Highway Expansion

[jswag]

What should be a priority is cleaning up all the bottlenecks in the existing system. Building new highways adds capacity but only serves to worsen the bottlenecks. I work in an office with a view of the Gardiner and it is an almost constant backlog on the offramps. A few TDM measures such as stoplight timing as well as maybe adding a lane to the ramp would easily fix it.

Focussing on minor alterations to fix these bottlenecks will result in limited disruption to users and residents and an increase in capacity.

 

[GTS]

Agree totally with you JSWAG. I am a public transit fan but I realize that our highways part of our transportation system, how else do the regional buses get around.

One bottleneck I would like to see remedied is the jam just north of Wynford Drive on the Northbound Don Valley. When the DVP goes under the freight-rail bridge and just before the highway reaches the commutor-rail bridge the Wynford Dr. on ramp merges onto the DVP. If the commuter rail were modified or if 4 lanes can fit under it, it would make sense for the Wynford Dr. on ramp to share a lane with the Lawrence East off ramp(their is enough room that the two flows of traffic wouldn't conflict too much). I think if this small alteration were done to the DVP-the amount of fuel and time that would be saved would make this highway much more efficient.

Another, but bigger, modification I would like to see is another tunnel be built for the Wynford Dr. offramp on the Southbound DVP. The amount of traffic that wouldn't have to go through that 3 lane freight-rail tunnel would alleviate some of the bottlenecking on the southbound. It is a little more expensive then the first suggestion but it too would help speed up the DVP on some troublesome spots.

 

[doady]

There is as much wrong with a "transit-only no-road" policy as there is with a "no-transit, road only" one.

A history of "no-transit, road only" policies must be balanced out by a "transit only" policy.

 

[Whoaccio]

A history of "no-transit, road only" policies must be balanced out by a "transit only" policy.

Toronto must have spent more money on Transit than on roads. When was the last major road project we engaged in? Since the Spadina Expressway, we have built billions of dollars of subway (even if it doesn't look like it on a map). The best period for mobility in Toronto was when we built both transit and road during the 50s & 60s.

 

[MisterF]

There have been many kilometres of new highway built in Toronto in the last 40 years. Toronto doesn't stop at the municipal border. If you're talking about central Toronto, then it's a good thing that no new highways have been built in that area. Highways are the worst way to get around in the central part of a major city, and central Toronto doesn't need any more of them. The best days for mobility in Toronto are ahead of us, with significant upgrades of GO into an electrified express rail system. That's the future, not more highways.

If we built a two lane viaduct over the rail corridor south from Eglinton & BCD, no neighborhoods or parks would be bisected that aren't already bisected by an incredibly unappealing railway corridor. Land acquisition would be relatively minimal, as it would be on a rail row and the higher costs could be quite easily recouped through tolling. If it was half as congested as you imagine it would be, then it could most definitely turn a profit. How much could it possibly cost, 1, 2b? The 407 cost 1.6b and traveled 100+km. At the end of the day, the 7km from Eglinton to the Gardiner is not a major project.

The railways are extremely protective of their rights of way and would never let a highway be built on top of one of them. But if for the sake of the argument a new highway did get built as you're proposing, it would easily be as congested as I imagine it to be. Building new highways in urban areas generates more traffic and ends up not improving mobility at all. The issue isn't whether a new road will be profitable, it's whether a new road is the best way to provide mobility.

Like jswag says, a new highway like you're proposing would only create new bottlenecks and make existing ones worse. The streets around the new interchanges would become much more congested as well, and don't underestimate the amound of land needed for interchanges.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto must have spent more money on Transit than on roads. When was the last major road project we engaged in? Since the Spadina Expressway, we have built billions of dollars of subway (even if it doesn't look like it on a map).

When? Major subway construction ended in the 1970s. Since then all we've had the 4-5 stations on Sheppard, and Downsview Station. The recent 401 widening work from 427 to Leslie was over $400 million. The 401 collector lane construction in Toronto in the 1990s must have cost more than the Sheppard subway. How much did that rebuild of the Gardiner east of Mimico cost?

 

[lordmandeep]

However either highway 400 should be widened or 427 extended as there are a millions people going North on those weekends and they are the lifeline to a lot of those northern communities up there.

 

[dunkalunk]

^Why not just put in reversible lanes?

 

[Chuck]

If there's one thing that Toronto is lacking, it's express anything. There are relatively few highways. There are no express subway lines. There's no commuter rail during the day in most of the city. No matter how you choose to get around, Toronto is a slow city.

