Highway Expansion

[MisterF]

I'm still not sure how valid the concept of induced demand is.

It's been proven many times.

We need to stop comparing ourselves to cities like London because guess what? We're not London. To compare Toronto to a world city is laughable.

Why? Toronto is a world city. You haven't given any evidence or arguments to back up your assertion that the two cities can't be compared. My main point about London is that it's a bigger, denser city that thrives without a single freeway in its central area, which proves that downtown highways aren't needed. You've said nothing that refutes this.

 

[Whoaccio]

It's been proven many times.

With free highways. I don't see the induced demand on the 407, for instance. And really, can you name one free good that isn't short of supply? And why is more people traveling a bad thing?

Why? Toronto is a world city. You haven't given any evidence or arguments to back up your assertion that the two cities can't be compared. My main point about London is that it's a bigger, denser city that thrives without a single freeway in its central area, which proves that downtown highways aren't needed. You've said nothing that refutes this.

That is sort of poor logic, no? Couldn't I suggest that central Tokyo has several expressways and is, in many respects, more urban, more dynamic and certainly bigger than London and therefore Toronto could easily build whatever highways it wants and have exactly the same results? Hong Kong has more highway miles than Toronto, and it is probably the most urban city on earth. Manhattan is hardly short on roadspace, either.

 

[wyliepoon]

Hong Kong has more highway miles than Toronto, and it is probably the most urban city on earth.

Keep in mind that the definition of 'highway' in Hong Kong is often quite different from the North American definition. Most highways in Hong Kong are lined with sidewalks and bus stops, and have maximum speed limits of 70-80 km/h, which make them look more like main thoroughfares in Toronto than expressways.

 

[nfitz]

We need to stop comparing ourselves to cities like London because guess what? We're not London. To compare Toronto to a world city is laughable.

In terms of what Toronto has to deal with each day in terms of commuting volumes, London isn't an unreasonable comparision. The urbanized area in/near Greater London is only about 8.5 million people (Greater London is only 7.5 million). The population of Greater London and the Home Counties is about 14 million.

By comparison the GTA (Oshawa to Burlington, York Region, etc.) is 5.6 million (comparable to urbanized Greater London), and the Golden Horseshoe (includes KW, Hamilton, Niagara, etc.) is 8.1 million (comparable to the London and Home Counties) with Ontario predicting it will grow to 11.5 million by 2031.

Smaller yes, but approaching. Certainly we should have half the amount of transit infrastructure that London has. Not only are we no where near this, London's transportation infrastructure is still growing more than twice as fast as ours.

 

[MisterF]

With free highways. I don't see the induced demand on the 407, for instance. And really, can you name one free good that isn't short of supply? And why is more people traveling a bad thing?

Sure induced traffic is lessened when there are tolls involved, but it's still there. More travel isn't necessarily a bad thing, and can be a good thing. Two important points to remember though: One, more driving in a city core is a bad thing. And two, rail transit can encourage more travel a lot better than a new highway can.

That is sort of poor logic, no? Couldn't I suggest that central Tokyo has several expressways and is, in many respects, more urban, more dynamic and certainly bigger than London and therefore Toronto could easily build whatever highways it wants and have exactly the same results? Hong Kong has more highway miles than Toronto, and it is probably the most urban city on earth. Manhattan is hardly short on roadspace, either.

The expressways into central Tokyo, Hong Kong, Manhattan, and yes, Toronto, carry far fewer people than their rail systems. My point was simply that freeways going downtown aren't needed, and that they make a rather poor investment compared to rail. Paris is another example of a major world city without any central freeways. Ditto Milan.

 

[jswag]

And why is more people traveling a bad thing?

Well, there are a number of reasons, such as lack of capacity, increasing pollution, economic costs, etc. One of the things that Metrolinx has made quite clear in their research is that people need to take fewer trips. There are a lot of unnecessary journeys being made that are clogging up the entire transportation system. People need to start thinking twice before they take a trip, or think about combining trips. This will be one easy way in which we can increase the capacity of not only our highways, but our transit systems.

