News   May 03, 2024
 757     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 490     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 246     0 

Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

Right now, VIA is slower than the car and much more expensive.
The Kitchener route is slower; the corridor isn't as bad. However Kitcher is $23.70 for110 km - that's 21.6 ¢/km. One can debate if 30 ¢/km, 44 ¢/km or 50 ¢/km are the costs of running a car ... but 21.6 ¢/km is lower than I've seen for a car cost. If you have a pass for VIA and you are doing it every day, the price drops to 13.2 ¢/km ... that would barely pay for the gas!

First of all, Ashford is pretty much the same distance from London as Toronto is from Kitchener. They're very comparable. And wow...that just goes to show a 38-minute travel time (or better) is achievable. That would just be wildly popular on a Toronto-Kitchener or even Toronto-Northumberland routing.
Your point however, is that it is significantly cheaper than here. It's quite clear that you were wrong.
 
I am confused. You guys seem to know more than me so maybe you can help me out.

If the 90-km high-speed trip from London to Ashford International on the new HS1 commuter service takes 38 minutes....and that is about the same distance as Kitchener is to Toronto (I thought it was 90k between the stations but you guys say 110...so ok)...why would we need to build a 350kph train that only stops once? How many stops between London and Ashford?

It is interesting though (and, I think it shows why it is dangerous to just pluck examples from overseas where train travel is more of an established form of travel and where the networks are more mature) that we are talking about providing 38 minute service to Kitchener (which would be great) when there are so many more (millions I would guess) of potential train riders significantly closer to Union than Kitchener who either have longer train ride times like that or have no train options.
 
The corridor would be built to 350 km/h. The more local trains wouldn't necessarily operate at the top speed, if a lower speed were more economical and didn't significantly reduce capacity on the line. There are two stops between Ashford and London--one at Dartford and one at Stratford in London (sort of the equivalent of a Bloor stop). The reality is that high speed service directly to Brampton doesn't make a lot of sense since the distances are so short and there would already be a stop literally a handful of kilometres away at Pearson where Brampton riders could connect or park and ride for longer journeys. That's not to say that Brampton doesn't need massively improved service. The Georgetown corridor should have regional rail service at least every twenty minutes and regional express rail (stopping at Brampton, maybe Bramalea, Pearson and Bloor) operating at a reasonably high speed (maybe as high as 200 km/h while in the shared corridor with high speed rail) running hourly or better.

Okay, just to be doubly clear here: I'm not suggesting that we build a single isolated express line from Kitchener to Toronto. I'm saying that a full Quebec City-Windsor high speed rail corridor could have massive ridership from regional services in addition to the regular intercity services (i.e. Toronto-Montreal). All of the Canadian high speed studies we've seen have completely ignored the regional market when that market has proven in some European and Asian cases to be even more successful than the intercity market. Kitchener, again, is merely an example. London would also have significant commuter traffic and Port Hope/Cobourg and Belleville/Trenton would also have potential. Trois Rivières could also have significant commuter demand to Montreal.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but it sounds like a suggestion to use transit to promote/subsidize even wider urban sprawl?

Well first of all, every infrastructure investment outside downtown Toronto could be deemed to promote urban sprawl. The difference is the kind of development that is produced. High speed rail (and this has been demonstrated in numerous examples) tends to generate higher density development around the station and contributes to the revitalization of the downtown core of established cities. That can't really be termed sprawl in the same way as the thousands of acres of tract housing built on farmland that we see around highways or, for that matter, around most GO stations.
 
Last edited:
The corridor would be built to 350 km/h. The more local trains wouldn't necessarily operate at the top speed, if a lower speed were more economical and didn't significantly reduce capacity on the line. There are two stops between Ashford and London--one at Dartford and one at Stratford in London (sort of the equivalent of a Bloor stop). The reality is that high speed service directly to Brampton doesn't make a lot of sense since the distances are so short and there would already be a stop literally a handful of kilometres away at Pearson where Brampton riders could connect for longer journeys. That's not to say that Brampton doesn't need massively improved service. The Georgetown corridor should have regional rail service at least every twenty minutes and regional express rail (stopping at Brampton, maybe Bramalea, Pearson and Bloor) operating at a reasonably high speed (maybe as high as 200 km/h while in the shared corridor with high speed rail) running hourly or better.

