[ARG1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1365015445435265028

I find it interesting that Mississauga always approves of highway widenings especially on the 401, but as soon as its a project not in their borders, nuh-uh, gotta virtue signal about Highway bad. If Mississauga doesn't like highways, I want to see them pass a motion to close the 403.

 

[nfitz]

The highway doesn't even go to Mississauga...

The end of the highway, is literally at the Mississauga border.

The highway literally goes to Mississauga.

Surely it makes more sense than York Regions supportive comments, that building this would reduce demand on the 401 ... which literally cuts through Mississauga.

A) I'm not sure that's true. B) If it IS true, then doesn't Mississauga get a say? Supporters can't have it both ways!

 

[ARG1]

The end of the highway, is literally at the Mississauga border.

The highway literally goes to Mississauga.

Surely it makes more sense than York Regions supportive comments, that building this would reduce demand on the 401 ... which literally cuts through Mississauga.

A) I'm not sure that's true. B) If it IS true, then doesn't Mississauga get a say? Supporters can't have it both ways!

Technically it does go to Mississauga, but in practice it doesn't. The vast majority of people using the 413 will either go west on 401, so away from Misssissauga, or South on 407, which skirts the city but eventually turns away. While there might be a few people that go east on 407, considering the design of the highway I'm not sure how well used that change will be.

Now a valid objection would be that building the 413 would redirect freight traffic away from Mississauga/401 towards brampton/vaughan and the 413, but at that point be honest about it. The comments from the councilors suggest that this is an environmental issue, meanwhile they approve Highway 401 widening projects and have 5 highways running through or by their city.

 

[afransen]

Technically it does go to Mississauga, but in practice it doesn't. The vast majority of people using the 413 will either go west on 401, so away from Misssissauga, or South on 407, which skirts the city but eventually turns away. While there might be a few people that go east on 407, considering the design of the highway I'm not sure how well used that change will be.

Now a valid objection would be that building the 413 would redirect freight traffic away from Mississauga/401 towards brampton/vaughan and the 413, but at that point be honest about it. The comments from the councilors suggest that this is an environmental issue, meanwhile they approve Highway 401 widening projects and have 5 highways running through or by their city.

All the new sprawl in Brampton will take this rather than the 410 (which is overcapacity) to get to 407 or 401.

 

[ARG1]

All the new sprawl in Brampton will take this rather than the 410 (which is overcapacity) to get to 407 or 401.

Again it depends. Doug Ford wants to expand the greenbelt to cover the highway to prove that this isn't about sprawl, so this type of increase isn't 100% guaranteed

 

[afransen]

Again it depends. Doug Ford wants to expand the greenbelt to cover the highway to prove that this isn't about sprawl, so this type of increase isn't 100% guaranteed

What's guaranteed is that this highway will attract traffic from the 410 from Western Brampton and Georgetown, and create induced demand for more VMTs.

 

[Undead]

Have a better idea for you. We can toll the 401, and any other highway appropriately, and then freight wont have a problem.

Okay, barring that, because no govt will toll the 401.

 

[sche]

Again it depends. Doug Ford wants to expand the greenbelt to cover the highway to prove that this isn't about sprawl, so this type of increase isn't 100% guaranteed

??? This is literally completely false, unless you consider a bunch of area beside Guelph and Cambridge to the greenbelt as "covering the highway"...

 

[ARG1]

??? This is literally completely false, unless you consider a bunch of area beside Guelph and Cambridge to the greenbelt as "covering the highway"...

Ford government set to expand Greenbelt protected area while proceeding with controversial highway nearby

The Ontario government is moving to expand the 800,000-hectare Greenbelt of protected lands around the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Star has learned.

www.thestar.com

 

[sche]

Ford government set to expand Greenbelt protected area while proceeding with controversial highway nearby

The Ontario government is moving to expand the 800,000-hectare Greenbelt of protected lands around the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Star has learned.

www.thestar.com

Notice it's talking about the "Paris-Galt Moraine" which is proposed to be added to the Greenbelt.

For reference, that's this:

Completely irrelavent to 413, more a distraction than anything else. (when talking about 413)

 

[allengeorge]

Again it depends. Doug Ford wants to expand the greenbelt to cover the highway to prove that this isn't about sprawl, so this type of increase isn't 100% guaranteed

But this is not what’s being proposed. In fact, the only land concretely being proposed for addition is nowhere near the 413, and the rest is unknown (we don’t even have a figure as to how much) and “open to consultation”.

 

[ConformistsWake]

I live near the proposed route (property is 20m outside the study area) and I would really like to understand the context for the arguments against the proposal. I by no means support the highway, but haven't be able to fully grasp the nuisances of the opposition crowds points. I will be speaking with my councilor (Halton Hills) soon about the matter and was hoping to get more insight on a two statements I see mentioned often.

