Road design, transportation and walkability

[danbrotherston]

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.

I absolutely have the energy and time to try to explain it to someone who is trying to understand it. It was very clear from their comment where they call "That whole "induce more traffic"" quote "nonsense", and then spend a whole paragraph explaining why they believe it is "nonsense", that they are not interested in trying to understand it, and it certainly didn't sound like it was their first time hearing about it. They already have a belief about it, and aren't about to let that be challenged.  Sometimes I'll take the time to pick apart someone's bad beliefs for the benefit of others, but in this forum, I already know most others understand the phenomenon so there is no value in doing that either, but I don't believe challenging someone's beliefs is effective, and it isn't learning.

Further, I don't really believe that calling someone out on their anti-science views is "insulting".

And believing in induced demand has nothing to do with what infra is built, that's a choice, and opinion, that we can discuss, but the fact that building more and bigger roads creates more usage of those roads isn't an opinion or a position, it's just a measurable empirical fact. There are people who will pick and choose their facts in order to support their beliefs, those people, also not worth discussing.

I don't deny the fact that cars have, in our history, been a component of opening up enormous economic potential for people, even though it would be easier to support my positions if that wasn't true, but it's a simple fact, that I cannot deny.  Instead, I must account for this in my beliefs, my beliefs bend to reality, I don't try not to bend reality to my beliefs.

[Rainrider22]

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....

[creative]

Extremely well stated Rainrider22! There have been many times that I have wanted to contribute to a conversation but have chosen not to because I know that I would have been attacked for my differing opinions on a topic. Unfortunately the few ruin it for the many! Let the attacks begin!

[robdrimmie]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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...

[creative]

And the attacks continue!!!

[danbrotherston]

And the attacks continue!!!

So just to clarify, to you, disagreeing with someone is an "attack", but calling accepted understood science "nonsense" is just an opinion?

[tomh009]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

Isn't writing strongly worded letters what we do as Canadians?

[dtkvictim]

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....

Thanks, this expresses what I was trying to say in a much less antagonistic manner.

I didn't like the way the issue at hand was being discussed (or seems to continue being discussed) so I made an account just to jump in. I have nothing else to contribute that wouldn't further derail this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[Rainrider22]

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...

[quote pid='79405' dateline='1588180404']
Sorry you think I am on a high horse, I was simply trying to remind people to be inclusive and respectful...Not one person owns this site.  However, if I am on a high horse, at least a horse is a good alternative transportation option than more cars and roads...
[/quote]

[WLU]

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?

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

[WLU]

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.

I gave you an example of a local project where $20 million was spent on the expressway locally with successful results.  Why compare it to a $1 billion dollar project in L.A.?  Additionally, if you look hard enough you'll find bust in all kinds of projects roads, public utilities, transit etc.

[WLU]

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.

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.

[WLU]

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.

Personally, I wouldn't know the value of moving cars but one thing is certain, as a much of pain in the ass as it is to drive sometimes, there sure are a lot of vehicles on the road.

One thing that is definitely valuable is choice.  As someone who owns and regularly uses a car, a bicycle and a motorcycle, it is nice to able to decide what mode I want to use.  Which is why I have no disdain for any of them.