News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Electrify

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,387
Reaction score
24
Faced with maddening amounts of traffic, most of us simply resort to leaning on the horn or unleashing a string of expletives. But as Canadian commute times grow and urban infrastructure gets increasingly overburdened, it may be time for some more progressive tactics.

Around the world, cities have implemented extreme solutions to their congestion woes, from taxes to tolls to cable cars that soar above the vehicle-clogged streets. “I think a lot of the measures are built on the very real assumption that there’s no more room to build new stuff,†says Tom Vanderbilt, author of the bestseller Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do. “So if you can’t add capacity, how do you manage the demand?â€

Many of these solutions will eventually become standard practice for large municipalities around the world, he believes. There was a time in New York, Mr. Vanderbilt points out, when paying for on-street parking was considered untenable. “Now it’s just considered the norm,†he said. “I think a lot of these things, the longer the policy is there, the more it will be accepted.â€

Tax: Would you pay $30,000 just for permission to buy a car? In Singapore, prospective vehicle owners are required to first obtain a Certificate of Entitlement, which can start at $48,000 in local currency for a small-size automobile. Only a specific number of COEs are released each month, part of government efforts to control the number of cars on its roads. The vehicle entitlement is valid for 10 years from the date of registration of the vehicle and the scheme aims to peg long-term vehicle population growth at 3 per cent a year. Those who cough up for the prohibitively expensive system must also pay registration fees and electronic road pricing, a series of congestion tolls that vary throughout the day according to usage. Some estimate that owning a Honda Civic in Singapore can cost more than $100,000.

Charge: Anyone who takes a cab is used to keeping a close eye on the meter. Some countries are considering a similar metered charge for private car use. A system hooked up to the Internet and GPS would calculate a charge for each trip based on a mileage-based formula that incorporates the car’s fuel efficiency. Driving on busy roads would cost more as would travel during rush hour. The Netherlands had planned to implement the system next year, but the policy was shelved when a new government was elected in 2010. Those who support the idea point out that the meters would replace tolls and congestion fees, and would be more equitable because they would be based on usage, not mere car ownership.

Cap and trade: Driving into an urban centre requires a place to park, and so a number of European cities have begun to simply reduce the supply of parking spots within their core. Both Zurich and Hamburg have frozen the existing parking supply in the city centre, and when a new space is built off-street, an on-street space must be removed. These spots are then repurposed as widened sidewalks or bike lanes. In Copenhagen, where parking spots are removed at a rate of about 32 spots per year, traffic has dropped by 6 per cent since 2005, even though car ownership has gone up by 13 per cent. In addition to these cap-and-trade zones, the City of Zurich regulates how much new parking can be added by developers. A new building can only have parking spots if the surrounding roads can absorb the traffic without congestion, and air pollution levels will not be affected.

Reward: It’s not unusual for cities to offer incentives for people to turn in their weapons or inefficient appliances. But the city of Murcia, Spain, has asked people to turn in their cars. To ease traffic congestion, the city offered lifetime passes to its new tram system to anyone who turned in their car – assuming it was fully paid off, of course. The city then put the cars that were traded in on display around the city, slowly disassembling them over time or piling them on top of each other as a commentary about parking shortages.

Fly: Before the 2012 Olympic Games, the city of London will introduce a new transit corridor between sporting arenas. But this one will soar above the city roads, transporting amateur sports fans via a cable-car network intended to reduce traffic during the event. Cable cars are gaining popularity as a transit option after years of use in South America. The city of Jakarta recently announced plans to have a cable car system operating by next year. The city of Medellin, Colombia, first introduced cable cars in 2006 to cut commute times by as much as two hours. The cars are ideal for transporting people over steep or muddy terrain where the construction of roads is difficult, and are generally used to connect poorer neighbourhoods to the downtown core. Brazil’s government plans to use the gondolas to connect the sprawling shanty towns to the centre of Rio.

Rotate: Even government rules sound better in Spanish. In Bogota, the phrase “pico y placa†translates to “peak and plate.†In layman’s terms, it’s a traffic mitigation policy created in 2000 by then mayor Enrique Penalosa. The idea behind the rule is to restrict certain vehicles from travelling the streets at certain times. At first, traffic was restricted between 6 and 9 a.m., and then again between 5 and 8 p.m. on weekdays. In 2009, the restriction was extended from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays. Both public and private vehicles are included in the ban based on the last digit of the licence plate. The numbers restricted each day rotate on an annual basis.

