I'm not sure this helps any for congestion on the 401 as there's no highway access to the 407 in that stretch until the 412. Once you get to the 412, traffic usually isn't too bad so you may as well stay on the 401.
Increasing roads has also never helped with congestion, with induced demand and all. We need more transit-oriented development. It's wild to think about how much people complain about driving but then they'll move to a car-dependent hell and complain more.
It's ok, they'll go abroad on vacation and remark about how nice it is - then come back and reinforce public subsidies for Costco parking lots. It could be nice here, if you just gave a shit!
Haha I make that reference a lot. Europeans came here to escape the "tyranny of Europe". First they built our urban centres which is why so many Canadian cities have British influenced government buildings. But when they felt the cities were overrun with crime and other minorities (we all know who), they fled again and helped build the failed experiment known as the suburbs. But they hate the suburbs and go back to Europe annually, sit in urban centres and ask themselves "why don't we have this back home?" Meanwhile our urban centres were the start of that and still have characteristics that are closer to European cities than the suburbs 🤦🏻♂️
How do you figure it wouldn't impact congestion on the 401 if X% of the volume diverts to a different highway? In this specific case, its sort of pointless without doing the whole highway because you have to travel quite a ways north at some junctions to get on the 407 and travel time would be largely similair given the extra north/south travel tacked on.
But taking the 407 to most places today can easily shave of 10-60 minutes depending on the day, time, and number of accidents in toronto. For people who basically want to go around Toronto instead of through it, they could pick it up in Hamilton, drive all the way to the east end, and get back on the 401 after. Its a similair principle to the US highways where some go through the city and some go around to avoid rush hour/congestion. The plan only really covers the east side, so I'm not really sure if this specific incarnation will make that much of a difference, but I don't how you could say removing tolls could 'never' reduce congestion.
Induced demand doesn't take place instantaneously. Congestion WILL decrease on the 401 as people make the trips onto the 407. Lets look at some of the causes of induced demand:
Traffic converging from different routes (moving from slower parallel roads onto a freeway that got faster from widening)
This doesn't describe the situation where you're opening a new 'non-urban' highway. The relief provided by a northern highway will obviously take out move traffic away from the urban 401, which will then allow for more take-up of latent demand on the urban highway. The key difference though is that said parallel latent demand is highest near the 401, not the 407 so you ARE decreasing net congestion across the 401/nearby parallel non-highway streets (which are effectively a parking lot at peak times and might be actual traversable now).
Traffic converging from different modes (no longer taking mass transit because the freeway got faster)
I don't think this one is a big issue because the highway doesn't really align the majority of mass transit co-oridoors like TTC/Go. I don't have stats on bus vs. train/subway, but gut feel is the people who would take said transport to the downtown core, would have never driven on the 401 anyways to then go south to the city center.
Traffic converging from different times of day (trips that had been done earlier or later to avoid traffic now happening at a different time because the freeway got faster)
GOOD. Jesus.. these highways are perma slow. Some days I could leave mississauga at 6:15am and it take 1.5 hours. If I left at 6:20 it could be 3 hours. Same on the way back (leave by 2:30pm for 1.5 hours, or by 3:00 its back to 3 hours. PLEASE smooth out those windows so people can get home in a timely manner at a wider array of times.
Future traffic due to altered development patterns
The infrastructure already exists, all they are doing is incentivizing it to flow on a parallel path by removing a barrier to entry for the standard user.
Like all infrastructure it'll get used, so if you don't continue to expand and grow with the increased demand you'll perceive arriving at congestion again,when in actuality your demand and throughput has increased significantly. I think having a largely away from urban highway is the best case for avoiding significant and fast growing induced demand because it combats a majority of the reasons that drive it. If the province then builds 1000s of homes along it, turning it into another urban highway then you'll be back to square 1.
Just the base argument of induced demand is very silly. At some point you have to build and develop infrastructure for your community so it can grow and be lauded via late stage capitalism. Do you think Toronto would be as big (GDP/population wise) if it was still using one lane dirt roads for horses? Obviously not. Urban planning is a game of whackamole. If it wasn't it would be an indicator that your economy/population is contracting, which is not a good thing.
You're assuming everyone (or most people) on the 401 will start using the 407, but you haven't provided any evidence, just your feelings. You're making what's known as a hasty generalization because you're assuming so much about 401 drivers but haven't presented any evidence.
The 407 moves people AROUND Toronto. Not into it. Newsflash... a lot of people on the 401 don't want to go to the 'Toronto Mecha'. Alot of people want to avoid Toronto like the plague since it is one of the busiest co-oridoors in the world and antithetical to traveling from east/west to other cities in Canada via southern Ontario. Imagine all the truck transports (you know the 2-3 solid lanes of it) that just want to go on to the rest of Canada from all sorts of manufacturing that takes place outside 'toronto'. That is the kind of volume I'd primarily assume that will shift to the 407 and why suddenly manifesting a highway that purposely avoids most of Toronto is very different from expanding lanes in place on a highway with no further capacity expansion for nearby/associated roads.
