Roads: Keep the Gardiner, fix it, or get rid of it? (2005-2014)

[the lemur]

The Gardiner in Perspective

http://www.planningalliance.ca/node/533

If the Gardiner accounts for only 9% of traffic heading into the core at peak, where is all the rest of the traffic that it carries going, then and at other times?

If most of the traffic on the Gardiner across Toronto between, say, Bathurst to Parliament turns out be through traffic that doesn't exit, do we really then need the expense of maintaining an elevated expressway instead of sticking it in a trench or tunnel?

 

[nfitz]

If the Gardiner accounts for only 9% of traffic heading into the core at peak, where is all the rest of the traffic that it carries going, then and at other times?

What do you mean rest of the traffic? If the Gardiner is only 3-lanes wide, with a nominal capacity of 2,000 cars per lane per hour, then in a 2-hour rush-hour, it only has a capacity of 12,000 cars. Yet it is carrying 19,000 people ... which means that their rush-hour is longer than 7 AM to 9 AM (not sure what their period is), there's a lot more than 1 person per car, or that the highway is hugely over-capacity.

Either way ... I'm not sure what makes you think there is that much more than the 19,000 that isn't getting off somewhere between Spadina and DVP.

... do we really then need the expense of maintaining an elevated expressway instead of sticking it in a trench or tunnel?

Are tunnel maintenance costs cheaper than an elevated expressway? I'd have thought they would have been higher? Look at the eternal maintenance issues Montreal has on the Ville Marie or the Lafontaine Tunnels.

 

[rbt]

the 8 billion figure is a Adam Vaughan figure. I think its under a 99 year lease... I also don't think there were any stipulations on toll rates.
highway 407 was leased in 1999. So what is 3 billion 1999 $s in 2013? Maybe its comparable. I don't know. Maybe they figure the monopoly of owning the only major road into and out of Toronto is worth a premium.

The number was disclosed to the public by Adam Vaughan. It's a number city staff throw around when asked about quick ways of paying down the debt/assets sales and is obviously subject to terms/restrictions the city puts on it (like capping the toll).

The $8B estimate includes both Gardiner and the DVP.


50 years is my number and is the result of discounting profits in future years and typical construction lifetimes. If they want a 10% return (typical for large private projects) then the value today is about 1/1000th the annual profit 50 years out.

If they expect $1B in profit in 2062 then today that company would be willing to pay about $1M. It becomes worst the longer you go. Toronto would receive about $1,000 today for each $1B in profits the highways could generate at the end of 99 years. Unless the corporation takes a huge hit in their returns for the 50 to 99 year segment, there's no real value to the city.


Highway 407 isn't really going to a destination and 401 is a perfectly good alternative for most trips. Downtown Toronto is and will continue to be a very popular destination for drivers with large salaries, and has no fast alternative driving routes during off-peak periods aside from the signallized Lake Shore.

 

[the lemur]

What do you mean rest of the traffic? If the Gardiner is only 3-lanes wide, with a nominal capacity of 2,000 cars per lane per hour, then in a 2-hour rush-hour, it only has a capacity of 12,000 cars. Yet it is carrying 19,000 people ... which means that their rush-hour is longer than 7 AM to 9 AM (not sure what their period is), there's a lot more than 1 person per car, or that the highway is hugely over-capacity.

Either way ... I'm not sure what makes you think there is that much more than the 19,000 that isn't getting off somewhere between Spadina and DVP.

Are tunnel maintenance costs cheaper than an elevated expressway? I'd have thought they would have been higher? Look at the eternal maintenance issues Montreal has on the Ville Marie or the Lafontaine Tunnels.

What I mean, to put it a different way, is this: 28,000 vehicles (apparently) use the Gardiner during the AM peak to enter the city, yet the total volume for different sections over a 24-hr period is much higher. There has to be much more to the volume on the Gardiner than just the traffic using it during the morning rush (i.e., other times of day) and/or just to enter downtown (i.e., traffic passing through the city and/or entering/exiting outside the core).

I would sooner put my money on the issue being the highway being way over capacity rather than single occupancy, but not by much.

If the Gardiner really serves more as a way of bypassing the city instead of entering or leaving it, then perhaps it would function (just as well) without as many exits.

I mentioned a trench or tunnel as an alternative to elevation if the intention is to keep largely throughgoing traffic off surface streets and away from intersections; the main drawback of elevation is that neglect can result, as we have seen, in consequences for the roads, etc., located under the elevated portion. I would support simply bringing the Gardiner down to grade if there were still separation of local and express through traffic and sufficient means of crossing it at intervals.

 

[gweed123]

What do you mean rest of the traffic? If the Gardiner is only 3-lanes wide, with a nominal capacity of 2,000 cars per lane per hour, then in a 2-hour rush-hour, it only has a capacity of 12,000 cars. Yet it is carrying 19,000 people ... which means that their rush-hour is longer than 7 AM to 9 AM (not sure what their period is), there's a lot more than 1 person per car, or that the highway is hugely over-capacity.