30 Seconds of Time Savings - Where is this measured from, is it from start to end on the new highway? If I were to travel from Halton Hills to Caledon or Bolton my assumption by looking at the route versus what I drive now is that there would be more than 30 seconds of time savings, but I guess that leaves the question of how much time savings would that route provide. If its sub 5 minutes then I would probably agree that it is not worth it.

Contribution to Sprawl - Are people referring to sprawl as just more car dependent development or are they opposed to development occurring on the lands surrounding to highway. Its my understanding that a lot of the lands near the highway are whitebelt and therefore the only pieces of farmland left that we have determined are where growth is to be directed. I don't want to see the area around me turn into endless cookie cutter housing and indistinguishable plazas, but I'm also aware of just how many people immigrate to the GTA each year. Is it realistic to build transit oriented communities in these edge lands when the areas interfacing with them were built focused on the car for the last 60+ years? It would be great to see the last of our developable land built efficently so you don't need a car, but how will people crossover/interact with the surrounding car friendly areas.

I think that if the 407 was open for trucks a lot of the need/desire for this highway would go away.

 

[christiesplits]

Have there been any opinion polls of local support for the 413, particularly in York and Peel? I've been pleasantly surprised by the opposition from a lot of city and region councils, including communities where the car is 90%+ of commuting choice.

 

[Northern Light]

30 Seconds of Time Savings - Where is this measured from, is it from start to end on the new highway? If I were to travel from Halton Hills to Caledon or Bolton my assumption by looking at the route versus what I drive now is that there would be more than 30 seconds of time savings, but I guess that leaves the question of how much time savings would that route provide. If its sub 5 minutes then I would probably agree that it is not worth it.

I would have to go back and read the underlying report; but my impression was that that is the 'average' savings per commuter. I could stand to be corrected.

That would mean it would be weighted based on how many trips of different distances are likely to be made; with some obviously producing greater savings; and some, seemingly providing less than 30 seconds.

I don't have time to look back at the report just this moment, but will try to do so later, assuming its online.

Contribution to Sprawl - Are people referring to sprawl as just more car dependent development or are they opposed to development occurring on the lands surrounding to highway. Its my understanding that a lot of the lands near the highway are whitebelt and therefore the only pieces of farmland left that we have determined are where growth is to be directed. I don't want to see the area around me turn into endless cookie cutter housing and indistinguishable plazas, but I'm also aware of just how many people immigrate to the GTA each year. Is it realistic to build transit oriented communities in these edge lands when the areas interfacing with them were built focused on the car for the last 60+ years? It would be great to see the last of our developable land built efficently so you don't need a car, but how will people crossover/interact with the surrounding car friendly areas.

I think that if the 407 was open for trucks a lot of the need/desire for this highway would go away.

I would personally oppose most development here, including on the white belt lands, which can, of course, be downzoned.

There is ample room for another 4,000,000 people in the GGH without touching the whitebelt.

At some point, some additional greenfield will likely be needed for development, assuming our growth as a region continues unabated.

But I would like to see that limited by protecting the best lands for Agriculture first; and most important lands for nature and ground-water recharge.

Then, and only then, do we look what portion of those lands that remain being best suited to development.

*****

Lest anyone suggest the land can't be downzoned or that it would be costly, precedent and the law suggest otherwise to me.

Developers and farmers don't write a cheque to the province when their land is upzoned; so the province does not have to write them one when they downzone.

 

[innsertnamehere]

So what's an average commuter? Someone going from the 401 and 407 to the 400 at King Road? just users of the highway, or all users including those on area highways that benefit from redirected traffic? Etc.

I'm dubious of the 30 second claim and I've never really seen the source and explanation for the rationale.

The 2012 study that selected the corridor as the preferred alternative projected a reduction of peak hour vehicle-delay (congestion) of about 10% across the entire study area (20,372 hours of delay versus 22,551) versus not constructing the highway and only widening the freeway network. Similarly, it improved the % of the freeway network operating above LOS D from 66% to 72%.

Chapter-4.pdf (gta-west.com)
(page 61 of the PDF, alternative 3-1 is widening only, alternative 4-2 is the GTA west corridor that was selected).

Across all 776,800 auto commuters in the study area, this results in a mere 10 seconds of time saved per commuter. However, the total average congestion without the highway per commuter in the study area is only 1:45, as many commuters experience little to no congestion driving to local employment. The highway would have much greater time savings for longer distance commuters.

Interestingly, it mostly comes from removing traffic from local roads and shifting it to the freeway network, reducing congestion.

This is notably only time savings from congestion only as well. As I said, most of the congestion reductions will be on the local road network, which will be because people shift trips onto the faster freeway. There will be additional time savings from having a new, faster route as well, which will occur at all times of day regardless of congestion.

What this basically means is that without the corridor the new development in Caledon and Brampton would see severe local road network congestion as people drive all the way through Brampton and Vaughan in order to access the freeway network, and they will be the biggest benefactors of the highway, but it will also reduce congestion on the existing freeway network and provide more alternate routes, which will help existing commuters.