So, what sort of frequencies would the 350kph, 20 minute journey, trains from Kitchener to Union run on? How many cars would be in each train?

BTW to clarify, I am not suggesting (never did) that Brampton should have high speed service. I think most people in Brampton would be satisfied if all we got were more than 5 trains a day each way (grouped into rush hour) and on more than 5 days a week......if we got more of what we already have (ie coincidently a 38 minute ride to Toronto Union) we would probably consider ourselves well served.
 
Last edited:
If the 90-km high-speed trip from London to Ashford International on the new HS1 commuter service takes 38 minutes....and that is about the same distance as Kitchener is to Toronto (I thought it was 90k between the stations but you guys say 110...so ok)
It's about 107 km if you drive ... perhaps 104 km if you use Eglinton/Scarlett/Dundas instead of the 427/Gardiner. The CN tracks from Kitchener to Weston are very straight and the distance on the tracks is only 101 km; however for car driving costs I think 107 km is the best.

How many stops between London and Ashford?
On the 38-minute commuter service ... 2 stops (Stratford International and Ebbsfleet International). See the timetable.

There are also non-stop services on Eurostar that take only 30 minutes.

It is interesting though (and, I think it shows why it is dangerous to just pluck examples from overseas where train travel is more of an established form of travel and where the networks are more mature) that we are talking about providing 38 minute service to Kitchener (which would be great) when there are so many more (millions I would guess) of potential train riders significantly closer to Union than Kitchener who either have longer train ride times like that or have no train options.
Presumably such a service would also stop some trains at Guelph, Brampton, etc.

I wouldn't expect such a service to be built in Canada for half-a-century in Canada. A more likely candidate in our lifetimes would be local service high-speed along Lake Ontario if a high-speed line to Montreal was ever built; perhaps Port Hope in 40 minutes. Ashford wouldn't be getting high-speed commuter service if it wasn't on the line between London and Paris/Brussels. Incidentally the top-speed on this line is 300 km/hr; 350 km/hr is pretty extreme ... as far as I know in Europe there's only one shorter line operating faster them 300 km/hr and that's 320 km/hr ... there's a great figure at Wikipedia that shows the high-speed rail lines in Europe.
 
Last edited:
So, what sort of frequencies would the 350kph, 20 minute journey, trains from Kitchener to Union run on? How many cars would be in each train?

Haha...those are the kinds of questions that people pay consultants millions to answer. First of all, I said that regional services would probably be lower speed than the intercity high speed trains. Say, around 250 km/h. There'd be a bunch of trains around rush hour, fewer off-peak. Potentially off-peak service would be provided exclusively by the intercity high speed trains. Standard high speed trainsets are eight cars. Could be more or could be less.

BTW to clarify, I am not suggesting (never did) that Brampton should have high speed service. I think most people in Brampton would be satisfied if all we got were more than 5 trains a day each way (grouped into rush hour) and on more than 5 days a week......if we got more of what we already have (ie coincidently a 38 minute ride to Toronto Union) we would probably consider ourselves well served.

I wouldn't consider that to be well-served for a place the size of Brampton. A minimum of a 15 or 20 minute frequency for regional rail service, making all of the existing GO stops plus a few, and probably at least 30 minute frequencies for an express service running at higher speed and making a couple stops to Union. Peel residents would be able to catch high speed trains directly at Pearson.

There are also non-stop services on Eurostar that take only 30 minutes.

Alas, you can't ride the Eurostars directly.

I wouldn't expect such a service to be built in Canada for half-a-century in Canada. A more likely candidate in our lifetimes would be local service high-speed along Lake Ontario if a high-speed line to Montreal was ever built; perhaps Port Hope in 40 minutes. Ashford wouldn't be getting high-speed commuter service if it wasn't on the line between London and Paris/Brussels. Incidentally the top-speed on this line is 300 km/hr; 350 km/hr is pretty extreme ... as far as I know in Europe there's only one shorter line operating faster them 300 km/hr and that's 320 km/hr ... there's a great figure at Wikipedia that shows the high-speed rail lines in Europe.

High speed rail in Canada won't be built until it's built. If we managed to overcome the lobbying and get real political will, it could be started tomorrow. If not, it might never be built. Any serious study of the corridor has talked about the full Quebec City-Windsor.
 
