[ARG1]

Someone can look it up. But all of the models show the spending we are doing will just keep traffic the way it is currently. If we don’t do anything it’ll simply get worse even if that’s hard to imagine. The reason that it doesn’t get better is because you have to factor in all the new comers to the city, and the fact that although some people will move onto using transit others will fill in the space on the high way that is currently being used by others. Induced demand. Anyways we are trying our best to make transit as best we can. We may differ on where to spend money but there is no doubt I think most people want better transit. Ultimately though is the question of how to pay for it which is how this thread showed up.

If you want to look it up feel free to do so. Last I checked a major aspect in EAs and IBCs for projects is how many cars the project got off the road network. Yes people will fill up the highways after we build the transit, that's expected, but that's also a good thing. We're maximizing the existing infrastructure to the fullest we can. When GO RER opens, most people in the 905 will have access to it as a means of getting to downtown Toronto, and thus we could safely start implementing tolls on the downtown section of the Gardiner and DVP. If someone doesn't want to take LSE to get downtown then they're free to pay the extra toll. The alternative is there and he's choosing not to take it, thus he is free to pay up.

No, it is not.

I don't.

I already live here.

Your sense of ethics seems to be that whatever suits you, irrespective of the impact on others is fine.

If you can't or won't consider the needs of others in your decisions, then there isn't a useful discussion to be had.

Please fill me in on how my sense of ethics is wrong in details please. If there's something hypocritical in what I'm saying, I'd love to hear it. If you're just complaining about my sense of ethics because it doesn't match your vision for an ideal world then I'm sorry but I cannot help you.

 

[gibsonm]

Highways were built for the same reasons as trains, to move large volumes of people quickly and efficiently. The fact that both systems are clogged and inefficient speaks to our lack of investment and the nature of our planning and development. Highways are meant to be greener than city roads because of less idling and greater fuel efficiency. It's true that congestion is a problem and I can see why there's a preference for rapid transit from an efficiency and environmental perspective, which is why intensification around hubs became the buzzword and centrepiece of Ontario urban plans like Places to Grow. However, the vertical sprawl has overloaded parts of the transit network because it wasn't expanded fast enough and development wasn't dispersed evenly across the network.

Everyone agrees that the regional transit network must function as a single system rather than as a bunch of separate transit systems. If we want further investment in expanding that network, then any added levies must be exclusively dedicated to specific new projects so people know what they're getting. It doesn't ring true to me that we're still paying the construction costs for 60 year-old highways and should therefore pay even more taxes for their maintenance. I won't buy it. I also don't buy the argument that removing these roads to turn them into taxable housing development will somehow give us more subways and reduce congestion. We need to expand transportation options, and if it's not going to be highways then let it be trains and subways, but let's not pretend that users of those highways can easily stop using them and move to transit or that charging them more fees is going to give us more subways. If you want more trains and subways than we all have to pay for them. Perhaps we can stop building publicly funded highways, but then we're going to have to build more transit. Some of the automotive/gas taxes will pay for some of this, but certainly not all of it, and it's unfair to place the burden of additional funding on drivers who are mostly driving out of necessity.

 

[sixrings]

Highways were built for the same reasons as trains, to move large volumes of people quickly and efficiently. The fact that both systems are clogged and inefficient speaks to our lack of investment and the nature of our planning and development. Highways are meant to be greener than city roads because of less idling and greater fuel efficiency. It's true that congestion is a problem and I can see why there's a preference for rapid transit from an efficiency and environmental perspective, which is why intensification around hubs became the buzzword and centrepiece of Ontario urban plans like Places to Grow. However, the vertical sprawl has overloaded parts of the transit network because it wasn't expanded fast enough and development wasn't dispersed evenly across the network.

Everyone agrees that the regional transit network must function as a single system rather than as a bunch of separate transit systems. If we want further investment in expanding that network, then any added levies must be exclusively dedicated to specific new projects so people know what they're getting. It doesn't ring true to me that we're still paying the construction costs for 60 year-old highways and should therefore pay even more taxes for their maintenance. I won't buy it. I also don't buy the argument that removing these roads to turn them into taxable housing development will somehow give us more subways and reduce congestion. We need to expand transportation options, and if it's not going to be highways then let it be trains and subways, but let's not pretend that users of those highways can easily stop using them and move to transit or that charging them more fees is going to give us more subways. If you want more trains and subways than we all have to pay for them. Perhaps we can stop building publicly funded highways, but then we're going to have to build more transit. Some of the automotive/gas taxes will pay for some of this, but certainly not all of it, and it's unfair to place the burden of additional funding on drivers who are mostly driving out of necessity.

