Roads: Gardiner Expressway catch-all, incl. Hybrid Design (2015-onwards)

[TrickyRicky]

I believe highways should be tolled; however, free road access is a social “good”. Ironically, many on the left advocate for free transit and free unfettered internet access while advocating the elimination of highways and tolling what remains.

I’m not advocating any of these positions but I’m pointing out there seems to be a cleavage in opinion on the left between left-leaning urbanists and the working poor on this issue. Left leaning urbanists emphasis environmental concerns and focus abject poverty which is a small subset of general poverty. The working poor which make up the larger subset of poor focus on cost of living and are highly likely to drive or drive for work in service and logistics jobs.

 

[Northern Light]

I believe highways should be tolled; however, free road access is a social “good”. Ironically, many on the left advocate for free transit and free unfettered internet access while advocating the elimination of highways and tolling what remains.

I’m not advocating any of these positions but I’m pointing out there seems to be a cleavage in opinion on the left between left-leaning urbanists and the working poor on this issue. Left leaning urbanists emphasis environmental concerns and focus abject poverty which is a small subset of general poverty. The working poor which make up the larger subset of poor focus on cost of living and are highly likely to drive or drive for work in service and logistics jobs.

I am entirely consistent that transit should not be free and neither should highways.

I don't favour taxing local roads via tolls for practical reasons.

I do favour taxing parking to achieve the desired degree of fairness.

The various price points are debatable and need to be modeled to see how much revenue is required to produce reasonable outcomes.

I'm all in favour of boosting the incomes of the working poor/lower-middle income earners.

But I would do so through a higher minimum wage, overtime that kicks in at 40 hours instead of 44; a mandated 20% wage premium for those who work between 11pm-7am; and 10% for those who work on a weekend.

I would also favour universal pharmacare and dental care and affordable (not free) childcare.

 

[kali]

thing is with tolls on all roads is you are punishing avg folks that use a car due to poor transit.

Like I used to work in 404 and Steeles from Brampton.

It takes 45 mins to 50 mins by car, transit is 2 hours.

Why would i take transit.

I've been saying that all along lol

 

[DSC]

From City:

July 20, 2020

City of Toronto to shift Gardiner Expressway lane reductions between Jarvis and Cherry Streets for final phase of project

The City of Toronto has achieved a construction milestone in the Strategic Rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway between Jarvis and Cherry Streets. Crews have replaced the concrete deck and steel girders on the north half of the expressway, the westbound off-ramp to Sherbourne Street and repaired the westbound off-ramp to Yonge-Bay-York Streets, and will now transition to renew the south half of the expressway for the final phase of work.

At 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, July 26, the westbound off-ramp to Yonge-Bay-York Streets will reopen to traffic following repairs that closed the ramp on April 18. At 5 a.m. on Monday, July 27 the work zone will transition to reopen the north half of the expressway and fully close the south half of the Gardiner Expressway between Jarvis and Cherry Streets so crews can replace the concrete deck and steel girders of the expressway. Two lanes of traffic in each direction will be maintained on the newly completed north half of the expressway from the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) to York Street. The project is on-track for completion by Spring 2021.

 

[mdu]

This is another problem that's been highlighted: the hub-and-spoke model of Toronto's rail network that is all about bringing people from the suburbs to Downtown. I live in Aurora, and visiting a friend in Mississauga requires taking a YRT bus, then the GO, then the subway, then the GO bus, then a MiWay bus. Thank god for Presto at least having a degree of integration, but even RER won't solve the problem of inter-suburb commutes, with the four different fares having to be paid, and the hours it takes. We would really be served well with higher order transit at the 401 and 407 corridors.

 

[Northern Light]

This is another problem that's been highlighted: the hub-and-spoke model of Toronto's rail network that is all about bringing people from the suburbs to Downtown. I live in Aurora, and visiting a friend in Mississauga requires taking a YRT bus, then the GO, then the subway, then the GO bus, then a MiWay bus. Thank god for Presto at least having a degree of integration, but even RER won't solve the problem of inter-suburb commutes, with the four different fares having to be paid, and the hours it takes. We would really be served well with higher order transit at the 401 and 407 corridors.

I whole-heartedly agree that higher-order transit should be in place, be that BRT or rail; along both the 401 and 407 corridors.

My inclination would be to use rail in the 401 corridor and a limited-stop service that uses tunnels to take the stations themselves out of the corridor, but otherwise use the r-o-w.

GO Pickering on the LSE is the start point, followed by UTSC, then Scarborough Town Centre (Line 2 connection) then nothing til Victoria Park; then Yonge, (Line 1 connection) then Yorkdale (line 1 connection), then 1 intermediate stop, then the airport, then divert along the 403 and stop at Mississauga City Center, then follow the 403 to QEW and terminate at Burlington GO.

407 would make more sense as BRT in the near-term.

 

[Steve X]

The biggest issue is destinations are bounded to a few sectors around the city. It becomes really difficult to build a few trunk lines to service the entire GTA. It's still faster to be in a traffic jam than to make multiple transfers.

Faster and more frequent RER is a good start but most people don't live beside a station and destination to another station. It's like you use the 401 but you don't have you driver connected to the 401 and there's still a fair ways to go after getting off the 401. Better transit means they'll have to improve that last leg trip.

