Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

[innsertnamehere]

The fact that we know it's a temporary situation might make people keep their current routines, with no reduction in demand.

Or, more likely, induced demand is simply a lot less black and white of a concept than the media portrays. It's a real thing which is very poorly represented in media on how it works.

Luckily the Gardiner will probably be a better representation than most given the strong transit alternatives available, but I don't think we'll see 30% of traffic just magically evaporate because of the construction. We will definitely see some evaporation.. maybe 15%, but not enough to offset the 30% loss in capacity. And some of that evaporation will simply come from trips no longer happening - i.e. reduced economic activity, which isn't a good thing.

 

[2323]

The fact that we know it's a temporary situation might make people keep their current routines, with no reduction in demand.

And? The whole argument of induced demand is that people will take a trip if it makes sense to do it. The fact that people are still willing to take the trip, even by car means that the trips were necessary and cannot magically disappear. There are also examples of temporary induced demand phenomena that did work, like the Alaskan Way Viaduct closure in Seattle before the new tunnel opened, where traffic did actually disappear. It's not always a one size fits all solution.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And? The whole argument of induced demand is that people will take a trip if it makes sense to do it. The fact that people are still willing to take the trip, even by car means that the trips were necessary and cannot magically disappear. There are also examples of temporary induced demand phenomena that did work, like the Alaskan Way Viaduct closure in Seattle before the new tunnel opened, where traffic did actually disappear. It's not always a one size fits all solution.

there are longer term things that impact induced demand that wouldn't be instant - i.e. someone who lives downtown and commutes to Mississauga by car every day move 6 months after the capacity reduction to Mississauga to avoid the congestion.

But again - that's reduced QoL and mobility as that person makes an economic decision to live in a non-preferred location due to poor infrastructure availability.

Induced demand means traffic can disappear - and much of it often does, especially over the long term, but that "magic" traffic being gone has impacts.

If we deleted the Gardiner, yes, traffic into the downtown would plummet. Many would take transit instead. But also, many would simply stop going downtown, and people downtown would likely stop leaving downtown as frequently. You may find businesses start to prefer suburban locations again as mobility becomes too challenging to access their offices, companies may charge more for goods in the downtown as transportation costs to service downtown businesses increase, etc. It has consequences.

 

[turbanplanner]

The fact that we know it's a temporary situation might make people keep their current routines, with no reduction in demand.

3 years at a minimum is temporary? If I could I would stop driving after just a week of my commute doubling. Nobody is waking up 45 mins earlier thinking yeah this is only for 3 years I can take a bus but I choose not to.

TBF the irony (at least in my mind is) the few things where transit COULD be way more convenient than driving (Jays, CNE, etc) it's so overwhelmed including the GO no amount of traffic is more off putting than standing shoulder to shoulder for an hour. The crowds at exhibition are scary

 

[Haljackey]

Would the Gardiner flow ok if the lane reduction was permanent? Having 2 lanes instead of 3 would give you a shoulder where break downs/crashes and whatnot can be moved which is a major cause of the jamming. On/off ramps could also be made longer and there would be less overall weight/stress on the structure which may help it in the long term.

This would also sync it up with the rebuild in the east which is going from 4 lanes each way to just 2.

 

[turbanplanner]

Would the Gardiner flow ok if the lane reduction was permanent? Having 2 lanes instead of 3 would give you a shoulder where break downs/crashes and whatnot can be moved which is a major cause of the jamming. On/off ramps could also be made longer and there's be less overall weight/stress on the structure which may help it in the long term.

This would also sync it up with the rebuild in the east which is going from 4 lanes each way to just 2.

Doubt it tbh, the biggest cause of traffic eastbound IMO is that when you closed the lakeshore off ramp everyone HAS to get off at jarvis. You have the entire right lane blocked with people entering/exiting the highway, additionally some people in the left lane stay there until the last second and slam on the brakes.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Question for everyone who likes to bring up induced demand (which is somehow a bad thing) When can we expect traffic on the gardiner to equalize now that a long term lane closer has materialized?

Except that induced demand doesn't say that removing a lane reduces demand in the way that adding lanes 'creates' demand (quotations are intentional) the phenomenon is not reflective in that way.

Induced demand says that changing the capacity of transport options changes the cost (in time and actual dollars) for each mode of transport. The reason adding lanes creates more demand is that adding a lane reduces the cost of taking private transport vs other options. Because of this more people choose to take their personal vehicle until some equilibrium is reached where the alternatives become more attractive than the personal vehicle..