Either way ... I'm not sure what makes you think there is that much more than the 19,000 that isn't getting off somewhere between Spadina and DVP.

Are tunnel maintenance costs cheaper than an elevated expressway? I'd have thought they would have been higher? Look at the eternal maintenance issues Montreal has on the Ville Marie or the Lafontaine Tunnels.

I thought standard vehicle lane capacities was 1,800 vehicles per hour? 1 vehicle every 2 seconds.

In either case, that only furthers your point that rush hour is longer than 7-9am.

 

[TOareaFan]

The number was disclosed to the public by Adam Vaughan. It's a number city staff throw around when asked about quick ways of paying down the debt/assets sales and is obviously subject to terms/restrictions the city puts on it (like capping the toll).

The $8B estimate includes both Gardiner and the DVP.

It might make more sense if it included the DVP too....but remember, capping the toll caps the revenue that can be expected and, therefore, puts a cap on the price.

Highway 407 isn't really going to a destination and 401 is a perfectly good alternative for most trips. Downtown Toronto is and will continue to be a very popular destination for drivers with large salaries, and has no major alternative routes.

And yet, there were 114 million trips on the 407 in 2010 (http://www5.407etr.com/about/background-information1.html ) that is how you drive revenue...number of trips.

50 years is my number and is the result of discounting profits in future years and typical construction cycles. If they want a 10% return then the value today is about 1/1000th the annual revenue 50 years out. So if they expect $1B in profit in 2062 then today they would be willing to pay $1M today.

That is how discounting works.......unlikely any road (particularly one with restrictions on the amount of tolls they can charge) has the potential of $1B per year in profits (I get that you were probably using that as a round number example of how the price would be arrived at) but even then you can see the impact discounting has on value.

I still believe that $8B is an exaggerated estimate of the value of the road(s).

 

[TOareaFan]

What I mean, to put it a different way, is this: 28,000 vehicles (apparently) use the Gardiner during the AM peak to enter the city, yet the total volume for different sections over a 24-hr period is much higher. There has to be much more to the volume on the Gardiner than just the traffic using it during the morning rush (i.e., other times of day) and/or just to enter downtown (i.e., traffic passing through the city and/or entering/exiting outside the core).

Again, that study used to produce the graphic above (and the conclusion that the road has a disproportionate perception of importance) only measured a subset of the people coming into the city...that is people who are coming in for work.

 

[rbt]

I thought standard vehicle lane capacities was 1,800 vehicles per hour? 1 vehicle every 2 seconds.

Highly dependent on the speed, number of intersections, etc.

Highways get closer to 2500 and a left-turn lane with no advanced green at a congested and signallized intersection is closer to 100.

 

[rbt]

And yet, there were 114 million trips on the 407 in 2010 (http://www5.407etr.com/about/background-information1.html ) that is how you drive revenue...number of trips.

Yes, but the risk is higher for the purchaser so their discount rate would also be higher.

We also didn't have any examples of a high tolling highway in the area, so how residents would respond to high rates was essentially unknown. Again, that raises the risk/discount rate.

Now that we know people are willing to pay Highway 407 rates (or higher for downtown) the value of the other highways goes up.

Also, keep in mind $3B in 1999 would be about $6.5B today.

 

[TOareaFan]

Yes, but the risk is higher for the purchaser so their discount rate would also be higher.

We also didn't have any examples of a high tolling highway in the area, so how residents would respond to high rates was essentially unknown. Again, that raises the risk/discount rate.

Now that we know people are willing to pay Highway 407 rates (or higher for downtown) the value of the other highways goes up.

Also, keep in mind $3B in 1999 would be about $6.5B today.

Another risk factor in the Gardiner purchase is that there are alternatives. Whether I do it consciously or not, each day I make a value decision on driving or taking the GO. The GO offers the predictability of schedule albeit at a direct/daily financial cost and with the limitations that it puts on my schedule. The driving option gives me more freedom/flexibility and does not have a daily/direct cash outlay. More days than not, I choose to drive.

Introducing tolls at any level skews that decision and who knows how I (and the many people like me) would decide. Unlike the the Gardiner, the 407 tends to be trips between places with less developed/palatable public transit options.

Again, inflation does does not affect the decision on pricing on purchase of these infrastructure assets. If the target/hurdle return rate of the investor was the same today as in 1999 and the income stream was identical then the price offered would be identical.

 

[nfitz]

I thought standard vehicle lane capacities was 1,800 vehicles per hour? 1 vehicle every 2 seconds.

