401 Widening: Hespeler to Halton

[Second_in_pie]

Second_in_pie, I've missioned up to Barrie using the GO a few times this year, and I will say right now I would seriously consider shooting myself in the face if I ever had to commute such a distance (about 96 km) day in and day out. It's an hour and a half each way, and by the time the train had reached Barrie, there was a minute amount of people left on it. Extending GO service to K-W would cause MORE grievances to people in my opinion, and would not offer a viable transportation alternative. Put in a high speed rail link, and heck yes people would use it, but only God knows when a project of that standard will be built. (If ever) That's why people drive. It's faster (most of the time) and by far more convenient for people's various schedules.

I have gone up to Barrie by Go train as well, and it's only 30 minutes slower than by car at most. And of course, during rush hour, it could actually be significantly faster than car.
The same will be true for the K-W extension. The trip will probably be around an hour and a half, when the highway is about 40 mins to an hour when totally clear of traffic. With regular rush hour traffic, that's definitely approaching 1.5 hours, making the Go train totally time competitive. There's also the added bonus of not having to drive for an hour or more to get to work.

How would it cause more grievances to people? If they don't like it, they don't have to use it. I'm totally agreeing with dunkalunk here. There should be nothing new going through the escarpment except a high speed rail corridor. And we need to work on rail infrastructure many times more than we need to work on our highways, which is true all over the country. If people complain that the highways are packed, then ask to widen them when there's an unused rail corridor taking them right to their destination, we should look at rail as an alternative, shouldn't we?

 

[Translude15]

I have gone up to Barrie by Go train as well, and it's only 30 minutes slower than by car at most. And of course, during rush hour, it could actually be significantly faster than car.
The same will be true for the K-W extension. The trip will probably be around an hour and a half, when the highway is about 40 mins to an hour when totally clear of traffic. With regular rush hour traffic, that's definitely approaching 1.5 hours, making the Go train totally time competitive. There's also the added bonus of not having to drive for an hour or more to get to work.

How would it cause more grievances to people? If they don't like it, they don't have to use it. I'm totally agreeing with dunkalunk here. There should be nothing new going through the escarpment except a high speed rail corridor. And we need to work on rail infrastructure many times more than we need to work on our highways, which is true all over the country. If people complain that the highways are packed, then ask to widen them when there's an unused rail corridor taking them right to their destination, we should look at rail as an alternative, shouldn't we?

Sure there will be people without cars and such who will utilize the new GO services, but do you really think such an implementation is going to significantly reduce the amount of cars on the 401? Yes, build the rail links, because there will be a demand for it, but at the same time, do you think current commuters from KW who drive to work in Brampton lets say, are just going to stop driving and rely on routes to the GTA running 6 times daily? This is a stepping stone for things to come, but don't deny the need for a few extra lanes on the 401.

Your statement regarding lacklustre rail service nation-wide is very true, but c'mon, our highway/freeway system isn't exactly well developed either! Is your argument against a freeway through the escarpment based on environmental/"de-beautification" reasons, the need for transportation funding or both?

 

[Jonny5]

A 500 trip portion of the $605M capital cost for GO translates into $6044.01 ($605M/50M*500 trips) compared to $3,461.54 for the car. Capital costs cover new infrastructure and maintaining existing infrastructure. Without it trains, bridges, rail, stations, yards, offices, computer systems, signaling, etc. wouldn't exist. This is relavent to the equation because we all pay income taxes, property taxes, and development charges.

As you say in your last line, the capital costs of GO are borne by all taxpayers, not just GO riders. In this analysis, they hit both the Driver and GO Rider for the same amount, so you don't need to consider them.

On the operating side, don't forget a GO commuter gets the 15% transit fare tax credit.

 

[salmonz]

As you say in your last line, the capital costs of GO are borne by all taxpayers, not just GO riders. In this analysis, they hit both the Driver and GO Rider for the same amount, so you don't need to consider them.

On the operating side, don't forget a GO commuter gets the 15% transit fare tax credit.

Yes the capital costs is borne by all taxpayers, but on a ridership basis costs analysis basis, you have to include it. If transit didn't exist, then $605M wouldn't be put on the taxpayer.

