News   Jul 15, 2024
 510     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 667     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 586     0 

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

We took the Go to and from Hamilton to stay with some friends for the eclipse. On the return trip there was also a Jays game and a Leafs game, so the trains were packed. It was fine.

My in-laws thought taking the Go was beneath them, so they drove. They sat on the Gardiner for two hours.
would you like me to link some photos of how full the train was during the eclipse? Also, I love equates standing shoulder to shoulder with strangers versus sitting in an air-conditioned car with your own music….
 
would you like me to link some photos of how full the train was during the eclipse? Also, I love equates standing shoulder to shoulder with strangers versus sitting in an air-conditioned car with your own music….
It's all about "time" for me. I'll sacrifice some comfort if the train gets back to Toronto quicker. And I say that as a frequent driver. In fact the only reason I drive so much is because in a lot of cases it's usually quicker than taking transit. Particularly when travelling between suburbs. Which is unfortunate.
 
I was on a train that left Aldershot at something like 5:10, so I don't need photos!

At the time, we lived near Union Station, which means the train is almost always going to be more convenient than driving. That's obviously not the case between suburbs, where the transit connections are dismal. But my point is that yes, a lot of people choose to drive and sit in (and contribute to) traffic on the Gardiner/Lakeshore when it's really not their only choice at all and there's a perfectly reasonable alternative.
 
I was on a train that left Aldershot at something like 5:10, so I don't need photos!

At the time, we lived near Union Station, which means the train is almost always going to be more convenient than driving. That's obviously not the case between suburbs, where the transit connections are dismal. But my point is that yes, a lot of people choose to drive and sit in (and contribute to) traffic on the Gardiner/Lakeshore when it's really not their only choice at all and there's a perfectly reasonable alternative.
I think we all have different definitions of perfectly reasonable, let’s ignore the rowdy people, even though that’s a huge turn off, depending on the event going on.

Like you said unless you’re going to somewhere where the other side is next to a station it’s going to be a lot less convenient and likely at least twice as long
 
Everyone here treats induced demand like it works exactly the same 100% of the time. NOBODY is driving for fun. The TTC and go are not an alternative for a lot of trips that happen.
Having more lanes and routes means a crash doesn't bring east west movement in the city to a halt. The TTC had it's 3rd fire in a week today.

Induced demand also states removing lanes will lead traffic to go down but that didn't happen because it's not a magical rule. Toronto has the busiest stretch of highway in the world people are not driving if they have a reasonable alternative. have you EVER taken the go during an event? it's miserable! I don't take it because aside from all the drunk people coming out of a jays game or BMO field. The crowding is insane even when extra trains are brought in. The go lots in Toronto on lakeshore west have only a handful of spots as well. I've driven to long branch and mimico only to come across a full lot 4 hours before the game stated.

Stop acting like everything is a silver bullet. We need investment in all modes

We can acknowledge that there are few alternatives available in terms of transportation, while still accepting that latent demand is a concept that is very much real with both academic and experiential data to support it.

I'm very curious to understanding your general denial of the concept, because it really discredits a lot of your posts because you don't "agree" with a very well published economic theory.

It really boils down to this: The key to less traffic congestion is less traffic

Which should be addressed with a multi-pronged approach, but unfortunately, the common approach is to go with the simplest and least effective approach which is to increase capacity for traffic.

Additionally, investment in all modes is rather misleading given that we spent the better part of the last century (and so far this one) subsidizing fossil fuels, the auto industry, roads, and auto-centric development. So an actually "balanced" approach would significantly ramp up public transit and active transportation and decrease traditional "road" spending. I guarantee you that if road projects go through the same scrutiny that we put transit projects through, there would be a change in the built landscape.
 
We can acknowledge that there are few alternatives available in terms of transportation, while still accepting that latent demand is a concept that is very much real with both academic and experiential data to support it.

I'm very curious to understanding your general denial of the concept, because it really discredits a lot of your posts because you don't "agree" with a very well published economic theory.

It really boils down to this: The key to less traffic congestion is less traffic

Which should be addressed with a multi-pronged approach, but unfortunately, the common approach is to go with the simplest and least effective approach which is to increase capacity for traffic.

