Highways in Canada

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Considering 18 lanes proved to be too little for the 401, do you think 12 is enough for the 407? I'd much rather they left space for something double that width. If they don't need it, no loss. If they do but didn't leave enough space, they're screwed.

Seems to me that they haven't learned from past mistakes. History repeats.

I assume you're being sarcastic. If there's one thing we should have learned from past mistakes, it's the futility of constant highway widenings.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I assume you're being sarcastic. If there's one thing we should have learned from past mistakes, it's the futility of constant highway widenings.

Nope. If there's one thing history teaches us is that what's the conventional wisdom of today will not be the conventional wisdom 30 years from now. Cars are out of favour today, but it's impossible to say what the world will be like a few decades from now. New technologies may develop that bring cars back in vogue or a new piece of critical infrastructure may appear on the horizon that requires space.

What you definitely don't do is paint yourself into a corner because you assume the world will stay the same. Surely people aren't so naive or green to the ways of the world that they think what's in today will be in tomorrow? I know it's how most people under 30 think, but that's because they're young. Your post is a little deflating tbh. I thought we knew better, but it seems we never do.

These decision making powers should be left to people who've been around for 50-60+ years imo. With age comes experience and wisdom.

[1overcosc]

^ Most of our decision makers in society are in their 50s and 60s. And our leaders haven't exactly excelled.

Cut the ageist bullshit. The old have the advantage of being more experienced, while the young have the advantage of having more creative thinking (not stuck in their ways).

[niwell]

just as an fyi - the extra wide ROW for the 407 as dedicated by the Parkway Belt West Plan includes lands for a future transitway. And hydro + utility corridors. Setting aside this land for these purposes was not a dumb move IMO.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Nope. If there's one thing history teaches us is that what's the conventional wisdom of today will not be the conventional wisdom 30 years from now. Cars are out of favour today, but it's impossible to say what the world will be like a few decades from now. New technologies may develop that bring cars back in vogue or a new piece of critical infrastructure may appear on the horizon that requires space.

What you definitely don't do is paint yourself into a corner because you assume the world will stay the same. Surely people aren't so naive or green to the ways of the world that they think what's in today will be in tomorrow? I know it's how most people under 30 think, but that's because they're young. Your post is a little deflating tbh. I thought we knew better, but it seems we never do.

These decision making powers should be left to people who've been around for 50-60+ years imo. With age comes experience and wisdom.

18 lane highways, or 24 lane highways like you seem to be advocating for the 407, aren't "the ways of the world". Never have been, they're an extremely rare occurrence. The "ways of the world" in regions similar to southern Ontario are to cut back on the highway expansion and build high speed rail for intercity travel and regional/metro rail for urban travel. Even car-happy cities like Los Angeles are waking up to this reality.

Your post shows thinking that has been thoroughly debunked. Adding more lanes to highways like the 401 just creates more traffic. It's simple supply and demand, which is something that doesn't change every few decades... it's been a constant throughout human civilization.

Finally, painting ourselves into a corner is exactly what we're doing by building massive highway infrastructure and neglecting more effective ways of moving people.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Mister F

18 lane highways, or 24 lane highways like you seem to be advocating for the 407, aren't "the ways of the world". Never have been, they're an extremely rare occurrence. The "ways of the world" in regions similar to southern Ontario are to cut back on the highway expansion and build high speed rail for intercity travel and regional/metro rail for urban travel. Even car-happy cities like Los Angeles are waking up to this reality.

Your post shows thinking that has been thoroughly debunked. Adding more lanes to highways like the 401 just creates more traffic. It's simple supply and demand, which is something that doesn't change every few decades... it's been a constant throughout human civilization.

Only because capacity has been so successfully constrained. There is so much latent demand for transportation capacity in the GTA, of course if the freeway was widened, more people would use it. The concept of induced demand is so overused and misunderstood.

[swimmer_spe]

We were moving away from rail transit 50-60 years ago. Now, we cant get enough.

We were moving towards personal vehicles. Now, we have viable short term car rentals.

When I am old and grey, who knows what will be true. I just hope we find better ways.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Only because capacity has been so successfully constrained. There is so much latent demand for transportation capacity in the GTA, of course if the freeway was widened, more people would use it. The concept of induced demand is so overused and misunderstood.

In what way is it misunderstood? It's very real, especially in highly built up areas. Any time you make transportation easier more people will travel. I agree that there's a lot of pent up demand in the GTA but that's why transforming GO into a true regional rail system is such a good idea. No amount of new highways or extra lanes will erase congestion in the GTA. I think the 401 being one of the biggest highways in the world is proof enough of that, as is the famed freeway system (and congestion) of LA. The only way to keep urban highways moving is with tolls. Rail is far more effective at moving people around cities, and to a lesser extent, between cities. As the highways get jammed up every day, the trains keep moving.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Mister F

In what way is it misunderstood? It's very real, especially in highly built up areas. Any time you make transportation easier more people will travel. I agree that there's a lot of pent up demand in the GTA but that's why transforming GO into a true regional rail system is such a good idea. No amount of new highways or extra lanes will erase congestion in the GTA. I think the 401 being one of the biggest highways in the world is proof enough of that, as is the famed freeway system (and congestion) of LA. The only way to keep urban highways moving is with tolls. Rail is far more effective at moving people around cities, and to a lesser extent, between cities. As the highways get jammed up every day, the trains keep moving.

