News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Is this even a good thing though? This is, basically, urban sprawl we're talking about. Even if these outer-urban cities develop a modest commuter base, odds are they'll still be auto-dependent for everything else.

I think it would encourage sprawl. The kind of situation Rational Plan was originally describing would see people living hundreds of kms away from their employment, leapfrogging the green belt. If we're lucky this development would be relatively dense and urban, but it would still be mostly auto-dependent. It would basically be like the existing 905, where most trips auto but some people GO to the CBD, except even farther from Toronto.

You're taking a Toronto-centric, and specifically a Toronto-commuter-centric view. The reality is that Kitchener-Waterloo and London are their own cities, not in the orbit of Toronto. For instance, just as many commute into KW from the GTA as go the other way. KW is indeed quite car-dependent, but its growth trajectory is urban in nature and it has strong sprawl-prevention policies along with big transit plans of its own. If better train connections get more people coming into Kitchener, that will not spur sprawl of any kind, it will spur further urban intensification in downtown Kitchener and along Waterloo Region's LRT line (opening 2017).

As for sprawl due to huge numbers of people driving from KW to a new station, that all really depends on GO Transit's parking policies and whether there would be stops in suburban areas. It stands at this point very unlikely that there will be tons of free parking in the downtown Kitchener station, and the proposal only has the one station in Kitchener. So we're back to walkable and transit-oriented development if people want to commute to Toronto and live in Kitchener.
 
I wouldn't think that any existing rail service on that corridor would operate it its current form if HSR gets built, whether it's UPX or GO or VIA. Operations would likely get completely reorganized.

It seems a little odd then that Metrolinx would spend a fair degree of money on the UPX service, on the DMUs, the branded stations, and publicize it to a great degree, if they only had the intention of scrapping the service 10 years later. Also GO would still be running 15 min EMUs to accommodate trips to places like Brampton and (I hope) Guelph.
 
I'm just in favour of linking up the existing major international airports to good rail connections. So that adds even more impetus for HSR along Windsor-QC corridor, even if only to reduce the number of people making short flights from Toronto to Montreal etc.

HSR would probably cost as much as building the stupid Pickering airport, and would have the same effect of reducing the number of flights at Pearson. But of course the cons will always favour the short sighted approach. Environmental issues be darned.
 
HSR would probably cost as much as building the stupid Pickering airport, and would have the same effect of reducing the number of flights at Pearson. But of course the cons will always favour the short sighted approach. Environmental issues be darned.

Oh I know. They wilfully ignore how bad that type of 1970s-era planning and thinking was. It boggles the mind.

So we can all hope best for a Liberal government come the next federal election then...
 
There is going to be more sprawl,what ever you do. It just depends how you shape it.

The GTA is going to add 2 million people in the next 20 years and the area around it another 1 million. Looking at the Urban growth boundary it won't take long for Toronto to reach it't limit. People will simply move to the other side of the green belt.

Only so many people will want to live in a condo most will still want a house, plus for many it will be the trade off of moving out to cheaper land and property and the commute back.

If you don't develop a rail based system the freeways will extend in a loose grid to serve the spread of one continuous ring around the city. You could instead have discrete settlements clustering around railway stations, which if you also cluster retail and commerce near those stations, then you allow commuting between settlements to be done by rail. As long as you develop a mix of long distance express lines and local services.

Older settlements that were too far from Toronto to grow, could now from the nuclei of expanded suburbs, rather than endless subdivisions. As the population rises more employers will locate closer to these workers. Depending on land use patterns you could have a lot more local commuting by rail . A lot of short distance travel would still be by car, but with faster rail alternatives many would prefer using rail for long trips as to have a consistent journey free of congestion.

In the UK many employers are now abandoning out of town business parks for city centres, where they find it easier to recruit staff who have access to good public transport and have the use of good shops, restaurants and services they can use in lunch and after work without having to drive somewhere else. The larger business parks are now trying to develop residential elements so they have the population base to at least provide some local shops and services. That's not to say the business park is dead yet, but many smaller ones are struggling and no longer attract the top companies.

With some work the South West of Ontario could become a network of medium sized cities with people commuting in all directions. Local rail could run from London and Kitchener towards Hamilton and Niagra for example. The area could develop it own strong regional economy, while still maintaining strong links to Toronto.

It's an expensive vision, but it would mostly use existing railroads and would uses much smaller trains than those bound for Toronto. But a stronger Non Toronto economy where maybe fewer people felt the need to move to Toronto would surely have tremendous political appeal.
 
HSR would probably cost as much as building the stupid Pickering airport, and would have the same effect of reducing the number of flights at Pearson. But of course the cons will always favour the short sighted approach. Environmental issues be darned.

Oh I know. They wilfully ignore how bad that type of 1970s-era planning and thinking was. It boggles the mind.

So we can all hope best for a Liberal government come the next federal election then...

I thought that was dead years ago? Is the Pickering Airport still a thing? And how do they play to connect RT to it? Unless they put track down on the Locust Hill route
 
Last edited:
Just like the above links have shown, the project was restarted last June. Basically no news since then and with Flaherty's recent death it's possible that the airport will stall again. Frankly I think that if they weren't able to build it in the 70s they won't be today either, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't still be very vocally opposed.

Just like in the 70s the province could be instrumental in getting the damn thing cancelled by refusing to build infrastructure to it. Important to think along those lines.
 
People will simply move to the other side of the green belt.
That's why the province's Greenbelt and Places to Grow legislation not only affect those within the Greenbelt, but those *outside* within an easily accessible distance. IT's just a pity that the Big Move doesn't cover those communities too.
 
The GTA is going to add 2 million people in the next 20 years and the area around it another 1 million. Looking at the Urban growth boundary it won't take long for Toronto to reach it's limit. People will simply move to the other side of the green belt.

People would have to move very far to be on the other side of the green belt.

13918157136_1e8af761a5_b.jpg
 
People would have to move very far to be on the other side of the green belt.

13918157136_1e8af761a5_b.jpg

Yeah people aren't moving to the other side of the Greenbelt anytime soon. It's a difficult living and for most immigrants who don't have very much money it's both too expensive (cottage country and farmland) and too far away from jobs. If the vaunted millions of new residents to Ontario are coming, they're moving exactly where they do now, and the apartment towers will become more and more crowded. We need to build up and end this ridiculous growing out.
 
just a note, but I don't believe the "2.0" lands have been added. That means Guelph, Bradford, etc. Aren't covered. Areas in Pickering and Markham covered by "greenbelt 2.0" are already being developed.
 
just a note, but I don't believe the "2.0" lands have been added. That means Guelph, Bradford, etc. Aren't covered. Areas in Pickering and Markham covered by "greenbelt 2.0" are already being developed.

I know that the Waterloo Region countryside lines have been approved in principle at the municipal level. The Region of Waterloo is currently in a OMB fight to not have it's entire official plan overturned by greenfield developers. The 2.0 lands indeed have yet to be ratified on the province as part of the greenbelt, but there is strong pressure within municipal growth plans to not overstep the countryside line.
 

Back
Top