Road design, transportation and walkability

[WLU]

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.

If a person asserts that a particular concept is bullshit without even knowing the name of the concept, I'm very comfortable thinking that person is an idiot. Googling "induced demand" takes less than a minute to get to a lot of good information.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but there is a lot wrong with demanding that a position based on ignorance be treated the same as positions based on real scientific work.

Hey Rob,

  I read your original post ( #3568 ) from yesterday, saw the links that you provided and thanked you.  All I did was give you a couple of other links for you to consider and you come back with calling me an idiot.  I did google induced demand.  How do you think I found the two links that I sent you?  Regardless, after the thanks and respectful reply I sent to you, this bullshit is unwarranted.

[WLU]

I think there's a serious misunderstanding about who violated decorum here. WLU joined a forum with a specific topic focus, by their own admission put absolutely no effort into understanding the subject under discussion, and presented a deeply ignorant opinion piece as fact, instead of doing a trivial amount of research.

Following up on that, they dropped a very explicit transphobic dog whistle by way of an entirely irrelevant comment about a convention of the English language that has been extant since the 14th century. Which they would also know if they bothered to google for 20 seconds.

These are not the actions of someone who respects a community.

Transphobic dog whistle?  What exactly are you talking about?  All my posts have been respectful.  I certainly haven't called anyone an idiot.

[WLU]

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.

Hi tom,

Personally, I'm quite calm other than just recently letting RobD know that it wasn't necessary to call me an idiot and even then I was calm.  To be called an idiot after  providing a respectful post thanking someone for the links they provided is simply not acceptable.  As far as I know, I hadn't insulted anyone personally or made comments about their lack of knowledge.  If "nonsense" was too tough a word, then ok, my apologies.

[ijmorlan]

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

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

I have no way of knowing.  Dan stated that cities were created as a result of the construction of highway 401 and that simply isn't true.  All cities along the 401 existed prior to its construction.  Of course these cities have changed and grown and there are varying reasons, mainly population growth and its effects but no cities as far as I know were created as a result of the construction of the 401

The point is that Pickering, the modern city, wouldn’t be where it is without the 401. Specifically, those people would all live either near train stations or within Toronto. Either way, they wouldn’t be driving to work (on average). The 401 enabled and supported a particular suburban form; if instead train service had been expanded, a different urban form would have developed.

Yes, Pickering grew out of a small town, but there were villages everywhere in Southern Ontario immediately post-war. I doubt there is anywhere you could reasonably put a city of 100,000 and have it be truly new and not the growth of an existing settlement. That doesn’t mean that the location of the large city is determined by the location of the original settlement.

Of course, it’s not just roads. Zoning is also very important. Remember, it is illegal almost everywhere on this continent to build the sort of dense urban form that was common pre-war. That puts a different spin on the whole notion of choice, I would think.

[danbrotherston]

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.

Hahaha.......disagreeing with you on this one particular theory makes me "unaccepting of basic facts of the world" of the world? really?.  I also noticed right away you come up with "angry" drivers who want to deny these facts.  I watched a video of yours once and I must say you sure did come across as an "angry cyclist".

  You don't mention that suburban homes pay substantially higher taxes than those in the core.  Doing quick math, the 20 year old small court I live on in Kitchener collects over $130,000 annually for 24 homes.  I'm pretty sure we are paying our way.  We don't even have bus service in our subdivision so at a minimum we're subsidizing transit without even having the opportunity to use it.    

  Regardless and thankfully regional staff must also have some doubts or at least don't care about induced demand because they're clearly going ahead and widening Fisher-Hallman.

Yes, it does, because this "particular theory" is an accepted basic fact of the world. Really. This is why so many of us won't take the time, that and your dismissive disbelieving anti-science attitude.

And your response to tomh009's message is to make a half dozen replies, one in which you call me an "angry cyclist" (apparently objecting, calmly to drivers driving distracted on their fucking phones or being upset that drivers have run me off the road makes me an "angry cyclist"), then later reply to tomh009's post directly and plead innocence and claim you have "never insulted anyone personally". Right. I have absolutely nothing polite to say about that.

On taxes...I pay...EXACTLY the same tax rate as you. Your belief that I pay less taxes than you, I'm so sick of this delusion, literaly the ONLY factor in how much taxes one pays is the value of your property, and downtown properties are valued HIGHER than suburban properties, and they are far denser.  So no, this is another basic fact of the world you are in denial of.

