innsertnamehere
Superstar
Probably the first time there hasn't been traffic on this camera in 2 years or so during daylight hours:
|
|
|
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
Probably the first time there hasn't been traffic on this camera in 2 years or so during daylight hours:
generalcanada
Senior Member
I checked my old commute to/from markham today.
i know back in February it was an hour 15 home if I left at 5.
checked now its 45 minutes.
Its basically all green! Thats a crazy difference
i know back in February it was an hour 15 home if I left at 5.
checked now its 45 minutes.
Its basically all green! Thats a crazy difference
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I remember things being smooth sailing after the Pan Am HOV lanes were removed. It lasted about a month before everything got clogged up again. Enjoy the free-flowing traffic while it lasts!
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
That tracks. More lanes being open incentives people to drive who might have otherwise used an alternate way to commute. I recall studying this in land economics. Which is why it's odd when Kingsett's CEO argues (on Linkedin for some reason) for the removal of bike lanes. All this time, I should have just signed him up for a land economics course and he would have calmed right down. I'm sure of it!
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The traffic with the closure was far far worse than it ever was pre-construction - I’m sure it’ll get worse than it was yesterday when most people didn't even realize it was open.
"induced demand" is like the standard economics supply and demand curve - increasing supply at a lower cost (less travel time) will inevitably lead to increased demand. But like doubling production of a product which is constantly sold out, you will sell more, but you may not sell out quite as quickly.
Similarly, removing supply and jacking prices (removing lanes) will cause reduced demand - but that demand may not decrease linearly with the removed production capacity.
The Gardiner will go back to it's "old habits" now and will be quite congested as it always was, but that congestion will still be significantly less than it was during the closure.
Haljackey
Active Member
So... should have "one more lane bro'd" the rebuilt section? That would have added time and cost to the project but could have yielded a continuous aux lane between interchanges. You'd get more weaving however.
Is there at least a shoulder now as part of this work? That would help things move considerably if there's a breakdown/crash.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
no structural changes were made to the highway - and I never said they should have added a lane. There isn't really space and it would be prohibitively expensive to widen anyway, and besides, it would result in just funneling more cars into the limited downtown road network which doesn't have capacity.
Traffic on the Gardiner when it's at 6 lanes generally isn't as bad as you would initially think it would be (the DVP is far worse, for example) mostly because there isn't anywhere for the cars to go once they get downtown.
The Gardiner could use some modernization around how the downtown interchanges function like the York Onramp/Spadina offramp westbound weave, but generally I don't think it needs to be more than 6 lanes.
Traffic on the Gardiner when it's at 6 lanes generally isn't as bad as you would initially think it would be (the DVP is far worse, for example) mostly because there isn't anywhere for the cars to go once they get downtown.
The Gardiner could use some modernization around how the downtown interchanges function like the York Onramp/Spadina offramp westbound weave, but generally I don't think it needs to be more than 6 lanes.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
The only improvement I wish they had made was extending the on-ramp at Jameson. The configuration during construction where the ramp just became its own lane was amazing for getting Lakeshore traffic moving.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Yes, agreed. It's an easy fix too, they just need to get the permanent Dowling pedestrian bridge in place. But like many things with the City, the "temporary" fix is increasingly permanent.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
It's insane that the Dowling pedestrian bridge has remained temporary this long. In November, It will be 10 years since it was demolished and, function aside, it looks like a pile of garbage.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
To be fair to the City a lot of the blame can be placed on Metrolinx who has been holding up the City on replacing Dufferin and Dowling while they try to figure out what they want an eventual western extension of the Ontario Line to look like, but there is still plenty of blame to go around.
nfitz
Superstar
]Gosh - I've only just realized that that abutment I've been dodging for 30+ years is the same bridge that's now pedestrian. I'm normally too busy focusing on the traffic and impending sudden breaking.
So I assume that will always be pedestrian in the future?
Garbage! It's pure art!
At this rate it will get Heritage Property protection!
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Land economics studies on highways actually suggest induced demand brings things back to a congested state within a couple years, as so many people (me included) were avoiding the Gardiner during these lane closures. (I honestly only will use it if I am taking someone to the airport, otherwise it is transit always that gets me places faster from the east side.) Adding lanes is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.
Personally, I would far prefer we funneled more moolah in to transit to achieve European levels of service, full on transit priority for LRTs/Trams, and removed highways that travel through our downtown, but that's me and I realize I may just have to move elsewhere to experience that zen I seek. I am fully for disincentivizing people from driving downtown altogether.
T3G
Senior Member
But you realize that removing the highway would also thoroughly screw over all the people who use GO buses to get into the city, right?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
People say this but it just doesn't bear true - especially not in areas that don't have high population growth where demand predictably increases with population.
I mean you can see it with the Gardiner itself. 2 years of closures and traffic remained substantially worse than immediately pre-closure. That traffic didn't evaporate entirely. Much of it did, but not entirely. The same thing goes in inverse - new infrastructure induces more trips (this is true with transit too!) but does not automatically mean traffic will return to the same level of congestion. The Gardiner reopening will now induce more car trips than were running on it last week for sure - but overall traffic and travel times will remain below previous ones too.
Frankly the east end of the city is the most difficult part of the City to drive in, especially post-demolition of the Lakeshore ramps. it's not a surprise transit is faster, but that's not always true for most people. A lot of people and goods simply have to drive as well as they are bringing things which aren't practical on transit - dump trucks, construction equipment, etc. will still need a way to get downtown.
Urban Expressways even in Europe are more common than many portray here as well, though they do tend to go a bit further from the immediate downtown. Paris has the Blvd Périphérique which would run around Toronto roughly from the DVP to High Park and across around Eglinton in terms of size, Berlin has the A100 (recently extended closer to downtown!), Amsterdam the A10 loop, Barcelona the B10, etc.
The cities in Europe without big urban expressways (i.e. London) have large, congested arterials that are equally unfun places to spend time around.
In places like downtowns we shouldn't be building massive expressway networks so everyone can drive downtown. We know what that results in south of the border (even then, some cities like Chicago still have ~80% of people driving into the City and it's still a relatively successful urban place) - but pretending we can live in a car-free utopia in 2025 is also a folly. We need a reasonable amount of highway capacity in inner cities to shift freight traffic off of local roads and allow local streets to be more people-focused. Induced demand is also something which is thrown around like it's some indisputable fact everywhere online while in reality it's a wild misinterpretation of data. Induced demand is real - it's just not infinite and the infinite part is what people get wrong.
new car infrastructure DOES:
1. induce new car trips
2. Encourage people to drive more often and set lifestyle habits around driving more often (i.e. living further outside of the city instead of an apartment downtown)
3. create economic growth
4. improve transportation choices and mobility
5. Even with increased demand, result in more people getting to their destination in a method of transport they prefer (otherwise they wouldn't be making the trip)
new car infrastructure DOES NOT:
1. automatically induce so many car trips to completely offset travel time gains. Perhaps travel times remain the same, but the infrastructure would then be supporting a much larger population (i.e. Houston with the most often quoted Katy Freeway) and travel times would have declined without the infrastructure.
2. create the kinds of cities we generally want to see.
3. Induce so many trips that the economic value of the infrastructure remains the same (even if travel times remain the same, more people are making the trip!).
Last edited: