Northern Light
Superstar
Cars are not an equally desirable tranport mode
There is nothing flawed in my argument, nor anything self-evident in yours.
Let's back up a bit. Your argument presupposes that:
Road capacity expansion does not come at the expense of expansion to other modes of transport. In fact, it most certainly does! Today's downtown streets once had dedicated streetcar tracks throughout, look at the old pictures from the early 20th century, no concrete fill between the tracks (de facto ROW). These tracks were in some cases removed or at least abandoned (Richmond, Adelaide etc.) in favour of the car, and in other cases, streetcar tracks were filled w/pavement or cobblestone to make room for cars to 'share' the tracks, at the expense of reliable and fast transit service and capacity.
Even a new suburban corridor, by definition occupies space which could otherwise be used for other transportation (ie. rail) and/or for efficient land use (i.e residential or office development).
So it does not follow that new lane capacity appears without adversely impacting capacity of other transport modes.
There also being a finite amount of money to facilitate these projects, the more funding hoovered up by one type of project, the less there is for another.
Think, no #407, not only would have paid for a dedicated GO line in that corridor, but could have also paid for the Sheppard Subway from Don Mills to Scarborough Centre with the change! The money expended on #404 extension and widening was enough to pay for western leg of the Sheppard Subway.
And so on.....
The resulting improvement in efficient land use would have greatly benefited the taxpayer.
Above and beyond the arguments above. There are several other reasons to pre-suppose that transit is a far superior choice for how to move people.
1) Let's start with the obvious environmental argument....
2) But let's move quickly to use of energy how much fuel or energy expended per KM of person movement? (transit wins this hands down)
3) Let's follow by examining space (or land use). How much space does GO Require to move 18,000 people an hour (in one direction, on one line)? That's only 10 trains, on 1 track. (service every 6 min.)
Given average vehicle occupancy at only 1.2 people per car
That's 16,000 plus cars.
Just look at the road capacity you just required, the vast swaths of land.
That land used a freeway will generate no property tax, no economic benefit.
The railway occupies far less space for each person moved.
This same rationale applies to LRT, Subway and even bus, albeit in the latter case at a lower benefit rate.
****
To reiterate, as a LICENSED DRIVER of more than 18 years, who still owns a car, there is no question whatever, that both economically, and environmentally cars are the least desirable way to move people, as trucks are the least desirable way to move goods. Both are necessary sometimes, and extraordinarily convenient in others, but no one here, least of all me, is advocating a ban on cars, or the removal of all highways.
We are saying, that to our detriment, we overbuilt our road capacity and under built are capacity to move both goods and people in other more sustainable ways.
The time has come to reverse that mistake (over many, many years) by ceasing to create new car capacity, by creating massive new capacity in other transport modes; and by selectively reducing car capacity in favour of more efficient roads where space constraints and congestion both demand it, and make it feasible and desirable.
There is nothing flawed in my argument, nor anything self-evident in yours.
Let's back up a bit. Your argument presupposes that:
Road capacity expansion does not come at the expense of expansion to other modes of transport. In fact, it most certainly does! Today's downtown streets once had dedicated streetcar tracks throughout, look at the old pictures from the early 20th century, no concrete fill between the tracks (de facto ROW). These tracks were in some cases removed or at least abandoned (Richmond, Adelaide etc.) in favour of the car, and in other cases, streetcar tracks were filled w/pavement or cobblestone to make room for cars to 'share' the tracks, at the expense of reliable and fast transit service and capacity.
Even a new suburban corridor, by definition occupies space which could otherwise be used for other transportation (ie. rail) and/or for efficient land use (i.e residential or office development).
So it does not follow that new lane capacity appears without adversely impacting capacity of other transport modes.
There also being a finite amount of money to facilitate these projects, the more funding hoovered up by one type of project, the less there is for another.
Think, no #407, not only would have paid for a dedicated GO line in that corridor, but could have also paid for the Sheppard Subway from Don Mills to Scarborough Centre with the change! The money expended on #404 extension and widening was enough to pay for western leg of the Sheppard Subway.
And so on.....
The resulting improvement in efficient land use would have greatly benefited the taxpayer.
Above and beyond the arguments above. There are several other reasons to pre-suppose that transit is a far superior choice for how to move people.
1) Let's start with the obvious environmental argument....
2) But let's move quickly to use of energy how much fuel or energy expended per KM of person movement? (transit wins this hands down)
3) Let's follow by examining space (or land use). How much space does GO Require to move 18,000 people an hour (in one direction, on one line)? That's only 10 trains, on 1 track. (service every 6 min.)
Given average vehicle occupancy at only 1.2 people per car
That's 16,000 plus cars.
Just look at the road capacity you just required, the vast swaths of land.
That land used a freeway will generate no property tax, no economic benefit.
The railway occupies far less space for each person moved.
This same rationale applies to LRT, Subway and even bus, albeit in the latter case at a lower benefit rate.
****
To reiterate, as a LICENSED DRIVER of more than 18 years, who still owns a car, there is no question whatever, that both economically, and environmentally cars are the least desirable way to move people, as trucks are the least desirable way to move goods. Both are necessary sometimes, and extraordinarily convenient in others, but no one here, least of all me, is advocating a ban on cars, or the removal of all highways.
We are saying, that to our detriment, we overbuilt our road capacity and under built are capacity to move both goods and people in other more sustainable ways.
The time has come to reverse that mistake (over many, many years) by ceasing to create new car capacity, by creating massive new capacity in other transport modes; and by selectively reducing car capacity in favour of more efficient roads where space constraints and congestion both demand it, and make it feasible and desirable.
