Platform 27
Active Member
Except induced demand fills those lanes within two or three years, returning things to gridlock. And instead of hundreds of idling cars on your hands, you now have thousands.
|
|
|
- Thread starter waterloowarrior
- Start date
Except induced demand fills those lanes within two or three years, returning things to gridlock. And instead of hundreds of idling cars on your hands, you now have thousands.
Dan416
Senior Member
I don't agree. If public transit were a viable option, people would take it. It's MUCH cheaper than owning a car.
junctionist
Senior Member
You have to expand transit, not highways if you want people to use transit. The expansion culture has to be skewed towards transit, especially given the orientation towards building highways over the last 60 years. The ideal of building highways on an almost American level around cities and simultaneously providing public transit inspired by European levels of service is delusional. Our approach continues to treat transit like a frill, and it's unfortunate that there are many people who still have to hear an explanation on why transit investment is necessary.
Dan416
Senior Member
I don't think there's a soul on this board that thinks public transit investment isn't necessary. But you have to provide European-levels of service before people actually switch. You can't expect people like me in Mississauga to switch to mediocre service. I never thought I'd own a car, but in the end there was just no effing way I could keep taking MT.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
I completely agree. For someone like myself, it is faster to take the GO train from Clarkson to get downtown, than it is to take the bus to get to Square One, which is a shorter distance. Mississauga Transit is horrid and I have sparsely taken it in my life. It's not my fault the service is so flawed, but why should I be coerced into re-arranging my schedule just to get around by bus?
I find it interesting as well that in major European cities, the massive expanse of transit exists, but these cities have induced massive sprawl at the same time, not to mention the construction of freeways around the city centre. Just look at London, Paris and Frankfurt for a few examples. Sure, as public transit expands and becomes more reliable, you will see a huge increase in ridership, but you can't deny the existence of drivers.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I think those of us that are supporting shifting funds to transit from roads are hoping it addresses that very issue. If we keep investing the available funds in the same proportions as in the past, the relative sophistication of our transit systems will never catch up to the relative sophistication of our road system.
I don't think anyone denies the existence of drivers (heck, I would be denying my own existence if that were the case
) but we already have roads...congested yes but they are pretty good roads.....if we can play catch up and develop a more complete and extensive transit network then the hope would be that the shifting of people to that more complete network would free up more space on the roads for those that have to keep driving......it is not that anyone is talking about removing roads from the network (well, there is the ocassional talk of Gardiner removal but the greater network of roads would continue on) just not building more.
Platform 27
Active Member
"Massive sprawl"?
Let's take London, which is considerably less dense than Paris.
London's statistical urban area covers 1,623 km², roughly comparable to the Toronto statistical urban area of 1,749 km². In that area Toronto has 4.7 million people; London packs in 8.5 mil.
London's footprint, though, hasn't much changed since the 1960s. A hard built boundary was imposed on it in the 1940s, and while there's been some leapfrogging the Greenbelt, there's little doubt London has stayed put. (The Toronto UA abuts directly against the Hamilton and Oshawa UAs, and doesn't include the likes of Milton, which will eventually glob onto the motherblob.)
Next, these alleged freeways "around the city centre." Yup, London has an orbital motorway, the M25. But it doesn't go around the "city centre." It basically circumscribes the whole built-up area. Look at it on this map. In Toronto terms, it's considerably further out than the 407.
Not only that, but you'll note aside from the single ring, that's basically it for urban freeways in London. The initial tendrils of the few intercity routes that begin inside the orbital, like the M1 and the M4, still begin far from the city centre.
I'm sorry, but there's simply no comparison.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
As someone who drives this stretch of highway multiple times per week, I find this a bit strange. There really isn't much congestion west of Milton other than right in Cambridge. It's pretty crowded and I understand them trying to get ahead of the curve but they're taking until 2013 to widen from the 410/403 to Hurontario. This is a huge bottleneck that adds an hour to thousands of people's trips every night. The section from 410 to Milton should be widened right away. West of there, I think that decent rail service would obviate the need for much highway expansion. Right now the rail service to Kitchener and Guelph is pathetic. There are three trains a day and they take almost as long as driving in severe rush hour. They're also over $50 round trip. If we had regular train service at a relatively reasonable price, thousands of people would ride it.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I have struggled on how to write/pose this question and it keeps coming out as confrontational sounding....and it is not meant to be..so now that I have said that:
What is a reasonable price? What is the optimum price point that will achieve the balance between driving ridership and maximizing fare box recovery levels......as we seem to want our transit systems to do (and I am assuming that the extension to K-W and Guelph will have to do too otherwise they will represent a massive shift in thinking which could result in fare drop demands all over the place).
