[rbt]

UrbanToronto posters of 2047 will probably be decrying about how stupidly auto-centric we still were in 2017 as they pay for the mistakes we're making today.

Possibly more-so than today if automated taxi systems are successful at knocking prices way down. If you take the driver out of the taxi and have an efficient city vehicle then that trip might be in the 10 cents/km range.

I forsee a future where the highway usage is scheduled in the same way as airport landing slots; the trip will be fast but you'll have a ground delay program that defers departure time by 30+ minutes until your highway/roadway timeslot (first scheduled, first served). If the choice is $3 for a bus or $3.50 for a private taxi vehicle, which will most take?

 

[TransitBart]

Was it a common concern amongst planners in the day that the road systems would eventually reach a capacity cap? Admittedly, I haven't researched this thoroughly, but from the historical planning documentaries I've watched, it seems like the sentiment was that highways would be adequate for the foreseeable future, and if those highways ever got full we'd just build more highways to "fix" congestion. Highways were "the future". Of course, in reality, it was hardly three decades after the introduction of the first superhighways before we were grappling with the very real limitations of our road system.

Tiger - you nailed it - if the highways got full, we would build more. It simply never occurred to anyone that this could become self-defeating in the largest urban areas.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities
www.nber.org/papers/w15376

 

[W. K. Lis]

Possibly more-so than today if automated taxi systems are successful at knocking prices way down. If you take the driver out of the taxi and have an efficient city vehicle then that trip might be in the 10 cents/km range.

I forsee a future where the highway usage is scheduled in the same way as airport landing slots; the trip will be fast but you'll have a ground delay program that defers departure time by 30+ minutes until your highway/roadway timeslot (first scheduled, first served). If the choice is $3 for a bus or $3.50 for a private taxi vehicle, which will most take?

If you take the driver (usually single-occupant, the driver) out of the picture, that'll leave a l-o-t of wasted real estate and fuel.

 

[WislaHD]

Possibly more-so than today if automated taxi systems are successful at knocking prices way down. If you take the driver out of the taxi and have an efficient city vehicle then that trip might be in the 10 cents/km range.

I forsee a future where the highway usage is scheduled in the same way as airport landing slots; the trip will be fast but you'll have a ground delay program that defers departure time by 30+ minutes until your highway/roadway timeslot (first scheduled, first served). If the choice is $3 for a bus or $3.50 for a private taxi vehicle, which will most take?

I would say that autonomous vehicles scare me the most for what they could do for sprawl, ex-urbanism, the environment and auto-centric planning and (unhealthy) lifestyle.

But we will likely head rush into this new technology here in North America and continue our poor planning practices.

 

[WislaHD]

If you take the driver (usually single-occupant, the driver) out of the picture, that'll leave a l-o-t of wasted real estate and fuel.

This highlights the point I made in my previous post.

 

[Euphoria]

The reason Toronto works so well is because, in a freakishly unique way, we've been able to have a really vital downtown yet also maintain various levels of density in the metro area, from skyscraper forest to suburbia to rural Ontario. You get to have the wine route and Niagara, Muskoka, and quaint Stratfordesque old Ontario villages within a 2-hour drive of the city. You have the freedom of affordability to chill out in Trinity-Bellwoods on Queen West and play golf on the escarpment in the same afternoon. Ideally, you'll have and keep a variety of travel options to enjoy all of these options. The key will be efficiency and affordability. Different modes of transit for different functions and purposes will be necessary across the region.

 

[BurlOak]

This highlights the point I made in my previous post.

I always say that a taxi (and maybe Uber) have an occupancy of half a person, since half the time, the vehicle is just wandering around carrying no person who is going to a destination.

 

[jje1000]

The reason Toronto works so well is because, in a freakishly unique way, we've been able to have a really vital downtown yet also maintain various levels of density in the metro area, from skyscraper forest to suburbia to rural Ontario. You get to have the wine route and Niagara, Muskoka, and quaint Stratfordesque old Ontario villages within a 2-hour drive of the city. You have the freedom of affordability to chill out in Trinity-Bellwoods on Queen West and play golf on the escarpment in the same afternoon.