You are right about one thing though, our regional engineering staff don't care about induced demand, they make bad, self defeating decisions about road expansion all the time. You're in good anti-science company there.

[WLU]

I have no way of knowing.  Dan stated that cities were created as a result of the construction of highway 401 and that simply isn't true.  All cities along the 401 existed prior to its construction.  Of course these cities have changed and grown and there are varying reasons, mainly population growth and its effects but no cities as far as I know were created as a result of the construction of the 401

The point is that Pickering, the modern city, wouldn’t be where it is without the 401. Specifically, those people would all live either near train stations or within Toronto. Either way, they wouldn’t be driving to work (on average). The 401 enabled and supported a particular suburban form; if instead train service had been expanded, a different urban form would have developed.

Yes, Pickering grew out of a small town, but there were villages everywhere in Southern Ontario immediately post-war. I doubt there is anywhere you could reasonably put a city of 100,000 and have it be truly new and not the growth of an existing settlement. That doesn’t mean that the location of the large city is determined by the location of the original settlement.

Of course, it’s not just roads. Zoning is also very important. Remember, it is illegal almost everywhere on this continent to build the sort of dense urban form that was common pre-war. That puts a different spin on the whole notion of choice, I would think.

  Stating that all those people would live near train stations is a fairly general statement but I get what you're trying to say.  I also agree that some wouldn't drive to work on average.  But there a lot of factors as to why one would decide to drive, take transit, cycle etc.  Personally, if I lived in Pickering and worked in downtown Toronto and was going straight to work and straight home everyday I would take the GO train.  I have a good friend who lives in Ajax on the other side of Pickering.  He works near the Scarborough town centre and he drives everyday because that works for him.

  Also, it's interesting that Pickering GO station was built in 1967 when it was still a small town and like you said the population has now grown to almost 100,000.  Did the city grow and people settle there because of the Go station?  Because of the 401?  It's possible that the existence of the Go station also played some part in Pickering's growth which would be great.  At the end of the day though, I tend to believe that housing affordability becomes the main factor determining where one lives.

[WLU]

Hahaha.......disagreeing with you on this one particular theory makes me "unaccepting of basic facts of the world" of the world? really?.  I also noticed right away you come up with "angry" drivers who want to deny these facts.  I watched a video of yours once and I must say you sure did come across as an "angry cyclist".

  You don't mention that suburban homes pay substantially higher taxes than those in the core.  Doing quick math, the 20 year old small court I live on in Kitchener collects over $130,000 annually for 24 homes.  I'm pretty sure we are paying our way.  We don't even have bus service in our subdivision so at a minimum we're subsidizing transit without even having the opportunity to use it.    

  Regardless and thankfully regional staff must also have some doubts or at least don't care about induced demand because they're clearly going ahead and widening Fisher-Hallman.

Yes, it does, because this "particular theory" is an accepted basic fact of the world. Really. This is why so many of us won't take the time, that and your dismissive disbelieving anti-science attitude.

And your response to tomh009's message is to make a half dozen replies, one in which you call me an "angry cyclist" (apparently objecting, calmly to drivers driving distracted on their fucking phones or being upset that drivers have run me off the road makes me an "angry cyclist"), then later reply to tomh009's post directly and plead innocence and claim you have "never insulted anyone personally". Right. I have absolutely nothing polite to say about that.

On taxes...I pay...EXACTLY the same tax rate as you. Your belief that I pay less taxes than you, I'm so sick of this delusion, literaly the ONLY factor in how much taxes one pays is the value of your property, and downtown properties are valued HIGHER than suburban properties, and they are far denser.  So no, this is another basic fact of the world you are in denial of.

You are right about one thing though, our regional engineering staff don't care about induced demand, they make bad, self defeating decisions about road expansion all the time. You're in good anti-science company there.

  Actually, I only made one reply to tomh099 ( #3605 ) not "a half-dozen" and it doesn't even mention your name.  If I have a reply to post, I'm able to direct it to the person who made the original post just as I'm doing now.
  The "angry cyclist" post was in reply to your post not tom's and it came as a result of you unnecessarily using the term "angry drivers" as if to claim that all drivers are.  Dan,  I've been on this site for years not days.  You've made many hateful, exaggerated posts with respect to drivers even using terms like murder and kill as if trying to state that there are intentional motives at an accident.  So before you label other people, it's a good idea to consider your own behaviour.