Ban: In March, the European Commission released a white paper outlining its vision for a “Single European Transport Area.†Designed to bring about a “profound shift†in how people travel the continent, the document called for a ban on conventionally fuelled cars in city centres by the year 2050. Siim Kallas, of the EU transport commission, said that new taxation on fuel would force people out of their cars and onto alternative transport. “That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,†he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.†Needless to say, the idea has not been overly popular. The British government has gone so far as to veto the idea, with Norman Baker, U.K. under secretary of state for transportation, saying: “We will not be banning cars from city centres any more than we will be having rectangular bananas.â€

Build: In 2008, the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company announced its plans to build Masdar City, the world’s first zero-carbon, zero-waste and, yes, car-free city. With zero carbon emissions from transport within the city, Masdar also plans to facilitate low-carbon journeys to its boundaries through support for public transport and vehicle sharing. Recently, visitors to the development site have been given rides in personal rapid transit vehicles that run on tracks below the city. Each driverless pod is powered by rechargeable lithium-phosphate batteries. Of course, the city, which is designed to house 50,000 residents and 1,500 businesses, is only six square kilometres.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...oes/article2136868/singlepage/#articlecontent

Some of these ideas are good, but I can't endorse all of them. Mobility is an important part of our economy and modern society in general, and going out of the way to limit it is not the best way to deal with the problem. Singapore's example, which is arguably the most draconian, may look good on paper but the cost of transporting goods and services is passed on to the consumer thus hurting how far a dollar can stretch.

For Toronto's case, I think increased parking costs is the best solution. It has been used in other sprawled cities with excellent results, and it targets people who drive downtown and park 9-5 for work more than it does those who are parking short term (deliveries, business visits), which generally have less alternative transportation options.
 
Toronto parking rates are fair given the lack of options to get around. The highest prices are around the financial district as it is the most accessible by transit. It would be unfair to charge other areas of the city higher parking rates due due lack of proper transit options.

Build some subways downtown and pay for them by jacking up the parking fees to $40-50 a day. That would make too much sense, so it will never happen here in Toronto.
 
There is no shortage of ways Toronto could improve mobility, the issue is that the only method that has unanimous support is subways, and as we know well, they are absurdly expensive to build.

I think the best hope would be to toll all expressways in the GTA. It could actually gain support from drivers, because it could create fast routes at rush hour. Long-distance suburban commuters spend an unhealthily large amount of time sitting in traffic, and they are well aware of the toll it takes on them. They would gladly pay a bit more if they could get more time in their packed days.

It might seem to encourage suburban living by facilitating long-distance car commutes, but at least it would help to reduce the government subsidy of such a lifestyle, discouraging people from choosing the suburbs for financial reasons.

BTW, I take 407 GO buses and have become a convert to the tollway/express-bus system. On the 401, there's no incentive to take a 401 GO bus instead of driving. Why pay to take a bus, when it just gets stuck in traffic anyway?
On the 407, the toll gives an inherant financial advantage to higher occupancy vehicles: on a GO bus, the toll is divided among dozens of passengers. On a public-owned tollway, I would expect GO to be exempt from tolls altogether, giving a further incentive for drivers to leave their cars.
 
Nothing creative will happen in terms of mobility in Toronto for a very long time if ever. Toronto has almost the exaxt same transit system it did 25 years ago. Now the GTA has doubled in population and the only thing Torontonians have seen in that time is near tripling of the fares.
Toronto has grown old before her time and in terms of transportation Toronto is void of both vision and will. I bet if you were to ask the average Torontonian if they think Eglinton will be done by 2020 I bet most would say no.
Transportation in the entire GTA is in such a state of malaise that sometimes I think it really would be better for Queen's Park to take total control of all of the GTA run transit systems and start forcing answers down their throat.
 
I think tolling the gardiner and dvp only makes too much sense. Furthermore, I think it could be made politically feasible during election time or on council if tolls were directed at non-toronto vehicles so that it's not only our property taxes paying for those roads.

This could be done by tolling peak direction rushhour traffic only, where GO exists as an alternative, or setting up a 407-like system that recognizes and exempts Toronto-based licence plates.

I do think everyone should pay tolls. But with the current ford-electing types in Toronto and on council, it would be more feasible to impose those fees. On those who don't vote for our council.
 
Let's talk about possible real answer for toronto ????

This Fall, on Second Chance Dragon's Den Show, I wish be unveiling the "Gridlock Fixer".
I previously brought to Dragons Den, the Subway Solution, "Platform Technology" and now TTC are getting an extra 2 trains per hour from my work. Recently, they will be putting up a "GLASS BARRIER WALL" for Union Station, which also is what I presented which is primarily "non-edge platform safety" or another thing I call "separated passenger flow for single sided platforms".

Here is my solution for highways. I'm sorry, I am not allowed to disclose the answer I got from the Dragons, and I promise not to give any hints of such answer. Now it is up to Toronto Drivers to discuss such solution, and to see what we can do to convince politicians and transportation experts as to what we have is NOT WORKING FOR ANYONE!

