Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[DarnDirtyApe]

And if the entire trip shift to city streets, you bet that the current traffic on said routes will increase to such a degree - when it matters - that it would make the Gardiner a competitive option again. Let's not treat drivers as stupid individuals who doesn't know how to optimize the trip based on the conditions. Usage of the road system and decisions on travel times will also adjust to the amount of capacity available as well - has that been "modelled" yet?

AoD

Of course, but don't pretend that there won't be more traffic on those city streets overall.

Sadly the TTC and GO are still uncompetitive with driving for too many trips.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's what can be so wild about these debates if you take a step back. Stopping and starting a car again involves pushing a pedal with your foot but yet it's so frustrating. Yeah, I find it annoying too when I drive. But seriously, the amount of emotion that can be stirred up by what is essentially pushing a button with your foot is pretty amazing.

But of course, we knew that laminar flow is the default condition of expressway traffic, esp. during rush.

Of course, but don't pretend that there won't be more traffic on those city streets overall.

Sadly the TTC and GO are still uncompetitive with driving for too many trips.

There may not - for all the talk about modelling, you certainly rely on some dicey assumptions about how driving behaviour is immutable. And yes, let's make the TTC competitive - knock out a few lanes on local roads and turn them into transit ROWs.

AoD

 

[LNahid2000]

Yes, this would be included in the overall "costs of congestion" that face the GTA: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/costsofcongestion/costs_congestion.aspx
It should be compared to the opportunity cost, not ignored.

2 minutes * 100,000 vehicles * 365 days * $25/hr = $30M per year of congestion costs (just a simple, hypothetical example).

Just because 2 minutes "sounds low" doesn't mean it can be ignored.

Furthermore, focusing one a single hour is absurd as the AM and PM peaks are at least 3+ hours each.

Your calculation makes the assumption that people would be doing something productive with their time if they didn't spend those 2 extra minutes on the road. This isn't always the case. If they're otherwise going to be sitting at home watching TV, then the cost of their time is zero.

 

[CDL.TO]

Those of us with actual experience of the issues are telling you that you are wrong.

Uh huh. And tell me, what makes you assume that I don't have "actual experience"?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You've mistaken me for arcum?
I don't think it's the correct wording for it, but "self interest" in this case meaning it does not effect you - as in "do I have to care if I don't use it? or it doesn't effect me?"
Everyone will enjoy a redeveloped waterfront, even those who might drive through this portion of the Gardiner. It's not as though those drivers do not care.

Mistook you for DDA, as that was the original conversation -- point stands, though. There's an implicit message in 'dangerous ground to tread on' and 'self interest' that somehow I'm being unreasonable or slanted in my arguments, or pushing against the boundaries of polite discussion.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, this would be included in the overall "costs of congestion" that face the GTA: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/costsofcongestion/costs_congestion.aspx
It should be compared to the opportunity cost, not ignored.

2 minutes * 100,000 vehicles * 365 days * $25/hr = $30M per year of congestion costs (just a simple, hypothetical example).

Just because 2 minutes "sounds low" doesn't mean it can be ignored.

Furthermore, focusing one a single hour is absurd as the AM and PM peaks are at least 3+ hours each.

$30 million in congestion costs per annum- now, compare that to the additional developments that can be accommodated by a shift to remove, and the reduction in travel times of individuals living and working in said areas, per rata. Please tell me why it isn't wouldn't be a more desirable outcome?

And of course 2 minutes can be ignored - we do it all the time, from putting in stop signs, arranging transit schedules, what not. When you are looking at, under that system of costing, literally billions in time equivalent for the entire city, 30 million per annum is a rounding error.

AoD

 

[44 North]

But of course, we knew that laminar flow is the default condition of expressway traffic, esp. during rush.AoD

Naturally many times it's not. But it still can be, provided that a steady low velocity and buffer is maintained. It's those that try to speed things up by tailgating, then braking hard, then filling in others' buffers that end up screwing the whole thing and giving us rolling waves of complete stops. Therein lies the turbulent flow. But I would still rather a steady 10km/h than 30-0-30. Before the Gardiner construction wrapped up, I would oftentimes find that it was faster and less aggravating than taking Lake Shore and hitting every red light.

 

[11th]

Nope, the Hybrid option as proposed does not foresee any lanes being removed from the Gardiner - the rebuild option (which has been excluded) turns it into a 2 lane (each one) elevated highway. Hybrid in essence is maintain with additional off ramps.

