News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.2K     6 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 893     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

Officially Unofficial Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan Thread

The Metrolinx White Papers have been put back up on the consultation website. Again, these concepts are subject to board approval, and we have seen in the past that board wants make sure things are right before moving on to the next step. They are accessible at the Metrolinx Consultation Portal
 
Glad to be of service :)

Make sure you check out appendix E.

It compares what would happen if we built all the highways planned and expanded local road capacity by 10% in each 905 municipality. The results are very interesting and I think some people might be surprised.
 
RedRocket191 said:
Glad to be of service :)

Make sure you check out appendix E.

It compares what would happen if we built all the highways planned and expanded local road capacity by 10% in each 905 municipality. The results are very interesting and I think some people might be surprised.
Click to expand...

Appendix E is very interesting indeed. It looks like both extreme strategies (a lot of road improvements, or no road improvements at all) lose in comparison.

C2 (no road improvements): big hit on the conjestion costs, extra 1.6 billion annually; versus modest gains in the transit usage, energy efficiency, and pollution.

B2 (aggressive road improvements): modest gains on the conjestion costs reduction, 0.4 billion annually; versus big deterioration in the transit usage, energy efficiency, and pollution.

"Some road improvements" emerges as the best strategy.
 
I understand Friday meeting has been cancel and the next one is supposed to be June 6.

After attending a meeting at Markham Centre, I caught the new GO bus express service from RHC to Sq One as it was just about to leave.

Decided to give it a try to see how much time I would save not going through Toronto.

There was only 6 of us on the bus when it departed. Cost was $6.85

Took us about 23 minute to get to the airport considering the driver was only doing 90km. Everyone was passing us like crazy including 2 other GO buses. We never pass anyone.

Drop 3 at the airport and pickup 3.

After the airport stop, driver was doing the speed limit.

Took us 42 minutes. If I added in my traveling time from Sq One to my bus stop not allowing time waiting for a bus, the trip was 57 minutes.

Using this route would save me 60 minutes of travel time as well 2 extra transfers and not use TTC at all.

Allowing for stops along the way from Sq One to Warden using the 403/407 as an LRT line, I would still save close to 35 minutes and only have to transfer 2 time compare to 3 that I had to do today going there.

Now if there was a nice flat fare, it is the better way.

I am using a GTA card this week.

Unless you have a ticket before you leave your home, it will cost $12.65 each way or $25.30 assuming you have no pass or tickets vs $47 for a weekly GTA pass. If you have tickets/pass for MT, it will cost you GO plus VIVA fare going there or GO plus $.50 for YRT at $7.35. Coming home it will be VIVA plus GO fare at $9.85.

This shows a 2-3 hour fare structure is the way to go, not by distance.
 
Here's how Hamilton will spend the $33 million that was delivered in the recent provincial budget....

ABLine.jpg


Eventually sometime in 2009 or 2010 B and A-Line will run as all day service (24/7 service).

Implementation of these improvements will be conducted in stages, as follows:

• Purchase eighteen articulated hybrid buses in June 2008 for September 2009 delivery
• Implement Stage 1 of the A-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service in September 2009. This will be a peak period only service, operating at thirty minute headways.
• Implement Stage 1 of the B-Line BRT improvements, including replacement of remaining 40’ buses with articulated hybrids in September 2009.
• Implement Stage 2 of the B-Line BRT improvements, including service expansion or enhancement.
• Implement Stage 2 of the A-Line BRT service. This will be all day service, operating at twenty minute headways.
• Implement Stage 3 of the B-Line BRT service. This will be all day service, operating at fifteen minute headways.
 
Agency floats idea of tolls on all major expressways
407-style fees on existing thoroughfares seen as a way to pay for new public transit

JEFF GRAY

June 14, 2008

Highway 407-style tolls of at least 10 cents a kilometre on all major expressways - meaning a trip from Oakville to downtown Toronto would cost $3.60 or more - are being considered by the regional transportation authority Metrolinx as a way to pay for billions in public-transit improvements.