Twin the Yonge subway with express subway tracks. Build more subways northwest and northeast. Introduce all day commuter rail service. And yes, extend the 400 south. Just get people moving again, and not on 4 lane roads or at subway stations spaced 500 metres apart.

 

[lead82]

I couldn't agree more. It's only going to get slower in the future.

 

[MisterF]

^And new highways to the core will do nothing to alleviate that, since new urban highways generate new traffic. All they'll do is give people new places to sit in traffic. New highways make no sense for intracity travel. They do make sense for intercity travel, like to the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood/Owen Sound area, although that area should be served by rail as well.

 

[RedRocket191]

There's the concept of triple convergence...

If you create new capacity people who travel at a different time, mode or route will converge on the new capacity.

I agree with Mr. F. Building new highway capacity in the urban area will encourage more people to drive. Convenience and cost are two selling features of transit lines, but there is a significant amount of people who will only give up their cars because they perceive the trains to be faster. If we want to attract choice riders to transit, then building more highway capacity runs against that goal.

 

[Whoaccio]

^And new highways to the core will do nothing to alleviate that, since new urban highways generate new traffic. All they'll do is give people new places to sit in traffic. New highways make no sense for intracity travel. They do make sense for intercity travel, like to the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood/Owen Sound area, although that area should be served by rail as well.

I'm still not sure how valid the concept of induced demand is. It is obvious that an increase in supply (in this case, of road space) will result in lower costs of travel and hence increased quantity demanded. Isn't that true of every good though? If Intel starts churning out more chips, all things being equal, demand will pick up depending on the elasticity. Isn't this the entire point of the economy? I am the first to admit that this effect is often exaggerated on highways because of the pricing scheme, or the lack thereof. Congestion is not so much a result of induced demand but faulty pricing. Any good offered at zero cost will suffer supply shortages (resulting in congestion). If we priced goods accordingly, or better yet allowed the market to determine pricing, congestion should decrease as consumers would be forced to internalize previously external cost and make more rational choices.

I agree with Mr. F. Building new highway capacity in the urban area will encourage more people to drive. Convenience and cost are two selling features of transit lines, but there is a significant amount of people who will only give up their cars because they perceive the trains to be faster. If we want to attract choice riders to transit, then building more highway capacity runs against that goal.

Doesn't this run against the stated goal of transportation planning though, to allow the transportation of goods in the cheapest and most efficient manner? I ride the subway because it is the cheapest option for me to get to work (measured in both the cost of my time and direct costs). If we limit supply of road space, will people use transit more or just travel less? Conventional theory would suggest more activity would be simply lost than shunted to transit, no? Perhaps worse, to what extent would trips be shunted from, say, Suburb-Downtown to Suburb-Suburb? I don't mean to sound like Dichotomy, but it is true that the 416 hasn't really kept pace with the 905 in terms of job growth, though I don't want to suggest a few km of highways will turn Toronto into New York or anything like that.

 

[GTS]

Toronto Star article

Their is an article in today's Toronto Star called 'Road tolls called 'inevitable''. The article cited some examples of different urban areas around Europe and the US that are using tolls to help pay for these expensive pieces of a city's infrastructure. The article is written by Tess Kalinowski, the transportation reporter, who writes why Germany is using tolls. Trucks were travelling through Germany without refuelling because you could make it across that country on one tank of fuel in some areas apparently. Trucks were using Germany's highway and wearin it out, but, weren't paying for this use because they weren't refuelling in that country. To solve this they have in place a Satellite based toll that bills the users by different methods other then fuel tax. Europe is trying to put in place a whole unified system once everyone gets on board. If you want to read this informative article on the future of highways here in ON their is a link on the Spacing Toronto website if you want to read it yourself.

I have read elsewhere that the birthplace of the 'freeway', California, is thinking of introducing road tolls for their massive highway system to help pay for its own public transit expansion.

I lived in Vancouver for 15 years and one thing that I appreciate about Toronto's layout since moving here a few years ago is that their is a highway link right to the core unlike the Vancouver system. I am a public transit fan but I am of the thought that our highways, like them or not, are part of any city's transportation system.

 

[Chuck]

We need to stop comparing ourselves to cities like London because guess what? We're not London. To compare Toronto to a world city is laughable.

Highways are a crucial part of the GTA's transportation system, albeit less so than other North American cities. Existing highways shouldn't be widened, however new access should be provided in a few isolated instances such as the 400 extension. Remember that highway congestion can be controlled by implementing tolls. Those tolls can then pay for new transit projects such as all day commuter rail and express subways.