Replacing HOV/HOT lanes with regular lanes would improve congestion. Period. Having a HOV lane improves congestion somewhat versus having no lane. Having a HOT lane improves congesting a little more than an HOV lane, only because it allows some single-occupancy vehicles to use the lane. But pure and simple, a regular lane offers the best opportunity for clearing congestion.
Toll lanes coming to QEW
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Justify this and substantiate this statement. Give us numbers, volumes, and projected volumes. How are you dealing with the problem when highway exceeds capacity and everyone is stuck in traffic. This is like the supply and demand principal, however instead of making the maximum profit it is about congestion and the overall economic benefit. It is being proactive vs. reactive.
Unless someone is paying more to ride the super-duper train to get places faster, on the same rail line hence holding up other trains, than no...I don't see what's wrong with paying a fare. It's the same as paying tax on fuel. Everyone pays the same rate.
I don't know a lot about the UP train, but I imagine that has a lot to do with geography as well. I take it the Ontario government owns the UP train?
This is at least somewhat justifiable as emergencies do come up. Still, it's not optimal that someone paying additional money shoves other people back in the queue.
Of course what you wrote is common sense but I suggest this photo of Toronto bound traffic might help illustrate the concept:
As you can see there is not any lane that is not being fully utilised for the maximum volume of cars. Lets remove one lane completely ... will the volume of cars magically increase ? No - they will decrease (duh) just like when you pinch a garden hose. If you are filling pail with a fixed amount of water and you pinch the hose ... does it not take longer to fill the pail ??? That is rhuarc29's point - anything you do that limits traffic cannot do anything but exacerbate traffic congestion.
So no more suggestions that making toll lanes do anything to help alleviate traffic congestion unless they are newly constructed lanes. An as rhuarc29 pointed out - a newly constructed toll lane may bring in revenue but the only way that new lane would be most effective is if a regular lane open to all traffic.
OK, so where are we putting these lanes. Are you just going to expropriate all these nice houses and business and rip up interchanges and bridges and everything else that is in the way.Of course what you wrote is common sense but I suggest this photo of Toronto bound traffic might help illustrate the concept:
As you can see there is not any lane that is not being fully utilised for the maximum volume of cars. Lets remove one lane completely ... will the volume of cars magically increase ? No - they will decrease (duh) just like when you pinch a garden hose. If you are filling pail with a fixed amount of water and you pinch the hose ... does it not take longer to fill the pail ??? That is rhuarc29's point - anything you do that limits traffic cannot do anything but exacerbate traffic congestion.
So no more suggestions that making toll lanes do anything to help alleviate traffic congestion unless they are newly constructed lanes. An as rhuarc29 pointed out - a newly constructed toll lane may bring in revenue but the only way that new lane would be most effective is if a regular lane open to all traffic.
The solution is look at the volumes and adjust your tolls accordingly provided you can't expand any more and congestion is past a unacceptable threshold. Start with one lane, then go to a full toll, and then start increasing tolls until you get cars moving at an acceptable congestion volume. Use volumes to justify your increase, maybe make it an automatic system that increases and decreases based on demand and congestion.
Guys come on now, unless Elon Musk brings his hyper tunnels and we are all traveling in pods, you can't just build additional lanes.
Maybe you guys know how to do this...ohh please do share how to do this.
Your solution is based on adding tolls - I don't believe that tolls are necessary because we are already paying for maintenance of these roads with taxes. My solution does not exasperate an existing problem where as yours is more centered around minimizing the effect. If the Ontario Government needs more money - maybe they should review their budget to live with the limits of the exorbitant taxes they already collect.
I dont think its about the money. I think about managing congestion.
Tell me then, how do you get people moving. It takes me 40 mins to get to and from work during rush hour. When there is no rush hour it takes me 17 minutes. In 10 years this time might be 1 hour, maybe 1.5 hour. Eventually it will get to a point when it is not an acceptable time spent in traffic. How will this affect business.
Some of us just can't relocate as we please. We can do other things, like take the transit or carpool or ride a bike.
