(04-28-2020, 09:16 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(04-28-2020, 08:50 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Incorrect, if Dan is anything like me.

There are many people with whom I disagree that are very much worth talking to. Sometimes I learn things; sometimes they learn things; sometimes both. Even if we still disagree, we have an increased understanding after the discussion.

But if somebody comes along denying basic facts and refuses to look at the evidence, then an enlightening conversation is unlikely. We see this in just about every scientific field, where there is usually vigorous debate among scientists about just about every topic. Then some flat-Earther, creationist, or homeopath (to name just a few) comes along and spews out their contribution. Not welcome, and not helpful.

To get back to the first I wrote about — “incorrect” — I don’t use it just whenever I disagree with someone. It is reserved for when somebody has said something that is objectively, factually, wrong as far as I can tell.

If somebody thinks many more highways should be built, then I disagree, but I wouldn’t call them “incorrect”. If they think that building highways is cheap compared to other ways of moving people, however, then they are factually incorrect and I won’t hesitate to say so.

Just to start with, I happen to agree with both Dan and you on the topic of induced demand. If either of you think that the majority of the general population have heard of induced demand, or intuitively believe it to be correct, I think you are misinformed. If this is WLUs first time hearing of induced demand then I think you should be happy with his approach of attempting to understand "both sides" and trying to create an informed opinion. If the facts are truly, obviously, and undeniably on "our side", then you shouldn't have much problem convincing him of that. The self-righteous "the facts are obvious, stop being an idiot" approach isn't going to convince anyone.

Dan, if you truly don't have the energy to debate to topic, but have the energy to insult someone trying to understand it, then I think it would be more convincing to not post at all.

I don't mean to insult anyone with this post, but the reason the government continues build infrastructure in a way that you feel is wrong is because the general population doesn't agree with you. You have to convince them otherwise.

(04-29-2020, 12:32 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Did anyone notice that WLU is fairly new to this site ?  I have been reading this site and a member for along time and I have noticed that often certain people try to take over the subjects and speak as an authority without ever qualifying their authority.  This site is open to everyone to read and add comments however, if you dismiss everyone who takes an opposing view we will chase away new people, with new ideas and or perspectives from the site. I get that anyone can google stuff and present an idea or opinion.  Sometimes a person's experience means a lot if the subject matter is what they do. The important point is to have participation from many.  I for one do not want to see the same people monopolizing or utilizing this site to forward their own personal agenda, i.e. cars, vs, bikes, vs transit.  People need to not think so highly of themselves on here if we want to continue to encourage others to join and help pay for this site. Just something to consider when you are self-reflecting....

(04-29-2020, 01:50 PM)creative Wrote: And the attacks continue!!!

(04-29-2020, 02:56 PM)tomh009 Wrote: All right, @WLU, @robdrimmie, @ijmorlan, @danbrotherston, @creative (and anyone else I missed): please take a deep breath, calm down, and start the discussion over if needed be. No comments about personality, no comments about people's knowledge (or lack thereof), no denigration or aggressive language.

Let's keep this forum about issues, not about the people here. If you need more information or clarification about someone's statements or opinions, please ask, don't slam. Be civil.

We are Canadians, after all.

(04-29-2020, 12:32 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Did anyone notice that WLU is fairly new to this site ?  I have been reading this site and a member for along time and I have noticed that often certain people try to take over the subjects and speak as an authority without ever qualifying their authority.  This site is open to everyone to read and add comments however, if you dismiss everyone who takes an opposing view we will chase away new people, with new ideas and or perspectives from the site. I get that anyone can google stuff and present an idea or opinion.  Sometimes a person's experience means a lot if the subject matter is what they do. The important point is to have participation from many.  I for one do not want to see the same people monopolizing or utilizing this site to forward their own personal agenda, i.e. cars, vs, bikes, vs transit.  People need to not think so highly of themselves on here if we want to continue to encourage others to join and help pay for this site. Just something to consider when you are self-reflecting....

