Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[LNahid2000]

I'm referring to Finch West, not Eglinton. Anyways, this is getting off-topic. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be bundling operating costs in with capital costs.

I'm referring to Finch West as well. I just quoted the paragraph from the report that says that net costs were only calculated for Eglinton and not for other lines (Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton extensions). Page 10 clearly explains this.

I don't see a problem with bundling operating and capital costs, as long as operating costs are discounted, and the numbers for projects being compared are calculated the same way.

 

[muller877]

I'm referring to Finch West as well. I just quoted the paragraph from the report that says that net costs were only calculated for Eglinton and not for other lines (Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton extensions). Page 10 clearly explains this.

I don't see a problem with bundling operating and capital costs, as long as operating costs are discounted, and the numbers for projects being compared are calculated the same way.

There are 625,000 cars that use the Gardiner East per week (page 18). Each will experience the added delay regardless of the time of day (hitting 1 light is 2 minutes at least...so using the lowest end of the 2-5 minute delay)

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-79902.pdf

So the extra $500M is over the 100 year life of the Gardiner. We have to compare this to the trips for the 100 years (apples to apples).

625,000 cars x 52 weeks x 100 years = 3.25 billion trips that will experience a delay. So the cost to save the 2 minutes is $0.15 per vehicle (without increasing usage over time...again to be conservative)

I would say that this is worth it. I would even be willing to pay the $0.15 per trip to get the faster option.

Then for transit projects they add the b.s. factors for the cost of "time" for speeding up a commute. We can do that here as well. A person's time is worth about $20/hr. And 1.7 people per car. So this cost has now turned into a "savings" for going with the more expensive option of $0.98 per trip ($20 x 1.7 x 2/60 - $0.15).

 

[muller877]

I'm referring to Finch West as well. I just quoted the paragraph from the report that says that net costs were only calculated for Eglinton and not for other lines (Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton extensions). Page 10 clearly explains this.

I don't see a problem with bundling operating and capital costs, as long as operating costs are discounted, and the numbers for projects being compared are calculated the same way.

I agree that you need to look at lifecycle costs. But apples to apples.

For example, the DRL used a 3.3% discount rate vs a 4% here.
The DRL only used a 60 year life vs a 100 year life (and we now know what happens after 60 years in a subway....just look at the repair bills going on right now)
The DRL included "benefits" into the model while the Gardiner did not (cost of time)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree that you need to look at lifecycle costs. But apples to apples.

For example, the DRL used a 3.3% discount rate vs a 4% here.
The DRL only used a 60 year life vs a 100 year life (and we now know what happens after 60 years in a subway....just look at the repair bills going on right now)
The DRL included "benefits" into the model while the Gardiner did not (cost of time)

Actually what you also need to take into account is the opportunity cost if the piece of infrastructure isn't present.

AoD

 

[MetroMan]

Tory is going all out and demanding that because Wynne refused to let Toronto toll the Gardiner and DVP to pay for its rebuilding and maintenance that the Province upload those roads. He has a point. If the Gardiner and DVP are so important to 905ers that the Premier doesn't think they should pay tolls, then they're important to the Province as regional roads and should not be funded by Torontonians.

The interesting thing is that if Wynne agrees to upload them, then their rebuild is no longer Toronto's decision and no longer subject to Tory's and City Council's political meddling.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Tory is going all out and demanding that because Wynne refused to let Toronto toll the Gardiner and DVP to pay for its rebuilding and maintenance that the Province upload those roads. He has a point. If the Gardiner and DVP are so important to 905ers that the Premier doesn't think they should pay tolls, then they're important to the Province as regional roads and should not be funded by Torontonians.

The interesting thing is that if Wynne agrees to upload them, then their rebuild is no longer Toronto's decision and no longer subject to Tory's and City Council's political meddling.

Instead it gets handed off to MTO, who will immediately begin a multi billion dollar project of rebuilding it to higher standards and begin preparing for a widening of the DVP to ensure it meets their traffic LOS standards.