In your mind how would you manage this congestion once it reaches unacceptable levels. Do you just react or take a reactive approach or do you take a pro active approach. What is your solution in the next 10 years. You know we can't expand and further, it will just get worse. What else is there to do?
I can't see it, maybe you can? You are just looking at now, why not look at 10 years from now. What happens when we reach that point, and did not take a proactive approach to deal with that threshold and get into the point of no return. How that heck am I gonna hit up that MP on way back from work without SO noticing....please tell me this.
That is only true in a static analysis and not in a dynamic one. In a static analysis the average speed of all cars will be faster without the HOT lane. But the average speed well ALSO be the maximum speed, and it will be slow. With a HOT lane priority traffic moves faster and if we value the speed of priority traffic you can argue that HOT moves more GDP throughout as not all cars are equal.
But from a dynamic perspective things change, HOT encourages some drivers to carpool which reduces the number of cars in the road and THAT changes things significantly, particularly if what you measure is people per hour rather than vehicles per hour.
So your claim is a bit slimy because it ignores the dynamic effects of HOT and wrongly assumes that all traffic is equally important.
Sounds good, but can you reference some study that shows that a significant number of people began car pooling because of the available HOV lanes? From what I've heard, most people in the HOV lane would have 2 or more people in the car whether there was an HOV lane there or not, and HOV lanes do almost nothing to encourage car pooling.
It doesn't work that way.
There is ALWAYS someone in the HOV lane going at the limit and effectively blocks the lane.
And you're not suppose to pass them on the right.
Lots of solutions, how about allowing an organized 2 hr flex time for workers, and giving companies incentives to flex their work hours. How about making employers pay a shift premium if a min wage worker starts or ends their shifts during high congestion times. In the longer run shortening the work week (can only be done with the US and EU also coming along) can make a ton of difference. Using variable traffic lights, no truck traffic 7-9 and 5-630. etc etc etc. In the longer run self driving cars will allow us to increase the speed limit to 200 kph so that will massively increase capacity.
Options are good, however very difficult to implement IMO, and still not a long term solution.
Flexible working hours is a good option, however not very practical. You need something to motivate workers and ensure they still perform and not skip out. So you make it performance based, but then you have union issues. Also how many companies trust their workers enough to do this without good incentives. Maybe use toll money to provide these incentives. Then workers who start 5-2 flexi hours will face less congestion, will have more satisfaction, and the guys who choose to pay for tolls will fund it.
I though they are using this variable signal technology as its slowly spreading and connecting the vehicles to each other and making them smarter. I agree this might improve things, but its not the ultimate solution.
Yes the trucking industry is a huge problem, however they are very powerful, and to have them change would probably entitle significant incentives. Self driving trucks would improve things for them. However they can still use the money from the tolls and provide these incentives.
These solutions you presented are a good short term solution, and would be nice to have. However without good incentive and planning forget about it. Not very practical.
Why not toll, reduce overall congestion and use the money to fund these programs and incentives you mentioned along with others. Then you can still have the option to not use the HOT because the congestion will be reduced, maybe encouraged alternative forms of commute such as bike or transit with incentives until the inevitable happens and the whole highway gets tolled. But still use the money to give back and invest in making it better for everyone, including building these free electric charging stations that are already in plans and giving back good incentives to the people who bike, walk, carpool or take transit to work.
This will ensure I can still hit up the MPs on my way back from work without SO noticing so we all win.
You're assuming that those using the HOT lane would be more important traffic economically, when there is no reason to believe that is so. Why don't we just make it a designated truck lane then? You can assume all you want that those willing to pay the toll are more important to the GDP of the country, but that's all it is: an assumption. One that I think you'd find impossible to prove.
Yes, it is true that if you designate a lane for relatively few vehicles versus two, three, four, etc. other congested lanes, the top speed will be higher. But the average speed will be lower. Meaning, on average, people will get where they're going later, highways will be congested longer, pollution will be higher, etc. Not good.
Also, if you believe a HOV/HOT lane encourages enough additional carpooling to compensate for the lost space that a regular lane would give, I think you are crazy.
