innsertnamehere
Superstar
The city released a report that said travel times across the stretch would increase by 10 minutes with the boulevard option. On a stretch that normally takes maybe 2 minutes today. That sounds pretty bad to me.
|
|
|
ADRM
Senior Member
Well, how many people does that affect during rush hour? Enough to justify spending an extra $500 million when the city is broke?
UD2
Active Member
it affects ALOT of people. I use the DVP everyday from Eglinton to Bloor. There was a blocked lane at Dundas today on the DVP and my entire trip from Eglinton took 10 minutes more than usual. This was also out side of proper rush hour (9:45) so I can only imagine how this road will be affected if they closed ALL the lanes on the DVP.
Also, the city's study was very biased and pretty much useless. I won't get into the details but in summary it took a snapshot of 1 hour period in a day and studied the affect of traffic if they closed down the DVP, while making a lot of wild assumptions on decreased car usage.
The DVP during rush hour is at 100% capacity to maintain its speed limit. Any road reduction will only increase congestion, lengthen travel times, and create more pollution.
I can't believe this city even considered tearing down a vital piece of infrastructure just because some real-estate developers wanted to enhance their land values to build condos.
Also, the city's study was very biased and pretty much useless. I won't get into the details but in summary it took a snapshot of 1 hour period in a day and studied the affect of traffic if they closed down the DVP, while making a lot of wild assumptions on decreased car usage.
The DVP during rush hour is at 100% capacity to maintain its speed limit. Any road reduction will only increase congestion, lengthen travel times, and create more pollution.
I can't believe this city even considered tearing down a vital piece of infrastructure just because some real-estate developers wanted to enhance their land values to build condos.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
120,000.
Far better than spending $5.6 billion on the Eglinton Crosstown, which will serve a mere 30,000 people more daily than the Gardiner.
ADRM
Senior Member
salsa
Senior Member
If a $2 toll is enough to scare people away (as some are claiming), then I question why are they driving a car in downtown if they are really that poor. How to they manage to pay for gas and parking? Why is it ok to charge exorbitant user fees for city services, but not even a modest toll for road users? And what alternative revenue tools do you support that would address the bulk of Toronto's $33 billion in unfunded capital projects?
amnesiajune
Senior Member
"Some are claiming" doesn't really matter. The city's figure is a reduction up to 29%, depending on how much the toll is, and that's fairly logical - nobody's gonna take the DVP from York Mills to Lawrence at any toll. For a couple of dollars, a trip like Eglinton - 401 is often still worth it. For $5.00 or more, the only trips that make sense are from North York & Scarborough to downtown.
The issue is the user fee's purpose. Are you trying to charge a user fee for people who drive, or for people who take this one particular freeway? If you're trying to charge for freeway access, it makes sense to toll that particular freeway, but ideally as a variable distance-based and congestion-based toll (the Miami or Washington DC freeways are a great example of how to do this). If you're trying to charge for road network access, then a freeway toll just encourages taking other streets - a gas tax, congestion charge or parking sales tax is more appropriate.
ADRM
Senior Member
Also, this city report concludes the boulevard option would add between 3-5 minutes to commutes and, further, that three-quarters of all morning rush hour trips will incur delays of less than 2 minutes.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-79902.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-79902.pdf
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Somehow I'm doubtful. 3-5 minute delay would be typical of just introducing the stoplights, never mind the additional traffic from dropping 120,000 cars a day on a road that is capable of handling 40-50,000 (capacity of an 8 lane arterial). Even with their seemingly miraculous drops in future traffic levels, its not gunna drop to 1/3 of what it was.
Regardless, the decision is made. They are building a far less impactful (than the current structure) 4 lane elevated freeway.
Regardless, the decision is made. They are building a far less impactful (than the current structure) 4 lane elevated freeway.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
The idea that you can have such minor delays with a "walkable, animated boulevard" that "connects the city with the waterfront" is a fantasy. The only way to keep the delays to that level is by having high speed limits (60/70 km/h) on the boulevard and two-stage pedestrian crossings. That's not going to connect the city with the waterfront, if anything it'll just create a bigger barrier.
Anyways, if you want to revitalize the waterfront, the Gardiner isn't a barrier. The barrier is the lack of public transit. Queens Quay's revitalization over the past 20-30 years should make that obvious.
Last edited:
LNahid2000
Senior Member
What a stupid comparison. A 4 lane highway has far less capacity than the Eglinton Crosstown will have.
Also, 120,000 is the cars per day, not the cars at rush hour.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Crosstown LRT is expected to carry 150,000 people a day. Gardiner east carries 120,000 vehicles. Hell, if you do average vehicle occupancy, that means that the Gardiner carries around 144,000 people a day, almost exactly the same as the crosstown. One group is getting $5.6 billion to vastly improve infrastructure. The other is getting $500 million "extra" to actually downgrade the infrastructure to a lower standard (4 lane highway with slower speed limits compared to existing 8 lane expressway).
Not sure where your issue is.
If you want to use existing numbers too, Eglinton has a mere 90,000 daily transit users today, getting a wonderful amount of money to improve their commute. Gardiner users meanwhile get shat on for getting money to salvage some form of a usable piece of infrastructure for their continued use.
Not sure where your issue is.
If you want to use existing numbers too, Eglinton has a mere 90,000 daily transit users today, getting a wonderful amount of money to improve their commute. Gardiner users meanwhile get shat on for getting money to salvage some form of a usable piece of infrastructure for their continued use.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
One is a freeway, the other is a transit line. Don't compare the two. You can't use a freeway if you don't own a car. You can't use a transit line at certain times or for odd trips. Eglinton is underserved, with the LRT it'll get adequate service. The Gardiner East is overbuilt (because it was built with a second feeder freeway in mind), with the hybrid option it'll be adequately built to keep traffic flowing smoothly with minimal disruption to the nearby land.
ADRM
Senior Member
It's fine to have doubts, but it's silly to assume they're inherently more accurate than those contained in a report created by experts in their field.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Also important to note that one is comparing new build cost to renewal cost.
AoD
AoD