09-09-2017, 05:40 PM
(09-09-2017, 02:32 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: A 2011 estimate put it at $400 million which is about $435 millions in 2017 dollars
From my first look at that second document SammyOES2 posted it seems like the EA process was biased toward the new option (e.g. enhancements to the existing road are not an option, because they wouldn't meet the demand, but it doesn't talk about induced demand of the new road; or buses are not an option because they would get stuck in the same traffic, but it doesn't consider a bus only rapidway; or trains are not an option because the travel time is too slow (even though they use a 40 minute trip length when it is currently 24 minutes on GO with enhancements still to come) and the origin-destinations too diverse, but doesn't consider rail enhancements coupled with transit network enhancements on each end); or enhancing adjacent roads is not an option because of the considerable cost of a new crossing of the grand river, but a new crossing of the grand river is not a negastive factor in considering the new highway).
I will have to read it fully before commenting further.
I took a quick look and I do feel a bit better that transit etc. weren’t completely ignored in the EA. However, there still seems to be an assumption that the road must operate at a certain “level of service” even at rush hour. Why do we think drivers are entitled to uncongested roads at all hours, without even considering that maybe they should pay a fee for such luxury? It’s bizarre. Here’s a simple, minimal cost idea: charge a toll on Highway 7 during rush hour. I’ll bet that would scare away enough traffic to make it a significantly more pleasant drive. Not a proposal, but I am asking why nobody even suggests such a thing.
Indeed, if “level of service” is so important, charge congestion fees to guarantee a certain level of service. It’s possible to eliminate all congestion and replace it with high toll fees (with low or even no toll fees when and where there would have been low or no congestion). Then you have a bunch of money coming in that can be used to build more roads, without making a claim on general funds.
Or, what if we instead took the attitude that transit riders are entitled to be able to get anywhere with sufficient population density in reasonable time? We’d build a lot more transit lines, probably enough that many drivers would look at the network and realize it could handle some of their trips. Right now we instead have roads everywhere and even people who want to take transit end up sitting in a car.