The lane closure makes the cost of taking private transport more expensive, so some people may choose to use alternatives depending on their personal preferences and cost calculations. However the uptake of new highway lanes tends to be quicker than the abandonment of private vehicles when lanes are reduced.

What would be interesting to me is how the GO Train service improvements affect demand. Being able to have a train every 15 mins will really change up peoples perception of that option.

 

[turbanplanner]

Except that induced demand doesn't say that removing a lane reduces demand in the way that adding lanes 'creates' demand (quotations are intentional) the phenomenon is not reflective in that way.

Induced demand says that changing the capacity of transport options changes the cost (in time and actual dollars) for each mode of transport. The reason adding lanes creates more demand is that adding a lane reduces the cost of taking private transport vs other options. Because of this more people choose to take their personal vehicle until some equilibrium is reached where the alternatives become more attractive than the personal vehicle..

The lane closure makes the cost of taking private transport more expensive, so some people may choose to use alternatives depending on their personal preferences and cost calculations. However the uptake of new highway lanes tends to be quicker than the abandonment of private vehicles when lanes are reduced.

What would be interesting to me is how the GO Train service improvements affect demand. Being able to have a train every 15 mins will really change up peoples perception of that option.

Has nobody here driven between 3-6pm? It's the worst commute in the world in terms of time. Almost everyone who drives does it either because of insane crowding on transit (which how can you fix?) or because the trip they take can't or isn't serviceable by transit.

It's not such a problem here but so many privileged redditors are blasting people for "not just taking the go" or not biking forgetting Toronto is a HUGE city and not everyone can afford to live in the downtown core.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Has nobody here driven between 3-6pm? It's the worst commute in the world in terms of time. Almost everyone who drives does it either because of insane crowding on transit (which how can you fix?) or because the trip they take can't or isn't serviceable by transit.

It's not such a problem here but so many privileged redditors are blasting people for "not just taking the go" or not biking forgetting Toronto is a HUGE city and not everyone can afford to live in the downtown core.

When roads reach capacity (traffic) we expand the roads and add more capacity. So what should we do when public transit reaches capacity?

I'll wait

 

[Haljackey]

When roads reach capacity (traffic) we expand the roads and add more capacity. So what should we do when public transit reaches capacity?

I'll wait

 

[lowtrain]

My work desk has a view of the Spadina ramp onto the Gardiner. Spadina at Front wouldn't get jammed until 4pm before construction started, now the congestion going South starts around 1pm. I went for a walk to the lakeshore around 1pm and almost got ran over by cars running a red light to get on the Spadina on-ramp (all while three officers were sitting in their car just 50m away from the intersection chatting and sitting on their phones). I'm not explaining the drivers but the stress levels to drive around there must be off the charts. This construction spills over to way more than just the Gardiner itself.

 

[afransen]

Or, more likely, induced demand is simply a lot less black and white of a concept than the media portrays. It's a real thing which is very poorly represented in media on how it works.

Luckily the Gardiner will probably be a better representation than most given the strong transit alternatives available, but I don't think we'll see 30% of traffic just magically evaporate because of the construction. We will definitely see some evaporation.. maybe 15%, but not enough to offset the 30% loss in capacity. And some of that evaporation will simply come from trips no longer happening - i.e. reduced economic activity, which isn't a good thing.

The other possibility is that the loss in capacity is not 1/3, given that the ramps tend to be the bottleneck.

 

[afransen]

Expanding roadways in dense urban areas is usually either impossible or incredibly expensive per unit capacity. Transit is cheaper.

 

[turbanplanner]

When roads reach capacity (traffic) we expand the roads and add more capacity. So what should we do when public transit reaches capacity?

I'll wait

Ideally both!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ideally both!

Exactly, well at least in the sense that roads and public transit should be viewed as a single solution rather than antagonists in some sort of 'war on cars' culture war.

So if your complaint about some temporary lane closures for maintenance makes things untenable for drivers, because the alternative (public transit) is over crowded and sucks. Then the question you should be asking is why are we only now beginning construction on the first 'real' new public transit project in the downtown core (the Ontario Line), in the 4 decades that we have identified that transit is over capacity in the core instead of hot potato-ing this issue back and forth?

Drivers won't magically disappear just because 4 km of highway has been taken out of service. There are plenty of other factors, owning a car predisposes people to choosing private transport, the temporary nature of the project means that there is some relief in sight. etc.