Transit expansion in Toronto, but nothing for the downtown

[kettal]

Don't put words in my mouth so you can tell me they're wrong.

Since you asked, what I wish is for all traffic to be able to use all available lanes and flow freer than when denied access to a nearly empty lane.

And that bus of yours removes cars from the road regardless of whether it's in a carpool lane or not.

Buses in high mixed traffic roads is never on schedule. If it can't be on reliable, less people will use it and there will be thousands more cars instead.

Would you use a bus stuck in traffic and rarely on time?

 

[kettal]

Because after banning RTOR at these intersections, the number of pedestrian deaths and injuries at these intersections will remain the same.

If the pilot project shows that, then the pilot project shows that. That's what a pilot project is.

 

[rbt]

I see Go buses and Coach Canada buses extensively using our highways to move people. I wonder if anyone has the numbers but I think the 401 moves many, many more people then any of our subway lines do.

(2002)

"Highway 401 is one of the busiest highways in the world and represents a vital link in Ontario's transportation infrastructure, carrying more than 400,000 vehicles per day through Toronto."

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2002/08/06/c0057.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

Updated estimates are about 500,000 vehicles between Weston Road and Highway 401 in 2006. Measurements are taken around Highway 400 as it is both the busiest and widest portion.


We know typical passenger count per vehicle is about 1.3 (more or less, didn't bother to lookup current values).

Yonge line total ridership is 628900 persons per day (2005/2006 service year). These distances are nto comparable (Yonge line total length versus 401 between Weston Road and Highway 400); but close enough to indicate they have a comparable volume of persons.

Yonge capacity may increase by 50% over the next 10 years (signals, improved trains, etc.) without requiring much additional space but Highway 401 capacity is pretty much static. You cannot add another 6 lanes to highway 401.


NOTE: Highway 401 carries trucks as well but also consider that CN and CP Rail carry 80% of goods throughout Canada as measured by weight.

ALSO NOTE: Yonge Subway closes at night. Highway 401 counts also include late night traffic. Up to the reader to determine how much this might impact sums but the Yonge night bus number should probably be added to Yonges ridership.

 

[Glen]

NOTE: Highway 401 carries trucks as well but also consider that CN and CP Rail carry 80% of goods throughout Canada as measured by weight.

Note that nearly 100% of rail cargo will also be transported by truck.

 

[rbt]

Note that nearly 100% of rail cargo will also be transported by truck.

Of course, for some part of its journey. A good chunk goes by boat as well.

I know for a fact a very very small percentage travels in Toronto by boat.


My only point was that the 401 doesn't carry everything manufactured in Quebec to be sold in Houston; to prevent people from jumping on the "but all the trucks" argument.

Yes, there are some trucks. Probably about 2 lanes worth if all personal vehicles were out of their way.

 

[unimaginative2]

Note that nearly 100% of rail cargo will also be transported by truck.

By weight, most rail cargo is bulk like coal and grain. None of that is moved by truck. Most coal these days moves in unit trains from mine to power plant. Intermodal freight, most of which does indeed move by truck for part of its journey, is a fast-growing sector of freight railroading.

Bulk cargoes moving long distances is part of the reason why freight railroading is so much more successful in North America than in Europe. Long-distance unit trains are the most profitable movements for railways. In Europe, bulk cargoes move much shorter distances and are often shipped on the extensive inland waterway network.

The Port of Toronto isn't very busy because we're not much of a heavy industrial city. The vast majority of cargoes shipped on the Great Lakes are coal, iron ore, and grain for export. Toronto doesn't have any steel mills or coal-fired power plants, so we don't need many bulk cargoes. Much of the shipping that we do handle is stuff like salt (for our roads) and sugar for Redpath. Unfortunately, shipping on the Great Lakes is really hindered by the winter closure. That's not a big deal for things like coal and iron ore, which can be easily stockpiled, but it's much more of a problem for petrochemicals, let alone container traffic. That's why container ships all stop at Montreal, and why we use pipelines to ship oil and oil products.

 

[unimaginative2]

You're totally right about subways, rbt. They're an amazing way to move huge numbers of people. They make dense cities possible. Your figures seem reasonable to suggest that the Yonge subway moves about as many people as the 401, the busiest highway in the world. It just wouldn't be possible to build a highway that size into the downtown core.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Buses in high mixed traffic roads is never on schedule. If it can't be on reliable, less people will use it and there will be thousands more cars instead.

Would you use a bus stuck in traffic and rarely on time?

Of course! If I'm going to be stuck in traffic regardless, I'm more likely to choose a bus over a car, and arrive at my destination in almost the same time for a fraction of the cost and frustration.

 

[gweed123]

A quick 2 cents on the discussions above:

1) The Gardiner East: I completely agree with you in that removing the Gardiner because it is a "psychological barrier" is complete and utter BS. If anything, the 6 lanes of traffic (soon to be 10 if the Gardiner is removed) are much more of a REAL barrier than the psychological barrier of the Gardiner will ever be. I had the chance to speak with one of the head planners with the City of Boston (mainly responsible for the final stages of the Big Dig and the creation of the park there afterwards), and when I showed him the plans for the Gardiner East removal, he just shook his head and said something very simple, which captured it perfectly: "you can't make 10 lanes of at-grade road look like and act like anything other than 10 lanes of at-grade road". In short, replacing a psychological barrier for an actual barrier is not something we want to be doing.