What are your thought Urban Toronto?
 

Attachments

  • Retractable Highway Barrier in the UP POSITION, invention by Sharon Yetman.jpg
    Retractable Highway Barrier in the UP POSITION, invention by Sharon Yetman.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 189
  • Retractable Highway Barrier in down position, by Sharon Yetman.jpg
    Retractable Highway Barrier in down position, by Sharon Yetman.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 188
  • 401 Innovation Creating 3 sets of Highways, by Sharon Yetman,c (Eastbound).jpg
    401 Innovation Creating 3 sets of Highways, by Sharon Yetman,c (Eastbound).jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 181
  • 401 Innovation Creating 3 sets of Highway, by Sharon Yetman (Westbound).jpg
    401 Innovation Creating 3 sets of Highway, by Sharon Yetman (Westbound).jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 195
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that it is just an elaborate version of the extra lane on Jarvis. Maybe once expressed more clearly on TV I will understand your idea better. Still, it is good to see some more creative solutions than simply nickel and dime drivers (not to say that is not a good way to deal with congestion, but it is far from the only).
 
This wouldn't work on the severely congested section of the 401 in Etobicoke because there is almost equal amounts of traffic traveling in both directions. A reversible lane would work much better in Scarborough where traffic is heavily peak directional (west in AM and east in PM).
 
Interstate 5 in Seattle has a reversible express section.

The express section is basically a third set of lanes in the middle, which features on- and off-ramps on either side. Regular gates (like the kind that you see at many 401 on ramps) keep drivers from exiting or entering into oncoming traffic.

I don't see this being feasible within the city of Toronto, as traffic is far too bi-directional. Perhaps east of Markham Rd.
 
Last edited:
Interstate 5 in Seattle has a reversible express section.

The express section is basically a third set of lanes in the middle, which features on- and off-ramps on either side. Regular gates (like the kind that you see at many 401 on ramps) keep drivers from exiting or entering into oncoming traffic.

I don't see this being feasible within the city of Toronto, as traffic is far too bi-directional. Perhaps east of Markham Rd.

East of Markham road is hardly an issue for traffic.
 
I was in Vancouver on Tuesday - as environmentally friendly as any city you can name - and their solution to vehicle mobility doesn't actually cost anything to build. They simply recognize which way traffic wants to go and synchronize green lights (or flashing greens) for extended periods of time to help move cars (and buses) more efficiently.

A lot of our problems here in the GTA stem from traffic control measures that - wait for it - restrict mobility!

Additionally - instead of streetcars running on a costly track network - they use electrified buses (running on similar overhead cables as our streetcars) and traffic always kept moving. Imagine how many more routes could be covered in Toronto and the stoppages that could be avoided if Toronto had more flexible buses than streetcars?
 
Last edited:
I was in Vancouver on Tuesday - as environmentally friendly as any city you can name - and their solution to vehicle mobility doesn't actually cost anything to build. They simply recognize which way traffic wants to go and synchronize green lights (or flashing greens) for extended periods of time to help move cars (and buses) more efficiently.

A lot of our problems here in the GTA stem from traffic control measures that - wait for it - restrict mobility!

Additionally - instead of streetcars running on a costly track network - they use electrified buses (running on similar overhead cables as our streetcars) and traffic always kept moving. Imagine how many more routes could be covered in Toronto and the stoppages that could be avoided if Toronto had more flexible buses than streetcars?

Trolley buses aren't new to Toronto. They only recently dissappeared relative to the city's transit history.
The pros and cons have been debated ad nauseum, multiple times in multiple threads. There is nothing more to add.

The TTC rejected their return as recently as last year. The issue is dead.
 
Last edited:
Trolley buses aren't new to Toronto. They only recently dissappeared relative to the city's transit history.
The pros and cons have been debated ad nauseum, multiple times in multiple threads. There is nothing more to add.

The TTC rejected their return as recently as last year. The issue is dead.
That wasn't the key part of my reply - which was that they recognized when and where traffic needed to go and worked the lights to help make it happen. The opposite seems to be true here, in that the timing of lights seems intended to frustrate drivers out of their cars.
 
Sydney Already has barriers that move over to create more width for peak directions. They are actual motorized barriers that are automatically controlled and moved over depending on traffic flows. So someone is actually monitoring the flows and adjusts the road system accordingly. Think of it kind of like the Jarvis 3rd lane, but this does the job with a physical barrier. So for instance in peak hour going east would have 5 or 6 lanes of width, while in the Westbound lanes there might be only 2 lanes. In the afternoon it would switch to 5 or 6 lanes in the westbound and 2 in the eastbound, and throughout the day it would be adjusted accordingly.
 

Back
Top