Additionally, investment in all modes is rather misleading given that we spent the better part of the last century (and so far this one) subsidizing fossil fuels, the auto industry, roads, and auto-centric development. So an actually "balanced" approach would significantly ramp up public transit and active transportation and decrease traditional "road" spending. I guarantee you that if road projects go through the same scrutiny that we put transit projects through, there would be a change in the built landscape.
I have a degree in commerce so I'm familiar with the limitations of of models when you apply them to real life.

I feel like planners and the city are great at fixing engineering problems but public transit is equally as much a human behavior problem (basically marketing) perceptions are almost more important than reality when it comes to trying to change how people act. It doesn't help pretty much all the metrics I see are entirely out of touch! Steve Munro does a great job of pointing this out. When things go wrong, communications if they even exist are often wrong or contradictory.

As long as service metrics are designed to show that everything is just peachy, thank you, service will not improve. The metrics must reflect a rider’s view of service: individual vehicle conditions, not averages, across all routes, locations and hours.

Personally I feel like better enforcement of rules would really help, you'd fix the safety issue (remember perception is important even if things are "ok") A great feature of GO were the quiet zones, I say were because lately there are plenty of people talking when I ride at rush hour.

Fundamentally I find people in North America to be a lot more individualistic and selfish than other countries, I live in a Condo and a lot of things are nightmares that seem to be fairly common, broken elevators, false fire alarms, loud neighbors sharing walls. I think this is part of the reason SFH are so popular and they're basically impossible to serve effectively with transit. If you want people getting out of their cars think more as a marketer than an engineer.

Also I might be imagining this but I feel there's a jealousy here towards drivers, looking at the Eglinton thread someone got angry about a "rich driver" in a Lamborghini and it damn near became a discussion about communism. Even your post mentions history for 50+ years ago in an era long past. I've seen people here laugh at "idiots sitting in traffic who could have taken the go" having no clue where those people were going. I never laugh when I see a subway delay. Food for thought.
 
I have a degree in commerce so I'm familiar with the limitations of of models when you apply them to real life.

I feel like planners and the city are great at fixing engineering problems but public transit is equally as much a human behavior problem (basically marketing) perceptions are almost more important than reality when it comes to trying to change how people act. It doesn't help pretty much all the metrics I see are entirely out of touch! Steve Munro does a great job of pointing this out. When things go wrong, communications if they even exist are often wrong or contradictory.

As long as service metrics are designed to show that everything is just peachy, thank you, service will not improve. The metrics must reflect a rider’s view of service: individual vehicle conditions, not averages, across all routes, locations and hours.

Personally I feel like better enforcement of rules would really help, you'd fix the safety issue (remember perception is important even if things are "ok") A great feature of GO were the quiet zones, I say were because lately there are plenty of people talking when I ride at rush hour.

Fundamentally I find people in North America to be a lot more individualistic and selfish than other countries, I live in a Condo and a lot of things are nightmares that seem to be fairly common, broken elevators, false fire alarms, loud neighbors sharing walls. I think this is part of the reason SFH are so popular and they're basically impossible to serve effectively with transit. If you want people getting out of their cars think more as a marketer than an engineer.

Also I might be imagining this but I feel there's a jealousy here towards drivers, looking at the Eglinton thread someone got angry about a "rich driver" in a Lamborghini and it damn near became a discussion about communism. Even your post mentions history for 50+ years ago in an era long past. I've seen people here laugh at "idiots sitting in traffic who could have taken the go" having no clue where those people were going. I never laugh when I see a subway delay. Food for thought.
Glad to hear your point of view articulated. It absolutely is a communication issue as well, most engineering problems are. I find that a lot of people are not really willing to hear the nuances in the technical details, specifically for transit and traffic with everyone having their own theories and fixed opinions despite being in front of real evidence.

History is extremely important in planning and engineering, it is the context for a lot of the social freedoms that we enjoy today that would not be possible without certain historic events. And certainly, extreme wealth is very much an issue of imbalances in society, something to think about here (especially with a lot of the contrast that we see on income inequality).

It's important not to conflate societal issues specifically with transit, as it all contributes to the betterment of society. History is what we have to determine the future, and I don't think you should dismiss it as you are. History is the reason why we have 5 day work weeks, and why we have not yet had a World War III.
 
May 9th Update

DSC_6520.jpg
DSC_6523.jpg
DSC_6527.jpg
DSC_6528.jpg
DSC_6531.jpg
DSC_6533.jpg
DSC_6535.jpg
DSC_6538.jpg
DSC_6540.jpg
 
Glad to hear your point of view articulated. It absolutely is a communication issue as well, most engineering problems are. I find that a lot of people are not really willing to hear the nuances in the technical details, specifically for transit and traffic with everyone having their own theories and fixed opinions despite being in front of real evidence.