The Ashford service might not be the best model to hold up, as they have had to remove cars due to lack of demand. Commuters from Kent are complaining that the train is more expensive and drops them at a less convenient location (St. Pancras) than the regular speed trains.

I'd love to see high speed trains in Canada, but I not sure that the area west of Toronto really needs it. If we could improve the tracks west of Toronto heading to allow running at 160 km/h, and provide 3 services heading towards Niagara Falls, London (via Brantford) and London (via Kitchener), and run frequent (i.e. hourly) services, then I think you could attract a lot of people onto the train.
 
Haha...those are the kinds of questions that people pay consultants millions to answer.

True there are consultants that answer those questions but I thought you might have some idea since your earlier statement that a reasonably priced 350kph train from Kitchener to Union would be packed by people must have had some frequencies contemplated. I think it is generally accepted that frequnecy of a service is an important determinant on how well the service is accepted. What are your thoughts on how often a train rider in Kitchener should expect a 20 minute service to Toronto to depart. It seems odd that you would have considered the train speed, where it would stop and the size of the trains but not the frequency.


First of all, I said that regional services would probably be lower speed than the intercity high speed trains. Say, around 250 km/h. There'd be a bunch of trains around rush hour, fewer off-peak. Potentially off-peak service would be provided exclusively by the intercity high speed trains. Standard high speed trainsets are eight cars. Could be more or could be less.

Yes you did, and since we agree that some sort of regional/commuter service is needed (we may disagree on the actual speed and branding) I am focused on trying to understand the need for/economics of 8 car trains running "x" number of times a day at 350kph from Kitchener to Union in 20 minutes.............I really have no idea what that service would cost to build and operate but I am pretty sure it is a lot and I question if there is anywhere near the demand necessary to justify the cost of such a service.


I wouldn't consider that to be well-served for a place the size of Brampton. A minimum of a 15 or 20 minute frequency for regional rail service, making all of the existing GO stops plus a few, and probably at least 30 minute frequencies for an express service running at higher speed and making a couple stops to Union. Peel residents would be able to catch high speed trains directly at Pearson.

More is always better, sure, but everytime I look at the a lot of the off peak trains on the Lakeshore running mostly empty at night I wonder why we are pushing to 30 minute frequencies on that line.....I make myself promise that if Brampton ever got close to the current level of service that Lakeshore has (ie. a lot more rush hour trains, some express - sure- but mostly running on a 38 - 40 minute service to Union, hourly off peak service including weekends) that we should be satisfied and pleased.....transit for mobility is good, transit for the sake of it to run trains empty just so we can feel good about increased service is not good.



High speed rail in Canada won't be built until it's built.

I had no idea I was debating with Yogi Berra! It ain't over till its over baby!!! When you reach a fork in the road, take it! ;)
 
'Need for speed' creates havoc on 401

By LARRY CORNIES of the London Free Press

Highway 401 Widening complete between Woodstock and K-W (6 lanes from 402 to 410)

A very interesting read. I've always hated traveling on the 401 between Woodstock and K-W. With the new 6-lane facility now open with a concrete median, it should be a more pleasurable drive for motorists (although still quite boring).

Link: http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/12/03/16421491.html

Construction zone along Highway 401 in May 2010
800px-401_construction_4-6_lanes.jpg




WOODSTOCK - Over the past four weeks, they've gradually disappeared: the dump trucks, graders, pavers and stripers. Except for a few crowning touches that will wait until spring, the massive construction project on a 20-kilometre stretch of Hwy. 401 just east of Woodstock is finally finished.

The initiative has taken more than two years and cost millions. But like a giant angioplasty, it has opened the thoroughfare to at least three lanes in each direction along a continuous stretch from the terminus of Hwy. 402 in south London to just east of Toronto.

Completion of the road widening and its now-continuous concrete barrier is a welcome relief to anyone who must travel that stretch frequently. The 401, which on a typical weekday resembles a fast-moving warehouse more than an auto route, is a freeway in constant search of its own limits.

Occasionally, those limits become all too apparent. Such was the case in the early 1990s. As just-in-time delivery became standard practice in the manufacturing and logistics industries, traffic on the highway, especially trucks lugging 53-foot trailers, grew at an astonishing rate.

