|
|
|
11th
Senior Member
For me, it goes like: the toll rate itself is too high and I refuse to use it for long/mid distance travel, and therefore I don't have a transponder. Now since I don't have a transponder, I won't use it for short trips either because of the add on charges.
allengeorge
Senior Member
I realize that my unclear use of the phrase "time of use" has lead you down the wrong path. What I meant to say was that, unlike transit, we don't charge people for driving at the very moment they do it. Specifically, gas, insurance, the depreciation of one's car - all these feel like 'fixed' costs, independent of your choice to use Road A vs Road B.
afransen
Senior Member
The equity argument is not all that persuasive to me. Truly poor people aren't driving, and not driving across town.
People choose their hours because they choose their jobs, and they choose where they live. Even if most people are quite resistant to incentives to change behaviour, it doesn't take a large percentage of drivers to shift discretionary trips off peak, or to carpool, or to move closer to work to make a meaningful difference to congestion. I also see no merit in charging the poor shift worker 50 cents per km (required to keep highways flowing at peak) for the privilege of using an empty highway at 3 am, especially when transit is relatively unavailable.
I would also support discounted transit fares off peak. It's about using our infrastructure more efficiently.
ARG1
Senior Member
We shouldn't be operating like this though. We shouldn't try to push people to work for jobs in uncomfortable situations just because we're horrible at infrastructure building. The government has no place in trying to dictate the populace when and how they should get around - they should always try to push the fastest option at the lowest possible price. In London, off peak travel outside of Zone 1 is charged at a flat fare in an attempt to reduce crowding and traffic in the downtown core of the city. This means that if you use services like the London Overground to try and bypass Zone 1, you can reach your destination even if its at the other side of the city at a very cheap 1.5 pounds. THIS IS HORRENDOUS, there should NEVER be an incentive to use a slower option to reach your destination. The goal of every transit authority should be to try and minimize the time it takes to go from point A to point B - that means trying to push for as many direct trips where reasonable, with fast transfers to other services when unreasonable. If people are purposefully using a slower route in order to save money, I don't care about "infrastructure efficiency", you have FAILED as a transit system.
afransen
Senior Member
This feels like a non sequitur. What point that I made are you addressing?
I was suggesting time of use tolling can make sense to encourage people to travel off peak, and not needlessly punish people who drive off peak when congestion is not a concern. Most of the cost of infra is for peak capacity. Encouraging off peak use increases utilization and potentially relieving peak load.
ARG1
Senior Member
The point of trying to push people to use infrastructure at specific times to try and use infrastructure more efficiently. Things like having to pay different fares depending on the time of day is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
allengeorge
Senior Member
What exactly is wrong with this?
afransen
Senior Member
Why? Sydney Metro gives 30% discounted rates off peak.
Opal peak and off-peak fares
When you travel outside of peak times with your Opal card, you receive discounted fares.
afransen
Senior Member
Equity demands we build the church for Easter Sunday and charge the same price for the resort in Cancun in hurricane season as during March break. Who cares if that means the resort is empty--much fairer than letting it get used for a discount!
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Exactly. Sounds like good planning and a lot like how market based pricing works for everything else. You can't get a summer cottage at winter prices. There isn't unlimited money available to build all infrastructure to handle the worst case scenario, so it makes good sense to me to incentivize people and businesses to use infrastructure efficiently. If we design transportation to handle the peak inefficiency not only is that incredibly expensive to build, but it creates infrastructure that is underutilized most of the time. If everyone can locate their business anywhere in the GTA and have business hours of exactly 9 to 5, and then expect to service the demand without congestion, then you have the most expensive transportation network possible.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
north-of-anything
Active Member
As much as I'm personally opposed to the 413, isn't it a bit disingenuous to use a picture of an eight-lane express/collector configuration as the leading picture to an article about it? If the whole point is that a 3 lane freeway is oversized and inappropriate, a wide, in-use freeway in an urban area isn't a good representation of what's going on...
innsertnamehere
Superstar
yup. Most of the 413 would look like this:
The majority of the 413 at initial buildout will only be a 4-lane facility, the 6-lane part is proposed to run from the 400 to 427, but between the 427 and 401 it will be 4-lanes.
The majority of the 413 at initial buildout will only be a 4-lane facility, the 6-lane part is proposed to run from the 400 to 427, but between the 427 and 401 it will be 4-lanes.
kamira51
Active Member
A perfect example of environmentalists pushing false information just to get this thing canceled.yup. Most of the 413 would look like this:
The majority of the 413 at initial buildout will only be a 4-lane facility, the 6-lane part is proposed to run from the 400 to 427, but between the 427 and 401 it will be 4-lanes.