 

[TKTKTK]

The expressways into central ... Toronto, carry far fewer people than their rail systems.

How is that even possible? Toronto's expressways are busy nearly 24/7, GO largely runs during business hours?

 

[adma]

The expressways into central Tokyo, Hong Kong, Manhattan, and yes, Toronto, carry far fewer people than their rail systems. My point was simply that freeways going downtown aren't needed, and that they make a rather poor investment compared to rail. Paris is another example of a major world city without any central freeways. Ditto Milan.

And when it comes to Manhattan, there haven't been anything new for closing on half a century, with one (the West Side Highway) actually having been removed...

 

[Chuck]

Why? Toronto is a world city. You haven't given any evidence or arguments to back up your assertion that the two cities can't be compared. My main point about London is that it's a bigger, denser city that thrives without a single freeway in its central area, which proves that downtown highways aren't needed. You've said nothing that refutes this.

I hope you can realize that the manner in which Toronto grew, and the period in which much of that growth occurred, is very different from that of London. There are reasons why London can survive without a downtown freeway, and those reasons don't apply in Toronto.

 

[adma]

Then why are cities with so-called better-developed downtown freeway systems in worse shape than Toronto?

 

[Chuck]

Then why are cities with so-called better-developed downtown freeway systems in worse shape than Toronto?

Absolutely irrelevant. My argument is simply that the transportation system present in any city should be reflective of the nature and type of development present in that city. In the same way that it's wrong to claim that Toronto doesn't need downtown freeways because nor does London, it would equally wrong to say that because downtown Houston has 5 freeways, Toronto also needs five.

The northwest part of Toronto lacks highway access to the core, which means that cars are either funneled onto city streets, or are forced to take roundabout routes along the 401, 427, Gardiner, and DVP. Extending the 400 south would fill in the only major missing link left. Other than that, freeway construction should be halted altogether. For the record, I believe that northerly extensions of the highway should be banned outright, and that improving GO and expanding the subway system should be prioritized. However, extending the 400 southward is nonetheless an extremely worthy project.

 

[Hydrogen]

Question: when speaking of a "downtown" highway, are we talking about a highway that would pass through the city, or just feed into it picking up and supplying traffic to and from city arteries?

To my mind, a highway that would just feed into the city would only amplify traffic issues on roads that would link with such a highway. It would eventually bring pressure from residents to close access or reroute traffic so as to keep cars off an increasing number of side streets. Eventually, gridlock would probably reappear as traffic volume grows and is concentrated on those select roads.

 

[BobBob]

My argument is simply that the transportation system present in any city should be reflective of the nature and type of development present in that city.

But it's actually the other way around. The type of development that occurs is largely conditioned by the type of infrastructure that is present to service it. We couldn't have low-density suburbs until we had highways and cars, not the other way around.

 

[MisterF]

How is that even possible? Toronto's expressways are busy nearly 24/7, GO largely runs during business hours?

The modal share for cars is something in the neighbourhood of 35%, less during rush hour. More people take the TTC alone downtown than drive, let alone GO and other modes.

I hope you can realize that the manner in which Toronto grew, and the period in which much of that growth occurred, is very different from that of London. There are reasons why London can survive without a downtown freeway, and those reasons don't apply in Toronto.

You could make the same argument about Chicago, Philadelphia, or Boston, but Toronto has higher transit ridership than all 3. Toronto's transit patterns are just as close to the European model as they are to the American model.

But your logic is faulty. How Toronto grew is irrelevant. You're trying to say that a city that's reliant on cars needs more cars. This isn't the case. Toronto only needs the Gardiner and DVP because it built them. London is the way it is today because it chose to build transit instead of highways into its core. Toronto can make exactly the same choice.

 

[Conrad Black]

New York developed in the same manner as London or Paris. Yet New York still ended up with highways all through the city while the other two didn't.