swaugh3
New Member
The Gardiner needs to be twinned. That is an ultimate need.
|
|
|
The Gardiner needs to be twinned. That is an ultimate need.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Gardiner #9 on “Freeways Without Futures†list
The “Freeways Without Futures†list recognizes the top-ten locations in North America where the opportunity is greatest to stimulate valuable revitalization by replacing aging urban highways with boulevards and other cost-saving urban alternatives. The list was generated from an open call for nominations and prioritized based on factors including the age of the structure, redevelopment potential, potential cost savings, ability to improve both overall mobility and local access, existence of pending infrastructure decisions, and local support.
Click on this link: http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures
The “Freeways Without Futures†list recognizes the top-ten locations in North America where the opportunity is greatest to stimulate valuable revitalization by replacing aging urban highways with boulevards and other cost-saving urban alternatives. The list was generated from an open call for nominations and prioritized based on factors including the age of the structure, redevelopment potential, potential cost savings, ability to improve both overall mobility and local access, existence of pending infrastructure decisions, and local support.
Click on this link: http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures
Dichotomy
Banned
.... soon to be followed up by the list of downtowns without futures, with Toronto near the top of the list.
Sheesh. See what happened last weekend with the Gardiner closed? I took Dundas St./Dupont in from Mississauga on Saturday and it took nearly an hour for a trip that should have taken 20 minutes.
One of my co-workers had friends drop in from Caledon and they didn't know the Gardiner was closed. They vowed never to visit downtown again.
Maybe there are some on UT who think people with cars are the scum of the earth and shouldn't be allowed from downtown, but I'll wager the ACC, CN Tower and other attractions would go belly up if it were allowed to tear down the Gardiner. I already know people who simply won't go downtown because of the cost, difficulty and annoyance.
Keep up the good work, Miller.
Sheesh. See what happened last weekend with the Gardiner closed? I took Dundas St./Dupont in from Mississauga on Saturday and it took nearly an hour for a trip that should have taken 20 minutes.
One of my co-workers had friends drop in from Caledon and they didn't know the Gardiner was closed. They vowed never to visit downtown again.
Maybe there are some on UT who think people with cars are the scum of the earth and shouldn't be allowed from downtown, but I'll wager the ACC, CN Tower and other attractions would go belly up if it were allowed to tear down the Gardiner. I already know people who simply won't go downtown because of the cost, difficulty and annoyance.
Keep up the good work, Miller.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Why not. Do it and bury both the Gardiner AND the railway tracks! Does Toronto not have enough stroke to demand that all trains entering union be Desiel/Electric (or whatever) and then switch to electric when entring the tunnels?
If NY can do it so can Toronto. We just need the political will.
smuncky
Senior Member
if you've forgotten, no one is proposing to close the gardiner permanently. so i don't see the relation between what happened this weekend and the proposal.
taal
Senior Member
The new proposal shouldn't at least the way it's planned increase you or your friends commute time by more then 5min (something I hope you can live with). The hi-way needs to close sometimes for repair, what do you want them to do : - ).
Regarding your comment about people who drive cars being the scum of the Earth. Or should I say your belief that people on this forum or others have that mentality I very much hope that isn't true.
It's a given that a lot of people drive - this isn't Europe and likely never will be in terms of that and we do need to make sure they are also served.
I think a better way of putting it would be something along these lines:
It should be just as easy to take transit as it is to drive.
After that's accomplished I'd hope many more people would take transit. At this time it should be even easier to take transit comapred to driving. So we'd be left with a situation where if one wanted to drive it should be possible but taking transit is the faster alternative. So in a sense you do need to pay for the lukury of driving by spending a little more time in your car ... considering how much you like to drive (as you are not willing to give it up even when transit is faster) you'll likely not mind this and will thank us for the extra time you get to spend in your car : - )
Alright forget the later half but I hope you see what I'm getting at. The ability to drive (quickly / efficiently) shouldn't comprise public transit ... or the potential for new intensification.
Regarding your comment about people who drive cars being the scum of the Earth. Or should I say your belief that people on this forum or others have that mentality I very much hope that isn't true.
It's a given that a lot of people drive - this isn't Europe and likely never will be in terms of that and we do need to make sure they are also served.
I think a better way of putting it would be something along these lines:
It should be just as easy to take transit as it is to drive.