Thank goodness for the relative lack of exurban development in Canada.

 

[narduch]

but even in today's economy, when it is clear that we should be moving towards public transit development as opposed to cars, highways and highway upgrades get built with much less debate even though they cost way more to construct that public transit. transit projects take years to get approved and funded but no one even questions highway construction nearly as much

Except for that proposed highway from Milton to Vaughan of course.

 

[aquateam]

I always say that a taxi (and maybe Uber) have an occupancy of half a person, since half the time, the vehicle is just wandering around carrying no person who is going to a destination.

Uber is more efficient than taxi though, since Uber just goes directly to the next customer instead of circling around looking for one.

I sometimes use UberPool, which picks up/drops off people on the way, like a bus. So there's constant turnover and usually at least 2 passengers in the car.

 

[TrickyRicky]

We all recognize that investments in public transit, cycling, pedestrian and other modes is needed and should be prioritized in the city; however, I fail to see why this line of thinking requires us to become blinded to the fact that we owe virtually all of our prosperity to the road and highway system that sustains it. If the intention of our investments in transportation is to increase the intensity of economic activity in the city a line like the DRL is an absolute must, not because it reduces congestion or takes cars off the road (a ludicrous hypothesis and objective) but precisely because it is grade separated and hence allows us to push more goods and people through the same geographic area.

 

[Euphoria]

Thank goodness for the relative lack of exurban development in Canada.

Very true. We're going to spend decades infilling and retrofitting suburbs into liveable communities. Between the downtown and the countryside we need villages instead of sprawl. Planners and developers have tried to recreate this in places like Markham and Oakville (Cornell, Oak Park, The Preserve). It's Disney-fake simulacra, but it's a start.

 

[Forgotten]

There are no concrete plans for the line west of the CBD - and I am unconvinced that, even assuming your claim re: bedrock is true (is it - that somehow it is deeper at Queen than at King?), that you cannot bring it closer to the grade once past the YUS lines.

There is an entire subforum of construction pictures from the last 10 years where you can see the holes they've been digging for the projects between Front and King. Head over and have a look. Second point isn't the whole reason why you can't bring it closer to grade is because of the TBM they're going to be using? Ask city staff why they're adamant on running it through bedrock to keep a level plane.

As to your second point - you spent quite a bit of time arguing DRL on Queen is the wrong alignment, partly because the so called socioeconomic equity weighting factor being bogus. Saying that it will drive out a No Frills (presumably the one at Carlaw) now is ironic, to say the least (never mind that there is one immediately south of King on Front, so I guess that alignment somehow protects low-end supermarkets). Besides there will be another discount supermarket if there is a market for it (in fact, there is a Food Basics at Gerrard Square). Having subway access is apparently less important than the working poor than losing a choice of supermarket though.

AoD

Nothing ironic about it. Ramming the line down Queen East side to encourage WAM style urban renewal would only lead to bad results for the poor. If we were to weight socioeconomics putting transit closest to the jobs arguably rates higher. On the other point there wasn't going to be a station under the St. Lawrence No Frills and now any station is going to be a 700m walk away from the nearest exit. On the other hand say hello to the wrecking ball if the NIMBY's get their way.

By the way a timely report on this very important issue perhaps this No Frills will be the next chapter?

(What happens if those people in the houses next to this proposed station start complaining? What about their feelings? Cage match against Pape NIMBY's?)

 

[Euphoria]

One thing I do worry about happening with the DRL under Queen is that people start pushing for removal of the streetcars and ancient telephone/hydro posts. I'd hate to see a sanitized Queen. Keep the streetcars in situ. Just eventually make a nice right of way for them. Queen is my favourite Toronto street hands down. King is impressive, but it's a business street, always has been, right back to the textile warehouses, Upper Canada College, and the old parliament. Queen, old Lot Street., still has that grit and edge that I love. The city needs to prevent excessive gentrification. The potential loss of the live/work hard loft warehouses to out-sized luxury condos is the biggest threat to that corridor.