1) Car owners pay for their own cars. They pay for their own gas. Taxpayers don't pay for their insurance.
2) Transit riders don't pay the full cost of their ride. They get subsidized by everyone and/or the better off that do pay taxes. The 15% tax credit is another cost that must be made up for tax revenue shortfall. If governments don't cutback spending by the amount of the tax credit, then taxpayers are also on the hook. The more people take transit, the more my taxes go up, the more fares go up.

Until the day transit riders pay the full cost of their ride, an argument can't be made that it's cheaper to take transit. It's only an illusion because of the socialist point of view.

A similar argument can be made with health care. Health care is perceived to be free but it's far from. All taxpayers pay regardless of usage. Because the user pays $0 when they visit the hospital, would it be cheaper than going to a private clinic? Answer, actually no.

 

[TOareaFan]

Sure there will be people without cars and such who will utilize the new GO services, but do you really think such an implementation is going to significantly reduce the amount of cars on the 401? Yes, build the rail links, because there will be a demand for it, but at the same time, do you think current commuters from KW who drive to work in Brampton lets say, are just going to stop driving and rely on routes to the GTA running 6 times daily? This is a stepping stone for things to come, but don't deny the need for a few extra lanes on the 401.

I am a car-commuter who wishes there was rail service that better fit my schedule. So, on the surface, I am likely perceived to agree with your statement.

That said, there are lots of commuters within the GTA who do rely on routes that run into the city as infrequently (or less) than six times a day. I guess their own cost/benefit analysis make it worth it for them.

I used to be in favour of a more-balanced 'expand some roads and expand some rail" type approach. I now would be more of the opinion that we should leave the road network exactly as it is and plough all available money into rail systems (outside of maintaining and upkeeping the roads we have). We have fallen so far behind in our rail network that there is a decided bias towards driving. As bad as my commute is....most days it is a break-even proposition (in terms of time) door-door....so with the infrequent rail service, the car wins most days because it offers way more convenience and flexibility. If, as you say (and I have no reason to disagree) there will always be a portion of people who want to drive....I think we should just pile them onto the same roads while, at the same time, fixing the imbalance by making trains more frequent/faster/flexible and see how committed people are to the car experience.

Your statement regarding lacklustre rail service nation-wide is very true, but c'mon, our highway/freeway system isn't exactly well developed either! Is your argument against a freeway through the escarpment based on environmental/"de-beautification" reasons, the need for transportation funding or both?

On a relative basis, though, our road network is far more developed than our rail system.....and, IMO, that has to be addressed and we have lost too much time to allow us to put a few dollars here (rail) AND a few dollars there (roads).

 

[waterloowarrior]

Yes the capital costs is borne by all taxpayers, but on a ridership basis costs analysis basis, you have to include it. If transit didn't exist, then $605M wouldn't be put on the taxpayer.

1) Car owners pay for their own cars. They pay for their own gas. Taxpayers don't pay for their insurance.
2) Transit riders don't pay the full cost of their ride. They get subsidized by everyone and/or the better off that do pay taxes. The 15% tax credit is another cost that must be made up for tax revenue shortfall. If governments don't cutback spending by the amount of the tax credit, then taxpayers are also on the hook. The more people take transit, the more my taxes go up, the more fares go up.

Until the day transit riders pay the full cost of their ride, an argument can't be made that it's cheaper to take transit. It's only an illusion because of the socialist point of view.

A similar argument can be made with health care. Health care is perceived to be free but it's far from. All taxpayers pay regardless of usage. Because the user pays $0 when they visit the hospital, would it be cheaper than going to a private clinic? Answer, actually no.

Then why aren't you including the capital and operating costs of roads in your comparison?

 

[rbt]

Then why aren't you including the capital and operating costs of roads in your comparison?

Roads are just one factor. Other factors also require higher subsidies per user compared to public transportation such as Fire, Police, Ambulance/Health Care. In Ontario you can also include various tax breaks to car manufacturers and federal subsidies for oil activities (I'm a big fan of flat corporate tax rates for all sectors -- no subsidies -- with much smaller taxation on businesses with revenues under $1M per year).

