[T-Bor]

Great data! But the ratios of multi/sfh have dramatically changed since 2015 to 80% multi for the whole region and beyond. There has also been a huge increase in rail expansion that is about to begin operating with no road capacity increase.

I’m not saying that you are misguided but the economy/built environment have gone through a paradigm shift to reflect new global realities.

Thanks!

I was thinking of that point too before I posted it - but that assumes that everyone that lives in a 905 condo or townhouse, for example, is only seeing other people nearby. Picture the condos around VMC. Yes, it's dense. Is there a realistic expectation that most people there will be using transit to get around? Groceries? Kids school dropoffs? Weekends? A few will, sure, but nearly everything you want to do in York region requires a car.

Admittedly there may be more households that only need one car vs two, so the rate of car ownership may start to decrease among these new households

 

[innsertnamehere]

parking ratios in VMC have varied from over 1 space per unit to as little as one parking space for every three units.

People are definitely still driving, but not at rates which would have originally been anticipated in 2013.

This is a good thing.

We want people to drive as little as possible. It would be impossible to accommodate the growth coming to the GTA if we didn't shift modal shares as aggressively as possible.

But we also realistically have to look at how many people are not actually driving, and if you look at that, the number of cars on the road in the GTA does indeed increase every year.

The good news is that it's generally happening slower than originally anticipated. The bad news is that the original anticipation projected ridiculously terrible traffic in the GTA, so we are only doing slightly better than that. It also projected most major highways in the GTA getting major capacity expansion by 2031, which we are not on track to complete. (401 to Kitchener, QEW to Niagara, 400 to Barrie, etc.).

We are still seeing significant auto trip growth in the GTA though, and we need to plan for that.

 

[rdaner]

Another thing to consider is that the postWW2 zoning that existed is now basically gone across the board thus changing travel patterns.

 

[T-Bor]

Another thing to consider is that the postWW2 zoning that existed is now basically gone across the board thus changing travel patterns.

Great point. That should definitely help with intensification. Even something as simple as many new infill houses only having space for one car will help control the growth of cars.

parking ratios in VMC have varied from over 1 space per unit to as little as one parking space for every three units.

Wow 1:3, that's much less than I would have thought. Definitely great to see. No question that better transit access makes it easier to get by with no/fewer cars for some new residents

 

[Undead]

....population growth is a policy choice that can be undone with the stroke of a pen?

I'd point out that the GTA was expanding by about 100,000 people per year before the post-COVID population surge. These people need to live somewhere, and most of that growth is in suburban areas.

Yes, the growth is a government policy i.e. a choice. A choice that is demonstrably hurting the economy, infrastructure, environment and more.

that depends a lot on your ability to actually shift modal shares.

I've done the math before, but at the population growth rates we are experiencing transit ridership in the GTA would need to see something like 30% annual ridership growth every year, with no gaps, in order to entirely offset auto trip growth. And that has nothing to do with improving over existing congestion levels.

We absolutely need to minimize auto trip growth as much as possible, and in fact are generally doing a better job than the assumptions in the original 413 study (which is great news!) - but we need basically impossible levels of transit growth to entirely offset new auto trips created through population growth.

And as great as it is that we are seeing transit ridership growth faster than expected, we are also growing much faster than originally expected as a whole. We need new transit infrastructure, and lots of it. But we also need new roads.

I agree, but that's not what I'm referring to. We need to stop the unsustainable growth given we can't cope even with the existing amount of people/demand on our infrastructure.

We want people to drive as little as possible. It would be impossible to accommodate the growth coming to the GTA if we didn't shift modal shares as aggressively as possible.

That's the issue: the assumption that we need the growth. We don't.

 

[Krypto98]

An election pledge to buy the 407 and remove the tolls would buy all the suburban Toronto votes

And then it's as full as the 401. While 401 fills back up in a equivalent amount of time. I've driven on the 407 at peak time before, the average speed is drops to below 90km/hr, people pay a premium to not stuck in traffic.

 

[Krypto98]

In that case, would it be made "free" or remain a toll given the law about all new freeways not being tolled aside from this one? I'd imagine it would still attract more people if it was publicly owned but still towed (granted, would the province still charge a premium? Is Durham portion the 407 considered a rip off?).

Durham portion of 407 is significantly cheaper per km than the ETR portion. 34c per km in peak vs 71c, overnight off peak price is 22c per km vs 30c. So meaning to drive the 407 from the 401 in Milton to 404 (49km) would cost $35 in current prices at peak but about $17 with the peak province rate

I'd be all for reducing off-peak tolls or allowing trucks on it from 10am-3pm and 7pm-7am or something though. The 407 has a significant amount of excess capacity in the off peak hours during which much of the rest of the freeway network still experiences regular congestion which it could help with.