So you can’t afford tolls? Should we start a gofundme so that we can get on with the topic.

 

[gibsonm]

So you can’t afford tolls? Should we start a gofundme so that we can get on with the topic.

You're basically asking for drinkers of Coke to buy the Pepsi for the drinkers of Pepsi. We all have to pay for transit, not just drivers of vehicles. If you want to shift taxes from gas to tolls, that's a choice, but then I think all mileage should be taxed, because I can't see highway drivers fully funding city roads.

 

[afransen]

Someone didn't read my entire post.

I did. The people who didn't drive at peak times did one of the following:

1) Drive at a different time
2) Take a different route
3) Take another mode (transit, etc.)
4) Carpooled
5) Went to a different destination (do you really need to go to the Milton Outlet Mall, or can you shop closer by?)
6) Chose to work closer to home
7) Chose to live closer to work
8) Chose to combine trips (go shopping after work instead of making two different trips)

No despawning of sims required.

 

[afransen]

What makes you so sure of that? "Is there a viable alternative" is a yes or no question, there isn't really much of a grey area.. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, great. If it doesn't exist, well get on with it. If it can't exist, then maybe the status quo makes the most sense.

It is a grey area. Viable alternative for whom? This is a red herring. It is entirely impossible to provide a 'viable' (in the eye of the beholder) alternative for every single car trip. What is the viable alternative for a plumber who drives around with a work van full of tools and supplies? Or the carpenter with a trailer?

If a 'viable alternative' exists for even a small fraction that can make different choices, it will help to decongest the highway for everyone else.

 

[afransen]

We're maximizing the existing infrastructure to the fullest we can.

No we're not. We're not maximizing the utility of our highways. They are crushingly slow. That is a massive destruction of value. They don't even move more vehicles.

 

[afransen]

Please fill me in on how my sense of ethics is wrong in details please. If there's something hypocritical in what I'm saying, I'd love to hear it. If you're just complaining about my sense of ethics because it doesn't match your vision for an ideal world then I'm sorry but I cannot help you.

Your ethical evaluation that it is better for highways to be ruined for everyone with traffic delays than have people pay for them is, IMO, incorrect. We might as well replace highways with regular surface arterials with lights if you see nothing wrong with them operating at 30kph on a regular basis. We don't need huge lanes and access ramps.

Maybe a way to break this logjam if you think people should be entitled to pay with their time to use highways: create volunteer programs where people can exchange their time doing community service and in exchange receive highway toll credits.

 

[ARG1]

I did. The people who didn't drive at peak times did one of the following:

1) Drive at a different time
2) Take a different route
3) Take another mode (transit, etc.)
4) Carpooled
5) Went to a different destination (do you really need to go to the Milton Outlet Mall, or can you shop closer by?)
6) Chose to work closer to home
7) Chose to live closer to work
8) Chose to combine trips (go shopping after work instead of making two different trips)

No despawning of sims required.

Actually a lot of these are fair.

1) This might be a valid point after COVID if jobs start getting different hours, but at least judging by Pre-COVID standards this usually isn't an option for most people.
2) This isn't a good thing
3) Depending on what the other mode is, this isn't a good thing either.
4) Fair point.
5) People don't travel far just because, they travel far because they usually have to. If I'm driving all the way to Kingston to buy a bike, its because that's the closest store to me that has a bike available. If I have to drive to oakville to buy a webcam, its because its the closest store that has a webcam (actual things I had to do when COVID started).
6, 7) Oftentimes that's not possible. Some jobs are located far from where people live, and people tend to live close to their friends and family. I know someone who travelled to work every day from Mississauga to Markham because that was the closest work for her profession, and she lived in an indian community close to her friends and family.
8) Fair point.

The thing that's important to highlight about all of these is that these are compromises on the side of the commuter. These aren't "universal benefits". Just like everything else, some people win, some people lose, and the ones that win are usually those with money.

It is a grey area. Viable alternative for whom? This is a red herring. It is entirely impossible to provide a 'viable' (in the eye of the beholder) alternative for every single car trip. What is the viable alternative for a plumber who drives around with a work van full of tools and supplies? Or the carpenter with a trailer?