So what you're saying is that your solution is to price people right off the roads? Yes, of course that would reduce congestion. It'd also be a ridiculous solution that forces people out of job opportunities or requires them to take circuitous routes on minor highways. I imagine it'd also have an impact on travel and tourism.
No just adjust the tolls up and down based on volumes, travel times and congestion...the people taking then will tell the system how to adjust, it will refine itself towards the optimum. Take the money and invest it back to make it even better...very simple but effective concept. Now what they actually do is another discussion...hopefully they don't take the money and inject it back into maintenance or the money to cover for failed gas plants. This would not sit well with anyone...
LOL - YOU COMPLETELY MADE THAT UP!! You CLEARLY don't know what the difference is between static and dynamic modeling/simulation related to traffic analysis. I'm sure most TERBite engineers and software heads had a good laugh when they read your post!
"HOT" and "Priority" have absolutely nothing to do with each other in the proposed HOT/HOV2 MOT experiment. Nothing in the proposed solution discusses prioritizing one traffic type over another, nor do any of the existing 9 HOT implementations in North America use a prioritization system.
HOT does not encourage ANY drivers to carpool. HOT specifically targets single occupant cars. HOV encourages car pooling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume you miss-typed. Mind you, it still doesn't support your point in any way.
HOT DOES NOT resolve/reduce congestion problems on already congested highways as rhuarc29 correctly pointed out. Adding a new HOT/HOV lane can ..... but only within a narrow set of conditions.
Stop BSing Fuji!
oldjones said:
promo said:
" semantic blank more discreetly" LOL, you kill me!oldjones said:
It would be more accurate to say one refers to passion and the other to methodology. If IM649 is intentionally being secretive about being a socialist, how would you possibly know if he's fervent?
Of course this is a rhetorical question, you were just trying to discredit him with your cheap-shot. Fuji does the same thing by calling everyone communists.
I presented some of the solutions I support in the previous HOT thread:promo said:
1) strongly support former Mayor Hazel McCallion's proposed GTA-wide public transit solution (which was partially implemented along the 403, but couldn't gain political favour elsewhere),
2) implementing modern traffic control systems,
3) adding additional lane capacity in key transportation corridors as dynamic HOV2/HOV3 lanes,
4) changing the 407 to a public highway with dynamic HOV2/HOV3 lanes, <-- this would make a noticeable difference to the 401, lower 400, 427 and 410.
5) better city planning regarding closely located codo buildings (i.e. Toronto western lakefront, Square one area). Locating 10++ large condos in a small area is INSANE unless increased public transportation, car capacity and traffic flow is carefully considered
6) Better education of car and truck drivers in regards to how to drive with improved efficiency <-- I think this could make a big difference, but people are much too selfish
7) Trucks are a big factor. Problem is most receiving docks are 8-5ish and scheduled, giving truckers no choice. Gov't could encourage both truckers and companies to receive shipments after hours through tax credits or equ. programs.
8) Further encourage employers to adapt flex hours, work from home, regional office hotels, more video conferencing (Canada is far behind much of the world in this area), etc.
None of the above are original ideas, problem is politicians tend to poorly implement and several are dependent on the willingness of people to modify their behaviour for the greater good. SH*t, now certain people are going to call be a fervent socialist/commie.
And most importantly, politicians must stop blowing money on incompetent run or corrupted projects and start delivering solutions focused on the greater good. The current HOT proposal is a foolish tax grab and is just the first step of socializing a future far more damaging Gardner and Don Valley HOT lane (without adding capacity).
Welcome to capitalism. Capitalism is based on the premise that those willing to pay more should be prioritized over those willing to pay less. The alternative you are proposing is called communism and it proved to be inefficient.
It is well known that when a scarce good or service is underpriced relative to demand that queues form and people wait in line, substituting a cost in time for a cost in money to acquire the good or service. That is exactly what a traffic jam is: a road operating above capacity because access is free. A toll regulates access limiting cars on the road to this willing to pay more for access.
Modern toll systems including those used on a HOT lane can dynamically adjust the toll to keep the toll lanes operating efficiently, raising the toll dynamically if the HOT lane becomes congested and lowering it (potentially to zero) if it is underused.