  On taxes, I never once stated that you pay less taxes than I do.  Read the post again (#3601 ).  I really don't care how much you pay.  I just gave you an example of what we pay and that we are not being subsidized because we clearly pay for what receive despite not even having access to transit.  I realize that taxes are based on property values, thanks for the lesson.

  Have a look at this link. https://www.realtor.ca/on/kitchener/real-estate-for-sale

  There are a couple of buildings downtown right in your own back yard on Benton St. and their units are $75k to $100k less than similar units of a building shown that is right off Homer Watson in Pioneer Park.  You are mistaken if you think that the average single family home downtown is valued higher than the same home outside the core.  Now if you want to talk about the nice large homes on Ahrens or Margaret near the library then yes they have a higher value but they certainly aren't the average home.  Just as the homes in Deer Ridge or Hidden Valley aren't the average homes in the suburbs.  You made a statement that "people like you" who live in the core subsidize those who live outside of it.  Well, I'm not sure how the 10,000 - 20,0000 people that live in the core can subsidize the 200,000 that live outside of it.  Apparently I have difficulty with "science" but you might want to work on your math.

[plam]

At the end of the day though, I tend to believe that housing affordability becomes the main factor determining where one lives.

Housing affordability only comes into play once there is a way to get to the house. Pickering is 47km from Union Station. Another point that is 47km from Union Station but which has no way to get to it would be more affordable because it's less valuable. So building the road induces demand on the road, while building rail similarly induces demand. We've seen everywhere that building more (free) roads means more traffic on the roads.

[danbrotherston]

Yes, it does, because this "particular theory" is an accepted basic fact of the world. Really. This is why so many of us won't take the time, that and your dismissive disbelieving anti-science attitude.

And your response to tomh009's message is to make a half dozen replies, one in which you call me an "angry cyclist" (apparently objecting, calmly to drivers driving distracted on their fucking phones or being upset that drivers have run me off the road makes me an "angry cyclist"), then later reply to tomh009's post directly and plead innocence and claim you have "never insulted anyone personally". Right. I have absolutely nothing polite to say about that.

On taxes...I pay...EXACTLY the same tax rate as you. Your belief that I pay less taxes than you, I'm so sick of this delusion, literaly the ONLY factor in how much taxes one pays is the value of your property, and downtown properties are valued HIGHER than suburban properties, and they are far denser.  So no, this is another basic fact of the world you are in denial of.

You are right about one thing though, our regional engineering staff don't care about induced demand, they make bad, self defeating decisions about road expansion all the time. You're in good anti-science company there.

  Actually, I only made one reply to tomh099 ( #3605 ) not "a half-dozen" and it doesn't even mention your name.  If I have a reply to post, I'm able to direct it to the person who made the original post just as I'm doing now.
  The "angry cyclist" post was in reply to your post not tom's and it came as a result of you unnecessarily using the term "angry drivers" as if to claim that all drivers are.  Dan,  I've been on this site for years not days.  You've made many hateful, exaggerated posts with respect to drivers even using terms like murder and kill as if trying to state that there are intentional motives at an accident.  So before you label other people, it's a good idea to consider your own behaviour.

  On taxes, I never once stated that you pay less taxes than I do.  Read the post again (#3601 ).  I really don't care how much you pay.  I just gave you an example of what we pay and that we are not being subsidized because we clearly pay for what receive despite not even having access to transit.  I realize that taxes are based on property values, thanks for the lesson.

  Have a look at this link. https://www.realtor.ca/on/kitchener/real-estate-for-sale

  There are a couple of buildings downtown right in your own back yard on Benton St. and their units are $75k to $100k less than similar units of a building shown that is right off Homer Watson in Pioneer Park.  You are mistaken if you think that the average single family home downtown is valued higher than the same home outside the core.  Now if you want to talk about the nice large homes on Ahrens or Margaret near the library then yes they have a higher value but they certainly aren't the average home.  Just as the homes in Deer Ridge or Hidden Valley aren't the average homes in the suburbs.  You made a statement that "people like you" who live in the core subsidize those who live outside of it.  Well, I'm not sure how the 10,000 - 20,0000 people that live in the core can subsidize the 200,000 that live outside of it.  Apparently I have difficulty with "science" but you might want to work on your math.

I honestly cannot tell if you are playing stupid. Obviously I am referring to all the replies you posted.  You understand everyone in the the thread can read all the replies right? We're all having a conversation, this is how that works.  Tomh009 can also read when you called me an angry cyclist.