2,000 and 1,800 are pretty close. The exact capacity is a function of many issues, including speed, lane width, shoulders, type of vehicle, frequency of ramps, etc. Could be up to 2,500 ... but with the narrower lanes on the Gardiner, and all the ramps, etc., I doubt we are at the high end. On the other hand, Torontonians driver far closer together than you see in many places, so perhaps that supports a higher number ...

Either way, I don't see much evidence that a lot of traffic is passing through. And how many of those that are coming from just outside? (Say Queen and Broadview), or Dufferin and King?

I believe there were detailed data on trips in one of the studies that Waterfront Toronto did, and then sat on for years.

 

[k10ery]

From David Wencer on twitter, and apropos to our discussion:

(No way the Gardiner is worth $8 billion, btw.)

 

[andrewpmk]

Another risk factor in the Gardiner purchase is that there are alternatives. Whether I do it consciously or not, each day I make a value decision on driving or taking the GO. The GO offers the predictability of schedule albeit at a direct/daily financial cost and with the limitations that it puts on my schedule. The driving option gives me more freedom/flexibility and does not have a daily/direct cash outlay. More days than not, I choose to drive.

Introducing tolls at any level skews that decision and who knows how I (and the many people like me) would decide. Unlike the the Gardiner, the 407 tends to be trips between places with less developed/palatable public transit options.

Again, inflation does does not affect the decision on pricing on purchase of these infrastructure assets. If the target/hurdle return rate of the investor was the same today as in 1999 and the income stream was identical then the price offered would be identical.

Privatizing the Gardiner or DVP without regulating toll rates is a bad idea. As we know with the 407, a private operator will raise toll rates to the point where the highway is used far below maximum capacity (particularly during off peak times), because a monopoly makes more profit from fewer cars paying a high toll rate than a larger number of cars paying a lower toll rate. Meanwhile parallel roads like the 401 and Highway 7 are severely congested at all times of day. Allowing a private operator to set toll rates on the Gardiner and DVP would lead them to be underused while causing severe congestion on Lake Shore, 401, Don Mills, Victoria Park, Bayview etc.

 

[TOareaFan]

Privatizing the Gardiner or DVP without regulating toll rates is a bad idea. As we know with the 407, a private operator will raise toll rates to the point where the highway is used far below maximum capacity (particularly during off peak times), because a monopoly makes more profit from fewer cars paying a high toll rate than a larger number of cars paying a lower toll rate. Meanwhile parallel roads like the 401 and Highway 7 are severely congested at all times of day. Allowing a private operator to set toll rates on the Gardiner and DVP would lead them to be underused while causing severe congestion on Lake Shore, 401, Don Mills, Victoria Park, Bayview etc.

That may well be......but you must accept, then, that the price any private sector investor will pay for the right to charge those limited tolls.

The more I think of it, the more I like the idea of maintaining the road in public hands with tolls set at a level, say, twice the annual maintenance cost of the road. Using technology we will know where the users are coming from.....allocate the other half of the tolls to transit projects geared towards improving their non-driving commuting options.

 

[Grimace]

I've come to the view (not that my view comes from any particular expertise in the area) that the Gardiner should come down at Spadina. Looking at all the Southcore development, it is a real shame that this area is hampered by an elevated expressway that rips through it. While the rail corridor is as big or bigger a barrier between the city proper and the waterfront, it is the Gardiner that cuts through a developing neighbourhood. This might be justified if the Gardiner east of Spadina was a key component of getting rush hour traffic in and out of the City, but I really don't think it is.

As someone who overlooks the Gardiner from my office (but who admittedly has no training in traffic studies), my observation (consistent with what some others have said in this thread) is that the main use of the elevated expressway east of Spadina is not to assist peak traffic into and out of the city at rush hour, but instead to permit the relatively unimpeded flow of through traffic at rush hour. If anything, the raised Gardiner serves as an impediment to people getting into and out of the City due to the limited access ramps.

Main rush hour traffic into the City gets off at Spadina, York, Bay and Yonge. The current plan as I understand it is to have all traffic come down at Spadina and Simcoe. The Spadina ramp with forced left turn is a mess. I was recently backed up here at 9:30 a.m. on a Saturday. I would be concerned about congestion on the Simcoe ramp if that is the sole exit for York, Bay and Yonge. But more than that, it makes clear that the sole purpose of the Gardiner east of Simcoe will be to serve through traffic or the Jarvis exit. This is a small amount of traffic, and does not justify an elevated expressway through what is soon to be a core part of the city. The Lakeshore/Gardiner east of Jarvis is essentially a double decker expressway serving traffic that could easily manage on 3 lanes each way with stoplights at Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry.

Much better to have everyone come down at Spadina with a major avenue thereafter and properly managed lights and turns without the complications caused by ramps, such as the difficulty getting into a left hand turn lane for Yonge (as an example).

The amount of traffic being sent into Southcore would have been much improved with the Front Street Extension, but even without that I think there is a definite possibility that getting rid of the Gardiner east of Spadina will help car commuters in the core.