Highways to hell

[M.Dancer]

Yeah and an abundance of road ways is why L.A. is well known for its fast, hassle-free commutes.

It's a planning truism that increasing capacity doesn't decrease congestion. It just gets more people driving, leading to more congestion.

It is a paradox for urban planners, but dozens of models and numerous real life cases have shown, you add more roads, you get more cars...

http://www.walkablestreets.com/wide.htm

[Bonam]

Yeah and an abundance of road ways is why L.A. is well known for its fast, hassle-free commutes.

It's a planning truism that increasing capacity doesn't decrease congestion. It just gets more people driving, leading to more congestion.

That's true, but there's only a finite number of people. Increase road capacity sufficiently, and congestion will be reduced until the population grows.

[Bonam]

All well and fine, for Mississauga, but Toronto's streets are very to "not in hell" able to create more space.

The roads and system is more than 100 yrs old.

Build up and down, not sideways.

[Black Dog]

That's true, but there's only a finite number of people. Increase road capacity sufficiently, and congestion will be reduced until the population grows.

The population is growing. A lot. That's part of the problem. The infrastructure can't handle the current loads and it sure as hell won't handle those in the future.

[Shwa]

That's true, but there's only a finite number of people. Increase road capacity sufficiently, and congestion will be reduced until the population grows.

Is there a reliable metric for that? All you can truthfully say is that "congestion will reduced" while the population is growing.

Which is all beside the point. Really, with the billions upon billions needed, I think we should say 'piss off automobile infrastructure' and focus on inventing a teleportation system. Heck, even some sort of short site-to-site near-light speed transport would be good enough. We'd have those commuters back to their comfy homes in the burbs in, well, milliseconds. How could that not be worth a few bills?

[Black Dog]

Build up and down, not sideways.

I think you need to get your head out of the 1950s.

[Boges]

What are the practical implications of putting toll roads on the Gardiner and the DVP? Putting a toll on the 401 is ridiculous because people use it to get places other than Toronto AND there is already a toll option in the 407.

So let's say they put a $5 surcharge to get into the city. That's fair and not unreasonable.

But what's to stop people from getting off the highway and taking a city street in?

Just a thought.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Boges

[Bonam]

The population is growing. A lot. That's part of the problem. The infrastructure can't handle the current loads and it sure as hell won't handle those in the future.

That's why it needs to be expanded...

[Boges]

That's why it needs to be expanded...

I'll tell you, it's being expanded in the 905.

[Bonam]

Which is all beside the point. Really, with the billions upon billions needed, I think we should say 'piss off automobile infrastructure' and focus on inventing a teleportation system. Heck, even some sort of short site-to-site near-light speed transport would be good enough. We'd have those commuters back to their comfy homes in the burbs in, well, milliseconds. How could that not be worth a few bills?

Unfortunately, inventing macroscopic teleportation will take some time yet, no matter if you pour a lot of money into it now. I wouldn't expect prototypes of a macroscopic matter teleporter until the 2040s at the earliest. We need more computing power and memory, rapid atomic resolution non-destructive 3d scanning, and rapid atomic-level assembler/synthesis systems.

[Oleg Bach]

Walking over the bridge at the Don River _ I look down on the traffic and think ------boy is that dumb - There motors are running and they are not moving...so their real job (commuters) is the consumption of oil - in other words they work for the oil companies! Once they get to work most do little of any substance - but once on the road - they are real productive CONSUMERS.

[Black Dog]

That's why it needs to be expanded...

Nope. We need better transportation alternatives.

[Bonam]

Nope. We need better transportation alternatives.

Public transit is suitable for some portion of the population, never for the whole of it. There are many reasons why it may not be reasonable for people to take a bus/train/streetcar/etc, which have been beaten to death on these boards. Some portion of people will always need to drive personal vehicles. Additionally, freight needs to be transported around as well. As population and economic activity grows, roads have to keep up, or you get congestion. Trying to force everyone onto public transit systems is a flawed, top-down, social engineering solution, which will never work.

[Black Dog]

Public transit is suitable for some portion of the population, never for the whole of it. There are many reasons why it may not be reasonable for people to take a bus/train/streetcar/etc, which have been beaten to death on these boards. Some portion of people will always need to drive personal vehicles.

I agree. And they should pay mightily for the privilege.

Additionally, freight needs to be transported around as well. As population and economic activity grows, roads have to keep up, or you get congestion.

You keep ignoring the fact that more roads don't decrease congestion. Never have. Never will.

Trying to force everyone onto public transit systems is a flawed, top-down, social engineering solution, which will never work.

That's not the intent. The idea is to create better alternatives so those who can take transit have the option. Those whop can't or won't still have the option of driving their own vehicles, but the cost of doing so will better reflect the social costs of building and maintaining automobile transportation networks.

Also, I have to laugh at the irony of deriding transit focused public policy as "social engineering" as if the autocentric nature of modern development simply evolved naturally.

[Bonam]

I agree. And they should pay mightily for the privilege.

As should people who enjoy the privilege of riding public transit, I take it?

You keep ignoring the fact that more roads don't decrease congestion. Never have. Never will.

This is one of those twisted statements based on studies arising out of people wanting nothing else than to further an agenda. You build more roads, you have more space for vehicles to go, and more vehicles can be handled by the system before it is congested. That is simple reality. The number of vehicles will increase over time, yes, and the system will become congested again in the future if you don't keep upgrading it.