(04-29-2020, 01:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(04-29-2020, 12:32 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Did anyone notice that WLU is fairly new to this site ?  I have been reading this site and a member for along time and I have noticed that often certain people try to take over the subjects and speak as an authority without ever qualifying their authority.  This site is open to everyone to read and add comments however, if you dismiss everyone who takes an opposing view we will chase away new people, with new ideas and or perspectives from the site. I get that anyone can google stuff and present an idea or opinion.  Sometimes a person's experience means a lot if the subject matter is what they do. The important point is to have participation from many.  I for one do not want to see the same people monopolizing or utilizing this site to forward their own personal agenda, i.e. cars, vs, bikes, vs transit.  People need to not think so highly of themselves on here if we want to continue to encourage others to join and help pay for this site. Just something to consider when you are self-reflecting....

If someone is new to a site, maybe they should see it as an opportunity to learn something, instead of just calling basic facts "nonsense" because they don't like them.

Of course, you're also calling basic facts "an opposing view", and accusing people (me I assume) of pushing an agenda, the only agenda I am pushing is towards facts.

Of course, I don't know that you can hear anything I'm saying way up there on your high horse...now I am being disagreeable.

Edit: Ahh shucks, robdrimmie's response is first and way way more well spoken...

(04-28-2020, 08:58 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(04-28-2020, 08:18 PM)WLU Wrote: No "they" here.  I'm one person, singular.  A bit of a spin wouldn't you say.  You're intentionally taking MTO out of the context in which I was using them.  But, since you mentioned it, tell me what city is where it is as a result of the 401 being built?

I think that is intended to be singular “they”.

And to answer your question, how many people would live in Pickering without the 401?

(04-28-2020, 08:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(04-28-2020, 08:18 PM)jamincan Wrote: If you look at the 401 through Toronto, the traffic on that road is saturated. It has had roughly the same volume of traffic for well over a decade despite the fact that Toronto has grown significantly over the same period of time. Why do you think that is?

The best example is I-405 Sepelveda pass in LA. Over a billion was spent to widen this world renowned traffic jam. Within only a few years traffic speeds are now below where they were before widening. A billion spent to make things worse, what a failure.

(04-28-2020, 08:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(04-28-2020, 08:17 PM)WLU Wrote: Hi Rob,

  Thanks for the links.  While checking them out.  I also found some articles that attempt to debunk the theory.  I've included some below.  Until today, I've never read any articles pro or against this theory.  The theory just doesn't make any sense to me and I just form my personal opinion based on data and what I observe, and I feel that demand for driving is driven mainly by population growth and economics/choice ( the affordability of driving ). 
  Again, these are just a couple of articles.  I guess we can take from it what we will.  Thx Rob.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/puncturing-the-myth-of-more-roads-mean-more-congestion

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

General relativity doesn’t make any sense to me, for tens of thousands of years the idea the earth was a sphere didn’t make sense to people.

Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it isn’t true. You have hundreds of 60s and 70s planners who also didn’t believe it.  Sadly they, and you are wrong.  This is very well understood, and accepted.  It isn’t worth talking to you about it because you don’t accept basic fundamental facts of the world. And yes, you can find some libertarian think tanks and angry drivers who want to deny these basic facts but it doesn’t make you edgy or ahead of the curve to believe them, it makes you unaccepting of basic facts, and I don’t have the energy to argue with someone about whether water is wet.

As for subsidies, it costs more to deliver services to suburban areas. That too is a simple fact.  There are more roads to service, more pipes, more fire halls, more ambulance depots, more libraries, longer bus routes, etc.  This is also well understood, dense areas of a city subsidize sprawling ones.

(04-28-2020, 09:00 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(04-28-2020, 08:42 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: To be fair, it is now moving many more cars at that slow speed than it did before, so it’s not a total failure.

But yes, $1 billion probably could have done more to improve mobility spent on transit or active transportation.

Similarly if the 401 were to be double-decked (at what fantastic price I shudder to imagine), it would move many more vehicles than it does now; but after not very long, not any faster than it does now.

But what is the value of moving cars?

Is it actually moving more people, or are all of those people just making trips they would have chosen a different mode for or to a different farther destination than they would have chosen.

We've possibly increased pollution, and congestion, with no evidence we've improved mobility and opportunity.