Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

[stevensontransit]

The Westbound express and collector lanes are being resurfaced from Neilson to Warden:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/highway-bridges/pdfs/southern-highways-program-2016-2020.pdf (page 34)

Major Hwy 401 Construction Project - Warden to Neilson Westbound - Completion 2024 - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

Just got this letter in the mail ... NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION Highway 401 Westbound Core and Collector Lanes from Neilson Rd. to Warden Ave. The

forums.redflagdeals.com

In my opinion widening westbound 401 between Neilson and Warden is a terrible idea. It's not going to make the highway less congested, in fact, it will attract more cars to the highway and increase congestion. It also will demolish 8 homes: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/8-homes-park-may-be-trimmed-to-solve-401-bottleneck-1.4473940

They should do instead is build the Sheppard East LRT. Getting people out of their cars and onto transit is the way to reduce congestion.

 

[afransen]

Not sure Sheppard LRT is really going to divert many people off 401.

 

[sche]

In my opinion widening westbound 401 between Neilson and Warden is a terrible idea. It's not going to make the highway less congested, in fact, it will attract more cars to the highway and increase congestion. It also will demolish 8 homes: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/8-homes-park-may-be-trimmed-to-solve-401-bottleneck-1.4473940

They should do instead is build the Sheppard East LRT. Getting people out of their cars and onto transit is the way to reduce congestion.

It is true that widening the 401 is a terrible idea, for the reasons you stated (induced demand). It will only increase the number of cars and increase traffic.

But, building transit generally does not reduce congestion due to this same induced demand. Any people that do switch to transit (which is unlikely in this scenario as most people on the 401 don't live or work on Sheppard East anyways) will quickly be replaced by new trips on the highway.
This is does not mean we shouldn't build transit. Mobility is a necessity in cities, and good transit moves people far more efficiently than cars in terms of space, emissions, and cost. Transit also provides numerous benefits that cars and highways do not, including improving public realm, creating liveable cities, improving public health by encouraging active transportation, reducing environmental footprint of cities, etc.

I will also say that "relieving congestion" is a great political excuse to build transit in car-centric cities, even though it doesn't do this at all.

People generally choose transportation modes based on two factors only: cost and travel time. Thus, the only ways to actually eliminate road congestion are to make transit cheaper and/or faster than cars for most or all origin destination pairs. This basically means road tolls, complete transit priority everywhere, forcing cars to take roundabout routes, and a lot (like, a ton) of high quality, fast transit.

Doing this is basically impossible. There is no major city in the world without congestion. I think congestion has to be accepted as something that will always be there. The aim of infrastructure projects should not be to reduce congestion, but to facilitate the movement of the maximum number of people using the least amount of money, land, and other resources possible.

Also, side note, the SELRT is a pretty bad project imo. At grade LRTs are generally slow and low capacity, only good enough for small cities or feeder lines, not a major crosstown route in a large city. The additional transfer at Don Mills is also terrible. People hate transfers; they will go out of their way to avoid them. A forced linear transfer is just terrible. Elevated extension of Sheppard is the way to go.

 

[innsertnamehere]

In my opinion widening westbound 401 between Neilson and Warden is a terrible idea. It's not going to make the highway less congested, in fact, it will attract more cars to the highway and increase congestion. It also will demolish 8 homes: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/8-homes-park-may-be-trimmed-to-solve-401-bottleneck-1.4473940

They should do instead is build the Sheppard East LRT. Getting people out of their cars and onto transit is the way to reduce congestion.

That's not demolishing 8 homes, just taking a bit from their backyards. The article says that at most they will need 4.6 metres of yard.. That's only 15 feet.

Also, the project isn't really a widening per say. They are likely just widening shoulders and maybe adding an additional auxiliary lane in a few spots. MTO has been doing this on many parts of the 401 through central Toronto over the last decade as it has rebuilt it to fix pinch points. They added an additional westbound collector lane between the 400 and 409 a little while ago, for example, but it's not really a noticeable widening.

 

[afransen]

It is true that widening the 401 is a terrible idea, for the reasons you stated (induced demand). It will only increase the number of cars and increase traffic.

But, building transit generally does not reduce congestion due to this same induced demand. Any people that do switch to transit (which is unlikely in this scenario as most people on the 401 don't live or work on Sheppard East anyways) will quickly be replaced by new trips on the highway.
This is does not mean we shouldn't build transit. Mobility is a necessity in cities, and good transit moves people far more efficiently than cars in terms of space, emissions, and cost. Transit also provides numerous benefits that cars and highways do not, including improving public realm, creating liveable cities, improving public health by encouraging active transportation, reducing environmental footprint of cities, etc.

I will also say that "relieving congestion" is a great political excuse to build transit in car-centric cities, even though it doesn't do this at all.

People generally choose transportation modes based on two factors only: cost and travel time. Thus, the only ways to actually eliminate road congestion are to make transit cheaper and/or faster than cars for most or all origin destination pairs. This basically means road tolls, complete transit priority everywhere, forcing cars to take roundabout routes, and a lot (like, a ton) of high quality, fast transit.

