Extending Hwy 400 South

[TOareaFan]

He didn't claim that GO trains would eliminate congestion. Cities with the best transit systems are still crazy congested!

Exactly. It won't eliminate congestion, it'll just provide a more viable alternative.

I agree but our, limited, experience here is that it is not an option taken up by enough people to have a significant impact on congestion.

 

[pman]

407 was built using tax money, then sold off. no way a private company would have funded to build the 407 from the beginning

Why not? Private companies build, own and operate highways in other countries.

 

[howl]

A city that is only accessible by automobile will reach a congestion point and then all upward growth (more density) will effectively stop. Adding more highways won't fix the congestion problem, it will only make it worse. To keep growing a city must find alternative ways to get people into the city centre (e.g. transit, bicycles, boats, monorails). The number of cars coming into the city will remain the same (and the congestion will remian the same), but the number of people will increase. Another option is to eliminate the commute and have people live downtown.

 

[pman]

Like it or not, of the roughly 5.5 million people in the GTA, around 3 million live in 905. They're not going to move downtown and it's unlikely they'll adopt transit-centric lifestyles in their low density suburbs. At least a couple of cities that generally score higher on quality of life than Toronto (back to Australia) have added private sector toll tunnels to the transport mix, and they're still considered much better than we are in most surveys. Why wouldn't we at least consider their experience rather than rejecting it out of hand?

 

[doady]

Like it or not, of the roughly 5.5 million people in the GTA, around 3 million live in 905. They're not going to move downtown and it's unlikely they'll adopt transit-centric lifestyles in their low density suburbs.

I guess that explains why the low-density suburbs of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough have such high transit use, and the increasing transit ridership per capita of the 905 systems and GO Transit in the past 6-7 years.

 

[gweed123]

I agree but our, limited, experience here is that it is not an option taken up by enough people to have a significant impact on congestion.

There will always be an equilibrium. There will always be congestion, because if there weren't, more people would say "hey, it's a clear drive into work, I think I'll drive instead". Eventually, enough people think this that the highway becomes clogged again.

The goal is to create a public transit system that is a good option, not the least worst option.

 

[TOareaFan]

There will always be an equilibrium. There will always be congestion, because if there weren't, more people would say "hey, it's a clear drive into work, I think I'll drive instead". Eventually, enough people think this that the highway becomes clogged again.

The goal is to create a public transit system that is a good option, not the least worst option.

I am not opposed to the goal.....and, for the record, I am far more likely to support more of my tax money (or higher taxes in general) to fund new transit than I am to fund new roads........I just am becoming increasingly worried these days (just based on observation and anecdotal stuff) that we have become so deeply rooted in car mode and so used to that that we may be beyond the point of transit every not being the worst (in the perception of the commuter(s) ) option.

Hope I am wrong!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

pman:

At least a couple of cities that generally score higher on quality of life than Toronto (back to Australia) have added private sector toll tunnels to the transport mix, and they're still considered much better than we are in most surveys.

Is their QoL a result of having private sector toll tunnels though? You are implying causality in that statement.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

pman:



Is their QoL a result of having private sector toll tunnels though? You are implying causality in that statement.

AoD

I don't think he was. He was suggesting, IMO, that those cities have QoL ratings that seem pretty good and they have private sector tunnels....while we dismiss the notion of even looking at similar things.

I didn't get the impression he was saying those tunnels, in and of themselves lead to a better life....but that it appears that they don't, either, automatically mean life is hell.

I thought a similar thing a couple of months ago. I happened to read two threads in a row (forget which they were)....the first one was going down a very familiar "why can't we be more like Chicago" path and the next one was all "elevated transit kills cities"...some of the people posting in them, I noticed, were the same people.....anyone who has visited Chicago might understand why I was shaking my head a bit.

pman might be saying....."cities we seem to admire, have some elements that we seem to despise....yet they still seem pretty happy" (note to pman...sorry for, perhaps, putting words in your mouth but I think we might be thinking the same way here).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, better weather certainly helps their cause. Besides, we already have a tolled highway (407) and we still didn't beat the Aussies. I don't think highway access, tolled or otherwise make for a good indicator for QoL, period.

AoD

 

[MisterF]

Like it or not, of the roughly 5.5 million people in the GTA, around 3 million live in 905. They're not going to move downtown and it's unlikely they'll adopt transit-centric lifestyles in their low density suburbs. At least a couple of cities that generally score higher on quality of life than Toronto (back to Australia) have added private sector toll tunnels to the transport mix, and they're still considered much better than we are in most surveys. Why wouldn't we at least consider their experience rather than rejecting it out of hand?

And London has no highways leading to its centre at all, and it's the financial capital of Europe. Just like new highways downtown don't necessarily destroy quality of life, they're also completely unnecessary. As for the suburbs, transit ridership and density are increasing. But suburban driving habits have nothing to do with whether we need a third highway downtown. If there's a fast, reliable alternative to driving downtown, even hardcore suburbanites will take it. Especially in rush hour.