That's not the intent. The idea is to create better alternatives so those who can take transit have the option. Those whop can't or won't still have the option of driving their own vehicles, but the cost of doing so will better reflect the social costs of building and maintaining automobile transportation networks.

As opposed to the comparable or even higher costs of building and maintaining advanced rapid transit systems that can properly service densely populated cities and must be built beside/over existing infrastructure? Or the costs of those very same roads for buses to travel on?

Trying to offload all the costs of transit onto personal vehicle drivers while subsidizing multi-billion dollar public transit projects is not something I will support.

[Black Dog]

As should people who enjoy the privilege of riding public transit, I take it?

They do. It's called "fares."

This is one of those twisted statements based on studies arising out of people wanting nothing else than to further an agenda.

Yeah, those goddamn urban planners.

You build more roads, you have more space for vehicles to go, and more vehicles can be handled by the system before it is congested. That is simple reality. The number of vehicles will increase over time, yes, and the system will become congested again in the future if you don't keep upgrading it.

This assumes that the construction of new roads will not only keep pace, but exceed the increase in traffic. I doubt that would be the case. There's also no end point. Eventually, you'll run out of places to put roads.

As opposed to the comparable or even higher costs of building and maintaining advanced rapid transit systems that can properly service densely populated cities and must be built beside/over existing infrastructure? Or the costs of those very same roads for buses to travel on?

You've heard of cost vs. benefit, I'm sure.

Trying to offload all the costs of transit onto personal vehicle drivers while subsidizing multi-billion dollar public transit projects is not something I will support.

Yet you're happy offloading the economic, social and environmental costs form personal vehicle use onto all citizens whether they drive or not.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Black Dog

[Shady]

They do. It's called "fares."

As do people that drive. It's called a license sticker cost, a driver's license cost, it's called gas taxes, and it's called property taxes.

[Shady]

I agree. And they should pay mightily for the privilege.

They do. It's called a license sticker cost, a driver's license cost, it's called gas taxes, and it's called property taxes. Are you unaware of these costs? Do you not drive? Have you never driven?

[Boges]

As do people that drive. It's called a license sticker cost, a driver's license cost, it's called gas taxes, and it's called property taxes.

And contributing the economy by buying and maintaining cars.

Drivers pay far more in taxes than any public transit commuter, how much more should they pay?

[Shady]

And contributing the economy by buying and maintaining cars.

Drivers pay far more in taxes than any public transit commuter, how much more should they pay?

Good question. Apparently Black Dogg gets to drive for free. I wish I had that privilege!

[Bonam]

Yet you're happy offloading the economic, social and environmental costs form personal vehicle use onto all citizens whether they drive or not.

No, what I'd be happy with would be people shouldering a proportionate share of the costs, rather than forcing people who choose one mode of commute to subsidize those who choose another.

[Shwa]

What are the practical implications of putting toll roads on the Gardiner and the DVP? Putting a toll on the 401 is ridiculous because people use it to get places other than Toronto AND there is already a toll option in the 407.

The I-90 in a toll highway in the northern US and people use it to get to other places than Rochester or Chicago. It is actually reasonable priced, a well maintained and groomed road. At least on the part that I have travelled.

So let's say they put a $5 surcharge to get into the city. That's fair and not unreasonable

If they had it tolled in sections like, say, the I-90, there would be an effective charge to get into Toronto.

But what's to stop people from getting off the highway and taking a city street in?

Nothing. But they wouldn't get the privledge or the ease of use of the 401. There are backroads in NY too, if that is the way you want to go.

[Shwa]

Unfortunately, inventing macroscopic teleportation will take some time yet, no matter if you pour a lot of money into it now. I wouldn't expect prototypes of a macroscopic matter teleporter until the 2040s at the earliest. We need more computing power and memory, rapid atomic resolution non-destructive 3d scanning, and rapid atomic-level assembler/synthesis systems.

Come off it Bonam, they put a man on the moon while we were still using rotary phones and calculators that weighed 3 pounds. They were watching 'Gilligan's Island' on TV for gawdsakes. Through antennas!

A few bill here and there, a couple of key assassinations in the oil industry and we are good to go. Get your slide rule out dude, and engineer us a teleporter.

Actually I was thinking of some sort of point-to-point nuclear hyper-subway.

[Wild Bill]

I agree. And they should pay mightily for the privilege.

I live in Hamilton. Since we DON"T HAVE good public transit alternatives then driving is a NECESSITY!

To limit people's ability to access a necessity is smarmy at best and downright cruel at worst!

Too many people that support public transit alternatives seem to put the cart before the horse, expecting people to use poor or non-existent alternatives and sit around for a generation or two expecting those alternatives to be either created or improved.

Frankly, that's crap!

If you want people to use an alternative you'd best first create and IMPLEMENT that alternative! Put your money where your mouth is instead of expecting people to sacrifice trying to prove YOUR dream!

[Shady]

To limit people's ability to access a necessity is smarmy at best and downright cruel at worst!

That's what him and his ilk are all about. Telling everyone else what they should do, and how they should live. Because darn it, they know better than you. Their agenda is really an agenda of anti-freedom. And it extends to most aspects of life. They want to be able to tell you where you should live, when and where you can drive, what kind of car you should drive, what you should eat, what toilets you can use, and what kind lightbulbs you can use. It's about time some of them got punched in the face for thinking they're everyone elses rulers.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Shady