I think he was trying to point out that a lot of people here have sort of forgotten that simply building the highway doesn't generate vehicular traffic all by itself. I mean, if the cars have nowhere new to go or come from then there's no need for the highway in the first place, right ?

I understand how it works and I know why building highways doesn't solve traffic problems all by themselves. Nevertheless, if we weren't building endless square kilometers of low-density subdivisions in the first place, those lane expansions would have a greater impact on traffic flow. I think he's just saying that it's a vicious circle whereby one compounds the impact of the other. They don't really turn out so badly without that compounding effect.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Mister F

In what way is it misunderstood? It's very real, especially in highly built up areas. Any time you make transportation easier more people will travel. I agree that there's a lot of pent up demand in the GTA but that's why transforming GO into a true regional rail system is such a good idea. No amount of new highways or extra lanes will erase congestion in the GTA. I think the 401 being one of the biggest highways in the world is proof enough of that, as is the famed freeway system (and congestion) of LA. The only way to keep urban highways moving is with tolls. Rail is far more effective at moving people around cities, and to a lesser extent, between cities. As the highways get jammed up every day, the trains keep moving.

First of all, you could build your way out of congestion. It is impractical to do so in a city as large as Toronto, but a city has a theoretic cap of travel demand. Demand induction is as a result of latent demand. Travel demand has been suppressed due to congestion, and people take less discretionary trips. In a rural area, say Highway 69, the doubling of lane capacity as the highway gets twinned, would have no demand induction, as there was not a built up latent demand before the highway was twinned.

GO transit expansion across Toronto will provide some relief, but it is naive to think that that alone will relieve congestion either. Different transportation modes, including beloved trains (I can't believe the frequency in which HSR is brought up in the highway forum), have strengths and weaknesses. It is very effective to bring mass amounts of people from many points into a central down-town node on transit, however it is much less effective in point to point travel. Spending excessive money on transit evokes the law of diminished returns. It begins to cost more and more to serve trips that are poorly served by transit versus other modes.

Take for example, the Eglinton Crosstown LRT line. The vehicle is proposed to move at 28km/h along the line. For short trips, such a slow speed is acceptable, but this travel speed compares unfavourably with even the slowest rush hour drives along the highway network. There are very few transit modes that are time competitive with driving. Typically those that are, are only comparable because of excessive highway congestion.

Obviously there are drawbacks to highway travel as well. I for one, wouldn't want to live in Houston, but failing to see any advantages of highway travel is dumb.

Specific to the GTA, to really improve regional mobility, both are needed. The best way to reduce congestion is to recognize the strength and weaknesses of different transportation modes and build both additional roadway and transit capacity.

[Innsertnamehere]

The Eglinton LRT runs at the same speed as the Bloor Danforth line...

You cannot build yourself out of congestion in a city like Toronto, roads would begin to take up such large percentages of land area to deal with it that it would be unfeasible. Road congestion is a fact of life in large urban areas. Period.


Also, the 407 is designed for a 10 lane buildout for most of its length, with only a few small sections being designed for 12 lane buildouts. Many sections are already reaching that 10 lane buildout, with another major section currently under construction to reach it. (400-427) Once those areas start to get overloaded, I would expect the 407 to start introducing higher toll zones in those constricted areas to discourage use. (as well as simply higher general tolls)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The Eglinton LRT runs at the same speed as the Bloor Danforth line...

You cannot build yourself out of congestion in a city like Toronto, roads would begin to take up such large percentages of land area to deal with it that it would be unfeasible. Road congestion is a fact of life in large urban areas. Period.


Also, the 407 is designed for a 10 lane buildout for most of its length, with only a few small sections being designed for 12 lane buildouts. Many sections are already reaching that 10 lane buildout, with another major section currently under construction to reach it. (400-427) Once those areas start to get overloaded, I would expect the 407 to start introducing higher toll zones in those constricted areas to discourage use. (as well as simply higher general tolls)

Aren't the 407ETR tolls set to be whatever amount will deter enough people to keep traffic free-flowing?

[Innsertnamehere]

yes, but they are supposed to widen the highway when traffic starts to get too high rather than raise fares to discourage it. Now that the highway is at its maximum width, expect tolls to start rising faster as it is now the only way to keep congestion out instead of simply widening to deal with it.

[haljackey]

Also it should be noted that a 12 lane highway does not have double the capacity of a 6 lane highway.

With each lane you build, the less efficient all the lanes become. This is mostly due to weaving, exiting and whatnot.

Some of Toronto's bigger highways try to mitigate this by building collector-express systems to mimic two 6 lane highways, but it still would be more efficient to have 2 completely separate highways.

Then again, I think I'd rather have a couple big highways compared to a lot of smaller ones.

[Innsertnamehere]

its also probably cheaper to have a single twelve lane freeway than even dual 4 lane freeways. Most highway costs come from the interchanges and bridges.