You are playing innocent here. You called ME an "angry cyclist" I did not call you an angry driver. I have not made hateful posts, I have called dangerous drivers who drive dangrously murders, that is not incorrect, they act recklessly and kill people as a forseeable result. That's an opinion, but at the same time I have never called you any of that.

You could appologize, or just drop it--I actually don't care for your apology, but instead, you've come back and play innnocent.  You are the one who needs to evaluate your behaviour, you acting very rudely.

As for taxes, you said suburban homes pay higher taxes than homes in the core. Your belief that homes downtown are cheaper is yet another belief you have that is completely contradictory to reality. The Benton building is decades older than the "similar" buildings on Homer-Watson or Pioneer Park.

A single person can subsidize other people, simply by paying more for the same service or by paying the same when the service costs less to deliver to them.  If you don't see how that works, I don't think you understand what subsidize means.

[neonjoe]

I for one do feel that the upgrade of Fischer Hallman is warranted. They will be converting a 2 lane rural road to an urban road with infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. The current road is completely hostile to anyone that isn't in a car. I'm fine with the road being reconstructed just for the fact that it makes that part of the city accessible to those who aren't in cars. The extra lanes aren't going to increase the cost by that much considering the rebuild includes storm management, mut and other involved infrastructure.

[danbrotherston]

I for one do feel that the upgrade of Fischer Hallman is warranted. They will be converting a 2 lane rural road to an urban road with infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. The current road is completely hostile to anyone that isn't in a car. I'm fine with the road being reconstructed just for the fact that it makes that part of the city accessible to those who aren't in cars. The extra lanes aren't going to increase the cost by that much considering the rebuild includes storm management, mut and other involved infrastructure.

"aren't going to increase the cost that much"...how much? Both in direct and externalized costs.

I hear this all the time, but you have a peer city in the Netherlands, Utrecht who's urban planning policy is "no 4 lane roads ever".  We're planning "4 lane roads for minimum 50 years" as 50 years is the timeline for reconstruction for new roads.

In 50 years, it's game over for climate change.

We aren't building for the future, we're building for the past...welcome to fear of change.

[tomh009]

This discussion is good. We don't need to all agree but we do need to be civil.

Personally, I don't think keeping roads at two lanes will have any significant impact on climate change. If we want to (significantly!) reduce vehicular emissions, we need to bump up carbon pricing (or gas taxes). By a lot. A bit of congestion won't have a significant impact on people's choices, and it also impacts transit and commercial traffic.

[ijmorlan]

This discussion is good. We don't need to all agree but we do need to be civil.

Personally, I don't think keeping roads at two lanes will have any significant impact on climate change. If we want to (significantly!) reduce vehicular emissions, we need to bump up carbon pricing (or gas taxes). By a lot. A bit of congestion won't have a significant impact on people's choices, and it also impacts transit and commercial traffic.

4-lane roads (by which I mean proper ones with turn lanes, not the pseudo-4-lane roads we have too many of in this Region) can carry twice as much traffic as 2-lane roads. So choosing to build 2-lane roads will definitely affect how we get places — it will simply be impossible for a 4-lane road’s capacity of vehicles to travel on the 2-lane roads.

That being said, yes, the carbon tax should increase significantly (and simply be paid out per capita, with no special deals for anyone).

If there are to be 4 motor vehicle lanes, 2 of them should be for transit.

There is no reason Fischer-Hallman could not be re-built with an urban profile with excellent segregated bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks, and still just one lane in each direction for motor vehicles (plus turn lanes everywhere that turns are permitted to keep through traffic moving).

[tomh009]

Personally, I don't think keeping roads at two lanes will have any significant impact on climate change. If we want to (significantly!) reduce vehicular emissions, we need to bump up carbon pricing (or gas taxes). By a lot. A bit of congestion won't have a significant impact on people's choices, and it also impacts transit and commercial traffic.

That being said, yes, the carbon tax should increase significantly (and simply be paid out per capita, with no special deals for anyone).

What do you mean by "simply paid out per capita?" Are you referring to the refunds (to individuals) of the collected carbon tax? Or something else?

(This discussion should maybe move over to urban planning ... )

[KevinT]

Haven't been by University Station in a while so this may be old news, but I just rolled through on an Ion and there appears to be new curbs poured for the new bus terminal.