In fact, increasing insurance rates in Ontario have to do with a move away from a subsidy in Health Care for some auto related accidents -- the vast majority are still heavily subsidized.

Is it worth it? Sure. Could everything above be captured by tolls and user fees? Possibly.

Most transit costs go into making it safe. The injury and death rate by public transit in Toronto is significantly lower per trip than private vehicles.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Most transit costs go into making it safe. The injury and death rate by public transit in Toronto is significantly lower per trip than private vehicles.

"Significantly lower" doesn't even describe it well. The TTC has had how many deaths in the past 20 years? 3 from the Russell Hill incident? Is there anything else? That must be at the very least 10 times lower than Toronto's annual car-related deaths, so at least 200 times lower than Toronto's annual car-related deaths, and that's assuming there are only 30 car-related deaths in the city per year.

 

[TOareaFan]

Then why aren't you including the capital and operating costs of roads in your comparison?

"car owners pay for their own cars" but, apparantly, when doing a compare to transit the cost of cars drops to below $3,500? All car commuters are shifting to 25 year old skodas!

 

[Dan416]

I may be pro-transit, but I'm also for widening highways where needed. Clogged roads don't help anyone.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Are you for real, salmonz?

I suppose that as a taxpayer, I don't help subsidise car drivers' usage of their cars through public funding of roads infrastructure, enforcement and emergency, and utility costs. I'm also not at all affected by any environmental effects bestowed upon me by my fellow car drivers.


Right.


I want some of what you're having.

 

[TOareaFan]

I may be pro-transit, but I'm also for widening highways where needed. Clogged roads don't help anyone.

I think I used to (until very recently) feel exactly the same. A few posts back I tried to show my new thinking...I still don't feel very comfortable with clogged roads (as I recognize nohwere at no time will we achieve 100% transit useage) but I feel we are a point where we have pile all of our available and limited resources at creating and enhancing the car alternatives.

 

[Jonny5]

Yes the capital costs is borne by all taxpayers, but on a ridership basis costs analysis basis, you have to include it. If transit didn't exist, then $605M wouldn't be put on the taxpayer.

1) Car owners pay for their own cars. They pay for their own gas. Taxpayers don't pay for their insurance.
2) Transit riders don't pay the full cost of their ride. They get subsidized by everyone and/or the better off that do pay taxes. The 15% tax credit is another cost that must be made up for tax revenue shortfall. If governments don't cutback spending by the amount of the tax credit, then taxpayers are also on the hook. The more people take transit, the more my taxes go up, the more fares go up.

Until the day transit riders pay the full cost of their ride, an argument can't be made that it's cheaper to take transit. It's only an illusion because of the socialist point of view.

A similar argument can be made with health care. Health care is perceived to be free but it's far from. All taxpayers pay regardless of usage. Because the user pays $0 when they visit the hospital, would it be cheaper than going to a private clinic? Answer, actually no.

You're analysis still doesn't make sense to me. Are you assuming a world where the whole population makes all of their trips by transit or by car? There are transit users and non-users. The non-users are paying for the capital costs of the system too. You are allocating the capital costs only to transit riders.

Yes there is an illusion to the tax credit, in the sense that people are only getting their own money back, but it can only be written off in a world where everyone equally pays into the system and equally gets back. Transit riders are a minority, and I suspect their allocation of revenue to the Federal Governemnt is an even smaller minority. I don't know what the number would be, but I suspect more that 10% of their fare tax credit is from non transit users.

 

[Translude15]

I may be pro-transit, but I'm also for widening highways where needed. Clogged roads don't help anyone.

Bang on chap, bang on.

 

[Dan416]

I think I used to (until very recently) feel exactly the same. A few posts back I tried to show my new thinking...I still don't feel very comfortable with clogged roads (as I recognize nohwere at no time will we achieve 100% transit useage) but I feel we are a point where we have pile all of our available and limited resources at creating and enhancing the car alternatives.

I just don't see how hundreds of cars idling on a 400-series highway is helping the environment or anyone. I fully support high-speed rail from Toronto to Montreal. I fully support subway lines in Toronto, and LRT where appropriate, e.g. Mississauga and Hamilton. But idling cars are terrible for the environment and that's what the transit fanatics seem to want.