For the plumber and the carpenter, those 2 groups follow the "there is no viable alternative and thus we should keep the status quo group".

If a 'viable alternative' exists for even a small fraction that can make different choices, it will help to decongest the highway for everyone else.

Glad we agree.

No we're not. We're not maximizing the utility of our highways. They are crushingly slow. That is a massive destruction of value. They don't even move more vehicles.

"If we move people away from the highway towards transit, than that leaves Highways open for other people who do not have transit and whose roles cannot be accomplished by transit", isn't this what you're arguing with your point about the plumber and the carpenter? I'm not saying we destroy all highways. A proper transit city has both good highways and good transit, see: Tokyo and Sydney.

Your ethical evaluation that it is better for highways to be ruined for everyone with traffic delays than have people pay for them is, IMO, incorrect. We might as well replace highways with regular surface arterials with lights if you see nothing wrong with them operating at 30kph on a regular basis. We don't need huge lanes and access ramps.

Maybe a way to break this logjam if you think people should be entitled to pay with their time to use highways: create volunteer programs where people can exchange their time doing community service and in exchange receive highway toll credits.

You do realize that Highways aren't congested 24/7 right? Yes during peak hours highways are slow and in those hours you are right, but that doesn't mean that this is also what the highways are like at 8 PM.

I have layed out my ideal world in front of you. GO RER is built, you add fares to the downtown section of DVP/Gardiner. People who need to commute downtown (which is the primary cause of congestion) will be enticed to switch to GO, and even then, for most people GO will be better than the status quo. This means the highways are now free for people who can't do centralized trips and still depend on highway for their more dispersed journeys. The only time then where congestion where congestion becomes a problem is weekends where everyone is crowding the QEW or 400 trying to reach cottage country, and to that I say, sure toll them as well.

This isn't a new concept. This is how Sydney and Japan, two cities whose transit systems I value highly operate. In Sydney, places that have very high transit access and transit mobility but also have motorways, have the motorways tolled. Meanwhile in the suburbs where the highways are needed for more dispersed commutes and transit access isn't guaranteed, the highways are free. This is what I'm aiming for, this is what I want. Is there something fundamentally wrong with that?

 

[sixrings]

Wouldn’t the plumber and electrician be able to write off the tolls as a business expense. And if they got to their place of work faster wouldn’t that be good for business and their income.

 

[afransen]

Actually a lot of these are fair.

1) This might be a valid point after COVID if jobs start getting different hours, but at least judging by Pre-COVID standards this usually isn't an option for most people.
2) This isn't a good thing
3) Depending on what the other mode is, this isn't a good thing either.
4) Fair point.
5) People don't travel far just because, they travel far because they usually have to. If I'm driving all the way to Kingston to buy a bike, its because that's the closest store to me that has a bike available. If I have to drive to oakville to buy a webcam, its because its the closest store that has a webcam (actual things I had to do when COVID started).
6, 7) Oftentimes that's not possible. Some jobs are located far from where people live, and people tend to live close to their friends and family. I know someone who travelled to work every day from Mississauga to Markham because that was the closest work for her profession, and she lived in an indian community close to her friends and family.
8) Fair point.

The thing that's important to highlight about all of these is that these are compromises on the side of the commuter. These aren't "universal benefits". Just like everything else, some people win, some people lose, and the ones that win are usually those with money.

You only need some of these to be true for some people to reduce peak trips and reduce congestion. People can definitely make different decisions about where they live and work. It won't happen overnight. I can tell you right now, I would take into account that living in Oshawa and working in Mississauga requires being willing to spend 4 hours a day commuting or spending $70/day on the 407, and I would re-evaluate my choice of where to live or work in that light. $17k per year in tolls (or 1000h of my life flushed down the toilet each year, grinding through traffic) is enough to consider working for another employer or choosing to live closer to work. You only need a few people to make different choices (and it doesn't require punitively high tolls like the 407) to change the behavior of enough people to unlock the value of our highway network.

For the plumber and the carpenter, those 2 groups follow the "there is no viable alternative and thus we should keep the status quo group".

You said we cannot apply tolls until there is a viable alternative for every trip. It's an impossible standard. There are already some trips that have alternatives, like carpooling.

