[ARG1]

Induced demand works both ways.

The way induced demand works isn't like a video game where sims can just pop in and out of existence to make use of all available space like water, every person on the highway has a rhyme and reason to go where they need to go. The most common form this takes shape through is Sprawl: A new highway/wider highway is built, and the introduction of new housing/sprawl in the area helps fill up the supply created. This doesn't necessarily need to be in the immediate area either, even if new construction happens tangentially to the new infrastructure upgrades, it quite likely a need will arise at some point to make use of it. This is also why you don't see new lanes and highways fill up the day of opening. Typically when capacity is added, it takes a few years before traffic returns to status quo (the key point being that the process of filling due to induced demand does not happen immediately). The biggest point of concern here is that most of these changes are virtually irreversible. Once someone lives in an area, its going to be a long time before they would want to leave. These people still need to go to work, and these people will still drive to work unless you are able to provide a viable alternative through some other means. This is the same reason why Tolls typically end up causing more problems than they solve. The GO Train is a strong contender, but not everyone needs to go downtown, and the train isn't going to serve everyone's use cases.

 

[Haljackey]

Worth noting that bottlenecks can be smoothed out by removing lanes as well. Added capacity inevitably increases congestion. More cars = More traffic. It's the trade off of expansion. I don't expect any lane reductions to happen in my lifetime, but perpetual expansion is a never ending game of whak-a-mole. If we want to improve congestion long term we need to think much differently about how we use highways in a city like Toronto.

True. Losing 2 lanes at a minor interchange is really bad design. I'd still propose pushing them to the 412 as that's the proper place to start the lane drop since that's the next major junction. Losing one lane at a minor interchange is ok but 2 is real dumb. Ultimately the 401 east of Toronto should be 12 lanes to the 412, 10 to the 418, 8 to 35/115. That way you lose a lane at each major junction.

 

[Ward8]

Its a 1 way street, adding capacity eventually increases congestion, but once you remove capacity, that congestion isn't necessarily going to go away.

It does kind of reduce the demand. But I was referring to the fact that it reduces the number of cars that can be on the road at one time, thus reducing congestion.

I guess we could just close all the provincial freeways then and all the traffic would magically disappear and everyone would be living in a wonderful paradise of easy mobility then!

"reduced demand" and "traffic evaporation" are different topics, but they are also relevant to what our plans should be long term. The previous poster made a, broad, though correct statement that I think deserves a good faith response rather than a straw man.

Reduced demand is just as important as induced demand

It's time to use the idea of reduced demand where it has the potential to improve a city's economy, society, and mobility.

www.cnu.org

It would make sense, in my mind, to coordinate GO expansion with new forms of congestion control rather than widening. It could take any number of different forms that aren't "removing all provincial freeways"

 

[ARG1]

"reduced demand" and "traffic evaporation" are different topics, but they are also relevant to what our plans should be long term. The previous poster made a, broad, though correct statement that I think deserves a good faith response rather than a straw man.

Reduced demand is just as important as induced demand

It's time to use the idea of reduced demand where it has the potential to improve a city's economy, society, and mobility.

www.cnu.org

It would make sense, in my mind, to coordinate GO expansion with new forms of congestion control rather than widening. It could take any number of different forms that aren't "removing all provincial freeways"

There are so many false equivalences in that CNU article that its hard to wrap one's head around. They site NYC as an example of how removing freeways doesn't cause chaos to traffic, yet fails to mention that uh... its NYC, have you seen their rail map? You can go virtually anywhere and everywhere in Manhattan with relative ease via MNRR and the Subway - a gift that most other cities don't have the luxury for - especially suburban Toronto. In fact every major case of "Reduced Demand" where Highways are removed that people often site usually often come with massive caveat of:

A) They were extremely underused to begin with (such as the Dunsmuir and Georgia Viaducts in Vancouver, and many other freeway removal projects in the US)
B) The cities spent a ton of time and money building alternatives to the highways via Subways, BRTs, Trams, and even combinations of these (such as the Cheonggye Freeway in Seoul).

In the case of the 401, if we built a massive regional express line through the 401, and made proper bus or rapid transit connections at most stations, then yes you might have a claim for being able to reduce the capacity on the 401, however we don't have that, and we aren't building that.

 

[Haljackey]

In the case of the 401, if we built a massive regional express line through the 401, and made proper bus or rapid transit connections at most stations, then yes you might have a claim for being able to reduce the capacity on the 401, however we don't have that, and we aren't building that.

Exactly, this is the 401 we're talking about here- not one of several, almost redundant suburban commuter freeways you see in many US metro areas. It's the busiest highway in North America, and the lifeblood of Ontario's economy. Congestion on this critical artery hurts every single one of us so keeping it flowing as best we can is paramount. The 407 extension helps a bit, and so does the increased GO service and network expansion. However as the area east of Toronto grows you're going to have more and more demand on all the transportation infrastructure.