Those dramatic increases in traffic flow combined with the highway's narrow, open medians to produce a death toll that was nearly unprecedented. Median crossovers were a particular problem and caused dozens of deaths, especially in the stretch between Woodstock and London. Newspaper editorials and letter writers railed against the increasingly dangerous conditions. The province accelerated its improvement plans.

As the scope of the problem became increasingly clear, the province's Transportation Ministry installed rumble strips and erected a permanent concrete barrier along the especially troublesome section, where the grassy median in some places was as narrow as nine metres.

On the newly completed section, the median (already 15 metres wide) wasn't so much the problem as was capacity, according to Michael Swim, an engineer in the Ministry of Transportation's highway planning and design team for West Region. Spurred by industrial growth along the 401 corridor in Oxford and Middlesex counties, the freeway was dealing with "capacity issues" that required additional lanes to reduce "rear-enders and sideswipes," he says.

There are limits, however, to what engineers can do to protect us from ourselves.

As a piece of utilitarian infrastructure, Hwy. 401 works well. The most significant remaining variable in the complex mathematical formula that defines motoring safety on the country's busiest thoroughfare is speed. In short, we're addicted to it.

Never mind the hand-held talkers and texters, who appear unfazed by recent regulations to stem their distraction. Forget the measures intended to impose a maximum speed on trucks at 105 km/h through the use of limiters. It's still the issue of speed, often combined with aggressive driving, that's the major danger out there.

The problem of speed is, in fact, two-fold. First, the posted 100-km/h limit has been rendered meaningless. Observe that limit strictly, even in the right-hand lane, and you become a moving hazard. Even police vehicles on routine business far exceed the posted limit, which seems to serve only the purpose of increasing fines and demerit-point losses when speeders are tagged with going, say, 130 km/h - which may be 30 over the limit but only 10 or 15 above the rate at which traffic is actually moving.

The second aspect of the speed problem is uniformity of movement. On the wildest of days, there can be a 40-km/h (or more) differential between the slowest and fastest motorists on the highway. That disparity leads to aggressive driving and lane changes that wouldn't occur if everyone observed more uniform speeds.

What enforcement of speed limits does exist appears to be checkered: Along the Windsor-Toronto corridor, speed traps are more common in Waterloo Region, Oxford County and Chatham-Kent, for example, than in Essex, Elgin and Middlesex counties.

To mangle some Shakespeare: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the highway, but in ourselves. While roadway engineers continue to deal with the daunting problem of keeping up with capacity, the biggest remaining step we can take to make the 401 a less intimidating beast would be to address the speed issue unambiguously.

That means a maximum speed of 110 and zero tolerance for those who exceed it. Many U.S. states apply the zero-tolerance rule; there's no reason we can't.

Those measures would accomplish at least as much as the perennial reconstruction we're tempted to believe is the ultimate answer.
 
One of the most fascinating and hardest engineering projects in Ontario right now has opened another 17km of newly minted highway 400 north of Parry Sound. Now only 115 km are left, with about half that to open in 2014, and the remainder by 2017. That last half is the toughest - numerous river crossings, swamps, lakes and rock cuts. By the time its finished, Sudbury will be about 3.5 hour drive from the 401 in good traffic.
 
Here's an interesting article regarding toll highways and congestion:

Pay as you drive

Carol Wilding, CEO of the Toronto Board of Trade, says improving transit and transportation is the biggest issue facing the city in 2011.

So to help out, why doesn't the 407 ETR install billboards along the gridlocked 401, encouraging motorists to save time and fuel by switching to the province's only toll highway?

Even better, the 407 is one of the most expensive toll roads in North America. If it simply dropped its rates to a reasonable level, its number of customers would surely soar. Win-win.

Not from the 407's point of view. It doesn't want more users. And it certainly has no interest in easing congestion on the 401 or Highway 7.

So instead of making the 407 more affordable, the toll road's owners are jacking up the rates yet again on Feb. 1. Peak hour pricing is going up 7 per cent.

“We understand we have to keep rates affordable,” said Kevin Sack, the 407 spokesperson. “But we also know that controlling congestion is the most important thing we can do for customers.”

