Off Off Topic: Cool Toronto People's Thread

[Zach6668 513]

edit - it's 5000 CARS and 120,000 people... which is interesting. I wonder if that counts buses? Average car occupancy is like 1.2 people - wonder if that's more or less during peak... I bet in most cities it would be less, but here, don't know.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

edit - it's 5000 CARS and 120,000 people... which is interesting. I wonder if that counts buses? Average car occupancy is like 1.2 people - wonder if that's more or less during peak... I bet in most cities it would be less, but here, don't know.

 

There are a lot of Go Buses that use that stretch and then up the DVP

[Zach6668 513]

Yeah, which is the only way that number makes a ton of sense.

 

So 3-4 minute delay for them too, theoretically.

 

I remember that 10-minute U of T study coming out, but it was soundly mocked by my twitter people (biased), so I don't know. Was it Eric Miller? I have no respect for him after he shilled for Tory's SmartTrack. I wouldn't put it past him to cook the numbers (ie, tweak the model inputs) to show whatever would help convince people of a position that he (and Tory) want.

[Zach6668 513]

The capital costs for the rebuild (hybrid) and tear down are only about 20% higher for the rebuild. The doubled price includes 100 years of maintenance costs and not done at net present value so it's apples to oranges. So saying it's twice as expensive is not quite correct.

 

This is from the Matt Elliott MetroNews article you linked. (Btw, Elliott is a good reporter, I trust him)

 

 

How is it not apples to apples if both figures include lifecycle costs? That's an important part of this. One has massive regular maintenance costs, the other doesn't.

 

100 years is a ridiculous term to pick. I can't imagine it'll stay up that long at the rate our transportation technology changes. We barely had cars 100 years ago. Good chance we don't have them (as you'd think of them today) in even 25 years.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Yeah, which is the only way that number makes a ton of sense.

 

So 3-4 minute delay for them too, theoretically.

 

I remember that 10-minute U of T study coming out, but it was soundly mocked by my twitter people (biased), so I don't know. Was it Eric Miller? I have no respect for him after he shilled for Tory's SmartTrack. I wouldn't put it past him to cook the numbers (ie, tweak the model inputs) to show whatever would help convince people of a position that he (and Tory) want.

 

I think the biggest difference in the studies is assumptions about pedestrian crossing times on the Boulevard. There are also assumptions in the models that show little difference in travel time that every piece of public transit that is contemplated will be completed included Go RER (Smart Track), Relief Line Subway and various Waterfront LRT's. If those aren't in place you would have to think the travel times will be delayed even further with the tear down.

[Zach6668 513]

(Btw, I think the Hybrid cost has gone up since that article, as they've tweaked the design since then)

[FCP Bob 1,312]

This is from the Matt Elliott MetroNews article you linked. (Btw, Elliott is a good reporter, I trust him)

 

 

How is it not apples to apples if both figures include lifecycle costs? That's an important part of this. One has massive regular maintenance costs, the other doesn't.

 

100 years is a ridiculous term to pick. I can't imagine it'll stay up that long at the rate our transportation technology changes. We barely had cars 100 years ago. Good chance we don't have them (as you'd think of them today) in even 25 years.

 

It's the 100 years that ridiculous. No question ongoing maintenance of elevated expressways is higher but again over 100 years what is the value in reduced wasted time from having a higher capacity limited access expressway.

[Zach6668 513]

Two important snippets from the rest of that Metro article:

 

In other words, without any major transit improvements, virtually all existing transit routes and roads in the downtown will be at or over capacity by 2031. That would be the much-feared traffic chaos.

 

and

 

When I consider infrastructure like this, I like to imagine a reverse scenario: in a world where there was no elevated roadway link between the Gardiner at Jarvis and the DVP, would it make sense to incur all the upfront and ongoing maintenance costs to build one?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

If all roads are going to be over capacity does it make sense to reduce capacity by tearing down the only uninterrupted expressway link ?

 

It's like the induced demand argument that car haters often use.

 

Well you can't add another lane to that highway because it too will just get crowded as well. Yes it will but that will still mean x % more people will be using and benefiting from it so the capacity and utility have increased even if the time it takes an individual vehicle to go a certain distance might not have improved that much.

[Zach6668 513]

If all roads are going to be over capacity does it make sense to reduce capacity by tearing down the only uninterrupted expressway link ?

 

It's like the induced demand argument that car haters often use.

 

Well you can't add another lane to that highway because it too will just get crowded as well. Yes it will but that will still mean x % more people will be using and benefiting from it so the capacity and utility have increased even if the time it takes an individual vehicle to go a certain distance might not have improved that much.

 

Sure, but you're better off spending that money on a more efficient form of transportation.

 

 

 

Induced demand is another super overused and misunderstood concept.

[Zach6668 513]

A lot of it is a conversation problem.

 

We start with a goal of "reducing congestion", you know, because votes.