Doing this is basically impossible. There is no major city in the world without congestion. I think congestion has to be accepted as something that will always be there. The aim of infrastructure projects should not be to reduce congestion, but to facilitate the movement of the maximum number of people using the least amount of money, land, and other resources possible.

Also, side note, the SELRT is a pretty bad project imo. At grade LRTs are generally slow and low capacity, only good enough for small cities or feeder lines, not a major crosstown route in a large city. The additional transfer at Don Mills is also terrible. People hate transfers; they will go out of their way to avoid them. A forced linear transfer is just terrible. Elevated extension of Sheppard is the way to go.

I think you're missing active transportation as an option. A huge number of trips are only a few kms, but in most areas nearly all are done by car instead of walking and cycling. We can make walking and cycling attractive options by prioritizing delays for these users, for instance, at intersections, improving safety, bike parking, etc. and take a lot of local trips off the roads.

I think we also miss on prioritizing the speed of transit. Being satisfied with 30 kph avg speed basically means transit is only viable for those with low incomes or in very congested parts of town experience severe traffic delays. Paradoxically, slowing car traffic down might induce more switching to other modes and reduce congestion, but comes at the cost of longer travel time. Maybe not much longer than today in the worst case, but longer on average.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think you're missing active transportation as an option. A huge number of trips are only a few kms, but in most areas nearly all are done by car instead of walking and cycling. We can make walking and cycling attractive options by prioritizing delays for these users, for instance, at intersections, improving safety, bike parking, etc. and take a lot of local trips off the roads.

I think we also miss on prioritizing the speed of transit. Being satisfied with 30 kph avg speed basically means transit is only viable for those with low incomes or in very congested parts of town experience severe traffic delays. Paradoxically, slowing car traffic down might induce more switching to other modes and reduce congestion, but comes at the cost of longer travel time. Maybe not much longer than today in the worst case, but longer on average.

and what % of those few km trips do you think are taking the 401?

 

[afransen]

Not many, but local congestion can contribute to congestion on highways and vice versa. My comments were an addition to what sche was saying, which also is quite true. People will drive right up until the point it is faster to take another mode. You can let congestion get worse and worse until that level is reached, or you can make transit available for more trips without massive detours, and those direct trips need to have reasonably high average speed (including expected wait times resulting from frequency). Tolling can help, but tolls would have to get quite high to manage demand absent reasonable alternatives. It would serve more as a time of use incentive to shift trips off peak.

 

[Undead]

I think you're missing active transportation as an option. A huge number of trips are only a few kms, but in most areas nearly all are done by car instead of walking and cycling. We can make walking and cycling attractive options by prioritizing delays for these users, for instance, at intersections, improving safety, bike parking, etc. and take a lot of local trips off the roads.

I think we also miss on prioritizing the speed of transit. Being satisfied with 30 kph avg speed basically means transit is only viable for those with low incomes or in very congested parts of town experience severe traffic delays. Paradoxically, slowing car traffic down might induce more switching to other modes and reduce congestion, but comes at the cost of longer travel time. Maybe not much longer than today in the worst case, but longer on average.

Pre COVID when I was driving to work, my average speed was usually in the 30 km/h range. Quite similar to transit.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Pre COVID when I was driving to work, my average speed was usually in the 30 km/h range. Quite similar to transit.

where driving wins out though is that door to door average speeds are higher.

Most transit trips involve a significant stretch of lower average speeds from walking and connecting buses, plus any transfer times. You are probably lucky to hit 20km/h on a TTC based commute door to door.

The 401 meanwhile is about 30km/h through the slow sections, and reality is that the overall average speed for the entire commute is likely higher than that.

GO transit is more competitive with a congested freeway commute since it averages closer to 60km/h, which combined with connections at each end presuming you drive is going to end up at a door-to-door speed probably in the 40km/h range. That's similar to a peak hour auto commute.

Driving, even into downtown, is almost always faster. The bigger issue is that fatigue that comes from fighting traffic and the "time waste" of it as you can't do other things, and that is what drives many people to transit.

 

[lenaitch]

Way outside the GTA (but the thread title does include Ontario), the government announced additions and improvements to some roadside rest areas in the north. A good start.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

It is true that widening the 401 is a terrible idea, for the reasons you stated (induced demand). It will only increase the number of cars and increase traffic.

But, building transit generally does not reduce congestion due to this same induced demand. Any people that do switch to transit (which is unlikely in this scenario as most people on the 401 don't live or work on Sheppard East anyways) will quickly be replaced by new trips on the highway.
This is does not mean we shouldn't build transit. Mobility is a necessity in cities, and good transit moves people far more efficiently than cars in terms of space, emissions, and cost. Transit also provides numerous benefits that cars and highways do not, including improving public realm, creating liveable cities, improving public health by encouraging active transportation, reducing environmental footprint of cities, etc.