Metrolinx, a provincially mandated agency whose 11-member board is made up mostly of municipal politicians, got an update yesterday from staff who were asked to find new ways to pay for the massive investments in public transit being contemplated to fight congestion and greenhouse-gas emissions in the greater Toronto and Hamilton regions.

"There's going to be some hard choices to make for sure, but we can't just allow our region to degenerate into traffic chaos," said Metrolinx chairman Rob MacIsaac, who has long maintained tolls had to be an option. "We need to make sure people can get around."

Senior Metrolinx official John Howe told the board yesterday that to dramatically expand public transit, as Metrolinx has proposed, an extra $2.8-billion to $6.2-billion a year over the next 25 years will be required.

As much as $1-billion a year could be raised by any one of the following ideas, he said:

A 10-cent-a-kilometre, or more, charge on the city's Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner Expressway and the province's 400-series highways. (Privately-run Highway 407 charges 18 to 19.75 cents a kilometre.)

A $1 a weekday charge on every non-residential parking spot.

A gas tax increase of 20 cents a litre or more.

A 1-per-cent regional sales tax.

In addition to looking at simply tolling expressways, Mr. Howe said his team is studying U.S. examples of special toll lanes alongside free highways called HOT or "high-occupancy toll" lanes. But he cautioned that these are criticized as "Lexus lanes" for the rich.

A draft plan of the financing options is due by July 25, along with a draft of Metrolinx's proposed public-transit improvements, with a final menu of options to be presented to Queen's Park in the fall.

The plans must be approved by Metrolinx's board, which includes Toronto Mayor David Miller and three other Toronto representatives as well as Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion and the chairs of York, Halton and Durham Regions.

Mr. MacIsaac cautioned that while tolls or "road pricing" would likely be listed as an option in the final report to the provincial government - which has said no to the concept in the past - it would be several years before any such scheme came into being, if approved.

"I think there's still lot of runway left before we get to take-off on this," Mr. MacIsaac said.

Mr. Miller, noting that other cities, including Montreal, are considering similar proposals, said he didn't know if tolls were the answer. But he said he believed Torontonians were prepared for them: "I think people are ready. They understand. The price of gas what it is, people know we can't keep building subdivisions and pave over all the farmland up to Collingwood. It's not going to work." A toll for thee?

Metrolinx, the provincial agency charged with planning and co-ordinating public transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area, is considering a plan to impose tolls of 10 cents per kilometre (or more) to drive on provincial and municipal expressways. What it could cost one-way at 10¢/km:

DOWNTOWN TORONTO TO:
Markham $3.00
Oakville $3.60
Pickering $3.90
Oshawa $6.00
Hamilton $6.70

MISSISSAUGA CITY CENTRE TO:
Oakville $2.00
Hamilton $5.00

DOWNTOWN OSHAWA TO:
Pickering $2.10
Vaughan $6.80
Mississauga $8.10

TRISH McALASTER/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: METROLINX
 
On the website I suggested a tax on parking space proportional to the amount of transit infrastructure that exists. A parkade downtown would be taxed (the owners) a fortune given all the transit infrastructure available, while a parking lot in Caledon will be barely charged.

As transit service improves, so should the parking lot tax.

An expressway tax will only cause roads such as Bayview, Queensway, Highway 7, and Kingston to get gridlocked.
 
Urbanfan:

I like your idea of taxing parking spacing, but there are some problems:

What happens if Wal-Mart can afford to absorb the tax, while Joe's Department Store can't and has to increase his prices or put up parking meters?

The cost of parking is a very effective way to influence where and how people travel. Case in point, I went to dinner with a friend last night, and the destination was dependent on where she could find a cheap parking lot (I took the subway into the city).

