Toronto Party unveils its transportation plan (InsideToronto article)

[GraphicMatt]

I feel like this is exactly the kind of plan where the highway projects would be fast-tracked and built immediately while the transit projects would get put on a 15-20 year timeline or, you know, whenever.

 

[leopetr]

Underground sections of new highways could work, including burying the Gardiner, and maybe an electronic tolling system could recoup the costs, with the countless number of vehicles passing through them everyday.

Why on earth would we want a make-traffic project? New highways generate traffic out of thin air and result in no significant decreases in trip times. They do, however, change land use in a way that encourages people to sit in cars more and travel longer distances to accomplish exactly the same things.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting how the $9B plan has $8B worth of subway building and leaving what, $1B for the pletora of highway projects.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Does it look like a horror movie script to you? It certainly does to me:

http://www.thetorontoparty.com/Backgrounder.pdf

Oh and for a party that is sure it can convince Metrolinx to kill Transit City, this is what they have to say about the said organization:

Despite best intentions, The TP isn't entirely convinced that adding another layer of bureaucracy is the best way to Get Toronto Moving

(capitalization theirs', not mine)

http://www.thetorontoparty.com/FAQs.pdf

What a hack job. An organization that can't even get the headers of a press release right isn't in a position to talk about lines on a map.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

is this a joke? Surely no one in their right mind is going to support paving the Georgetown GO line to turn it into an expressway to the Gardiner!

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe should come up with an UrbanToronto Party and suggest our own Transit plan.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

would the toronto party happen to be related to these guys?: http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/

 

[UD2]

hahahaha...

I like the 400 extention though.

but seriously. nice try. lol.

 

[CDL.TO]

would the toronto party happen to be related to these guys?: http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/

Same people.

 

[christiesplits]

Is this a joke?

If this is the right wing's plan, then I do not want to hear any of the usual "lefty pie in the sky fantasy hybrid subway ferry Giambrone-induced clap trap" come election time. This platform makes David Miller look like Daniel Burnham.

 

[Whoaccio]

Why on earth would we want a make-traffic project? New highways generate traffic out of thin air and result in no significant decreases in trip times. They do, however, change land use in a way that encourages people to sit in cars more and travel longer distances to accomplish exactly the same things.

That's not factually true, empirical studies have shown that demand for highways is typically price inelastic over the short to medium term. In the long term, demand is more a function of unrelated decisions like land-use planning and economic growth.

That aside, the logic is fundamentally bizarre. The basic theory of induced demand is that new highway capacity will initially lessen congestion (and associated time-costs) which would then attract new users, thereby canceling out the original capacity addition. The problem with that is that it can be used to claim anything causes highway demand to rise. As you stated, traveling by car or by public transit "accomplishes exactly the same things" and they have exactly the same effects on demand. If you build a subway next to a highway, and people initially switch to it, by the logic of "induced demand" more people would then take advantage of lower congestion on the highway. Therefore we shouldn't build subways. Therefore we shouldn't build anything because people will most likely use it.

is this a joke? Surely no one in their right mind is going to support paving the Georgetown GO line to turn it into an expressway to the Gardiner!

Westonites surely would, finally get rid of those 400 (or is it 700 now?) "stinky" diesel trains passing right next to their churches.

Anyways, I got the impression the extension would be placed above or (less likely) below the Georgetown GO corridor, not paving over it.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

is this a joke? Surely no one in their right mind is going to support paving the Georgetown GO line to turn it into an expressway to the Gardiner!

Westonites surely would, finally get rid of those 400 (or is it 700 now?) "stinky" diesel trains passing right next to their churches.

and which empirical study is this based on? the one you pulled out of your a$$?

That aside, the logic is fundamentally bizarre. The basic theory of induced demand is that new highway capacity will initially lessen congestion (and associated time-costs) which would then attract new users, thereby canceling out the original capacity addition. The problem with that is that it can be used to claim anything causes highway demand to rise. As you stated, traveling by car or by public transit "accomplishes exactly the same things" and they have exactly the same effects on demand. If you build a subway next to a highway, and people initially switch to it, by the logic of "induced demand" more people would then take advantage of lower congestion on the highway. Therefore we shouldn't build subways. Therefore we shouldn't build anything because people will most likely use it.

when you build more highways into downtown, there will be more congestion on roads and the extra cars will need extra space to park, etc. downtown was not designed for the car.

 

[junctionist]

That aside, the logic is fundamentally bizarre. The basic theory of induced demand is that new highway capacity will initially lessen congestion (and associated time-costs) which would then attract new users, thereby canceling out the original capacity addition. The problem with that is that it can be used to claim anything causes highway demand to rise. As you stated, traveling by car or by public transit "accomplishes exactly the same things" and they have exactly the same effects on demand. If you build a subway next to a highway, and people initially switch to it, by the logic of "induced demand" more people would then take advantage of lower congestion on the highway. Therefore we shouldn't build subways. Therefore we shouldn't build anything because people will most likely use it.

But what if two modes aren't built? What if only transit lines are built? The subway moves at a similar speed whether it's empty or overflowing. Dwell times increase, but for it doesn't cause a significant spike in travel time, unlike travel times on highways when congestion occurs.

 

[Whoaccio]

and which empirical study is this based on? the one you pulled out of your a$$?

I'm not sure, did you mean to quote my statement that most empirical evidence shows traffic demand to be relatively inelastic? Because what you quoted was a joke.

when you build more highways into downtown, there will be more congestion on roads and the extra cars will need extra space to park, etc. downtown was not designed for the car.

That is sort of a different argument than what I was responding to, specifically that induced demand means adding roadway capacity has no effect. Yea, I accept that building something with a blatant bottleneck is suboptimal. I don't think that is very controversial. I'm less pessimistic that downtown is itself such a bottleneck, especially given things like multi-story garages and the fairly limited nature of car travel downtown.

But what if two modes aren't built? What if only transit lines are built? The subway moves at a similar speed whether it's empty or overflowing. Dwell times increase, but for it doesn't cause a significant spike in travel time, unlike travel times on highways when congestion occurs.

Yes, subways are less susceptible to breakdowns in traffic (for obvious reasons) than highways.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Maybe should come up with an UrbanToronto Party and suggest our own Transit plan.

I support this.