"If we move people away from the highway towards transit, than that leaves Highways open for other people who do not have transit and whose roles cannot be accomplished by transit", isn't this what you're arguing with your point about the plumber and the carpenter? I'm not saying we destroy all highways. A proper transit city has both good highways and good transit, see: Tokyo and Sydney.

You want those plumbers and carpenters to waste time in traffic at peak, when they could be performing productive work. I'm not saying that anyone suggests we destroy highways. We are destroying the usefulness of highways by letting them be heavily congested. Billions of dollars are wasted annually in the GTA due to congestion.

You do realize that Highways aren't congested 24/7 right? Yes during peak hours highways are slow and in those hours you are right, but that doesn't mean that this is also what the highways are like at 8 PM.

Yes. When they are not congested, the tolls should be very low. Possibly zero.

I have layed out my ideal world in front of you. GO RER is built, you add fares to the downtown section of DVP/Gardiner. People who need to commute downtown (which is the primary cause of congestion) will be enticed to switch to GO, and even then, for most people GO will be better than the status quo. This means the highways are now free for people who can't do centralized trips and still depend on highway for their more dispersed journeys. The only time then where congestion where congestion becomes a problem is weekends where everyone is crowding the QEW or 400 trying to reach cottage country, and to that I say, sure toll them as well.

This isn't a new concept. This is how Sydney and Japan, two cities whose transit systems I value highly operate. In Sydney, places that have very high transit access and transit mobility but also have motorways, have the motorways tolled. Meanwhile in the suburbs where the highways are needed for more dispersed commutes and transit access isn't guaranteed, the highways are free. This is what I'm aiming for, this is what I want. Is there something fundamentally wrong with that?

What about the 401? Honestly, that is the economic backbone of the city. When do we get to relieve the crushing gridlock on that highway? I'm not opposed to tolls being low to zero when there is surplus capacity for demand. But as soon as demand exceeds capacity and average speed drops, we need to up the tolls to manage that demand and keep the highways flowing.

The 400 is a great example of the value of tolling. If we rewarded people from driving off-peak or carpooling, we could get much more value out of that highway than we do with the congestion you see Friday evening and Saturday. If you are willing to pay, drive at peak times and get where you're going quickly. If you want to save a buck, drive at 4 am (I know people who do it just because they hate traffic).

 

[afransen]

Wouldn’t the plumber and electrician be able to write off the tolls as a business expense. And if they got to their place of work faster wouldn’t that be good for business and their income.

Yes. Many would likely be happy to incur the expense of a toll if it meant they could get more jobs done in a day.

 

[gibsonm]

What a load of rubbish, $17,000 a year in tolls for the plumber who commutes from Oshawa? No way. Let's put more of our tax money into transit, sure, but you're not going to get away with fleecing people and letting them deal with the consequences of finding other employment closer to home to achieve some special interest's dystopian command and control transit funding scheme. Most of us don't want to live in Tokyo, shoehorned into tiny apartments in exchange for better transit. Sydney's context is also quite different. Why don't we get the OL and RER up and running, as well as all other committed transit projects that are fully funded, because at that point we may see a real shift from driving to transit, or at least people will have more commuting options. Why throw more fees at people unnecessarily? If regional transit use increases to avoid highway congestion and because of increased transit options, we should see transit fare box revenue increase and further justification to shift more of our transportation tax dollars to transit over roads. Let's start there.

 

[afransen]

What a load of rubbish, $17,000 a year in tolls for the plumber who commutes from Oshawa? No way.

I'm just quoting 407 rates between Oshawa and Mississauga at peak. You are conflating the plumber idea. I don't think a plumber who lives in Oshawa should want to work in Mississauga--lots of work in the east end. And I think the 407 is probably more expensive than needed to achieve the goal of highways that flow at all times.

Look, gibson, I know that your position is "I don't want to have to pay tolls". You don't need to elaborate further.

 

[gibsonm]

I'm just quoting 407 rates between Oshawa and Mississauga at peak. You are conflating the plumber idea. I don't think a plumber who lives in Oshawa should want to work in Mississauga--lots of work in the east end. And I think the 407 is probably more expensive than needed to achieve the goal of highways that flow at all times.

Look, gibson, I know that your position is "I don't want to have to pay tolls". You don't need to elaborate further.

Yes that is my position and it's an important one you need to confront because much of the public shares my sentiments. You want to fund one transportation mode at the expense of the users of another, and you're dismissive of how these millions of people will be impacted by your zero-sum approach.