AoD

So there isn't one plan to reduce lanes, while maintaining the Gardiner-DVP connection?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So there isn't one plan to reduce lanes, while maintaining the Gardiner-DVP connection?

Not under the current two competing proposals. The so called retention schemes over the years usually foresee major changes to Lakeshore - which isn't contemplated in the current proposal either.

AoD

 

[arcum]

Your calculation makes the assumption that people would be doing something productive with their time if they didn't spend those 2 extra minutes on the road. This isn't always the case. If they're otherwise going to be sitting at home watching TV, then the cost of their time is zero.

Like I said, it's just a hypothetical example. Your notion suggests congestion doesn't matter because people would just be at home watching TV otherwise.

Read up on the report here: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona..._08-015_Cost_of_Congestion_report_1128081.pdf

Interesting to note that on Page 3 of the report auto users have to deal with $2.2B in congestion costs, compared to only $300M for transit users in 2006.

And the war on the car continues...

 

[LNahid2000]

Interesting to note that on Page 3 of the report auto users have to deal with $2.2B in congestion costs, compared to only $300M for transit users in 2006.

And the war on the car continues...

I don't have time to read the report, but maybe that's because transit users can do something productive while sitting on the train, while drivers need to concentrate on driving?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Like I said, it's just a hypothetical example. Your notion suggests congestion doesn't matter because people would just be at home watching TV otherwise.

Read up on the report here: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona..._08-015_Cost_of_Congestion_report_1128081.pdf

Interesting to note that on Page 3 of the report auto users have to deal with $2.2B in congestion costs, compared to only $300M for transit users in 2006.

And the war on the car continues...

Let me quote the report, from p. 9 (16 of the PDF):

The cause of this market failure is the inefficiency in how the decisions of individuals interact to affect the well-being of society. When an individual considers whether or not to make a trip, they consider the benefit that they will obtain in taking
the trip and the costs that they will incur (out-of-pocket expenses such as fuel, as well as implicit “opportunity costs” such as the value placed on time spent traveling). However, in making their travel decisions, individuals ignore the delay that their presence on the road causes other motorists. The level of congestion that would occur if road users took proper account of this effect is the economically efficient level. Congestion above this level is wasteful (and denoted as excess traffic) because the benefits from accommodating the additional traffic are outweighed by the costs that reduced travel speeds impose on other motorist.

On other words, the war appears to be very much self-inflicted.

AoD

 

[adHominem]

Everyone will enjoy a redeveloped waterfront, even those who might drive through this portion of the Gardiner. It's not as though those drivers do not care.

Not everyone, necessarily. However, the boulevard option unlocks more developable land, which means more tax revenue; so even people who won't enjoy or ever visit a redeveloped waterfront could benefit from that additional tax base that wouldn't exist with hybrid/maintain.

 

[arcum]

$30 million in congestion costs per annum- now, compare that to the additional developments that can be accommodated by a shift to remove, and the reduction in travel times of individuals living and working in said areas, per rata. Please tell me why it isn't wouldn't be a more desirable outcome?

And of course 2 minutes can be ignored - we do it all the time, from putting in stop signs, arranging transit schedules, what not. When you are looking at, under that system of costing, literally billions in time equivalent for the entire city, 30 million per annum is a rounding error.

AoD

I've said it before, I think the boulevard is more desirable. I'm just pointing out facts that have been ignored by those pushing for removal.

A little hypocritical if you think $30M additional congestion is a rounding error compared to $3B total congestion and at the same time praise the little bit of additional tax from development when the city's total budget over $13B. Now that is a rounding error. Bottom line is every little bit counts.

 

[WislaHD]

Ah, so the difference with a 100+km/h freeway and a 60km/h boulevard with 5 traffic signals is only a few seconds now. It pains me to see how deluded some people are when trying to analyze traffic matters.

Bottom line is converting the Gardiner to a boulevard will divert vehicles onto other local streets at all times of the day. There is no denying that.

This is not true.

Why would trucks using Eglinton and Steeles as cross town thoroughfares but wouldn't use Lakeshore?

Eglinton and Steeles are both 6-lanes at maximum, less at points, and they have the 401 in close proximity and much more streetlights than Lakeshore. Please tell me how an 8-lane Lakeshore would force trucks into 2-lane Richmond and Adelaide with 14+ stoplights.

There is only one deluded argument being made here.