After that's accomplished I'd hope many more people would take transit. At this time it should be even easier to take transit comapred to driving. So we'd be left with a situation where if one wanted to drive it should be possible but taking transit is the faster alternative. So in a sense you do need to pay for the lukury of driving by spending a little more time in your car ... considering how much you like to drive (as you are not willing to give it up even when transit is faster) you'll likely not mind this and will thank us for the extra time you get to spend in your car : - )
Alright forget the later half but I hope you see what I'm getting at. The ability to drive (quickly / efficiently) shouldn't comprise public transit ... or the potential for new intensification.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I drive into downtown every day and use the Gardiner........if we assume the current mix of transit and roads is the permanent condition, tearing down the Gardiner would probably be the one thing that would lead me to storm Queen's Park.
Now, change the mix, give people outside of the core a viable and reasonable transit alternative....then you have the right to either tear it down or charge us to use it.
That is why things like London's congestion fees worked there and will not work here. The London commuter was choosing to drive cause the cost/convenience balance was in favour of driving....charge a fee and now transit looks better....we are many transit lines away from being able to ask commuters to make the same sort of rationale decision.
Now, change the mix, give people outside of the core a viable and reasonable transit alternative....then you have the right to either tear it down or charge us to use it.
That is why things like London's congestion fees worked there and will not work here. The London commuter was choosing to drive cause the cost/convenience balance was in favour of driving....charge a fee and now transit looks better....we are many transit lines away from being able to ask commuters to make the same sort of rationale decision.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Exactly. In 25+ years when Metrolinx fully executes its plan, a case could be made to do get rid off or bury the Gardiner. Till then, it's going to be challenging to survive without it. I think there would be some merit to charging rush hour tolls though, especially after the 15 year plan is finished and the GO lines upgrades and several suburban transit projects are finished.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I might agree with your whole statement if the word especially was replaced with "only after".....the way it is written now it seems you are suggesting that it would be ok to start those tolls now.....that I would disagree with.
afransen
Senior Member
Rush hour tolls would help with congestion...
Really, think of highway congestion as a market failure, all because the price of highway use is kept artificially low (free), causing demand to exceed supply. Tolls help to correct the market failure.
Really, think of highway congestion as a market failure, all because the price of highway use is kept artificially low (free), causing demand to exceed supply. Tolls help to correct the market failure.
androiduk
Senior Member
Excellent point TOareaFAN. Toronto's transit system is not nearly as plentiful and sophisticated as it needs to be to provide a decent alternative to the car. Part of the problem is our density. The one thing we have lots of, is land but various levels of government are surrounding the GTA with various requirements and eco areas that have severely limited development opportunities. That should help the situation by forcing increased density and more plentiful transit. It's interesting to note, the population density of the GTA is around 900 people per square kilometre whereas the density of Greater London is around 4700 per square kilometre. We've got a ways to go.
androiduk
Senior Member
I agree car owners should contribute more than non-owners but I find tolls cumbersome and expensive to administer. I'd rather see an increase in, say, the property taxes of car owners. The more they drive, the more they pay.
afransen
Senior Member
Drive/transit isn't the only decision people make when it comes to their commute, but distance. Many people commute very long distances because it is cheaper the live in the outer suburbs and commute in than to live in the city. Making very long commutes more expensive would incent living closer to work.
Beyond that, road congestion is bad for the economy. Waiting thirty years before we deem there to be enough transit alternatives for it to be 'fair' to apply tolls is foolish, naive and resigning ourselves to a hundred billion dollars in lost productivity.
Beyond that, road congestion is bad for the economy. Waiting thirty years before we deem there to be enough transit alternatives for it to be 'fair' to apply tolls is foolish, naive and resigning ourselves to a hundred billion dollars in lost productivity.
afransen
Senior Member
That doesn't correct the market failure. The scarce resource is road capacity at peak times. Why should we penalize people who only use highways off-peak and rarely at that to exactly the same extent as those who use highways daily during peak times, and for great distances?
Road tolls are not really all that cumbersome. 407-style tolls work quite well, and once the fixed costs are spread over a larger network, would become much more efficient. It's basically just smart metering our highways, and it makes all the sense in the world.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
you are comparing the density of
Greater London, a mostly urbanized upper-tier jurisdiction, with an area of 1579 sq km/pop of 7,512,400=4757 ppl/sq km
the Greater Toronto Area... a collection of municipalities around the city of Toronto, including huge rural areas with an area of 5,903.63 sq km/5,113,149= 866.1/ sq km