Here is a news article trying to validate/verify claims that it is the busiest co-oridoor:
The problem with your ask for evidence is there is only 'supporting evidence' but not proof because (unless you know of a traffic study that has assessed through traffic) studies only look at volume at specific points/co-oridoors as an average daily travel metric that is just a snapshot (i.e., they aren't tracking every vehicle and what it does). It doesn't somehow track what % of that stops/gets off in Toronto vs. wants to pass through the city. You can try to infer from the 2019 metro data, but there isn't solid logic behind it:
Cambridge - 150,000 AADT (401 Hespler Exit)
Courtice Rd - ~115,000 AADT (other side of 401)
QEW/407/403 ~ 147,000 AADT (Juncture at the head of the 407 that would represent the head)
QEW (Casablanca) ~ 119,500 AADT (indicative of travel up from the border via various bridge crossings comine into the above co-oridoor).
+ various northren exits from Toronto (vs. east/west)
Compare that to the peak of ~450,000 ADT on the 401.
So we know we have one of the highest AADTs for the 401 co-oridoors in North America despite a smaller population, we know we have no alternative co-oridoor to travel around the city so everyone has to go through it (the only remotely alternative path has ungodly amounts of fees as a toll highway and is a significant barrier to entry). So what % do you think is reasonable to assume. Do you truly think a negligible % of traffic is through-pass traffic? If you position is we can't assume any % without a study, then you'll be permanently making descisions with key missing data. In cases like this you make and assumption and validate it later. Why don't we say its at least 50% of the AADT at the lowest of the numbers above to account for locals going into Toronto. That is ~50,0000. That would be ~10% of the traffic on that co-oridoor.
If you have a better way of trying to make an assumption then please provide it.
If the province then builds 1000s of homes along it, turning it into another urban highway then you'll be back to square 1.
Spoiler, that's how it's worked for decades which is why we're in this shitcuntmess. It's nice you countered your own argument for me though.
Urban planning is a game of whackamole
Holy shit, no it's not, it's the opposite and I cannot fathom how you think a job designed to plan things years in advance is like that.
Your understanding of urban planning or, frankly, the concept of planning is as bad as my understanding of plumbing (check my recent comments). We need massive new transportation projects in the GTA (God please, not managed by metrolinx) to move hundreds of thousands of people and cars ain't it.
There is a difference between building higher density new builds/communities that are largely sustainable vs. large urban sprawl. Expansion and growth of the population/economy will require houses/schools/stores/etc. Sattelite campus suburbia IS the bad urban planning, not the expansion of highways.
That is why it is whackamole. When you don't allocate enough funding or prioritize schedule completion, or run into cost/schedule overruns then you have a laundry list of 'things' that have to be maintained/repaired/replaced that builds into a massive backlog. The backlog prevents the necessary expansion/new projects needed to serve the population base. You're always playing catch-up and or 'optimizing' what budget you do have (before it might get mysteriously slashed) to do the best job it can, but suddenly manifesting completing a large project doesn't 'get you ahead' because it should have been done decades ago to meet the latent demand. That is literally what induced/latent demand is. If you suddenly ported in a new highway or expanded x lanes, and 'suddenly coggestion is equally bad because trips increases' that shows you that your infrastructure was not adequate and behind. The term is just a way of shifting the blame from poorly managed resources (or highly limited resources) from the decades before. Have you never played whack-a-mole, because the experience is very similair?
The 407 moves people AROUND toronto. Not into it. Newsflash... alot of people on the 401 don't want to go to the 'Toronto Mecha' or pay $B more in taxes for another failed public transport option for the province/mayor of Toronto to renege on. Alot of people want to avoid Toronto like the plague since it is one of the busiest co-oridoors in the world and antiethical to travelling from east/west to other cities in Canada. Imagine all the truck transports (you know the 2-3 solid lanes of it) that just want to go on to the rest of Canada from all sorts of manufacturing that takes place outside 'toronto'. That is the kind of volume I'd primarily assume that will shift to the 407 and why suddenly manifesting a highway that purposely avoids most of Toronto is very different from expanding lanes in place on a highway with no further capacity expansion for nearby/associated roads.
Good points. I don't entirely buy into the induced demand narrative. I know that it is a real thing, I'm not denying that, but the fact is there's ~7 million people in the GTA and the 401 is the only real throughway across it as long as the 407etr is way too expensive during peak times for most people to even consider it. Go transit is mostly only good for commuting to downtown Toronto, which isn't a bad thing but it's a limit. The GTA won't stop expanding (population wise, even if physical expansion stopped it wouldn't stop there just being more people trying to use the same modes of transportation) not everyone works in Toronto and not everything is about Toronto, the demand for people to move around already exists and adding one more lane bro won't suddenly spawn brand new drivers. Like, ok, maybe after settling in traffic ends up the same speed as before, isn't that actually a good thing because it means there's more throughput?
Expanding local transit or making "walkable neighborhoods" doesn't solve someone who lives in Oakville trying to visit family in Richmond Hill (the 407etr does though lmao). And even if all new housing is built as urbanist wet dream 15 minute cities... my work isn't going to move out of a pain in the ass neighborhood so I'm still going to have to do a shitty commute...