2) The HOV lanes: The reason why HOV lanes are "empty" most of the time is because they're randomly scattered across the GTA. There is no coherent, seamless network of HOV lanes, and therefore they aren't enough of an incentive to make a valid reasoning to switch to carpooling. If you had HOV lanes on the 401, Gardiner, DVP, etc etc etc, then there may be more people willing to switch to carpooling to use them. A few lanes on the 403 doesn't do much when you have to wait in traffic anyways to merge onto the QEW or 401.

 

[GraphicMatt]

A quick 2 cents on the discussions above:

1) The Gardiner East: I completely agree with you in that removing the Gardiner because it is a "psychological barrier" is complete and utter BS. If anything, the 6 lanes of traffic (soon to be 10 if the Gardiner is removed) are much more of a REAL barrier than the psychological barrier of the Gardiner will ever be. I had the chance to speak with one of the head planners with the City of Boston (mainly responsible for the final stages of the Big Dig and the creation of the park there afterwards), and when I showed him the plans for the Gardiner East removal, he just shook his head and said something very simple, which captured it perfectly: "you can't make 10 lanes of at-grade road look like and act like anything other than 10 lanes of at-grade road". In short, replacing a psychological barrier for an actual barrier is not something we want to be doing.

I definitely agree that Lakeshore sucks and if the outcome of all this is that we end up with a still-elevated Gardiner East but a much nicer Lakeshore underneath, it will at least be some improvement.

I still don't think there's anything particularly wrong with looking at taking down the elevated section in the east, however. There's been no one saying that the replacement roadway would have to be ten lanes.

People tend to get hung up on highways forming a 'complete network' and connecting with each other all over the place, but there's not a lot of logic behind it. It's not like the removal of the elevated section will mean it's impossible to go from the DVP to the Gardiner (or vice versa) - it just might take a few extra minutes.

2) The HOV lanes: The reason why HOV lanes are "empty" most of the time is because they're randomly scattered across the GTA. There is no coherent, seamless network of HOV lanes, and therefore they aren't enough of an incentive to make a valid reasoning to switch to carpooling. If you had HOV lanes on the 401, Gardiner, DVP, etc etc etc, then there may be more people willing to switch to carpooling to use them. A few lanes on the 403 doesn't do much when you have to wait in traffic anyways to merge onto the QEW or 401.

I'm not a big fan of HOV lanes in general, but the province loves them. If we're going to have them, I'd like to see better placement and, also, they should be running buses down them at frequent headways during morning and afternoon rush.

 

[Translude15]

I agree with your points GraphicMatt. What needs to be done if both the Gardiner and Lakeshore are integrated into one route, is the use of flyovers of other arterial roads OVER such a proposed merger and into the Waterfront area. People on top, cars on the bottom. It would ease the flow of traffic on Lakeshore and allow those wishing to hit up the waterfront easy accesiblity.

I know I've said it before, but Toronto really needs to follow a waterfront model similar to Chicago's. What they have done with their waterfront is spectacular and it works. Pedestrians and residents can enjoy the beautified waterfront and its many attractions, and the major expressway allows for movement of traffic.

The current state of our HOV lanes is a joke, but I believe the MTO is implementing more on the QEW in Oakville, as well as on the 401 west of the 403-410 interchange. More long term HOV lane expansion is also expected I presume.

 

[gweed123]

There's been no one saying that the replacement roadway would have to be ten lanes.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/434236

It's 12 lanes, not 10, my appologies. That's probably including turning lanes and such though. Either way, it would be difficult to cross, especially with young kids. Even in Boston, where the former expressway site is 2 one-way streets (2 lanes on each plus turning lanes) on opposite sides of a park that's around 20m wide, it's still semi-difficult to cross.

 

[MisterF]

I know I've said it before, but Toronto really needs to follow a waterfront model similar to Chicago's. What they have done with their waterfront is spectacular and it works. Pedestrians and residents can enjoy the beautified waterfront and its many attractions, and the major expressway allows for movement of traffic.

While much of Chicago's waterfront is spectacular, some big parts of it aren't. Much of the waterfront between Ontario St and the Gold Coast is nothing more than a concrete path between the highway and the water. Not very accessible or pleasant. I think the Harbourfront redesign in Toronto, with the wavedecks, new bridges, and Queen's Quay redesign, will be pretty spectacular as well.

 

[rbt]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/434236

It's 12 lanes, not 10, my appologies. That's probably including turning lanes and such though. Either way, it would be difficult to cross, especially with young kids. Even in Boston, where the former expressway site is 2 one-way streets (2 lanes on each plus turning lanes) on opposite sides of a park that's around 20m wide, it's still semi-difficult to cross.

Crossing is more a function of number of lights or crosswalks, speed of traffic, and timing of lights.

If they put the lights on 90 second timers (Lake Shore must be 3+ minutes in many locations today) and have lights every 250 meters; it might be pretty good.

Note, frequent lights also makes it significantly easier for drivers to get onto and off of the road. Congestion at on/off ramps is a serious problem with Gardiner today, which frequent cross streets would resolve.

 

[gweed123]

Yeah but shorter light frequencies on Lakeshore would negate its effectiveness as being a major arterial road. If you're going to have it replace the Gardiner, you'll need longer than 90 seconds, otherwise it'll just be stop and go the whole way, turning it into effectively a stop-and-go parking lot.

The only way to make it truly effective in that sense is to have the pedestrians not cross it at-grade (ie to have dedicated pedestrian overpasses, similar to what crosses Lakeshore at the CNE, only more bicycle and wheelchair/stroller friendly).