“To maintain the highway as a fast, safe and reliable alternative, tolls are very important,” said Sack. “Tolls are the mechanism by which you can control congestion on the highway.”

By making the 407 too expensive for a few more drivers, the 407 maintains its premium, congestion-free product for those who can afford it or have the ability to deduct the cost as a business expense.

A similar line of reasoning was used to justify congestion charges in cities such as London and Stockholm. But in these cities, the revenue collected was used to improve public transit.

Toronto's newly elected mayor, Rob Ford, promises that “the war on cars is over.” He also wants our roads to be fast, safe and reliable. But from Ford's point of view, are road tolls “car-friendly” or “car-hostile”?

The 407 insists it is being car-friendly, and rightly so. If the company permitted the highway to become congested, it would soon carry fewer vehicles per kilometre-hour. Time savings for users would drop, and vehicle-kilometres (i.e., business) would gradually fall off. The end result would be just another often-congested highway, albeit with lower throughput and a smaller number of tolls attached.

Instead, the new price hike will discourage new users, achieving the company's goal of keeping traffic at current levels.

This is not good for the drivers on the 401 or Highway 7. And it is less good for the environment. Stop-and-go traffic means each car generates more pollution. As a private company, the 407 cannot do what everyone fears for themselves and desires for others — put people onto better transit.

But the government can. If the 407 understands Congestion Management 101, why is Metrolinx not also speaking openly about using road tolls for congestion management?

Privatizing the 407 has cost the province many billions of dollars of foregone revenue, revenue that could be used today and tomorrow to operate roads and improve transit service.

But just because selling the highway was a mistake doesn't mean we can't draw lessons from its operations.

Road tolls are the only way to effectively manage congestion. Money from tolls should go toward the operation and maintenance of roads, and providing good, affordable transit to those who choose not to — or can't afford to — drive.

Toronto is very different from London or Stockholm, so implementing a matching congestion charge scheme wouldn't work.

But why not turn all roads in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe into low-cost toll roads? Affordable technology now exists that makes this feasible. By putting in a comprehensive and publicly owned tolling infrastructure, we could avoid the brutal fees now being charged by the 407.

Revenue generated could be used to modernize and improve our roads and public transit. Mayor Ford is right, the war on cars should be over. Which means the time for road tolls is now.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/922348--pay-as-you-drive
 
-The 401 needs a new route to a new crossing in Windsor, an extended collector/express system in Mississauga, and a joining collector/express system between the 427 and 409 in Toronto. HOV lanes along the entire route in the Greater Golden Horseshoe is a priority as well.

I think the problem with the 401 in this section is the lack of horizontal space and reconfiguring the interchange. Could the express lanes be stacked vertically on the collector lanes?
 
By LARRY CORNIES of the London Free Press

Highway 401 Widening complete between Woodstock and K-W (6 lanes from 402 to 410)

A very interesting read. I've always hated traveling on the 401 between Woodstock and K-W. With the new 6-lane facility now open with a concrete median, it should be a more pleasurable drive for motorists (although still quite boring).

Link: http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/12/03/16421491.html

Construction zone along Highway 401 in May 2010
800px-401_construction_4-6_lanes.jpg




WOODSTOCK - Over the past four weeks, they've gradually disappeared: the dump trucks, graders, pavers and stripers. Except for a few crowning touches that will wait until spring, the massive construction project on a 20-kilometre stretch of Hwy. 401 just east of Woodstock is finally finished.

The initiative has taken more than two years and cost millions. But like a giant angioplasty, it has opened the thoroughfare to at least three lanes in each direction along a continuous stretch from the terminus of Hwy. 402 in south London to just east of Toronto.

Completion of the road widening and its now-continuous concrete barrier is a welcome relief to anyone who must travel that stretch frequently. The 401, which on a typical weekday resembles a fast-moving warehouse more than an auto route, is a freeway in constant search of its own limits.

Occasionally, those limits become all too apparent. Such was the case in the early 1990s. As just-in-time delivery became standard practice in the manufacturing and logistics industries, traffic on the highway, especially trucks lugging 53-foot trailers, grew at an astonishing rate.

Those dramatic increases in traffic flow combined with the highway's narrow, open medians to produce a death toll that was nearly unprecedented. Median crossovers were a particular problem and caused dozens of deaths, especially in the stretch between Woodstock and London. Newspaper editorials and letter writers railed against the increasingly dangerous conditions. The province accelerated its improvement plans.

