Unofficial Proposals For Toronto Highway Expansions

[junctionist]

The Annex in the 1960s wasn't that affluent. By that time, it was a mix of intellectuals, some professionals, students and immigrants. It wasn't that different from today, though the Annex has gentrified somewhat and there are few immigrants. The people of the Annex were smart enough to turn their anti-Spadina campaign into a pro-transit campaign that also attracted professors and other people who didn't even live in the area. One of Canada's most famous intellectuals of all time, Marshall McLuhan, was an anti-Spadina advocate--see this fascinating anti-Spadina short film he made with Jane Jacobs called "The Burning Would". Many of the people didn't even drive that much and lived the traditional urban lifestyle themselves like Jane Jacobs. They knew the alternative to cars, expressways and sprawl was functional and practical.

A lot of people in Forest Hill wanted the expressway for a what they saw as an easy drive to their jobs downtown. Forest Hill not only had more affluent driver support but was easier to placate: a combination of short tunnels and ravine construction would have minimized the expressway's presence in that neighbourhood (in the view of planners and supporters). The ravines in Forest Hill are located NW-SE towards Spadina Road. From Spadina and St. Clair, it's a short run south to Davenport at Casa Loma, where the wealthy enclaves ended at the time for working class and mixed income neighbourhoods. That's where demolishing vast blocks of buildings and building the expressway trench would have been seen as easier to planners since poor people were less likely to disrupt their plans.

 

[adma]

From Spadina and St. Clair, it's a short run south to Davenport at Casa Loma, where the wealthy enclaves ended at the time for working class and mixed income neighbourhoods. That's where demolishing vast blocks of buildings and building the expressway trench would have been seen as easier to planners since poor people were less likely to disrupt their plans.

Plus, thanks to c19 grand-boulevard foresight, Spadina south of Bloor was already perfectly scaled for an expressway trench a la Montreal's Decarie. (And it's also the reason why buildings like New College came to turn their backs on Spadina.)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is a weird question you ask because I think you agree with me that it is bad that poorer people have less say....that's all I said. The quote you show is me saying that I think it is actually getting worse these days.

Oh. I thought you were saying his comments were getting worse. My bad

 

[middeljohn]

The only area of Toronto that could justify having a new highway built is the south side of Scarborough. Regardless of which method of transportation you choose, getting there is a pain.

Everywhere else in Toronto is adequately served, with highways that shouldn't be further widened. Even shoulder areas, where there isn't a highway close by, are well-served by boulevards and avenues. In fact, Scarborough might be better off upgrading their arterial routes instead of building a new highway.

The only regions where highways should be built or widened are in the 905. Milton to Oakville comes to mind as a region where a future highway will be needed. QEW is fine, 427 is fine, 400 is fine, 404 is fine. The province could consider building a Toronto by-pass route through the greenbelt, however after a second thought, all the cars that would take off the 401 would just get replaced again by people wanting to take advantage of the less demanded 401, leading to it becoming just as congested as it is now.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ring roads don't work unless they are tolled like the 407, but even then they don't really. The only highway expansions i really support are bottleneck fixers (404/DVP over the 401 as an example) and the expansion of the 401 in Mississauga to express/collectors, as well as some major HOV expansions. HOVs should (IMO) be installed on the 404 up to Stouffville road (as is currently planned), and especially on the 400 up to Barrie. HOVs to Barrie will be great at relieving cottage traffic on weekends while not allowing large amounts of additional commuting traffic from Barrie during the week. (this is because cottage traffic tends to be multiple people in a vehicle rather than commuting which is a single occupancy vehicle)

Widening the 401 to 4 lanes to Kitchener-Waterloo could also be justified IMO, but other than some more HOV lanes, I don't see many chances for expansion that don't heavily promote sprawl.

 

[salsa]

No matter how much money gets thrown at these highways, the traffic still sucks. Why can't our subway system get the same level of investment as the sprawl department?

 

[andrewpmk]

No matter how much money gets thrown at these highways, the traffic still sucks. Why can't our subway system get the same level of investment as the sprawl department?

This isn't entirely true. If you widen a highway than the traffic will still be bad, and traffic volumes will go up, but the traffic will probably not be as bad as it was before. There is a reason that the DVP between Eglinton and 401 is so notorious, it is only 3 lanes each way. Yes I know that the 401 (which is extremely wide) would seem like a counterexample, but keep in mind that the main alternative is an outrageously expensive toll road (407). If you lowered the 407 tolls, 401 traffic would get a bit better.