[Innsertnamehere]

Found this great photo of the 404 / 401 interchange on Reddit:

[ssiguy]

Congestion is here and it's here to stay.

This crap put forth by touchy-feely policy wonks that transit can solve everything is just that, crap. Better transit can help slow the increase in congestion but it will only get worse.

Vancouver tried the "transit-only" route and high density living to stop congestion and the result is the longest commute times in NA for any city under 3 million. Certainly building densely populated communities and good transport have many positive outcomes but reducing congestion is not one of them.

The only people who say otherwise with a straight face are intellectual; midgets like Gordon price in Vancouver who doesn't even own a car, is wealthy, lives and works in the city, and would get a nose bleed if he had to go south of Broadway and actually have to mingle with the people he says he represents.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Congestion is here and it's here to stay.

This crap put forth by touchy-feely policy wonks that transit can solve everything is just that, crap. Better transit can help slow the increase in congestion but it will only get worse.

Vancouver tried the "transit-only" route and high density living to stop congestion and the result is the longest commute times in NA for any city under 3 million. Certainly building densely populated communities and good transport have many positive outcomes but reducing congestion is not one of them.

The only people who say otherwise with a straight face are intellectual; midgets like Gordon price in Vancouver who doesn't even own a car, is wealthy, lives and works in the city, and would get a nose bleed if he had to go south of Broadway and actually have to mingle with the people he says he represents.

why don't you move

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I think he was trying to point out that a lot of people here have sort of forgotten that simply building the highway doesn't generate vehicular traffic all by itself. I mean, if the cars have nowhere new to go or come from then there's no need for the highway in the first place, right ?

That's just the thing though, highways do generate traffic all by themselves. With more road capacity people drive farther and more often than they would have if the road weren't there. On top of that, highways drive demand for new car dependent development and accelerate sprawl.

It works the same way with any mode of transportation. Better GO service generates more riders and so do new subway lines. GO Transit is expecting a 50% increase in off-peak ridership since they started running trains every half hour on the Lakeshore line. Induced traffic is a key part of the business plan for high speed rail, and that's demand that doesn't currently exist.

Originally Posted by sonysnob

First of all, you could build your way out of congestion. It is impractical to do so in a city as large as Toronto, but a city has a theoretic cap of travel demand. Demand induction is as a result of latent demand. Travel demand has been suppressed due to congestion, and people take less discretionary trips. In a rural area, say Highway 69, the doubling of lane capacity as the highway gets twinned, would have no demand induction, as there was not a built up latent demand before the highway was twinned.

Well if you can build your way out of congestion then it's never been done. Probably the most rigorous analysis of induced demand is the long term study done by the Texas Transportation Institute. Its observations show just how hopeless constant highway widenings are in urban areas. A few highlights:

"These figures clearly indicate that there is no significant difference in congestion cost per capita between metro areas that invested heavily in highway construction and those that did not."
"The authors, UC Berkeley researchers Mark Hansen and Yuanlin Huang, found that at the metropolitan level, every 1% increase in new lane-miles generated a 0.9% increase in traffic in less than five years, which led them to conclude that "With so much induced demand, adding road capacity does little to reduce congestion.""
"Using a conservative estimate of $5 million per lane-mile, we estimate that over the 15 year period included in the TTI data, metro areas that invested heavily in road expansion projects spent $22 billion more than areas that built fewer new lane-miles, yet failed to produce lower congestion levels."
"In 1998, British researchers analyzed 60 road closures worldwide and found that on average, traffic decreased by 25 percent when a road was closed. In some cases, they found that an astonishing 60 percent of the driving trips disappeared."

Here's a more recent paper published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. Tellingly, there doesn't seem to be any research that comes to the opposite conclusion. As for Highway 69, obviously the induced demand of twinning that highway is a lot less than it would be in an urban area. The traffic volumes aren't very high and the level of service won't be a whole lot different than now, so there's not much theoretical advantage to driving the new highway. But the whole point of the project is to stimulate economic development in places like Sudbury, which doesn't happen without inducing some traffic.

GO transit expansion across Toronto will provide some relief, but it is naive to think that that alone will relieve congestion either. Different transportation modes, including beloved trains (I can't believe the frequency in which HSR is brought up in the highway forum), have strengths and weaknesses. It is very effective to bring mass amounts of people from many points into a central down-town node on transit, however it is much less effective in point to point travel. Spending excessive money on transit evokes the law of diminished returns. It begins to cost more and more to serve trips that are poorly served by transit versus other modes.

HSR comes up a lot in conversations like this because it's an effective alternative to highway expansion in densely populated areas like southern Ontario. Rail doesn't just serve point to point nodes. Any rail system, from GO Transit to the TGV in France, is served with huge park & rides at many stations. The GO corridors have the potential to allow people to get around the GTA reliably and quickly, all day, in all traffic conditions. No amount of road expansions have that potential. Lastly, I never claimed that transit could relieve road congestion. It can't. It can, however, provide a reliable alternative to sitting in traffic.

[SignalHillHiker]

The proposed roundabout for Karwood Drive at Kenmount Road.



It's going to have a camera in the middle live streaming on Comedy Central's website.