As the scope of the problem became increasingly clear, the province's Transportation Ministry installed rumble strips and erected a permanent concrete barrier along the especially troublesome section, where the grassy median in some places was as narrow as nine metres.

On the newly completed section, the median (already 15 metres wide) wasn't so much the problem as was capacity, according to Michael Swim, an engineer in the Ministry of Transportation's highway planning and design team for West Region. Spurred by industrial growth along the 401 corridor in Oxford and Middlesex counties, the freeway was dealing with "capacity issues" that required additional lanes to reduce "rear-enders and sideswipes," he says.

There are limits, however, to what engineers can do to protect us from ourselves.

As a piece of utilitarian infrastructure, Hwy. 401 works well. The most significant remaining variable in the complex mathematical formula that defines motoring safety on the country's busiest thoroughfare is speed. In short, we're addicted to it.

Never mind the hand-held talkers and texters, who appear unfazed by recent regulations to stem their distraction. Forget the measures intended to impose a maximum speed on trucks at 105 km/h through the use of limiters. It's still the issue of speed, often combined with aggressive driving, that's the major danger out there.

The problem of speed is, in fact, two-fold. First, the posted 100-km/h limit has been rendered meaningless. Observe that limit strictly, even in the right-hand lane, and you become a moving hazard. Even police vehicles on routine business far exceed the posted limit, which seems to serve only the purpose of increasing fines and demerit-point losses when speeders are tagged with going, say, 130 km/h - which may be 30 over the limit but only 10 or 15 above the rate at which traffic is actually moving.

The second aspect of the speed problem is uniformity of movement. On the wildest of days, there can be a 40-km/h (or more) differential between the slowest and fastest motorists on the highway. That disparity leads to aggressive driving and lane changes that wouldn't occur if everyone observed more uniform speeds.

What enforcement of speed limits does exist appears to be checkered: Along the Windsor-Toronto corridor, speed traps are more common in Waterloo Region, Oxford County and Chatham-Kent, for example, than in Essex, Elgin and Middlesex counties.

To mangle some Shakespeare: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the highway, but in ourselves. While roadway engineers continue to deal with the daunting problem of keeping up with capacity, the biggest remaining step we can take to make the 401 a less intimidating beast would be to address the speed issue unambiguously.

That means a maximum speed of 110 and zero tolerance for those who exceed it. Many U.S. states apply the zero-tolerance rule; there's no reason we can't.

Those measures would accomplish at least as much as the perennial reconstruction we're tempted to believe is the ultimate answer.

Cool story bro: Remember coming back from Windsor a couple of summers ago, the highway was pretty empty so I decided to do some hypermiling by cruising at 90km/h. Most people pass me without issue at 120km/h, but at one point some guy gets behind me and rides my bumper for about 30km before he figured out there was a passing lane.

Haljackey said:
Here's an interesting article regarding toll highways and congestion:

Pay as you drive

Carol Wilding, CEO of the Toronto Board of Trade, says improving transit and transportation is the biggest issue facing the city in 2011.

So to help out, why doesn't the 407 ETR install billboards along the gridlocked 401, encouraging motorists to save time and fuel by switching to the province's only toll highway?

Even better, the 407 is one of the most expensive toll roads in North America. If it simply dropped its rates to a reasonable level, its number of customers would surely soar. Win-win.

Not from the 407's point of view. It doesn't want more users. And it certainly has no interest in easing congestion on the 401 or Highway 7.

So instead of making the 407 more affordable, the toll road's owners are jacking up the rates yet again on Feb. 1. Peak hour pricing is going up 7 per cent.

“We understand we have to keep rates affordable,” said Kevin Sack, the 407 spokesperson. “But we also know that controlling congestion is the most important thing we can do for customers.”

“To maintain the highway as a fast, safe and reliable alternative, tolls are very important,” said Sack. “Tolls are the mechanism by which you can control congestion on the highway.”

By making the 407 too expensive for a few more drivers, the 407 maintains its premium, congestion-free product for those who can afford it or have the ability to deduct the cost as a business expense.

A similar line of reasoning was used to justify congestion charges in cities such as London and Stockholm. But in these cities, the revenue collected was used to improve public transit.