History is extremely important in planning and engineering, it is the context for a lot of the social freedoms that we enjoy today that would not be possible without certain historic events. And certainly, extreme wealth is very much an issue of imbalances in society, something to think about here (especially with a lot of the contrast that we see on income inequality).

It's important not to conflate societal issues specifically with transit, as it all contributes to the betterment of society. History is what we have to determine the future, and I don't think you should dismiss it as you are. History is the reason why we have 5 day work weeks, and why we have not yet had a World War III.
Thanks for the kind back and forth! You make a good point about history and imbalances.
 
I remember. Maybe it's time to revive this plan.
Part of it has since been sterilized with the Exhibition Ontario Line station, tracks, and the Libertry "New Street". I think some of those new buildings in the Ordnance Triangle cause a problem too. I don't see how they do it now, without literally elevating it over the GO Tracks, east of Exhibition GO.

I think that ship has pretty much sailed already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max
Part of it has since been sterilized with the Exhibition Ontario Line station, tracks, and the Libertry "New Street". I think some of those new buildings in the Ordnance Triangle cause a problem too. I don't see how they do it now, without literally elevating it over the GO Tracks, east of Exhibition GO.

I think that ship has pretty much sailed already.
unfortunately that's probably accurate. would've just torn it down between Strachan and the DVP if it were up to me.

the thing is an eyesore / money pit and does nothing to improve traffic flow because of its flawed design.
 
You're misunderstanding my point so I will clarify, saying the TTC is poor etc feels really disingenuous when they're getting tens of billions in subsidies for projects. This is just my opinion but adding to the operating budget wouldn't make as much of a difference as things like state of good repair which would be capital improvements. Yes other cities get a bigger subsidy per rider but this would always be the case because the TTC has enough ridership that it doesn't totally need to rely on subsidies.

First, bigger ridership means more routes and more expensive modes of transport. Yes, subways cost less per rider over time than busses, but subways are still extremely expensive. Relying on ridership (via the fare box) means that when something problematic happens that causes a drop in ridership, the whole system is sent into a tailspin. See; the pandemic. Routes and schedules got cut, when the safest thing for all would've been to maintain those lines and schedules with lower ridership. But you can't do that without subsidy. Instead, we made more people cram into fewer vehicles, only serving to exacerbate the problem.

And frankly, if I buy a low-income individual a BMW, it doesn't make them rich. In fact, it further burdens them with more costs and liabilities and quickly turns that car into an albatross. The difference between the TTC and that low-income individual is that that vehicle doesn't constitute the individuals entire existence, and they can turn around and sell it.

How many Hummers do you see driving around? Also Shake your head, man? Why are you being so aggressive?

The Humvee is extreme, but the electric SUV trend is where were are headed, and many easily top out over 6000lbs.

And:

"A formula developed by the American Association of State Highway Officials in the 1950s and still used today, the Generalized Fourth Power Law, calculates the ratio between vehicle weight and pavement damage. Spoiler alert: The heavier the vehicle, the more it damages the pavement.

Only about 4% of vehicles on the road today are EVs, but the experts at the Edison Electric Institute expect that number to jump to 10% by 2030. Many of today’s paved streets and roads may not withstand the additional wear and tear. Moreover, concerns are growing that even the guardrails we see along roadways may not be strong enough to perform adequately as corpulent EVs increase in population. Likewise, it remains to be seen if structures like parking garages will accommodate the additional tonnage."



Again, like why are you being so aggressive?

Well, is a photo of spilled concrete related at all, or are you airing personal annoyances? Also, are terms in your initial response like "BS" and "false narrative" are polite terms requiring respect? C'mon.

I'm not even sure I'd call what I did "aggressive" here. My apologies if you took offence, but you seemed more interested in implying the TTC was well subsidized (it's not) as well as gaslighting about the weight differences between electric and ICE vehicles. It's not an insubstantial difference by the way. With car buyers heavily moving towards larger cars, and mandates for electric vehicles, you've suddenly got an elevated parking lot during rush hour with many vehicles weighing what an ICE cube van used to 45 years ago.[/QUOTE]


This is ridiculous, I literally said I support investment in all forms. Did you bother to ask my opinion on things like a vehicle registration tax? Did you ask if I'm happy Ontario scrapped the road tax? I guess it would go against your tirade to not argue in good faith.