Look at Vancouver (which has very few highways) vs. a comparable sized US city. The traffic in the US city is much better than Vancouver. The US city has a much worse transit system but a much larger highway system. Also unaffordable housing in Vancouver probably causes people to live further from work than they otherwise would. This ought to contradict the claims that "building roads makes the traffic worse" etc.

 

[Transportfan]

Yup, building roads doesn't necessarily mean traffic will get worse. Look at old pics of the QEW where it ended at the Humber before the Gardiner was built. Traffic is much better there today.

 

[MisterF]

This isn't entirely true. If you widen a highway than the traffic will still be bad, and traffic volumes will go up, but the traffic will probably not be as bad as it was before. There is a reason that the DVP between Eglinton and 401 is so notorious, it is only 3 lanes each way. Yes I know that the 401 (which is extremely wide) would seem like a counterexample, but keep in mind that the main alternative is an outrageously expensive toll road (407). If you lowered the 407 tolls, 401 traffic would get a bit better.

Look at Vancouver (which has very few highways) vs. a comparable sized US city. The traffic in the US city is much better than Vancouver. The US city has a much worse transit system but a much larger highway system. Also unaffordable housing in Vancouver probably causes people to live further from work than they otherwise would. This ought to contradict the claims that "building roads makes the traffic worse" etc.

A counter example is Los Angeles, which has the most highways of any American city but the most congestion as well. They have figured out that you can't build your way out of highway congestion and now they're buildings subways and LRT at a much faster rate than Toronto. A well developed rail system may not reduce traffic on the highways, but it does give people a much more reliable way of getting around. Cities that invest heavily into highways are generally no less congested than cities that don't. This phenomenon has been widely studied and confirmed - if you make driving easier then more people will drive. It's simple supply and demand, the same principle as lowering the price on a product to make more people buy it. The same principle applies to transit as well.

 

[Long Island Mike]

A counter example is Los Angeles, which has the most highways of any American city but the most congestion as well. They have figured out that you can't build your way out of highway congestion and now they're buildings subways and LRT at a much faster rate than Toronto. A well developed rail system may not reduce traffic on the highways, but it does give people a much more reliable way of getting around. Cities that invest heavily into highways are generally no less congested than cities that don't. This phenomenon has been widely studied and confirmed - if you make driving easier then more people will drive. It's simple supply and demand, the same principle as lowering the price on a product to make more people buy it. The same principle applies to transit as well.

F: I agree with you about Los Angeles remembering the decision in the 1960s to end Pacific Electric rail service instead of updating and modernizing it...

It has cost them literally billions to restore what they have lost and it is a fraction of what the PE system had served in the LA Basin...

Thankfully Toronto has never gone down this route and having activists like Jane Jacobs help keep it that way...

LI MIKE

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

A counter example is Los Angeles, which has the most highways of any American city but the most congestion as well. They have figured out that you can't build your way out of highway congestion and now they're buildings subways and LRT at a much faster rate than Toronto. A well developed rail system may not reduce traffic on the highways, but it does give people a much more reliable way of getting around. Cities that invest heavily into highways are generally no less congested than cities that don't. This phenomenon has been widely studied and confirmed - if you make driving easier then more people will drive. It's simple supply and demand, the same principle as lowering the price on a product to make more people buy it. The same principle applies to transit as well.

Yea, but Toronto didn't develop its transit system and it has the worst congestion on the continent. Even dangerous Chicago has subways everywhere. And less congestion. You are right, but give the residents better options if you don't want them to drive.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yea, but Toronto didn't develop its transit system and it has the worst congestion on the continent. Even dangerous Chicago has subways everywhere. And less congestion. You are right, but give the residents better options if you don't want them to drive.

To ease congestion, take rapid transit or the GO Train. Or, live and work near your place of work, so you can walk there.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

To ease congestion, take rapid transit or the GO Train. Or, live and work near your place of work, so you can walk there.

Even if I lived closer to work, my job requires me to attend meetings all over the 416 and parts of the 905. Living closer to employment is not an option for me.

 

[adma]

Even if I lived closer to work, my job requires me to attend meetings all over the 416 and parts of the 905. Living closer to employment is not an option for me.

Though I'd let you off the hook w/a hypothetical counter-argument: if more people out there were to take rapid transit or GO, or to live close to work--with the option made viable and attractive to them, of course--your specialized commute would be easier, because there'd be "fewer of you"...

 

[MisterF]

Yea, but Toronto didn't develop its transit system and it has the worst congestion on the continent. Even dangerous Chicago has subways everywhere. And less congestion. You are right, but give the residents better options if you don't want them to drive.

Agreed, the answer is developing the transit system. That's why I brought up Los Angeles. They're the prototypical car city but even they have realized that more highways aren't the answer, and that transit is.