dunkalunk
Senior Member
The more you can fill trains, the more you can ensure more frequent service, lower fares, and have a relatively consistent income. On the other hand, people pay taxes on roads regardless of how congested or empty they are. I'd say generating ridership has quite a bit more to do with better service than price point.
TOareaFan
Superstar
no disrespect...but that is not the kind of philisophical/general response I was looking for.
I was asking someone who stated the area needed bettter rail service (agreed) what price he thought was "fair" for a round trip because he had stated, clearly, that the current price (which he says is $50 RT) was not a fair price for the trip.
The question (and this clarification) is just aimed at getting a sorta "rubber hits the road" estimate of what people would pay. We often say things like "I would use that service if it were fairly priced" but we seldom say what that fair price is?
The question was directed at one poster (who sorta opened up the point) but really I would be pleased to hear from anyone who had an opinion of what a fair price for a RT commute to K-W. Since the last stop on that line is currently Georgetown and it has a RT price of $16.50...it would presumably by higher than that....I just checked on Via rail and made up a fake non-holiday commute from K-W to Toronto and it offered me a return trip for $42 (adult, not senior) fare.
So....where in that spectrum of $16.50 to $42 for RT trip from K-W to Union should the price be.
Note....mods, this discussion sorta evolved and if you think it should not be here and there is a better place for it....feel free to move it.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
A price comparable or less expensive than the Greyhound would be reasonable in my opinion (currently $22.50 per direction, adult fare no discount per direction). The trip is scheduled to take betwee 1:25 and 1:50 depending on time of day, but has been known to take longer, especially during rush hour. If VIA can get it down to a $40 round trip ($30 discounted fare) while increasing their service to 6 trains per direction per day (as outlined in the Kitchener GO expansion EA) I'm sure a lot more people would be willing to use the service.
GO train service should be priced at somewhat less of any VIA service and slightly more than the existing bus service (can't remember exact price from Kitchener to Union, but I think its around $15 one way).
I wasn't meaning to be vague before, but any reduction to a more fair pricing scheme would require an increase in service, both from a cost-recovery standpoint, and from a customer service standpoint. People will be more likely to pay a bit more for a service if it runs frequently and is convenient for their schedules. Also, by providing a better service, the attraction the increase of ridership would make it more possible for GO/VIA to provide discounts.
I'm not sure if there is already a thread specifically about the Kitchener GO train extension, but I agree that further discussion should be moved there, or to the general GO service expansion thread.
GO train service should be priced at somewhat less of any VIA service and slightly more than the existing bus service (can't remember exact price from Kitchener to Union, but I think its around $15 one way).
I wasn't meaning to be vague before, but any reduction to a more fair pricing scheme would require an increase in service, both from a cost-recovery standpoint, and from a customer service standpoint. People will be more likely to pay a bit more for a service if it runs frequently and is convenient for their schedules. Also, by providing a better service, the attraction the increase of ridership would make it more possible for GO/VIA to provide discounts.
I'm not sure if there is already a thread specifically about the Kitchener GO train extension, but I agree that further discussion should be moved there, or to the general GO service expansion thread.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
preferred plan from Dec 2011
http://www.highway401-hespeler-halton.ca/highway401/consultation.asp
http://www.highway401-hespeler-halton.ca/highway401/consultation.asp
I like the simplification of the interchange at Highway 6. All Highway 6 thru-traffic has to do is keep right to continue either NB or SB.
Thanks for the update!
BMO
Senior Member
why wouldn't they have just gone the extra 500m and ended the highway expansion at highway 8? From my experience driving to and from UW the highway is relatively good through Guelph, then comes to a considerable amount of traffic past Hespeler just until Highway 8. (stemming from a large part of Cambridge ppl using that short section to access K-W).