 

[kali]

I whole-heartedly agree that higher-order transit should be in place, be that BRT or rail; along both the 401 and 407 corridors.

My inclination would be to use rail in the 401 corridor and a limited-stop service that uses tunnels to take the stations themselves out of the corridor, but otherwise use the r-o-w.

GO Pickering on the LSE is the start point, followed by UTSC, then Scarborough Town Centre (Line 2 connection) then nothing til Victoria Park; then Yonge, (Line 1 connection) then Yorkdale (line 1 connection), then 1 intermediate stop, then the airport, then divert along the 403 and stop at Mississauga City Center, then follow the 403 to QEW and terminate at Burlington GO.

407 would make more sense as BRT in the near-term.

Love the sound of that. How do you envision the Pearson stop? Would the GO line follow the 409 to the planned transit centre? Or SW along the 401 with a stop on Pearson's southern periphery?

 

[Northern Light]

Love the sound of that. How do you envision the Pearson stop? Would the GO line follow the 409 to the planned transit centre? Or SW along the 401 with a stop on Pearson's southern periphery?

I haven't thought out the precise locations of a route, which lets admit, is a fantasy for at least the next 2 decades; but my off hand thought, and the reason I said the trains would leave the ROW for the purpose of stations is to make sure they provide convenient access and connections.

So if there is a proverbial Union Station West at Pearson; that's where any intersecting route should end up.

 

[kali]

Probably fantasy for much longer than two decades

 

[sche]

I haven't thought out the precise locations of a route, which lets admit, is a fantasy for at least the next 2 decades; but my off hand thought, and the reason I said the trains would leave the ROW for the purpose of stations is to make sure they provide convenient access and connections.

So if there is a proverbial Union Station West at Pearson; that's where any intersecting route should end up.

Definitely fantasy, given the 401 corridor is quite tight in several places and putting in any sort of transit corridor would probably means removing car lanes, which is unfortunately a political non starter, or maybe putting in elevated guideways with supports in the shoulders, but I’m not sure if MTO would be okay with that.

 

[Steve X]

Definitely fantasy, given the 401 corridor is quite tight in several places and putting in any sort of transit corridor would probably means removing car lanes, which is unfortunately a political non starter, or maybe putting in elevated guideways with supports in the shoulders, but I’m not sure if MTO would be okay with that.

The thing is the 401 isn't just a road for cars, it is the essential trucking route for cross GTA deliveries. We can move people to transit but we can't move your goods on the GO. Killing the 401 would be a good start to killing our economy too. Also a good way to drive up all the prices on everything if it takes longer to move goods around. It is wise to keep the trunks on the 401 so they don't clog up local streets which would likely leads to high transit users/pedestrians/cyclists collision rates.

 

[Northern Light]

The thing is the 401 isn't just a road for cars, it is the essential trucking route for cross GTA deliveries. We can move people to transit but we can't move your goods on the GO. Killing the 401 would be a good start to killing our economy too. Also a good way to drive up all the prices on everything if it takes longer to move goods around. It is wise to keep the trunks on the 401 so they don't clog up local streets which would likely leads to high transit users/pedestrians/cyclists collision rates.

Ok, that's quite enough.

I have patience for a huge range of views.

But I have no patience for responses to non-existent ones.

No one talked about killing the 401.

How absurd.

The discussion was about 2 rail tracks being inserted into what is generally (within the applicable area) a 12-lane highway.

That leaves 10 lanes of highway.

The train would certainly move more people than the 2 lanes it would replace.

That in turn would speed up traffic, including trucks, on the remaining lanes.

I already noted I would prefer to see stations outside the ROW (which means they would not occupy any space in the ROW, never mind more than the 2 lanes).

 

[mdu]

So basically we need a "missing link" north of the 401 to take the truck traffic off, and we could call it the 40... can someone help me find a number?

Jokes aside, I don't think any government is politically ready to take lanes off the 401, and a routing along the side of the corridor would be much better.

 

[Northern Light]

So basically we need a "missing link" north of the 401 to take the truck traffic off, and we could call it the 40... can someone help me find a number?

Jokes aside, I don't think any government is politically ready to take lanes off the 401, and a routing along the side of the corridor would be much better.

No one is imagining this will be considered tomorrow, next week, month or year.

This is more than a decade away, probably more than 2, and quite possibly more.

The political will of any current party is therefore irrelevant.

***

There is absolutely no sense to putting the tracks on the side of the 401 corridor.

The whole point of using a highway right of way is to save money.

The tracks are on the surface, and no land acquisition is required except at the stations, grade separation is already in place.

If the tracks were placed alongside the highway, you not only need to widen every single over pass at enormous cost, you also have to get under all the highway on/off ramps, at enormous cost.

That's self-defeating.

At that point you might as well tunnel, in which case you no longer need to follow the highway at all.

****

Now perhaps we could get back on topic.

The only reason this came up (my agreement with another poster) is by way of discussion how to replace auto-traffic w/transit in the context of possibly removing the Gardiner at some future point.

It was a side tangent to the real topic.

Which is the Gardiner, and really, the specific project, east of Jarvis.

Lets get back to that, shall we?