Toronto's newly elected mayor, Rob Ford, promises that “the war on cars is over.” He also wants our roads to be fast, safe and reliable. But from Ford's point of view, are road tolls “car-friendly” or “car-hostile”?

The 407 insists it is being car-friendly, and rightly so. If the company permitted the highway to become congested, it would soon carry fewer vehicles per kilometre-hour. Time savings for users would drop, and vehicle-kilometres (i.e., business) would gradually fall off. The end result would be just another often-congested highway, albeit with lower throughput and a smaller number of tolls attached.

Instead, the new price hike will discourage new users, achieving the company's goal of keeping traffic at current levels.

This is not good for the drivers on the 401 or Highway 7. And it is less good for the environment. Stop-and-go traffic means each car generates more pollution. As a private company, the 407 cannot do what everyone fears for themselves and desires for others — put people onto better transit.

But the government can. If the 407 understands Congestion Management 101, why is Metrolinx not also speaking openly about using road tolls for congestion management?

Privatizing the 407 has cost the province many billions of dollars of foregone revenue, revenue that could be used today and tomorrow to operate roads and improve transit service.

But just because selling the highway was a mistake doesn't mean we can't draw lessons from its operations.

Road tolls are the only way to effectively manage congestion. Money from tolls should go toward the operation and maintenance of roads, and providing good, affordable transit to those who choose not to — or can't afford to — drive.

Toronto is very different from London or Stockholm, so implementing a matching congestion charge scheme wouldn't work.

But why not turn all roads in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe into low-cost toll roads? Affordable technology now exists that makes this feasible. By putting in a comprehensive and publicly owned tolling infrastructure, we could avoid the brutal fees now being charged by the 407.

Revenue generated could be used to modernize and improve our roads and public transit. Mayor Ford is right, the war on cars should be over. Which means the time for road tolls is now.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...y-as-you-drive

While I'm not against road tolls, simply blanketing the 400 series highways in the GTA is not the way to do it. People still need to get to places, and without an alternative available it will be nothing more than a tax grab - one that could have damning effects on the regional economy. Sarah Thomson's plan was a fantastic example of how to do tolls right.
 
They're finally getting around to widening the 401 through Kingston as well. Overall, I much prefer to drive on a 6 lane highway than a 4 lane highway. With a 4 lane highway, it seems that if you want to travel at a decent speed (ie 115ish), you need to be consistently playing a cat and mouse game, weaving between the travel lane (consistently going about 110) and the passing lane (consistently going about 130). With a 6 lane highway, I can just stay in the middle lane, do about 118, and stay there.

On a semi-related note to one of the articles above, I believe the speed limit on inter-city stretches of 400 series highways should be 120, with a zero tolerance rule for those going over that. A speed of 125 gets you a $100 fine, 130 a $250 fine, etc. This would make you feel less like a criminal just because you're keeping up with the speed of traffic. Urban areas should still be kept at 100 though. This isn't all that dissimilar to what a lot of US states do: 65 in urban areas, 70 in rural areas.
 
They're finally getting around to widening the 401 through Kingston as well. Overall, I much prefer to drive on a 6 lane highway than a 4 lane highway. With a 4 lane highway, it seems that if you want to travel at a decent speed (ie 115ish), you need to be consistently playing a cat and mouse game, weaving between the travel lane (consistently going about 110) and the passing lane (consistently going about 130). With a 6 lane highway, I can just stay in the middle lane, do about 118, and stay there.

On a semi-related note to one of the articles above, I believe the speed limit on inter-city stretches of 400 series highways should be 120, with a zero tolerance rule for those going over that. A speed of 125 gets you a $100 fine, 130 a $250 fine, etc. This would make you feel less like a criminal just because you're keeping up with the speed of traffic. Urban areas should still be kept at 100 though. This isn't all that dissimilar to what a lot of US states do: 65 in urban areas, 70 in rural areas.

Actually, states like NY, NJ, PA all seem to have pretty low limits on the interstates. Max 65mph and it goes down to 55mph in urban areas.

On the other hand, the country road limits are pretty high outside cities, usually 55mph, but can go down drastically in cities.

But other states, I think mostly in the south and west do have higher limits.
 

Back
Top