[AlvinofDiaspar]

Buying the 407 back is just as big of a waste of money that could be invested in a ton of transit.

Buying back the 407 when the same party decided to sell it to the private sector for a pittance is just peak poor public policy x2.

As to just covering the tolls for trucks - it's not as unpalatable and there is some merit to it, but again, why should the taxpayers subsidize this policy choice? I would be asking the government this question when I can't even find a family doctor?

AoD

 

[innsertnamehere]

So now Ford is musing they might just remove tolls for trucks which I think is a good idea.

removing in off-peak hours is a good idea. I'm cautious about putting any additional peak-hour load on the 407 however.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

I know the politics would make it a non-starter, but wouldn't an alternate policy of tolling trucks on the 401 produce the same shift of truck traffic to the 407 while generating revenue for the government, rather than costing it?

And also it would put in place the infrastructure for another government to eventually toll car traffic at some time in the future.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I know the politics would make it a non-starter, but wouldn't an alternate policy of tolling trucks on the 401 produce the same shift of truck traffic to the 407 while generating revenue for the government, rather than costing it?

And also it would put in place the infrastructure for another government to eventually toll car traffic at some time in the future.

Yes.

It would also stifle economic activity as it would create a significant cost burden for any logistics companies locating in the GTA. 407 Tolls for trucks right now are over $2 a kilometre. There is a reason trucks do not use the highway.

Trucks on the road are the thing we want economically. It's the people driving to work alone that we want to try to minimize.

 

[Sunnyside]

Buying back the 407 when the same party decided to sell it to the private sector for a pittance is just peak poor public policy x2.

AoD

This is pretty much the long and short of it. The only people I see actually suggesting a buyback are Liberals on r/Ontario [edit- to spite Ford].

It is common knowledge now that the sale of the 407 was a mistake, but that was because of the revenue (and future revenues) it has generated- you’d have to pay much more than 10x the original cost- likely 20x or more. It’s not worth it….

…Especially when you have the transit right of way along it anyway. Shifting the public’s attention to the 407 would be a good way to get people to warm up to the transitway concepts that’ve been floating around. And, it has all the hallmarks of a Ford project- big, cost effective, serves to relieve highways/the 905, and would run through countless development hotspots.

I don’t think we’ll know for sure that this is “a thing” till Metrolinx’s new RTP to 2051, but that is due soon. It’s also supposed to account for the ‘interregional line’ as it’s being called, so let’s wait and see. The corridor would relieve the 401, that’s for sure.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

…Especially when you have the transit right of way along it anyway. Shifting the public’s attention to the 407 would be a good way to get people to warm up to the transitway concepts that’ve been floating around. And, it has all the hallmarks of a Ford project- big, cost effective, serves to relieve highways/the 905, and would run through countless development hotspots.

You do realize that same premier is currently committing government resources to study an umpteen billion project that doesn't even merit any look right?

AoD

 

[Cambry Ardship]

Yes.

It would also stifle economic activity as it would create a significant cost burden for any logistics companies locating in the GTA. 407 Tolls for trucks right now are over $2 a kilometre. There is a reason trucks do not use the highway.

Trucks on the road are the thing we want economically. It's the people driving to work alone that we want to try to minimize.

There's already a high cost to truck traffic on highways in terms of repairs and maintenance that is carried by all Ontarians. Moving to a user-pays model would increase the cost of logistics, but it would also mean that those increased costs would be born by the users of the goods.

As I said, I understand why this is a political non-starter, but I'm unsure why it would be economically inefficient to internalize an externality.

 

[PL1]

I suspect it wouldn't make a huge difference but perhaps forcing/incentivizing people to buy/use smaller vehicles? SUVs and pick-ups take up a lot more physical space on the road than cars.

I wonder if that would be a way (longer term) to get more capacity out of the roads...

 

[J Bacon]

I suspect it wouldn't make a huge difference but perhaps forcing/incentivizing people to buy/use smaller vehicles? SUVs and pick-ups take up a lot more physical space on the road than cars.

I wonder if that would be a way (longer term) to get more capacity out of the roads...

It is a good idea in the reality where some jurisdictions may slap fees on EV's due to their claims that their weight is causing more wear on roads.
In fairness they should also penalize heavy SUVs and pickup trucks.

Not sure if that would result in more capacity, it would be the same number of vehicles moving through a particular area.

 

[Hairball]

I think this is an interesting idea too, but I wonder how it’ll be done? I guess the cameras at the ramps stop tolling trucks?

I think that this act would then need to also be accompanied by a ban on truck traffic on the 401.

Given that transponders are already required for trucks, they can just simply give them a discount or make it free like it's being suggested. That said I'm kind of curious how much impact this would result in traffic around the GTA just by giving trucks a free ride on the 407. Looks bad because it's basically a handout to businesses, but it'd be interesting nonetheless.

 

[lenaitch]

There's already a high cost to truck traffic on highways in terms of repairs and maintenance that is carried by all Ontarians. Moving to a user-pays model would increase the cost of logistics, but it would also mean that those increased costs would be born by the users of the goods.

As I said, I understand why this is a political non-starter, but I'm unsure why it would be economically inefficient to internalize an externality.

They also pay correspondingly higher registration fees (much higher now the Herr Ford reduced personal vehicle fees to zero) along with fuel taxes.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

Thanks! That does make a big difference.

 

[afransen]

I think this is an interesting idea too, but I wonder how it’ll be done? I guess the cameras at the ramps stop tolling trucks?

I think that this act would then need to also be accompanied by a ban on truck traffic on the 401.

That is just never going to happen. All the warehouses along the 401 need truck access.

 

[Sunnyside]

You do realize that same premier is currently committing government resources to study an umpteen billion project that doesn't even merit any look right?

AoD

It’s a gesture. They can say it’s a possibility while the study is happening, up until it’s released- which may or may not just happen to be just before or after the election.

My point is that this gesture is not only aimed at those wanting the contracts for such a tunnel- that’s a given. It’s also for the primary users of the 401; the 905 and outer 416.

In all likelihood, the ‘actual plan’ is already decided. Ford is framing this topic around benefitting 401 users- providing a regional-scale east-west solution. This is either a setup for announcing funding for existing plans (Sheppard + the 413), or something new. If it is a new ‘alternative’ to the tunnel, it might be shown prior to the election. Otherwise, this is all a lot of hooplah for things UT has known are happening regardless.

 

[PL1]

It’s a gesture. They can say it’s a possibility while the study is happening, up until it’s released- which may or may not just happen to be just before or after the election.

My point is that this gesture is not only aimed at those wanting the contracts for such a tunnel- that’s a given. It’s also for the primary users of the 401; the 905 and outer 416.

In all likelihood, the ‘actual plan’ is already decided. Ford is framing this topic around benefitting 401 users- providing a regional-scale east-west solution. This is either a setup for announcing funding for existing plans (Sheppard + the 413), or something new. If it is a new ‘alternative’ to the tunnel, it might be shown prior to the election. Otherwise, this is all a lot of hooplah for things UT has known are happening regardless.

So, "this will cost us a trillion, but our plans will only cost us $300 billion. We're saving the province *$700 billion* dollars!!

It's an absolute shame that some people believe this BS