Staggering the 401's 'girth' from a wide boi freeway in Toronto to more rural east of Durham Region is important so the highway gradually expands (going west) / contracts (going east). This will give you better overall traffic flow.

 

[Ward8]

There are so many false equivalences in that CNU article that its hard to wrap one's head around. They site NYC as an example of how removing freeways doesn't cause chaos to traffic, yet fails to mention that uh... its NYC, have you seen their rail map? You can go virtually anywhere and everywhere in Manhattan with relative ease via MNRR and the Subway - a gift that most other cities don't have the luxury for - especially suburban Toronto. In fact every major case of "Reduced Demand" where Highways are removed that people often site usually often come with massive caveat of:

A) They were extremely underused to begin with (such as the Dunsmuir and Georgia Viaducts in Vancouver, and many other freeway removal projects in the US)
B) The cities spent a ton of time and money building alternatives to the highways via Subways, BRTs, Trams, and even combinations of these (such as the Cheonggye Freeway in Seoul).

In the case of the 401, if we built a massive regional express line through the 401, and made proper bus or rapid transit connections at most stations, then yes you might have a claim for being able to reduce the capacity on the 401, however we don't have that, and we aren't building that.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. These things should be thought of holistically. My original point is that perpetually adding lanes is a terrible long term solution. Eventually someone is going to have to make hard decisions about tolls, or truck only lanes, or any number of more creative solutions. Those solutions should come in tandem with transit expansion to minimize commuter use of the highway. The 401 through Toronto can't get meaningfully bigger at this point, so a dramatic rethink on how we use highways is going to be necessary for long term relief.

 

[afransen]

The way induced demand works isn't like a video game where sims can just pop in and out of existence to make use of all available space like water, every person on the highway has a rhyme and reason to go where they need to go. The most common form this takes shape through is Sprawl: A new highway/wider highway is built, and the introduction of new housing/sprawl in the area helps fill up the supply created. This doesn't necessarily need to be in the immediate area either, even if new construction happens tangentially to the new infrastructure upgrades, it quite likely a need will arise at some point to make use of it. This is also why you don't see new lanes and highways fill up the day of opening. Typically when capacity is added, it takes a few years before traffic returns to status quo (the key point being that the process of filling due to induced demand does not happen immediately). The biggest point of concern here is that most of these changes are virtually irreversible. Once someone lives in an area, its going to be a long time before they would want to leave. These people still need to go to work, and these people will still drive to work unless you are able to provide a viable alternative through some other means. This is the same reason why Tolls typically end up causing more problems than they solve. The GO Train is a strong contender, but not everyone needs to go downtown, and the train isn't going to serve everyone's use cases.

Did all the cities that took down their downtown highways collapse under traffic congestion or did people change their behaviour?

Induced demand by lane reduction might mean exurb housing loses value or people choose jobs on the same side of the city instead of driving from Oshawa to Mississauga (I know someone who does this).

 

[afransen]

ARG, I think you have the misapprehension that demand for travel kms is fixed. People make many decisions about how far they drive. I choose to live close to work and not 60km away because I hate highway traffic. If I were offered a job on the other side of the city, moving would be a big driver of that consideration of changing jobs. Sure I could just drive, but I don't want to spend 10% of my life commuting. Adding or removing highway capacity just shifts people on the margins. Not everyone can or will change, but there are people on the margin.

 

[afransen]

I agree with a lot of what you say here. These things should be thought of holistically. My original point is that perpetually adding lanes is a terrible long term solution. Eventually someone is going to have to make hard decisions about tolls, or truck only lanes, or any number of more creative solutions. Those solutions should come in tandem with transit expansion to minimize commuter use of the highway. The 401 through Toronto can't get meaningfully bigger at this point, so a dramatic rethink on how we use highways is going to be necessary for long term relief.

We need a hyperloop under the 401 before we can even dream of tolling it. /s

 

[afransen]

I guess we could just close all the provincial freeways then and all the traffic would magically disappear and everyone would be living in a wonderful paradise of easy mobility then!

Induced demand isn't a linear thing and is fairly complex. A new lane isn't automatically sucked up with new traffic, cancelling out all benefits, especially in many locations without alternatives. Same with removing a lane - the traffic isn't going to just magically disappear without any consequences. Some trips will disappear.. with reduced economic activity from it and congestion on the remaining roads will generally increase as not everyone can simply stop travelling.

You would have similar levels of congestion and lower mobility. I question the value of added mobility if were are just facilitating a few thousand people to drive 100km across the city at peak to make a few grand more a year. Toll the damn thing and then lets talk about expansion.

 

[ARG1]

Did all the cities that took down their downtown highways collapse under traffic congestion or did people change their behaviour?

