micheal_can
Senior Member
They are all coming from the MacMillian Yard.
|
|
|
- Thread starter RedRocket191
- Start date
They are all coming from the MacMillian Yard.
44 North
Senior Member
Oh sorry, it was the commuting numbers from the last census. Useful stuff when mulling fantasy ideas.
As for others' comments acting like VIA passing through Peterborough is a sure thing...how sure is it? An honest Q cuz I don't know how far along "HFR" is and don't get gov't funding of its promises. I just have a hard time believing it will be followed through on. I see shabby looking VIA trains and hear people's horror stories of long rides over short distances and think if we allowed things to get to this state, why not just continue it as such.
crs1026
Superstar
There will be more study leading to a supposedly definitive yes-no decision by Cabinet. I would say it’s fodder for the next election.
I don’t agree we should “continue as such”, but we sure need a once and for all public debate about whether to bother with publicly funded rail transportation. If we don’t see the value, we should kill it altogether. The guy in the next seat may have a chicken in his lap, but poorer countries have found ways to get people around cheaply and reliably enough, and we could also.
- Paul
Allandale25
Senior Member
Politics, planning and the Greenbelt: we have to get it right
The long-term solution for orderly urban growth is to develop a comprehensive plan for all the land south of Georgian Bay/Algonquin Park.
By David Collenette Contributor
Wednesday, September 6, 2023
A sign is seen at the entrance to Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve, a part of the Ontario Green Belt in the Greater Toronto Area of Pickering, Ontario, Canada, on May 25.
COLE BURSTON / AFP via GETTY IMAGES
Ontario Liberals are engaged in electing a new leader from a list of very impressive candidates. Policy discussion is front and centre in candidate debates and chatter among Liberals.
Defence of the world’s largest urban Greenbelt around the Greater Toronto Area, the envy of cities around the globe and established by the Liberal government 15 years ago, has emerged as a sine qua non, not only for a sustainable environment, but also for orderly land use planning and efficient transportation.
The current political crisis at Queen’s Park reflects an undermining of the Greenbelt’s integrity by allowing access to select developers in the name of increasing housing supply. It underscores an irrefutable reality — woe betide any politician to even hint about tinkering with this crucial piece of environmental protection.
While reputable studies show there is enough available land in the GTA to meet new housing targets, this will not be the case if the high immigration levels of the past few years are sustained. The long-term solution for orderly urban growth is to develop a comprehensive plan for southern Ontario, including all the land south of Georgian Bay/Algonquin Park. A key determinant of the policy would be transportation priorities.
Transportation is often taken for granted by most Canadians, but when the supply chain is interrupted affecting the delivery of food, goods, and essential services; when a municipal transit system like the Ottawa LRT consistently fails to work; when ports are shut down by industrial action; when major rail lines are blocked by accidents, wildfires and deteriorating infrastructure; or when new highways and transit systems are proposed in sensitive urban and rural settings, only then do people wake up and become vocal.
While there needs to be consistent upgrading of highways, adding extra capacity where necessary, as the population grows there will be increased pressure to build land-gobbling motorways, like the proposed Highway 413 and the Bradford By-Pass, both to be constructed through some of the most fertile agricultural land in North America. This must be vigorously resisted.
We can see the result of blindly following a rampant motorway policy every time we drive on Highway 401, which has become a conveyor belt for tens of thousands of trucks daily, with passenger vehicles crawling along at glacial speeds. Before embarking on a questionable project like the Highway 413, the Ontario government needs to address the underutilized Highway 407, built by the province, then sold to the private sector for a pittance, including an outrageous 99-year operating lease.
Surely it would be cheaper, more efficient and environmentally more sustainable if the province incentivized commercial trucking companies to use the 407. Such a scheme would be more palatable now that the 407 ETR is 507 per cent owned by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
Highways must be viewed primarily as a distribution mechanism for the movement of goods and people, not solely as a trunk conveyor. This should be the role of railways. Ontario is awash in railway corridors, some underutilized and many long abandoned that could be resuscitated to provide alternate transportation for people and goods.
Ontario’s Metrolinx is overseeing significant expansion and electrification but more needs to be done so communities with existing rail service, whether operated by GO or VIA, can be connected more efficiently with major cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, and Windsor.
Cities outside the Greenbelt, where passenger rail was abandoned decades ago, like Peterborough and Lindsay, should see reinstatement of services. This would incentivize developers to build much needed housing in those cities, as well as smaller communities along the rail corridor and provide economic stimulus to those municipalities as the population increases. Thought should also be given to establishing “GO Transit East” in the Ottawa area to replicate the success of commuter rail in the GTA.