The only thing I can suggest is that we not only take into account where the parking lot is located, but what kind of business it is and the built form. We want to discourage big box but encourage more sustainable types.

To everyone:

The investment strategy will be presented buffet style - politicians rejecting one of the components won't result in the whole document being defeated.
 
urbanfan89 said:
On the website I suggested a tax on parking space proportional to the amount of transit infrastructure that exists. A parkade downtown would be taxed (the owners) a fortune given all the transit infrastructure available, while a parking lot in Caledon will be barely charged.

As transit service improves, so should the parking lot tax.
Click to expand...
There's a problem with this too, however. If, say, Caledon has a tiny tax on parking, do you really think the local businesses will support improved transit later on if it means higher parking taxes?
 
Panzerfaust said:
There's a problem with this too, however. If, say, Caledon has a tiny tax on parking, do you really think the local businesses will support improved transit later on if it means higher parking taxes?
Click to expand...

If they discover that congestion is causing their customers to go elsewhere then they might. But, by that time it will probably be too late for those businesses (assuming that happens at all).
 
To get $1 b a year for non residential parking , you need 3,773,585 spots. This is based on $1 a spot and $265 a year. Using the same parking spots at $10 you just an extra $9 B to work with. Now, how many spots do we have?

Over time, the number of spots will decrease and this will mean that $1 could become $2 or more based on the remaining spots.

I still like $1,500 a year per spot and that would generate a real return for transit as well help to decrease the parking spots. Again, parking spots will start to decease very fast over time and reduce your income. Free parking comes with a price.

At the same time, each car over one per residential would cost $1,500 a year for #2 $2,000 for #3, $3,500 for #4, $4,500 for #5 and $6,000 for #6. So if you have 4 cars in the household, it will cost you $7,000 a year to have them park there. Seen many 4-7 cars household both in the 416 and 905 as else where.

I have no problem with an extra $.20 per liter since I already call for $.15. Various US states are looking at raising their sale tax and use that money to fund transit, infrastructure and highways.

Once you start taxing the 400's, side street traffic will increase. Cost of goods will increase also if transportation is charge. Need to be careful here.

Taxing the type of car you use is good today, but over time the return will decrease.

As for the 1% sales tax, again used in various places in the US but at a smaller rate.

As long as we move GHG from one place to another without really dealing with the issues, you are not going to get ahead of the problems.

Unless there is a real charge to use the HOV lanes for single person cars, it defeats the need for HOV lanes in the first place.

As it has been said at Metrolinx Stakeholders meetings, marketing transit should be directed to middle and low incomers as the rich don't care what the cost are so long as they have more room on the road to drive.

At the York Region Stakeholder meeting on Thursday, a stakeholder said "the oil fields just drop 2 feet today when I fill up my truck. I got the money, so what. You can't take the money with you, so you must enjoy the good life."

You ask this person to pay $10,000 a year to use the HOV and they will say when do you want the money.

At the end of the day, there is so much money one has if you are on the low end.

Oh!!, Richmond Hill want the subway up to Major Mack now and to Elgin Mill later if not sooner.
 
drum118 said:
Oh!!, Richmond Hill want the subway up to Major Mack now and to Elgin Mill later if not sooner.
Click to expand...

Major Mac :confused: that is just not going to happen.

I heard their is a group made up of buisnesses along young street called SOY (save our young), that is pushing for the subway north of HWY 7

their only reason for wanting it that far is so the VIVA bus lanes ROW dont get built,
 
I'm not a fan of flat tolls on the regional expressways. Time of use tolling really makes a whole lot more sense, if the goal is to reduce congestion and not just raise revenues. Without time of use, there is no added incentive to travel off-peak. Say, 4 cents per km off-peak up to 25 cents per km on-peak. It could be a function of time of day alone, or dynamically based on actual congestion. The latter may be unpopular due to the unpredictable nature.

Time of use makes a whole lot of sense, which is why we are using it for the electricity market.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top