[gweed123]

gweed123:

Reinforced is one thing, there is only so much one can do with the existing capacity of roadways which is at saturation during rush hours. I can't think of any major expressway projects at the core of most cities aimed at increasing capacity of the overall system.

AoD

The Big Dig?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Setting aside the utility of expressways for freight (which is important), is there any economic benefit that comes from creating infrastructure that facilitates commuting-by-car that can't be more efficiently replicated by mass transit?

 

[Second_in_pie]

But freeway, like transit infrastructure, needs to be reinforced in the core as the rest of the system is expanded more and more into the periphery. The additional usage that is generated by extending further and further out places more pressure on existing infrastructure further down the line. This is exactly why we need the DRL. Why should expressway infrastructure be any different?

Sorry, but the transit system just has so much room to improve. Improving highway capacity should only be a last resort and, in the world of today, that's almost never going to happen as there are so many ways to improve transit, and it takes up a fraction of the space that roads do. The GTA has potential for so much more transit usage than it has now. Get more people on transit, and you'll help unclog the DVP and Gardiner.

I think we can all agree that cars are bad, or at least inconvenient in some way. So why just enable them? By continuing to build car infrastructure balanced with car infrastructure, that'll just maintain the status quo. If we want to build the region better, we have to focus on transit. Building on both cars and transit is, more or less going to maintain the status quo. While both are going to be less clogged, transit is still going to have a long way to catch up with cars. And if we can improve road conditions by getting unneeded car drivers off the road en masse, it improves the lives of everyone.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed123:

That's just ONE rather special example out of what, dozens of US cities. Besides, Boston is a pretty special case in terms of different traffic patterns (through traffic vs. destination) in comparison to Toronto - and is Boston significantly "better" and "more competitive" because of it, vs. cost?

AoD

PS: That's not to say we shouldn't upgrade and maintain existing road infrastructure.

 

[gweed123]

Sorry, but the transit system just has so much room to improve. Improving highway capacity should only be a last resort and, in the world of today, that's almost never going to happen as there are so many ways to improve transit, and it takes up a fraction of the space that roads do. The GTA has potential for so much more transit usage than it has now. Get more people on transit, and you'll help unclog the DVP and Gardiner.

I think we can all agree that cars are bad, or at least inconvenient in some way. So why just enable them? By continuing to build car infrastructure balanced with car infrastructure, that'll just maintain the status quo. If we want to build the region better, we have to focus on transit. Building on both cars and transit is, more or less going to maintain the status quo. While both are going to be less clogged, transit is still going to have a long way to catch up with cars. And if we can improve road conditions by getting unneeded car drivers off the road en masse, it improves the lives of everyone.

I'm not in any way advocating expressway expansion overtop of transit expansion, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying, the same logic for building the DRL applies to expanding the DVP or Gardiner or building a new expressway into downtown (most likely the Allen).

Having said that, there are ways of doing highway expansion that can favour transit as well (HOV lanes, etc). I would be in favour of the DVP being expanded to add in an HOV lanes, but only if accompanied by a transit project in the area as well.

But I do certainly agree that our transit network needs a lot more work than our expressway network, and that the intrastructure money should be focused there.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The Big Dig?

A Big Dig-style project to bury and widen the Gardiner would be one of the few major road projects that might make sense in this day and age, but I'd think the huge delays and cost overruns associated with the Boston project have scared most North American cities away from considering such a thing.

It's also a zero-sum thing. Is it better to spend billions of dollars burying and expanding the highway, or should we instead just buy a bunch of new GO Trains, electrify the Lakeshore route and run trains more frequently?

 

[gweed123]

gweed123:

That's just ONE rather special example out of what, dozens of US cities. Besides, Boston is a pretty special case in terms of different traffic patterns (through traffic vs. destination) in comparison to Toronto - and is Boston significantly "better" and "more competitive" because of it, vs. cost?

AoD

The cost of the Big Dig was due to a number of factors that could have easily been avoided (contract disputes, labour debates, etc). Take all those out, and yes I do believe that it was worth the cost. It gave Boston a beautiful park right through the middle of their downtown (I've walked the entire thing, and enjoyed it very much).

Toronto would also have the advantage of combining the rail corridor and Gardiner into a single project, which would mean significant transit improvements as well. Not to mention, putting both the rail corridor and Gardiner underground would open up at least 1 of those corridors for development, likely stretching into the billions of dollars worth.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

You can't just magically "wish" these factors away - that's part and parcel of the risk of developing infrastructure in an urban environment. Note that I am not talking about aesthetics here - other than increasing traffic through Boston, has the project increased access to the city substantially to justify the cost, vis a vis improvements to public transit for that sum of money? Don't forget that it was also partly paid for by largesse from the Feds either.

