[Northern Light]

The right-of-way north of Bradford has already been purchased and set aside, it's currently not being used for farming. I personally believe the Bradford Bypass is needed, seeing that the existing roads simply cannot handle the traffic that flows east and west through the downtown, and where my stance differs from that of the 413 proposal is that there are no nearby alternatives of any mode besides local arterials. There is no 407 with existing latent capacity. In the event of a lack of a more environmentally conscious option, I'm relieved the Bypass hasn't been forgotten about.

I think a new environmental assessment that factors in the development that has occurred in Bradford and East Gwillimbury should take place. Also, I really hope that "4-lane" refers to 2 lanes in each direction, anything above that is absolutely overkill.

I'm not going to go look at all the parcels on street view; and it wouldn't change my opinion anyway, since the land would still be in a state returnable to agriculture even if that had been ceased.

However, a quick look at this spot on the ROW, where it would cross #10 side road; shows it being actively farmed in June of 2018

And this is where the ROW will cross Yonge; taken in July 2018:

 

[ericmacm]

To put it simply, I have expertise in this field.

It is clear to me that you do not.

I guess my degree in environmental engineering and my work background are both worthless, then.

You're mostly correct, although its more likely to be 404 level wide instead of 400. Highways nowadays are built with wide medians so that future lane extensions if necessary are quick and painless. Its a lot easier to build an extra lane in the middle of 2 carriageways that are pre-allocated than to extend to each side. The 400 is simply just an old highway and isn't built to the standards we build highways nowadays so its a lot narrower.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction. It makes sense to build it with a wider ROW at the start and leave space in the middle, to future-proof expansion if necessary.

Either way, regardless of where any opinions on the subject sit, the environmental assessment is outdated and I'd like to see the province update it, and offer more local environmental protections nearby in exchange for construction. A lot has changed since 1997 and any supporting documentation needs to reflect a more modern review.

 

[Northern Light]

I guess my degree in environmental engineering and my work background are both worthless, then.

Either way, regardless of where any opinions on the subject sit, the environmental assessment is outdated and I'd like to see the province update it, and offer more local environmental protections nearby in exchange for construction. A lot has changed since 1997 and any supporting documentation needs to reflect a more modern review.

Finally, something on which we can agree.

I guess my degree in environmental engineering and my work background are both worthless, then.

Clearly, I didn't say that.

I said you lack expertise in the subject at hand.

You quoted an incorrect ROW by more than a factor of 2

You made assertions without a shred of evidence in respect of environmental groups.

You incorrectly described land-use in one location.

I quoted a media article; offered aerial and streetview photos, and ultimately quoted the E-A.

You may well have the ability to be expert; but you did not place the requisite evidence of same in support of your position.

There is ample evidence in this forum of my expertise in matters of ecology. The evidence speaks for itself (supported by citations)

******

I will further add, there is no ecological compensation proposed for this highway project.

So the fact you think if there was some unspecified amount, that would make the highway ok is really rather problematic.

This is the Lake Simcoe Conservation policy for ecological compensation for projects doing damage to ecologically significant lands.

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/Ecological-Offsetting-Plan-2019.pdf

The policy requires 2:1 compensation for woodlots based on aerial size of the feature. (I would raise this to 3:1 at least)

The policy requires 3:1 compensation for wetlands

I would argue for replacing the agricultural land and a 1:1 rate in addition; but with the land repurposed to ecological restoration.

Given that the E.A. above identifies:

32ha wetland+woodland; at 3:1 = 69ha

A further 190ha of high quality agricultural land comes out......

That gives us 250ha.

But there is no separate offset for wildlife mortality, salt or other other contaminants, nor for noise.

Aside from a considerable increase in total compensatory land, I would want to see at least 2 wild life corridors in woodland areas (or other solid ground, naturalized lands) built across the highway, to a minimum width of 100M.

Finally, I'm concerned that these projects are always treated in isolation.

The 401 was the Toronto by-pass...........

Then....it was the 407...........

Now its Bradford.......

That will be used to justify pushing 404 north; that will mean going through all sorts of ecologically sensitive lands and promotion sprawl on the eastern side of Lake Simcoe.

At some point, the last bypass, needs to be the last one.

I vote for starting now.

******

Now, perhaps we can move on.

 

[north-of-anything]

It can't go any farther north than Bradford, there's a big lake in the way.

 

[Northern Light]

It can't go any farther north than Bradford, there's a big lake in the way.

The MTO does have a plan to take the 404 up the east side of Lake Simcoe.......read the linked documents, you'll find it.

They only mapped up to #12 in any detail..........but there's onward arrows.

This highway would be through the statutory Greenbelt.

There's no real limitation on a determined MTO pushing the next highway up the side of Lake Simcoe then creating a new E-W link to the north of the Lake.