 

[BurlOak]

Tory is going all out and demanding that because Wynne refused to let Toronto toll the Gardiner and DVP to pay for its rebuilding and maintenance that the Province upload those roads. He has a point. If the Gardiner and DVP are so important to 905ers that the Premier doesn't think they should pay tolls, then they're important to the Province as regional roads and should not be funded by Torontonians.

The interesting thing is that if Wynne agrees to upload them, then their rebuild is no longer Toronto's decision and no longer subject to Tory's and City Council's political meddling.

Interesting thing is that this motion was brought up 2 years ago and they voted against it. It was part of the Hudak Conservative campaign platform from 2014 and they (including Tory) voted against the upload to suck up to the Wynne Liberals. Now that the Liberal name is tarnished, they want to change their vote.

Motions 1 - Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor James Pasternak (Lost)

That City Council take the position that both the Don Valley Parkway and the F.G. Gardiner Expressway are not appropriately city roads and should be King's Highways similar to the existing 400 series highway system.

Vote (Amend Item (Additional))
Sep-21-2015

Result: Lost Majority Required
Yes: 6 Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Cesar Palacio, James Pasternak, Jaye Robinson

No: 7 Paul Ainslie, Gary Crawford, Frank Di Giorgio, Mary-Margaret McMahon, David Shiner, Michael Thompson, John Tory (Chair)
Absent: 0
AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

That will have very minimal effect on drivers coming from outside the downtown area. They will just fill up closer to home, and then drive into and out of downtown without the need to refuel.

Isn't that what they do now? Gas is typically 5 - 10 cents cheaper near my home in the burbs than it is downtown....why are people waiting until they get downtown to fill up their cars?

Absence of gas stations inside downtown will only inconvenience car owners who happen to reside there.

Yep

 

[W. K. Lis]

An there is an endless supply of petroleum and there is no climate change to worry about!... not!

 

[TOareaFan]

An there is an endless supply of petroleum and there is no climate change to worry about!... not!

who was having that discussion?

 

[MetroMan]

Instead it gets handed off to MTO, who will immediately begin a multi billion dollar project of rebuilding it to higher standards and begin preparing for a widening of the DVP to ensure it meets their traffic LOS standards.

Or Wynne sees Tory's chess move, uploads the Gardiner and takes it down East of Jarvis as per expert recommendation. Check mate.

 

[rbt]

Or Wynne sees Tory's chess move, uploads the Gardiner and takes it down East of Jarvis as per expert recommendation. Check mate.

City still ends up in great shape from a fiscal point of view. After the toll rejection thing (and how MTO functions) I really doubt that recommendation would be implemented.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If you think MTO experts are gunna recommend removal your losing it. MTO regularly dismisses transit investment as "non feasible" as the costs would be $150 million, then turns around and recommends a $2 billion highway expansion instead. MTO sure as hell isnt going to rip down a freeway for "city building iniatives" or "the public realm". They care exclusively about vehicle LOS, which would be seriously harmed by demolition.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Besides not having control of tolling (assuming province allows for it) and have less say in how the highways are maintained, what disadvantages does uploading the DVP and Gardiner have on the city?

I would assume the MTO would perform maintenance immediately, like widening and getting up to standards, where the city would have little say in how it's done.

 

[TOareaFan]

If you think MTO experts are gunna recommend removal your losing it. MTO regularly dismisses transit investment as "non feasible" as the costs would be $150 million, then turns around and recommends a $2 billion highway expansion instead. MTO sure as hell isnt going to rip down a freeway for "city building iniatives" or "the public realm". They care exclusively about vehicle LOS, which would be seriously harmed by demolition.

how regular does that happen? I honestly can't recall a situation where we have seen a proposal to link A to B for $150MM by transit turned down and then a proposal to link the same A to the same B with a $2B road being approved. Is there a lot of examples of that "regularly" happening or are we just venting with hyperbole?