The current off peak rate 7pm - 6am is like 40% of the current peak rate of 70c per km though I think it should be lowered more... because often I've used the highway at 8pm and it's virtually empty. But it's still significantly faster than taking the 401

 

[Sunnyside]

Yes, the growth is a government policy i.e. a choice. A choice that is demonstrably hurting the economy, infrastructure, environment and more.


I agree, but that's not what I'm referring to. We need to stop the unsustainable growth given we can't cope even with the existing amount of people/demand on our infrastructure.


That's the issue: the assumption that we need the growth. We don't.

Obviously reducing growth is a good idea- everyone can see that. But…. We are playing the hand dealt.

Zero growth is not realistic though. It’s also not good to be incapable of responding to changes in growth. Freezing things will let us catch up, but not provide an excuse to do nothing.

 

[afransen]

The current off peak rate 7pm - 6am is like 40% of the current peak rate of 70c per km though I think it should be lowered more... because often I've used the highway at 8pm and it's virtually empty. But it's still significantly faster than taking the 401

If we were run by grownups, we would have road tolls that are around 407 levels at peak (that's what's needed for highways to function) and <$0.10/km approaching zero off-peak. Could you imagine the land use and travel pattern changes if it cost $40 to drive each way across the city at peak?

 

[Sunnyside]

If we were run by grownups, we would have road tolls that are around 407 levels at peak (that's what's needed for highways to function) and <$0.10/km approaching zero off-peak. Could you imagine the land use and travel pattern changes if it cost $40 to drive each way across the city at peak?

I think tolling all ‘urban’ 400-series someday is a good idea, albeit at a much lower rate than the 407. Something more comparable to US tolls, but more widespread given we will have a more robust transit network.

That’s my caveat; we (urbanists/planners) are quick to suggest late-stage solutions when there’s a lot of prerequisites needed. There’s not enough rapid transit to justify tolling any additional highways, because they still compose the backbone of our transportation network. It would be penalizing mobility till then.

 

[Civdis]

Of course. But this growth in population and related vehicles on the road will occur with or without additional highways built.

Exactly, we need to build for future demand not just easing congestion now. Infrastructure must have decades long planning horizons.

 

[afransen]

I think tolling all ‘urban’ 400-series someday is a good idea, albeit at a much lower rate than the 407. Something more comparable to US tolls, but more widespread given we will have a more robust transit network.

That’s my caveat; we (urbanists/planners) are quick to suggest late-stage solutions when there’s a lot of prerequisites needed. There’s not enough rapid transit to justify tolling any additional highways, because they still compose the backbone of our transportation network. It would be penalizing mobility till then.

I would suggest typical US level tolling is pointless. If it doesn't change behaviour enough to reduce congestion, why bother? To me, tolls aren't useful as a sin tax or to fund infrastructure expansion, it's a way of allocating a finite resource.

Imagine a place where the government had a 50%+ subsidy for gasoline. There was so much more demand for gasoline than supply, that you had to queue (pay with your time) to get your ration of gasoline. People talk about removing the subsidy for fuel, but others say that cannot be done until there are alternatives to the use of gasoline, and that will take many decades and huge amounts of resources. That place exists, it's called Kenya. It's not something we want to emulate. There is no free lunch, and having to pay with your time is not more fair than paying with money.

 

[leopetr]

It would take a small percentage of trucks off the 401 as well, thereby helping with logistics and deliveries. Any truck from say K-W that wants to head to Barrie or north would likely be using the 400/401 interchange now. Those truckers can use the 413 to bypass this congested interchange.

I would argue that there was is on average only empty space between Toronto and Winnipeg, and that any significant percentage of trucks heading north is already going through Sarnia and Michigan instead

 

[lenaitch]

I would argue that there was is on average only empty space between Toronto and Winnipeg, and that any significant percentage of trucks heading north is already going through Sarnia and Michigan instead

I'm not so sure that's true but, admittedly, have no data to back up my position. If you mean from southern Ontario to western Canada, this report for the US DOT just uses the word "some". There might be issues such as customs, immigration, border times, tolls (bridge, Chicagoland, etc.). The difference is only about 2 hours and a handful of kilometers. If you mean from southern Ontario to Sault Ste. Marie, it's about an hour faster and 100 km shorter via the US, but some of the same issues might apply.

 

[afransen]

I'm not so sure that's true but, admittedly, have no data to back up my position. If you mean from southern Ontario to western Canada, this report for the US DOT just uses the word "some". There might be issues such as customs, immigration, border times, tolls (bridge, Chicagoland, etc.). The difference is only about 2 hours and a handful of kilometers. If you mean from southern Ontario to Sault Ste. Marie, it's about an hour faster and 100 km shorter via the US, but some of the same issues might apply.

Most freight between Toronto and the west ships by rail. Road freight mostly goes through Canada. Depending on what you are shipping, the customs work can be nontrivial to save a small amount of distance. Perhaps shippers with significant volumes to ship this way would develop workflows to make the customs work easier but those large shippers are more likely to leverage rail/intermodal.