Ontario leadership candidates need to address these issues. Voters have a right to know the direction of a future Liberal government. The purpose of the Greenbelt was to prevent urban sprawl, while at the same time preserving vast tracts of agricultural and recreational land. This has been achieved. Let’s build on its success, not throw away an outstanding policy that is universally admired.
David Collenette was a Toronto MP, Minister of Transport and Minister Responsible for the GTA (1997-2003).
micheal_can
Senior Member
Make things simple:
No development of existing farmland.
50m buffer for all waterways. All of this should be parkland open to all citizens through parks or conservation areas.
This would shut down a lot of growth in certain areas, but it will also open up places that can take the growth without serious environmental concerns.
No development of existing farmland.
50m buffer for all waterways. All of this should be parkland open to all citizens through parks or conservation areas.
This would shut down a lot of growth in certain areas, but it will also open up places that can take the growth without serious environmental concerns.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Mr. Collenette makes an ambitious proposal. All land south of Georgian Bay/Algonquin Park is huge swath the extends from the Quebec border to Windsor.
All of what? All land south of Georgian Bay/Algonquin Park or all land within the 50m corridors. Even at that, it would need to be better defined. "All waterways" is pretty broad.
All of what? All land south of Georgian Bay/Algonquin Park or all land within the 50m corridors. Even at that, it would need to be better defined. "All waterways" is pretty broad.
micheal_can
Senior Member
All lands within that 50m corridor.
All waterways would include ponds, swamps, creeks, rivers, lakes, etc. Basically anything short of a man made drainage ditch.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Do you have any concept of the amount of "ponds, creeks, rivers and lakes" that adjoin private property? That's a lot of taxpayer cheque-writing to expropriate.
micheal_can
Senior Member
It can be left as private, but cannot be developed. Regardless of ownership, it should remain natural and undeveloped. Ideally, yes, it becomes a public park of some sort.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The existing standard in modern subdivisions is 30 metres for major features.
micheal_can
Senior Member
That is a start, but we can do better.
lenaitch
Senior Member
This . . .
The scope of any and all natural watercourses is a bit problematic as well. I'll bet there are vacant plots of land within Toronto's limits, and likely every other current urban area, that would be forever undevelopable because of the '50m' rule (I don't know if that means one or both sides).
Actually, so does the concept of "existing farmland". Could I sever off a woodlot from my farm? It's not under cultivation, but owned by a farmer. But wait, it has a depression running through it that is normally wet and flowing in the Spring from surface melt but not the rest of the year. Across the road, there are several acres of arable open ground not owned by a farmer - just somebody who likes lots of land around them. Could it be developed? It's not "farmland"?
What if it for a rail line instead of housing? The Missing Link. The Havelock-Stouffville HFR connector.
That's why broad, encompassing statements are problematic.
is quite a bit different than this . . .
The scope of any and all natural watercourses is a bit problematic as well. I'll bet there are vacant plots of land within Toronto's limits, and likely every other current urban area, that would be forever undevelopable because of the '50m' rule (I don't know if that means one or both sides).
Actually, so does the concept of "existing farmland". Could I sever off a woodlot from my farm? It's not under cultivation, but owned by a farmer. But wait, it has a depression running through it that is normally wet and flowing in the Spring from surface melt but not the rest of the year. Across the road, there are several acres of arable open ground not owned by a farmer - just somebody who likes lots of land around them. Could it be developed? It's not "farmland"?
What if it for a rail line instead of housing? The Missing Link. The Havelock-Stouffville HFR connector.
That's why broad, encompassing statements are problematic.
micheal_can
Senior Member
One is the first step,and the other is the lasting step. Ideally we would take the most sensitive lands and make them into parkland first, but it may be done in what ever order the politicians think will appease the people.
Your what ifs shows that it would not be simple. The 50m rule would be from the high water mark. Which then also asks if an area has an historic flood, should all the lands be included in this. My answer is.... yes. Stop building on floodplains. Stop destroying the shorelines. As for that woodlot, if it was historically attached to that farm, it should remain off limits. Go back 50years for a limit if a hard limit is needed. Will a developer want to sit on land for 50 years? Likely not.
As far as transportation links, such as twinning highways or rebuilding a rail line, even if they need to follow a different route,I feel it is reasonable to do it. Now, a new route where no provincially maintained highway exists, or where no former rail line was? That should be put through a rigorous environmental assessment and it should not be able to be approved till 1 year after the next election. That way it cannot be pushed through by an existing government
Broad statements are made by voters when they see a problem they want fixed. The politicians and lawyers narrow it down enough to make it fit most situations..