 

The real problem is how do we move 2.6 million people every day with a limited amount of money and even more limited physical space. Then plan on continuing the rapid growth of the city... where does that land you? It's not on continuously widening highways. It's not on building subways to empty fields in Vaughan.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Sure, but you're better off spending that money on a more efficient form of transportation.

 

 

 

Induced demand is another super overused and misunderstood concept.

 

who says that.

 

Highways aren't about commuting only and it's one of my pet peeves with the "urbanist" attitude to things. They never consider the needs of commerce and industry. Should be add a lane to an expressway heading into downtown, of course not. Should we increase capacity of the expressways outside the core in areas of industry and growing population. Of course we should. I really wish more of these people got above St Clair and looked at the traffic on the 400 series highways and saw how much of it are trucks. Highway capacity is the lifeblood of Ontario industry.

[Zach6668 513]

(I realize I should evaluate person throughput rather than vehicle throughput. For illustration, I am assuming 1 person per motor vehicle, which is a bit pessimistic, in practice it is closer to 1.1 for work trips and 1.5 all day).

 

Above just to validate my earlier guess about people per car. I said 1.2, and guess that work trips were lower than all trips total, which seems true.

 

https://transportationist.org/2016/03/30/on-why-bike-lanes-might-appear-underutilized/

[Zach6668 513]

who says that.

 

Highways aren't about commuting only and it's one of my pet peeves with the "urbanist" attitude to things. They never consider the needs of commerce and industry. Should be add a lane to an expressway heading into downtown, of course not. Should we increase capacity of the expressways outside the core in areas of industry and growing population. Of course we should. I really wish more of these people got above St Clair and looked at the traffic on the 400 series highways and saw how much of it are trucks. Highway capacity is the lifeblood of Ontario industry.

 

Well that's not what we're talking about. Urbanists talk about cities, specifically cores. We don't talk about about intercity good transport. That's not our main goal. Our main goal is to stop shoving rural transportation policies into urban environments. I agree with you, though. We will just snap judge any new highway or widening, ie whatever the highway was out to the west. It's a valid point, you make.

 

Though, I have been driving on the 400-series highways a decent amount (for me) lately, at various times, and haven't seen any real congestion, luckily. This is purely an anecdote. I think I missed rush hours.

[Babying 613]

Last weekend it was the drain. Today it is the furnace going down #homeownership

[mrdannyg 274]

Home ownership is seriously such a joke. You gotta fix everything, replace everything, shovel and sweep and mow and weed. We're all idiots for not living in apartments and having that stuff centralized. Seriously, how much more efficient would our entire lives be if every neighbourhood just had one guy with a commercial lawnmower and plow (and maybe a couple kids to do walkways).

[Zach6668 513]

Home ownership is seriously such a joke. You gotta fix everything, replace everything, shovel and sweep and mow and weed. We're all idiots for not living in apartments and having that stuff centralized. Seriously, how much more efficient would our entire lives be if every neighbourhood just had one guy with a commercial lawnmower and plow (and maybe a couple kids to do walkways).

 

Commie.

[Zach6668 513]

Moving day!!!!!

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Moving day!!!!!

 

don't block the bike lane with your truck

[Zach6668 513]

No bike lane, but will be in a no parking spot. Lol

[Zach6668 513]

This was a pretty good article from a year ago when the decision was being made that I think balances things.

http://www.metronews...all-debate.html

 

Same guy, today.

 

http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/views/toronto/urban-compass-matt-elliott/2016/04/03/toronto-infrastructure-mistakes-are-massive-.html?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FawHBPoHdQk

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Same guy, today.

 

http://m.metronews.c...t.co/awHBPoHdQk

 

I'm going to be a math nit because details are important.

 

Let's go with $600 million more for the rebuild. That's over 100 years.

 

Let's say $200 million more in capital costs over the tear down which is probably on the high side. You have to take off that the fact that the rebuild will take much less time than the tear down 2-4 years less construction horror show which probably is worth that $200 million difference.

 

So that leaves $400 million more in maintenance over 100 years or $4 million per year. I'm going to guess that the improved travel time is worth more than $4 million per year with an expressway over the boulevard.

 

Please don't say that a modest increase of $15 million per year in bus improvements will be better and compare that to $600 more in spending because it's more like $15 million per year for the bus improvements vs $4 million more per year for the rebuild.

[mrdannyg 274]

Not really relevant to the conversation...but think how little car technology has progressed in the way 100 years. When you consider it compared to other things, it's actually pretty incredible how little progress has been made. V

[Zach6668 513]

Really? Cars have changed a crazy amount over the last century and will only change faster moving forward.

 

I could argue that this" progress" hasn't been been entirely positive, but we've gonna long way from wooden wheels on dirt roads to cruise control electric cars on grade separated freeways.

[iBeaver 409]

Yeah there's been progress just in the last 20 years. Just in safety alone.