The argument is often made, 'this will be the last one'............it never is.......

The Green Belt doesn't apply north of Lake Simcoe either.

Lets add, nothing precludes extending this highway to the west, either............to meet an ever more northerly 427, then, then 410........and so on.

 

[Undead]

Your derision of environmental groups is genuinely offensive.

Such an irrelevant statement lol

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't have confidence in any government current or future being able to prevent development along the highway once it's built.

This story repeats itself over and over. Highway gets built through green fields. Years later car oriented suburbs start popping up along the highway route

 

[north-of-anything]

Bradford's official plan is already hinting at zoning the land east of 10th Sideroad and south of 9th Line as industrial. If the Bypass goes in, that's bound to happen.

The answer to congestion in the area isn't necessarily a divided highway, but by the time construction is completed it will be warranted. The combination of East Gwillimbury's explosive population growth and Bradford's focus on attracting new industry to the lands around the 400 means traffic will only continue to get worse. There needs to be some form of relief for Highway 11/Bridge Street, and if there are any viable counter-proposals, locals don't know about them.

Doing nothing isn't an option - much of the nearby farmlands are already sold and zoned for future development. In my honest opinion the only way to avoid the Bradford Bypass is to build or emphasize a link somewhere else.

 

[Northern Light]

Bradford's official plan is already hinting at zoning the land east of 10th Sideroad and south of 9th Line as industrial. If the Bypass goes in, that's bound to happen.

The answer to congestion in the area isn't necessarily a divided highway, but by the time construction is completed it will be warranted. The combination of East Gwillimbury's explosive population growth and Bradford's focus on attracting new industry to the lands around the 400 means traffic will only continue to get worse. There needs to be some form of relief for Highway 11/Bridge Street, and if there are any viable counter-proposals, locals don't know about them.

Doing nothing isn't an option - much of the nearby farmlands are already sold and zoned for future development. In my honest opinion the only way to avoid the Bradford Bypass is to build or emphasize a link somewhere else.

How about downzoning all the land back to agriculture/open space?; a good use of an MZO if I ever saw one.

While we're at it, lets buy up some of the development that never should have been allowed, including some farm land, in the most ecologically sensitive areas.

It won't be cheap; but its a lot cheaper than building that highway, I guarantee!

 

[north-of-anything]

How about downzoning all the land back to agriculture/open space?; a good use of an MZO if I ever saw one.

While we're at it, lets buy up some of the development that never should have been allowed, including some farm land, in the most ecologically sensitive areas.

It won't be cheap; but its a lot cheaper than building that highway, I guarantee!

Wishful thinking. It also doesn't help to solve the existing traffic issues. Even if all that land was "downzoned", the existing infrastructure is still not appropriate for the area. If you're proposing downsizing the community to match it, that ship has already sailed!

The problem is that with or without this highway, sprawl is going to keep getting worse until the whole province sees more systemic change. This isn't the same as the 413, where the underutilized 407 corridor already exists and plenty of wide avenues can be transformed into new urban districts. There is a fundamental shortage of infrastructure to maintain the existing population, and there has been for as long as I can remember. We don't need another ETR, but we need something.

 

[Steve X]

Ontario keeps growing. New immigrants move in the city. Other people move out. So the 905 will keep expanding.

Not accepting immigrants is not an option unless they mandate everyone to have children or force everyone to live in high density buildings. So the urban sprawl will continue.

As for industrial expansion. That can't be stopped either. People need jobs. Business needs to be near highways.

 

[Ward8]

Lets add, nothing precludes extending this highway to the west, either............to meet an ever more northerly 427, then, then 410........and so on.

Building highways is an endless game of whack-a-mole. You have that right.

 

[lenaitch]

If the goal was simply a 'Bradford bypass'; to relieve congestion through town, they could accomplish the same thing by upgrading the 5th Line (new 400 interchange) and York Rd. 8. One expanded bridge over the north canal. This is clearly a freeway link.

 

[north-of-anything]

If the goal was simply a 'Bradford bypass'; to relieve congestion through town, they could accomplish the same thing by upgrading the 5th Line (new 400 interchange) and York Rd. 8. One expanded bridge over the north canal. This is clearly a freeway link.

York Road 8? As in Woodbine Avenue? That's east of the 404. Unless you mean Canal Road, which is one lane in each direction. Except the town is still dragging its feet on even signalizing the intersection with Bridge Street.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Bradford bypass eh?

Sounds like a waste of time, money, perfectly good arable land, resources required to build, etc.

We can't even afford to keep universities from going bankrupt or old people from dying due to lack of care, but we sure need a completely useless highway!

Sounds like Reason #3529 for why I don't want to pay taxes anymore.