[Midtown Urbanist]

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.

Then please explain why the road capacity at peak where there are the most cars on the road is insufficient for off-peak periods where there are less cars on the road.

 

[44 North]

Then please explain why the road capacity at peak where there are the most cars on the road is insufficient for off-peak periods where there are less cars on the road.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your question properly, but for me I think what this boils down to is not so much "insufficient capacity" with a blvd - but rather the fundamental difference between a surface road, and a limited-access/grade-separated highway. Although I think a level boulevard would be jammed and less pleasant than advertised, I don't fully doubt that it will be all that 'insufficient' from a capacity standpoint.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your question properly, but for me I think what this boils down to is not so much "insufficient capacity" with a blvd - but rather the fundamental difference between a surface road, and a limited-access/grade-separated highway. Although I think a level boulevard would be jammed and less pleasant than advertised, I don't fully doubt that it will be all that 'insufficient' from a capacity standpoint.

If a road can handle 100 cars at peak hour, it must be able to handle 40 cars at off-peak hour. It has to because if we take the first statement as true, then the second statement must also be true.

We are not building a road to handle the daily total of 140 cars all at once, we are building it to handle the demand of 100 cars at peak hour. The demand is spread out throughout the day and we are building the road to handle the demand at its highest point of the day so that the road can handle demand at each of the 24 hours of the day.

So there being 140 cars using the road daily is irrelevant knowledge. Only the 100 cars at peak hour is important in planning the road capacity.

 

[salsa]

I don't disagree with much of what you have wrote, but it should be realized that the primary function of the east Gardiner is to move vehicles across downtown and not into the downtown core.

No, that's not the primary function. Around 80% of Gardiner east traffic exits at downtown.

It pains me to see how deluded some people are when trying to analyze traffic matters.

Kinda like your dump truck rant, or the silly Burlington Skyway analogy from yesterday. The options have been studied to death, the facts are out there, and the boulevard has been endorsed by every city planner, transportation experts, urbanists, and many other respected individuals. But go ahead and ignore the facts, keep pretending you know better than them. Why trust their computer models when you have your own logic instead.

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.

I'd like to see the cost of those subway delays you see everyday on the yonge line. How much time is lost on a daily basis from the bunching and short turning of streetcars. What do you say to those people who regularly can't get on a bus because it was too crowded, and waited almost 15 minutes for the next one. As a transit user, I can say that not only do these problems cost me far more time than the two minutes that drivers are asked to accept in exchange for a more beautiful waterfront for everyone, but it affects orders of magnitude more people than the 3% who use the Gardiner. This whole hoopla about the 2 minutes that affects such a minority of people is the epitome of driver entitlement, as if only their time is important. As if 2 minutes is everything. As if we have no choice but to unnecessarily spend so much money propping up the gardiner for their benefit when there are much bigger problems to deal with elsewhere. You drivers are so adamant that those 2 minutes "not be ignored" at all costs, while transit has been notably absent from the whole debate in city hall. DMW summed it up best: "these are not real people".

 

[arcum]

This is not true.

Why would trucks using Eglinton and Steeles as cross town thoroughfares but wouldn't use Lakeshore?

Eglinton and Steeles are both 6-lanes at maximum, less at points, and they have the 401 in close proximity and much more streetlights than Lakeshore. Please tell me how an 8-lane Lakeshore would force trucks into 2-lane Richmond and Adelaide with 14+ stoplights.

There is only one deluded argument being made here.

You fail to understand how trip planning works. Take a look at Ape's example:

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.

Of course, many trips will stay on the Boulevard, but others will be forced onto local roads. Those who say no local roads will be affected are plain and simply wrong.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Councillor Bailão has announced that she'll be voting for removal.

http://www.anabailao.com/my_decision_on_the_gardiner_east

 

[dowlingm]

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.

Given the proximity of condos to the highway, that's a pretty good reminder that Toronto Police should probably make speed enforcement on the elevated Gardiner downtown (90km/h, and 60km/h east of Sherbourne according to Streetview) a high priority.

 

[nfitz]

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

And many will switch modes as well. All of which means the AADT will be far lower in the future connecting the Gardiner to DVP.

 

[44 North]

So there being 140 cars using the road daily is irrelevant knowledge. Only the 100 cars at peak hour is important in planning the road capacity.

In planning its capacity, yes. But there's more to transportation planning than capacity. I'm not doubting that the East Gardiner is overbuilt, I'm more trying to point out the importance of grade-separated systems (whether road or rail).

 

[arcum]

No, that's not the primary function. Around 80% of Gardiner east traffic exits at downtown.

