Highways are so much cheaper then transit.

[wyliepoon]

Nice thing you brought up life cycle costs, MrOttawa. I would also throw in the life cycle environmental impacts of the highway too, such as how much pollution is generated, and how much fuel is used up by motorists using the highway over its life cycle. Now compare that with a subway or LRT line.

 

[jamerinbow]

I am not saying we should be adding highway lanes. I just can't believe how much cheaper it is to build highways compared to transit.

True, but consider this: the Yonge subway carries the equivalent of a 26 lane highway. Imagine the cost to taxpayers, and then the amount of space such a facility would take up if we tried to move the Yonge subway passengers on cars.

We are comparing apples to oranges, though. The 407 is a highway through a low-density portion of the GTA, whereas subways are supposed to be for more urban surroundings. A better comparison would be the cost to build a GO Transit line.

GO Transit was created in 1967 when the province realized that Toronto's growth would put pressure on the 401 and the Queen Elizabeth Way. They calculated that providing the service from Oakville to Pickering would reduce pressure on these highways enough that the money saved on reduced maintenance and pressure to expand these facilities would more than make up for the cost of operating the rail service.

GO has never made an operating profit, but in term so the pressure it's taken off of provincial highways, it has represented a substantial savings to Ontario taxpayers.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think there is one thing we can not deny, and that is cost. Check out this article from The Star. Look how cheap it is to build highway lanes compared to transit. There is no way we could add 25KM of rail for $37 million.

And 25km of bike path would be much cheaper. So what? Unless you compare costs at a per person and capacity level it doesn't mean anything. Transporting people on the back of a donkey might be even cheaper but it won't deliver the same value, performance, and capacity.

 

[MrOttawa]

Scarb,

I guessed on my 401 figures. However, at rush hour how many passengers can be moved via the highway and by Yonge line? 400,000/day would also include many trips taken during off-peak hours.

Nice thing you brought up life cycle costs, MrOttawa. I would also throw in the life cycle environmental impacts of the highway too, such as how much pollution is generated, and how much fuel is used up by motorists using the highway over its life cycle. Now compare that with a subway or LRT line.

I hate to admit it but left-wing economists are right about cars producing delayed costs in terms of environmental damage.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

And 25km of bike path would be much cheaper. So what? Unless you compare costs at a per person and capacity level it doesn't mean anything. Transporting people on the back of a donkey might be even cheaper but it won't deliver the same value, performance, and capacity.

Well put Enviro. And lets not forget about long term operating costs, cost of maintaining the infrastructure, environmental costs, social costs, etc. Having a discussion based on the single variable of construction cost of the infrastructure in which vehicles travel upon is useless.

Here is another topic of discussion, 'Suburban homes so much cheaper than inner city homes.'

 

[thenay]

Oh it is cheaper, but in the end I don't think it is.
The upkeep to maintain the roads, the time consumed to fix them (oh and our cars too, the potholes in this city are nuts!) and such slow the economy when they're working on it. Traffic does make an impact on our economy, believe it or not.

I support more lanes, roads and highways, but we must not forget we need better sources. With the rising gas prices too, I don't think many will drive when it hits $2/L+ in the next 10 years and 10 yrs later mor a bit more when the supply is almost out.. lol.

I wonder what will be next after oil. Hydrogen? Electric?

 

[Chuck100]

One lane of highway has a capacity of 2200 vehicles per hour. On average there are I believe 1.1 people per car in the GTA, which translates into 2420 people per hour per lane. Therefore with 12 lanes, the 401 has a theoretical capacity of 29,000 people per hour, identical to what the Yonge subway carries. Note that if all cars had 4 occupants, the 401's capacity would be 100,000 people per hour which is a capacity not possible on any other mode.

It's important to compare the footprint of each mode, and the effect that it has on the surrounding land values and environment. It's not just about how many people are carried.

 

[ganjavih]

Also, we must consider that gridlock in Toronto costs us billions of dollars per year in lost revenue. New highways alone won't solve that problem.

 

[roch5220]

Therefore with 12 lanes, the 401 has a theoretical capacity of 29,000 people per hour, identical to what the Yonge subway carries. Note that if all cars had 4 occupants, the 401's capacity would be 100,000 people per hour

Yes, the highways can theoretically handle that volume, but, the destination side streets cannot. Hence is why highways are a parking lot during certian parts of the day. You don't have this problem so much with subways, unless the pedestrian traffic is very congested, which only happens at certian multi line stations in a few cities around the globe.

 

[EnviroTO]

Note that if all cars had 4 occupants, the 401's capacity would be 100,000 people per hour which is a capacity not possible on any other mode.

You are looking at 12 lanes of traffic. If there were 12 rails of subway the capacity would be quite different.

An apples to apples cost comparison would add the cost of land at market value occupied by the transportation corridor, the cost of long term maintenance on the infrastructure, the cost of the vehicles (fares do easily cover the cost of transit vehicles over the life those vehicles), the energy costs, etc. I think when you look at all the costs equally the higher capacity transportation mode almost always beats the lower capacity mode on a cost per person basis. I find that if a study says transit is more expensive they are usually only looking at costs paid for by government agencies and leaving out personal out of pocket costs which doesn't make it an equal comparison of total costs. A true comparison covers all related costs and doesn't care whose pocket the money came out of.

 

[Chuck100]

The problem with highways is that people are not using them in the intended way. Highways are meant for long distance trips between cities, however they are clogged with people commuting to and from work when other more logical modes are available. Widening the 401 to 6 lanes between Windsor and Quebec is ok, however widening through Toronto really encourages the wrong use of highways, and the result is gridlock for trucks.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

This whole argument is really pointless.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

This whole argument is really pointless.

Totally disagree. If people think that roads are ultimately cheaper than transit after every cost is factored in, they are completely wrong. It is very important to compare these costs in real terms to get people to understand the tremendous value of public transportation.

It is opinions expressed in the opening post that lead to indifference and lack of vision about public transit. If the perception is that the real costs of PT are much much higher than car transportation, even in the long run, then there will be very little incentive to invest in PT.

People must realize that investing PT development is the BEST OPTION BY FAR. We simply can't continue widening highways forever.

 

[JohnnyStalenko]

I don't post on here very often, but this one kinda bugs me...

...I also agree that this is NOT a pointless discussion...in fact, I'd go so far as saying that it's probably one of the most important ones facing our cities today...on so many levels...environment, cost, and lets not forget quality of life (i.e. I not only spend lots of money driving to work each day, but I also spend my time, which to me is my life!)...

...one thing that no one has mentioned yet is the cost to ride each of the modes...according to the CAA's own numbers (which I imagine are deliberately understated), it costs an average Canadian around $850.00/month to own and operate a motor vehicle...

...I imagine there are at least 2.5 million registered vehicle owners...imagine how much is spent each year just to move around!

...now imagine if you took just half of that monthly cost (and let the person keep the other), and used that money to build transit...

...do the math...it's just over a billion dollars A MONTH...
...imagine the subway system we could have!

...and...

...each person would get to keep the other half to spend on whatever...

...I know this is an oversimplification, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is no way highways are cheaper when you consider ALL the costs...and unlike other members, I've said nothing about health care costs (it costs more to care for accident victims each year in Ontario than for smokers), environment, etc...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I said the argument is pointless, not the issue. Everyone here agrees with each other and is fighting to see who can disprove Mike the bestest.