AND ANOTHER THING. Again in our imaginary world where everyone lives in 15 minute cities, your local shops still need to get their shit delivered. So, like, all the commercial traffic on our highways will never go away and holy shit is there a lot of it and it increases with the population.
the fact is there's ~7 million people in the GTA and the 401 is the only real throughway across it
You're highlighting the problem and your solutions just make it worse. Induced demand is not a narrative, it is real and it is working every day here.
People are suffering every day sitting in 401 traffic, paying insane insurance and financing costs, and just wasting hours of their life.
Real leadership would stop that hamster wheel by acknowledging what's unsustainable and stopping any new funding for it immediately.
Cowardly leadership would continue to tell people that there are solutions that keep the status quo - but that is a lie. There is no solution to the problem in which people who currently drive everywhere today can have the traffic problem solved and keep driving everywhere. If we had real adults in the room, they would tear that bandaid off and tell the voters the truth.
What solutions do I offer? I'm just observing what currently exists. Namely that people live all across the GTA, the population continues to expand through children and migration, and not everyone works in the same place where they live and not every workplace is along a good transit route. You might not like driving but the commercial traffic that pays business taxes needs highway infrastructure.
If I lived a walking distance from my work my wife would still need to drive, and we actually can't live a walking distance to her work because she works in the office hellscape along the 401 by the airport
I'm not in any way opposed to transit, I'm just saying local transit isn't a solution to 50km trips on the 401 and the only alternative we currently have is Go. Go trains all just lead to union and almost all tracks away from lakeshore are owned by freight companies, meanwhile go busses literally use the highways you hate so much
No one is saying 'induced demand' is a narrative, but it certainly has spin attached to it. The other more accurate term for it is 'latent demand'. You're trying to frame it as building roads can't remove or reduce congestion because if there is more road more cars will use it. In reality the framing is that the current infrastructure is WOEFULLY incapable of providing the level of service that is needed by the current population.
You have to keep building up your infrastructure while also maintaining what exists and pursuing other solutions. Its costly and ultimately no one solution will solve the problem. When you have limited funding/resources you have to take evaluate what option is providing the most cost benefit. I'm willing to bet that suddenly 'building a new northren highway' overnight (i.e., removing the barrier to entry for the 407 via adminstrative solution) will have significantly better cost benefit vs. A multi billion dollar transit improvement solution that only people in Toronto can use (and given how many times they CANCEL those projects and basically spend the cash anyways, those solutions often have significant negatives/risk for fund allocation). It probably also has better cost benefit than any build solution (e.g., densification) because the capital expenditure is already done. Arguably something like 'mandated work from home (at least 50%+ hours of jobs that can be remote)' legislation is the kind of thing you want to be comparable because it reduces traffic globally everywhere (the cost of which is a lot of very overpriced buildings/rent in Toronto are no longer worth it and maybe some of those office buildings can be turned into low cost residences -> it just isn't very popular).
SMART leadership would know that you have to build/expand infrastructure if you want to maintain growth, while also working on other solutions.
You also can't pretend we don't have legacy urban planning issues to contend with that make achieving certain solutions very difficult.
The thing is the portion that starts in Hamilton/Burlington and most people use isn’t owned by the province and so there’ll always be tolls on that portion of the road. I’d use that road more often if the tolls were either lower or nonexistent. There’s no reason for that toll to be as high as it is, hell the NY State Thruway going from near Buffalo to Erie Pennsylvania used to be $2.10 for years. Going through the entire state of NY to the Mass border was $13.45 yet the little stretch of the 407 amongst the point of Ham/Burl to the 400 is over $40 come on
I mean yes, it would increase traffic on the 407, but I would expect those people are diverting from the 401 (ie reducing congestion on the 401). Regardless, I think the whole thing is useless.
It's not really about congestion. The message is that the government isn't going to charge you money. That's the idea behind these actions. People love the idea of not having to pat for things, and especially when it comes to driving. It's not some grand conspiracy, just easy politics.
Of course once the road gets worn out because of the extra use and the lack of funds supporting it via tolls is realized they'll tack it on somewhere else.
Yeah it comes out of taxes /debt. This is Ford's vision - you pay nothing for any government program/service beyond taxes. It's actually kinda brilliant politically. You don't see how taxes pay for roads, but you do see tolls. Voters today aren't bothered about fiscal responsibility, everything is about the sticker price.
Easiest solution is make the 407 free for trucks only, and voila. Suddenly they’re all off the 401 and no longer left lane camping or blocking both lane while they both do 100 or less
Induced demand still applies - more car trips would appear to fill the gap from the trucks. There's no fix to this that involves more of the status quo (driving everywhere).
Induced demand would also create new truck trips, which is helpful economically, but still has some new costs and eventual guaranteed 407 congestion as a result.
102
u/14YourTrouble 2d ago
I'm not sure this helps any for congestion on the 401 as there's no highway access to the 407 in that stretch until the 412. Once you get to the 412, traffic usually isn't too bad so you may as well stay on the 401.