Kinda like your dump truck rant, or the silly Burlington Skyway analogy from yesterday. The options have been studied to death, the facts are out there, and the boulevard has been endorsed by every city planner, transportation experts, urbanists, and many other respected individuals. But go ahead and ignore the facts, keep pretending you know better than them. Why trust their computer models when you have your own logic instead.

I'd like to see the cost of those subway delays you see everyday on the yonge line. How much time is lost on a daily basis from the bunching and short turning of streetcars. What do you say to those people who regularly can't get on a bus because it was too crowded, and waited almost 15 minutes for the next one. As a transit user, I can say that not only do these problems cost me far more time than the two minutes that drivers are asked to accept in exchange for a more beautiful waterfront for everyone, but it affects orders of magnitude more people than the 3% who use the Gardiner. This whole hoopla about the 2 minutes that affects such a minority of people is the epitome of driver entitlement, as if only their time is important. As if 2 minutes is everything. As if we have no choice but to unnecessarily spend so much money propping up the gardiner for their benefit when there are much bigger problems to deal with elsewhere. You drivers are so adamant that those 2 minutes "not be ignored" at all costs, while transit has been notably absent from the whole debate in city hall. DMW summed it up best: "these are not real people".

Correction: 80% of Gardiner West exits to downtown in one AM peak hour.
View attachment 47699

You can see how that figure can be misleading by looking at the total volumes. Gardiner east carries about 60% of the traffic as Gardiner west, which is still a very significant number.
View attachment 47698

The hybrid/remove options have barely been studied at all, hence why the only info anyone can find is from a powerpoint presentation consisting mostly of pretty rendering drawings. Personally I endorse the removal, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the "Remove" talking points are based on faulty assumptions. Such as the proposed additional delay times assuming four major transit improvements will already be in place:

• East Waterfront LRT
• DRL
• Smart Track
• Broadview LRT

The Metrolinx study on congestion costs can be found here: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona..._08-015_Cost_of_Congestion_report_1128081.pdf

While of course transit delays are costly, they pale in comparison to auto delays.

While some yuppies may be upset that the King Street Car is full and they have to wait 2 minutes for the next one. People and businesses from all over the GTA have to deal with delays on the highways. Ever looked at Google maps traffic at 5pm on a Friday?

Does a 15 minute subway delay one day a month cancel out 30+ minutes wasted in traffic every day for those who are not fortunate enough to be able to live in the downtown part of the city?

 

[muller877]

$30 million in congestion costs per annum- now, compare that to the additional developments that can be accommodated by a shift to remove, and the reduction in travel times of individuals living and working in said areas, per rata. Please tell me why it isn't wouldn't be a more desirable outcome?

And of course 2 minutes can be ignored - we do it all the time, from putting in stop signs, arranging transit schedules, what not. When you are looking at, under that system of costing, literally billions in time equivalent for the entire city, 30 million per annum is a rounding error.

AoD

Great news! $30M per year is a rounding error!

This is the entire difference in the actual cost of keeping vs removing the Gardiner. So a proponent has concluded the cost is a rounding error and therefore we can just look at the non-financial benefits and costs!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Great news! $30M per year is a rounding error!

This is the entire difference in the actual cost of keeping vs removing the Gardiner. So a proponent has concluded the cost is a rounding error and therefore we can just look at the non-financial benefits and costs!

Very funny, perhaps you should try collecting that $30M in the form of taxation required for the upkeep then? And I haven't even included the $2B in private developments - and the multiplier effect from that amount of economic activity. Care to look at those as well?

AoD

 

[LNahid2000]

While some yuppies may be upset that the King Street Car is full and they have to wait 2 minutes for the next one. People and businesses from all over the GTA have to deal with delays on the highways. Ever looked at Google maps traffic at 5pm on a Friday?

Excuse me? People using streetcars can be business people too, and aren't all "yuppies". Way to stereotype.

 

[nfitz]

While some yuppies may be upset that the King Street Car is full and they have to wait 2 minutes for the next one

Yuppies on King Street Car? Have you taken the King Street car in rush hour? That's a well-dressed and well paid crowd.

Does a 15 minute subway delay one day a month cancel out 30+ minutes wasted in traffic every day for those who are not fortunate enough to be able to live in the downtown part of the city?

An average of 55 seconds a day is now 30+ minutes? Shame on you for such drama!

 

[arcum]

Very funny, perhaps you should try collecting that $30M in the form of taxation required for the upkeep then? And I haven't even included the $2B in private developments - and the multiplier effect from that amount of economic activity. Care to look at those as well?

AoD

Those are some fancy buzzwords you got there. Why don't we just remove the entire Gardiner and DVP? That ought to bring in over $20B in private developments, and that's before you add the multiplier effect!