I will also say that "relieving congestion" is a great political excuse to build transit in car-centric cities, even though it doesn't do this at all.

People generally choose transportation modes based on two factors only: cost and travel time. Thus, the only ways to actually eliminate road congestion are to make transit cheaper and/or faster than cars for most or all origin destination pairs. This basically means road tolls, complete transit priority everywhere, forcing cars to take roundabout routes, and a lot (like, a ton) of high quality, fast transit.

Doing this is basically impossible. There is no major city in the world without congestion. I think congestion has to be accepted as something that will always be there. The aim of infrastructure projects should not be to reduce congestion, but to facilitate the movement of the maximum number of people using the least amount of money, land, and other resources possible.

Also, side note, the SELRT is a pretty bad project imo. At grade LRTs are generally slow and low capacity, only good enough for small cities or feeder lines, not a major crosstown route in a large city. The additional transfer at Don Mills is also terrible. People hate transfers; they will go out of their way to avoid them. A forced linear transfer is just terrible. Elevated extension of Sheppard is the way to go.

I agree and disagree at the same time, claiming transit will help with congestion is indeed commonly done, and ineffective, but there is one major benefit I believe you are looking, and that is that it increases the overall capacity of the transportation system. An area depends not just on speed, but capacity; downtown Toronto might not be much slower if the GO lines weren't there, but the GO lines offer a good improvement to capacity, allowing more people to work downtown.

where driving wins out though is that door to door average speeds are higher.


Most transit trips involve a significant stretch of lower average speeds from walking and connecting buses, plus any transfer times. You are probably lucky to hit 20km/h on a TTC based commute door to door.

The 401 meanwhile is about 30km/h through the slow sections, and reality is that the overall average speed for the entire commute is likely higher than that.

GO transit is more competitive with a congested freeway commute since it averages closer to 60km/h, which combined with connections at each end presuming you drive is going to end up at a door-to-door speed probably in the 40km/h range. That's similar to a peak hour auto commute.

Driving, even into downtown, is almost always faster. The bigger issue is that fatigue that comes from fighting traffic and the "time waste" of it as you can't do other things, and that is what drives many people to transit.

What you may be overlooking is cost, think about how much parking downtown costs, think of how much maintaining a private automobile costs. Also the time cost of parking can be unpleasant downtown.




Would anyone happen to know what construction work is being done on the 410 and Steeles bridge?

 

[sche]

Pre COVID when I was driving to work, my average speed was usually in the 30 km/h range. Quite similar to transit.

Actually this is what is supposed to happen. It's an equilibrium. Think about it - if transit was faster than cars, people would switch from cars to transit, and thus car traffic would decrease up to the point where it is the same speed as transit. If transit was slower than cars, people would switch from transit to cars, and thus car traffic would slow down up to the point where it is just as slow as transit.

This is why fast transit is so important, because transit does not slow down significantly as ridership increases, while car travel does slow down as volume increases. This means if transit is faster, both transit and cars get faster.

Note that all of the above does oversimplify a bit and it's not that simple in the real world, but the effects certainly do still exist.

I agree and disagree at the same time, claiming transit will help with congestion is indeed commonly done, and ineffective, but there is one major benefit I believe you are looking, and that is that it increases the overall capacity of the transportation system. An area depends not just on speed, but capacity; downtown Toronto might not be much slower if the GO lines weren't there, but the GO lines offer a good improvement to capacity, allowing more people to work downtown.

Good point. Most of downtown's office development would not exist if it weren't for GO and the subway. There simply isn't enough capacity on the roads to get all the office workers into those buildings. I think this might play a significant role in the death of downtowns across the continent - because transit is so bad, and highways and roads are super congested, there isn't enough capacity into downtown to support dense office development.

 

[stevensontransit]

Here's a full route of Highway 400 from 401 to Parry Sound done by Top Driving Tour:

 

[lenaitch]

Way outside the GTA (but the thread title does include Ontario), the government announced additions and improvements to some roadside rest areas in the north. A good start.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

I just noticed that actual press release on this. It's a serious problem to be sure, but I'm really missing the connection between highway rest areas and human trafficking. Perhaps government releases need to check a number of boxes.

"Through these improvements we are also taking steps to raise awareness of human trafficking to help put an end to this serious problem." ​

​

"As part of the government's commitment to raising awareness and combatting human trafficking, the province is exploring anti-human trafficking measures at rest areas, such as improved lighting, posting information such as a support hotline and adding security cameras."​

Ontario Newsroom | Salle de presse de l'Ontario

news.ontario.ca

 

[ShonTron]

The section of new Highway 69 at French River is progressing nicely. Traffic is temporarily routed on the new French River Road overpass while the southbound carriageway is prepped for traffic.

(French River Road will be the service road on the old highway, serving the provincial park, Hungry Bear, and other businesses. It will use the current truss bridge over the French River.)

Once traffic is shifted to the new alignment, the interchange ramps can be completed and part of the existing Highway 69 rebuilt for northbound traffic.