By the way, those quality of life surveys rate Melbourne as only marginally higher than Toronto. Hardly any difference at all. Just from a quick look at google, it looks like that downtown tunnel doesn't dump traffic onto other highways the way a 400 extension would with the Gardiner.

I agree but our, limited, experience here is that it is not an option taken up by enough people to have a significant impact on congestion.

That's kind of the point. No matter how many people take up the option (and it seems like demand is higher than supply on pretty much every GO line), the highways will still be congested.

 

[andrewpmk]

And London has no highways leading to its centre at all, and it's the financial capital of Europe. Just like new highways downtown don't necessarily destroy quality of life, they're also completely unnecessary. As for the suburbs, transit ridership and density are increasing. But suburban driving habits have nothing to do with whether we need a third highway downtown. If there's a fast, reliable alternative to driving downtown, even hardcore suburbanites will take it. Especially in rush hour.

By the way, those quality of life surveys rate Melbourne as only marginally higher than Toronto. Hardly any difference at all. Just from a quick look at google, it looks like that downtown tunnel doesn't dump traffic onto other highways the way a 400 extension would with the Gardiner.


That's kind of the point. No matter how many people take up the option (and it seems like demand is higher than supply on pretty much every GO line), the highways will still be congested.

I am not opposed to the goal.....and, for the record, I am far more likely to support more of my tax money (or higher taxes in general) to fund new transit than I am to fund new roads........I just am becoming increasingly worried these days (just based on observation and anecdotal stuff) that we have become so deeply rooted in car mode and so used to that that we may be beyond the point of transit every not being the worst (in the perception of the commuter(s) ) option.

Hope I am wrong!

Many great cities have both though. Think Madrid for instance, it has a very extensive subway/commuter rail/light rail system that covers virtually all the urban area, it also has a very extensive motorway network including a short section of tunnel on the inner ring road (M-30). In cities with high investment in both, public transport and roads serve very different purposes, with transit largely serving travel to and within dense urban centres while roads serving more suburb to suburb traffic, travel to industrial areas and commercial vehicle/truck traffic. Transit will never come close to eliminating the need for cars. Typically cities like Madrid with excellent transit have about a 50-50 split between public transport and car travel.

Now if we are investing scarce public funds we should be spending them on transit, but it ought to be possible to at least partially fund a tolled 400 road tunnel from just south of Eglinton to the Gardiner near Parkside Dr (about 6km), plus fully grade separating Black Creek Dr from Eglinton to the 401, with private funding. This is one of the most obvious gaps in Toronto's highway network, and I don't think that building this really hurts the public transport network at all. My perception is that the suburbs have long underinvested in transit and a lot of investment is needed, particularly major expansion of GO Transit and improving suburban bus service, but that this is quite fixable. However the downtown core has been dominated by anti-car types and has underinvested in roads (though it needs a lot of transit investment as well). Think the endless proposals to tear down the Gardiner, the cancellation of the Front Street Extension, the cancellation of proposals to widen the DVP from 3 to 4 lanes each way, the narrowing of 4 lane roads to 2 lanes + an underused bicycle lane, and the "pedestrian scrambles" downtown that create huge traffic jams.

London is not an example that we want to emulate. Due to its terrible road network (worst of any major city in the developed world I think) and having the highest parking costs in the world and very high congestion charge people are basically forced to use London's extensive but very mediocre transit system despite overcrowding, endless technical problems on the tube, endless weekend tube maintenance, and high fares. Also London has an insanely high cost of living because of ridiculously strict greenbelt regulations, forcing people to commute very long distances to work.

 

[Chuck]

The gridlock that exists in the Keele/Weston/Rogers/St. Clair area doesn't have to do with traffic volume alone, it has to do with poor road design - there are just too many intersections in too small an area that feature very heavy left turning movements. If we start from scratch using the existing road space, I'm sure that it would be very easy to give more priority to traffic on Black Creek/Weston, while at the same time making better use of streets such as Gunn's Road to handle left turns. Maybe a short flyover connecting Black Creek to Weston just south of Old Weston would help too.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Bringing a car downtown means we will need more real estate set aside for parking (156.7 sq.ft. per car, not counting the aisle). A waste of space, both when used by a ton of steel during the day and empty during the night and weekends.

 

[UD2]

My reason for building such a link is to ease off the traffic on the 401 west, 427 south and Gardiner East conbo. Also the 401 East, DVP south combo.

The highway doesn't even need to be a large highway, a priviately funded tolled 2 lane throughway with minimal number of exits should suffice. The idea is not to provide a 427 relief line, but to provide a proper option for people to get downtown when they really need to.

Also, when I did my map research prior to my proposal, I've noticed that the corridor mainly travels through industrial areas that are already segergated by the railroad. The new highway would prove to be of minimal interferance to the currently average status quo.