Read what I said above

Induced demand by lane reduction might mean exurb housing loses value or people choose jobs on the same side of the city instead of driving from Oshawa to Mississauga (I know someone who does this).

Its a lot more complicated than that. I know someone who used to commute from Western Mississauga to Markham every day, spending a ton of money on the 407 ETR. The reason she did this was because she worked as an engineer in Commerce Valley where positions like that didn't exist in Mississauga, and she lived in Mississauga because that's where her friends, family, and ethnic community lived. Oftentimes (in fact most of the time) where one lives and works is entrenched in a way where changing the status quo becomes an impractical or painful task that simply isn't worth the hassle.

We are also currently in a housing crisis if you didn't notice, and being picky about where you live isn't an option most people have. I know someone else who had to move to East Gwillimbury: again due to a lack of options, and has to commute to Vaughan - again due to similar circumstances.

ARG, I think you have the misapprehension that demand for travel kms is fixed. People make many decisions about how far they drive. I choose to live close to work and not 60km away because I hate highway traffic. If I were offered a job on the other side of the city, moving would be a big driver of that consideration of changing jobs. Sure I could just drive, but I don't want to spend 10% of my life commuting. Adding or removing highway capacity just shifts people on the margins. Not everyone can or will change, but there are people on the margin.

Nobody, and I repeat NOBODY wants to drive 60km to their workplace "just because" unless they're absolutely insane. If you purposefully commute far its usually because you A) Don't have another choice, B) The pros of not travelling far are outweighed by some heavy cons which differ from person to person. Reducing highways widths or even outright removing them isn't going to get people to think "Oh, maybe I should move closer", its going to get them to think "Well now I know who not to vote for in the next election".

 

[afransen]

People, such as the 50% of Torontonians who were not born in Canada, move away from family and friends. Sorry, wanting to work 60 km away and live 5 min away from your bestie is not a right. It's also not a reason to double deck the 401 as the PCs are rumoured to be contemplating. Toll the thing and let people vote with their wallets rather than wasted life how much they value having all things.

Your argument that some people have no choice does not refute my point that there are some people on the margins of making different decisions. Just like we can never tax airplane fuel enough to get Trump to ditch his private jet, but we can do it enough to make people go on distant vacations less often.

 

[Undead]

Isn't induced demand more like speeds staying the same while volume increases? So traffic still crawls, but more of it crawls past a given point?

edit: tolling roads is pretty cruel when so many employers are not being flexible about remote/hybrid work for their employees. This is a great way to just piss off people and poison the well for infrastructure changes. Yes, I accept the same argument about transit fares.

edit 2: I find much of this discussion really detached from the reality of most modern work that can be done substantially/entirely remotely. This is the true game changer for congestion. We know that no amount of road/transit expansion can truly address demand (just like with housing).

The real solution is demand destruction by simply letting people work from home to a significant extent. This is such a no-brainer to me and countless other people, but the broader culture is too pathetically rigid to accept this new reality. Let those who can work remotely do so while those who genuinely need the road (logistics, trades, EMS etc) have smooth traffic for their needs.

 

[afransen]

Won't somebody please think of the children drivers.

I mean, I'm a driver. I think we take it way too seriously that we can't possibly cause any inconvenience to drivers. Where is the emergency driver relief fund of an 80 cent per liter fuel subsidy to make up for the massive increase in fuel prices? How are all those poor people making it through the day?

 

[ARG1]

People, such as the 50% of Torontonians who were not born in Canada, move away from family and friends. Sorry, wanting to work 60 km away and live 5 min away from your bestie is not a right. It's also not a reason to double deck the 401 as the PCs are rumoured to be contemplating. Toll the thing and let people vote with their wallets rather than wasted life how much they value having all things.

Your argument that some people have no choice does not refute my point that there are some people on the margins of making different decisions. Just like we can never tax airplane fuel enough to get Trump to ditch his private jet, but we can do it enough to make people go on distant vacations less often.

This comment seems very ignorant about the nature of communities and immigrants. The 2 anecdotal examples I used are actually both immigrants who had to go through that. The reality is this is actually tougher for those immigrants because the best way to ease into a new society is to stick close to people who are similar to yours. If you are Russian and you emigrated from Russia, the best way to adjust and adapt into the new environment is to live in a community of Russians that you can make connections with, and meet people you can rely on for the next 20+ years. This applies to virtually every ethnic group, Chinese, Indian, you name it. Unfortunately that does often mean that you may need to live in a location that's inconvenient - however it isn't the Government's job to declare that its illogical to live with that inconvenience, and just remove options to make the inconvenience even more inconvenient. If anything the Government should be there to try an ease that inconvenience and provide transportation opportunities, and if the status quo is unsustainable, then you replace it with an alternative that is.