[MisterF]

Assuming, of course, that he works downtown, and not somewhere along the 401, like the thousands upon thousands of other people that also do?

That certainly would make it more of a challenge. That's the challenge with employment along a big city freeway - it will always be congested no matter how many lanes you add to it. Unless of course it's tolled like the 407. In any case, since he was talking about sports and evening events, I would assume that would be mostly downtown.

 

[wopchop]

That certainly would make it more of a challenge. That's the challenge with employment along a big city freeway - it will always be congested no matter how many lanes you add to it. Unless of course it's tolled like the 407. In any case, since he was talking about sports and evening events, I would assume that would be mostly downtown.

I can't speak for him, but the way I read it was that his father would come home and take him to local sporting events (ie his games).

For most people in the GTA, their weekday evenings aren't spent going downtown. People go home to their families and have their local lives to attend to - whether that be school events, sports events, recreational events, etc. For the most part, these are not occurring downtown for people that do not live downtown.

 

[MisterF]

I can't speak for him, but the way I read it was that his father would come home and take him to local sporting events (ie his games).

For most people in the GTA, their weekday evenings aren't spent going downtown. People go home to their families and have their local lives to attend to - whether that be school events, sports events, recreational events, etc. For the most part, these are not occurring downtown for people that do not live downtown.

That could very well be the case. But my point remains that making it easier to drive isn't the answer to urban mobility. Some of the worst road congestion in the GTA is in the suburbs.

 

[crs1026]

We will never see uncongested highways again - the answer is definitely transit. The question is whether transit will ever match the travelling time of the old highways. There is definitely a lifestyle change going on where, due to longer commuting times, people are less able to use their evenings as productively. (Going back downtown in the evening is a bit of a red herring, lots of people do do that but often at the cost of a full night's sleep.)

The question is whether people can continue to live so far from their work, and whether building transit means long slow commutes.

- Paul

 

[TransitBart]

• That could very well be the case. But my point remains that making it easier to drive isn't the answer to urban mobility. Some of the worst road congestion in the GTA is in the suburbs.

• 
  
• Driving is a valid transit choice that transit advocates should stop trashing. It has its place. And no one wants to be in a traffic jam. We are driving because we have no choices. And that is a planning and governing failure for which we are paying a very heavy price in time, money and quality of life.

 

[TransitBart]

We will never see uncongested highways again - the answer is definitely transit. The question is whether transit will ever match the travelling time of the old highways. There is definitely a lifestyle change going on where, due to longer commuting times, people are less able to use their evenings as productively. (Going back downtown in the evening is a bit of a red herring, lots of people do do that but often at the cost of a full night's sleep.)

The question is whether people can continue to live so far from their work, and whether building transit means long slow commutes.

- Paul

Building the 'proper' - whatever that means in form and layout - transit should not mean long, slow commutes. Underbuilding got us to this mess. I am beginning to think that the crowd in Toronto who got the subway system started, and the crowd at Queen's Park who brought us the 400 highway system are geniuses. There were some bold decisions - distinctly lacking from today's discussions - and quick action.

 

[darth_freeman]

That could very well be the case. But my point remains that making it easier to drive isn't the answer to urban mobility. Some of the worst road congestion in the GTA is in the suburbs.

Remember that many more people live in the Suburbs than in Toronto. It's just not possible to have transit that meets your every day needs in suburbs as they are more spread out than old capitals like Toronto.

Based on my observations, Toronto has much worse road congestion than suburbs. The only suburban roads that get congested are really just the highways for a couple hours a day.

 

[MisterF]

^Trust me, a lot of suburban roads get just as congested as downtown streets, including the really big ones like Highway 7. And that includes weekends.

• 
  
• Driving is a valid transit choice that transit advocates should stop trashing. It has its place. And no one wants to be in a traffic jam. We are driving because we have no choices. And that is a planning and governing failure for which we are paying a very heavy price in time, money and quality of life.

I'm not trashing driving, I'm simply acknowledging the reality that highway congestion in the suburbs isn't going to go away no matter what we do. More highways simply lead to more people driving and the problem getting worse. Short of tolls there's literally nothing we can do to make the drive from the 401 and DVP to Whitby congestion free. The 407 extension won't make the 401 any less busy. I agree with your point about driving being the only choice for the most part, which is why we need to create other choices and some balance. That's starting to happen in the suburbs - even though they're still primarily built for driving, they're also building rapid transit.

 

[TOareaFan]

interesting observation from my wife today...and she is about as A-political a person as you will ever meet.

We were at a function in Pickering today....and as we set to drive across the city back to the comfort of Peel region (where, I just read, roads are never congested ?)....i glibly mentioned that "if it were tomorrow we could take the 407 all the way home" (actually we pretty well could have today as we were not far from Brock ...but it was just a way of telling her the new stretch of road opened tomorrow)....convo went like this from that point

her: "how much did we get for selling this stretch"

me: "nothing, the government is keeping it, think they want to avoid the public outcry that arose from selling the first bit"

her: "so there will be two transponders"

me: "no, they were pretty smart about it...hired the existing private company to administer it for them...so one transponder, one bill...nice job"

her: (and this is the part that blew me away) "why is it controversial for the gov't to sell a stretch of road to raise money for transit...but ok for them to sell our hydro company to do the same thing? I can choose to avoid the private road if I want....I only have one choice where to buy my hydro"......i really did not a) know she paid that much attention to public matters...and b) have an answer.

Kinda interested to hear (particularly those who think selling the 407 originally was/is an outrage) how you would respond to her.

 

[BurlOak]

I think many people made this point.

The answer seems to be that the Liberals are the ones selling Hydro and the Conservatives sold - actually extended the lease from 18? years (it was originally 25 years, but some time had already expired) to 99 years. Thus, what the Conservatives did was bad and what the Liberals did was ok. The Liberals do not want to press their luck and risk being blamed for doing what the Conservatives did, or risk removing that great hammer they have against the Tories.

 

[darth_freeman]

Well, just think about how much the average household spends on hydro per month compared to 407.

$100 vs $1?

While the sale of each is controversial, hydro is much more significant as a part of every day life.

 

[innsertnamehere]

another key difference is that they are only selling 40% of hydro, not 100%. The Government will retain 60% interest, and thus control of the company. Not to say that I am exactly supportive of its sale.

 

[crs1026]

I'm not sure I would argue for selling either. But - Hydro remains price regulated. The regulatory process acts as a proxy for market forces to control price. It may not be perfect but one can point to cases where the regulator turned down requests for a rate increase. There is public access to argue against price increases, and the process is evidence based.

In contrast, the process by which rates are set for the highway are less open to public input and oversight.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

^a product who's price is regulated by the largest shareholder of the sole company that can sell the product is regulated in name only.

and to correct something said above.....the gov't is planning to sell 60% and keep 40%. They will be the largest single shareholder at that point...but they will cease to be a majority shareholder.

 

[crs1026]

^a product who's price is regulated by the largest shareholder of the sole company that can sell the product is not regulated in name only.

The miracle in the Hydro sale is, the government actually found investors willing to put money into a venture that the government fully intends to continue to meddle in.

- Paul