect is being overstated and that the number of trips that will now have a faster trip via other routes is managable.

Based on what, exactly? There has been no modeling of the impact on the road network as a whole. Those of us with actual experience of the issues are telling you that you are wrong. I can give you real world examples if you want.

Woodbine station to City Hall Green P based on current traffic:

via Lakeshore & Gardiner - 21 minutes
via Eastern & Richmond - 21 minutes
via DVP & Richmond - 21 minutes
via Dundas, River & Queen - 22 minutes

If the travel time for the first option goes up by just two minutes then the entire trip will shift to city streets. If Richmond becomes more congested due to increasing traffic, then other trips will spill over onto Dundas and Queen.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Based on what, exactly? There has been no modeling of the impact on the road network as a whole. Those of us with actual experience of the issues are telling you that you are wrong. I can give you real world examples if you want.

Woodbine station to City Hall Green P based on current traffic:

via Lakeshore & Gardiner - 21 minutes
via Eastern & Richmond - 21 minutes
via DVP & Richmond - 21 minutes
via Dundas, River & Queen - 22 minutes

If the travel time for the first option goes up by just two minutes then the entire trip will shift to city streets.

And if the entire trip shift to city streets, you bet that the current traffic on said routes will increase to such a degree - when it matters - that it would make the Gardiner a competitive option again. Let's not treat drivers as stupid individuals who doesn't know how to optimize the trip based on the conditions. Usage of the road system and decisions on travel times will also adjust to the amount of capacity available as well - has that been "modelled" yet?

AoD

 

[CDL.TO]

Not to muddy the waters, but I hate having to stop - whether at traffic lights, or when on a limited-access highway. I would much, much, much rather a steady...20-30km/h than 60-0-60. From just about every metric (fuel consumption, wear/tear, aggravation) slow and steady is much more preferable than bringing a vehicle to a complete stop, then having to bring that several tons of vehicle back into motion.

That's what can be so wild about these debates if you take a step back. Stopping and starting a car again involves pushing a pedal with your foot but yet it's so frustrating. Yeah, I find it annoying too when I drive. But seriously, the amount of emotion that can be stirred up by what is essentially pushing a button with your foot is pretty amazing.

I like what Louis CK says about driving. "When I'm in my car, I have a different set of values."

[video=youtube;x8062QEFk5g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8062QEFk5g[/video]

 

[arcum]

Affect to what degree off peak? Should we concern ourselves if it adds one or two minute to trip time, to the extent that we should ignore the opportunity cost?

AoD

Yes, this would be included in the overall "costs of congestion" that face the GTA: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/costsofcongestion/costs_congestion.aspx
It should be compared to the opportunity cost, not ignored.

2 minutes * 100,000 vehicles * 365 days * $25/hr = $30M per year of congestion costs (just a simple, hypothetical example).

Just because 2 minutes "sounds low" doesn't mean it can be ignored.

Furthermore, focusing one a single hour is absurd as the AM and PM peaks are at least 3+ hours each.