As to combining rail and expressways - you'd have to sort out the jurisdictional conflicts first before getting into the engineering - and then you'd have to question whether it is worth the investment - likely more than enough to achieve goals like electrifying GO (at least phases of it) and complete the DRL.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

gweed:

You can't just magically "wish" these factors away - that's part and parcel of the risk of developing infrastructure in an urban environment. Note that I am not talking about aesthetics here - other than increasing traffic through Boston, has the project increased access to the city substantially to justify the cost, vis a vis improvements to public transit for that sum of money? Don't forget that it was also partly paid for by largesse from the Feds either.

As to combining rail and expressways - you'd have to sort out the jurisdictional conflicts first before getting into the engineering - and then you'd have to question whether it is worth the investment - likely more than enough to achieve goals like electrifying GO (at least phases of it) and complete the DRL.

AoD

I certainly realize that those factors can happen with any urban project. But them being a major deterrant for a highway project but not a transit project seems a little one-sided (meaning that the possibility of having these delays is enough for people to dismiss the Gardiner tunnel, but not to dismiss something like the DRL). And while the cost may be a bit higher than the gain from it, had Boston have done nothing, the Central Artery Expressway as it used to be would have been stop and go traffic for every waking hour of the day by 2010 (ie this year). While it is still congested during rush hour, it moves very well outside of peak hours. The CATP (Central Artery Tunnel Project) also included a tunnel to Logan Airport, and a new crossing over the Charles River, which has since become one of the architectural symbols of Boston.

As for combining the projects, I see it as more of an engineering challenge than a jurisdictional one. I would imagine one of the contingencies of the project would be that the province re-upload the Gardiner. And GO transit is already run by the Province. The only private sector portion of it would be the lines, which I believe are still owned by CN. The engineering feat would be pretty massive, but if you can dig the Big Dig under 2 subway lines, excavate historic ground, all while keeping the highway above it operational, I think it can be done here too.

 

[kettal]

except for speedbumps, I agree that they cause more harm than good, and there are other ways to do traffic calming

I'm, curious what is the better way to do traffic calming than speed bumps?

 

[rbt]

I'm, curious what is the better way to do traffic calming than speed bumps?

Turn all of the streets into very short dead-end lanes.

 

[kettal]

That creates all the same problems as speed bumps, plus more.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I certainly realize that those factors can happen with any urban project. But them being a major deterrant for a highway project but not a transit project seems a little one-sided (meaning that the possibility of having these delays is enough for people to dismiss the Gardiner tunnel, but not to dismiss something like the DRL). And while the cost may be a bit higher than the gain from it, had Boston have done nothing, the Central Artery Expressway as it used to be would have been stop and go traffic for every waking hour of the day by 2010 (ie this year). While it is still congested during rush hour, it moves very well outside of peak hours. The CATP (Central Artery Tunnel Project) also included a tunnel to Logan Airport, and a new crossing over the Charles River, which has since become one of the architectural symbols of Boston.

Well, DRL is a relatively simple project in comparison to Central Artery - keep in mind the latter had to be built underneath a functional expressway under rather extreme geotechnical conditions. And like you've said, Boston really haven't had much of a choice in terms of not doing it.

As for combining the projects, I see it as more of an engineering challenge than a jurisdictional one. I would imagine one of the contingencies of the project would be that the province re-upload the Gardiner. And GO transit is already run by the Province. The only private sector portion of it would be the lines, which I believe are still owned by CN. The engineering feat would be pretty massive, but if you can dig the Big Dig under 2 subway lines, excavate historic ground, all while keeping the highway above it operational, I think it can be done here too.

See, I don't see the engineering as the most difficult part of any project - I consider the political/financial barriers to be the worst - and it probably doesn't get as difficult as it does here.

AoD

 

[valkoholic]

A recent Ipsos-Reid study found that 16% of Toronto residents cycle to work or school, at least some times. Number one reason given for when they don't? Lack of safe bike infrastructure.

An actual study showed the bike mode split in Toronto is 1-2%, not 16%. The question was skewed.

 

[urbandreamer]

I would say increasing density creates more demand for oil. Just look at all the construction equipment, trucks etc used in constructing buildings! I bet more oil is consumed during construction of 1 building than 1000 cars on the road over 50 years.

It's not density that matters--it's how the street grid is designed, the mix of employment lands amongst homes, retail reachable on foot or bicycle. Basically, Mtl-style c.1900 repeated in the GTA!