Good faith seems lacking on your side. Am I supposed to ask you about your thoughts before responding to every statement you make? You were blatantly peddling the "more lanes" line that we've seen for decades, and complaining about personal anecdotes as to the reason why most drivers choose that means of transit.

And it’s still a choice.

Investment is crucial, but sufficient investment isn't going to come if we still keep throwing money at car infrastructure and allowing drivers to think they should get priority. A vehicle registration tax alone isn't going to help a whole lot.

The GTA has its head so deep in cars that we need congestion charges/toll roads, the removal of public parking, a tax on private parking spots, in addition to a vehicle registration tax, a cut of gas revenue and vehicle restricted zone for enough sustained funding and incentive to get transit the levels where people might start really seeing transit as the better option. It's not just about money, but active efforts to impede or dissuade the choice to drive.

The problem is, drivers will just make as big an entitled stink as they can in order to stop those things and feckless politicians will follow suit. Hell, even an environmentally-oriented centrist government put the kibosh on the city tolling the DVP/Gardiner.

I'll tell my partner the guys cat calling her on the train were being responsible drunks, I'm sure it'll take the embarrassment away!

While crappy for you and your partner, again that's anecdote. Your personal reasons for not liking GO can't be ascribed to everyone. I mean, if we're doing anecdotes, I know a guy who used to spend 3 hours in combined in-out traffic every day over a 60 minute in-out GO ride because he felt it was "faster" (ie; he felt he had more control). I know another guy who drives along King because he moves faster than the streetcar (ignoring that he's exacerbating the reason *why* the streetcars move so slow along non-ROW routes).

People can be extremely self-centred when it comes to using cars, and we as a society have only fed that need for a century. It's about time we stop and rank societal good over individual complaints.
 
First, bigger ridership means more routes and more expensive modes of transport. Yes, subways cost less per rider over time than busses, but subways are still extremely expensive. Relying on ridership (via the fare box) means that when something problematic happens that causes a drop in ridership, the whole system is sent into a tailspin. See; the pandemic. Routes and schedules got cut, when the safest thing for all would've been to maintain those lines and schedules with lower ridership. But you can't do that without subsidy. Instead, we made more people cram into fewer vehicles, only serving to exacerbate the problem.

And frankly, if I buy a low-income individual a BMW, it doesn't make them rich. In fact, it further burdens them with more costs and liabilities and quickly turns that car into an albatross. The difference between the TTC and that low-income individual is that that vehicle doesn't constitute the individuals entire existence, and they can turn around and sell it.



The Humvee is extreme, but the electric SUV trend is where were are headed, and many easily top out over 6000lbs.

And:

"A formula developed by the American Association of State Highway Officials in the 1950s and still used today, the Generalized Fourth Power Law, calculates the ratio between vehicle weight and pavement damage. Spoiler alert: The heavier the vehicle, the more it damages the pavement.

Only about 4% of vehicles on the road today are EVs, but the experts at the Edison Electric Institute expect that number to jump to 10% by 2030. Many of today’s paved streets and roads may not withstand the additional wear and tear. Moreover, concerns are growing that even the guardrails we see along roadways may not be strong enough to perform adequately as corpulent EVs increase in population. Likewise, it remains to be seen if structures like parking garages will accommodate the additional tonnage."





Well, is a photo of spilled concrete related at all, or are you airing personal annoyances? Also, are terms in your initial response like "BS" and "false narrative" are polite terms requiring respect? C'mon.

I'm not even sure I'd call what I did "aggressive" here. My apologies if you took offence, but you seemed more interested in implying the TTC was well subsidized (it's not) as well as gaslighting about the weight differences between electric and ICE vehicles. It's not an insubstantial difference by the way. With car buyers heavily moving towards larger cars, and mandates for electric vehicles, you've suddenly got an elevated parking lot during rush hour with many vehicles weighing what an ICE cube van used to 45 years ago.
Zang, especially after all the personal attacks you made at me I’m not going to spend more energy on this.
 


One of the comments- "Canada's gdp would literally be 10% higher if we fixed Toronto's traffic problem and people could be more productive instead of spending 2-3hrs in traffic per day"
 

Back
Top