P
Paolo
Guest
oh thank god, i love the little town of shakespheare. close to strat ford.
|
|
|
oh thank god, i love the little town of shakespheare. close to strat ford.
nfitz
Superstar
There was no plan to tear down half of Shakespeare. Lose some front yard, yes. Lose a couple of building, yes. But half the town?
It was a bad idea, but I don't see the need to exaggerate.
Transportfan
Senior Member
For one thing. it would take a lot of pressure off the 401 to have a Hwy 7 freeway between K-W and the GTA.
Markster
Senior Member
Haha, fair enough, I knew I was exaggerating a bit.
However, there were a non-trivial number of historical buildings facing the wrecking ball.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Stage 2 of the EA workshop presentation - summer 2014
http://www.gta-west.com/pdf/Introductory Community Workshops Presentation.pdf
main website
www.gta-west.com
http://www.gta-west.com/pdf/Introductory Community Workshops Presentation.pdf
main website
www.gta-west.com
Last edited:
Thanks for the link! I really hope as part of this they manage to convince 407 ETR to make the section of the 407 from the 401/407 to the 403/407 interchanges free of charge, so that people can drive straight down to the QEW without having to pay a toll for that short (and lightly used) stretch.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
^i'm quite the opposite. I actually hope that if this new highway does in fact get built, that it is a toll road as well.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I'd take it further and put variable tolls on all the highways east of the 401/407 Junction and West of the Durham Connector.
Province is happy because they get revenue to do things with.
Transit riders are happy because it means money for new infrastructure, more frequent service, and not being stuck on the 401 if that's the bus they're on.
407 is happy since it means more people using their highway and more revenues for them.
Drivers should be happy because they can get places in a reasonable amount of time.
Drivers won't be happy because the concept of roads as a free resource is so ingrained in the Ontario driving populous' mindset that it's very difficult to make any changes to the way we currently subsidize them.
Province is happy because they get revenue to do things with.
Transit riders are happy because it means money for new infrastructure, more frequent service, and not being stuck on the 401 if that's the bus they're on.
407 is happy since it means more people using their highway and more revenues for them.
Drivers should be happy because they can get places in a reasonable amount of time.
Drivers won't be happy because the concept of roads as a free resource is so ingrained in the Ontario driving populous' mindset that it's very difficult to make any changes to the way we currently subsidize them.
Last edited:
muller877
Senior Member
It would be a perfect connection. However, no one would ever give away that for free. The Province would have to give some sort of concession. Such as to transfer some of the new 407 East to the company.
But of course we know how well governments of all stripes negotiate...it'll be worse off for the taxpayer overall. (Harris and 407, Liberals and the Gas Plant, Liberals and Mars, Rae...shudder).
I'm mixed about it, to be honest. I'm going to wait and see how much of an effect the 407 East has on reducing 401 congestion through Durham. If the effect is minimal, than building this new highway as a toll highway will likely have the same minimal effect on the 401 through Peel.
Dunkalunk's post got me thinking that maybe a hybrid solution is the answer: moderate tolls during peak, free during off-peak. This could be quite the popular route for cottage-bound traffic from the west end, which would help a lot of people avoid the crapshoot that is the 400/401 interchange.
Honestly, I'd be fine with the Province off-setting the off-peak revenue from that section by giving the 407 ETR the equivalent revenue from peak-period tolls from the rest of that new highway. I believe that section of the highway is classified as a "light zone" by the 407 ETR anyway, so it's not like that's one of their big money-makers.
That way, you could drive from the QEW to the 400 off-peak for free, while during peak you would be paying part of the toll to the Province, and part to 407 ETR.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Light zone on the 407 is between the 410 and 427, and is only a few cents per km less.
You're correct, my bad. I hadn't looked at the map for a while, and I guess it's been changed since I last looked at it.
Panontario
Active Member
This was a fairly recent change since around 2012
mrxbombastic
Active Member
This whole plan is completely new to me so sorry if i bring up old topics in this post
Firstly why is this being considered even? In my view it simply acts as yet another bypass route used in the justification of ever growing suburbanization of our region. Places to Grow sought to keep sprawl low and to keep the urban region compact. Providing yet another highway corridor at the northwestern fringes of the GTA seems to fly in the face of the governments own directives. The precious loss of great farm land for more automobile traffic is absurd.
Toll the highways, build the transit linkages and we should see enough of a shift in demand from commuters to continue to facilitate competitive goods movement around the region. If needed can we widen the 401 further west as an alternate to providing some more relief capacity on an already established and developed corridor.
Also, was the intention to actually fund and build this written in the Liberal budget documents, aside from heir commitment to widening highways around the province?
I understand the need for goods movement is getting clogged out on our highways due to massive amounts of personal and commuter traffic and a less than primed freight railway emphasis, and as such I could entertain discussions about how to facilitate better goods movement but I think that can be done using existing or enhanced current infrastructures.
Firstly why is this being considered even? In my view it simply acts as yet another bypass route used in the justification of ever growing suburbanization of our region. Places to Grow sought to keep sprawl low and to keep the urban region compact. Providing yet another highway corridor at the northwestern fringes of the GTA seems to fly in the face of the governments own directives. The precious loss of great farm land for more automobile traffic is absurd.
Toll the highways, build the transit linkages and we should see enough of a shift in demand from commuters to continue to facilitate competitive goods movement around the region. If needed can we widen the 401 further west as an alternate to providing some more relief capacity on an already established and developed corridor.
Also, was the intention to actually fund and build this written in the Liberal budget documents, aside from heir commitment to widening highways around the province?
I understand the need for goods movement is getting clogged out on our highways due to massive amounts of personal and commuter traffic and a less than primed freight railway emphasis, and as such I could entertain discussions about how to facilitate better goods movement but I think that can be done using existing or enhanced current infrastructures.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
There is no funding for this yet, but it is still in the early planning stages so land can be protected for it. Construction probably won't happen until the late 2020's.
As for places to grow, it only sets out 40% of growth to be intensification as it simply isn't realistic to ban sprawl. That means that ~50,000 people still need to be accommodated in sprawl every year, and infrastructure does need to be built to support that growth. Transit is great, but the fact is that transit modal share in the suburbs sits around 12% and the best we can realistically hope for is for that to increase to 17 or 18 percent by the time this is built. 80 percent of trips in the suburbs are going to be by car almost no matter what you do, and you have to accommodate that.
I believe intensification targets are closer to 60% right now anyway, so sprawl is occurring at a slower rate than what places to grow even requests.
As for places to grow, it only sets out 40% of growth to be intensification as it simply isn't realistic to ban sprawl. That means that ~50,000 people still need to be accommodated in sprawl every year, and infrastructure does need to be built to support that growth. Transit is great, but the fact is that transit modal share in the suburbs sits around 12% and the best we can realistically hope for is for that to increase to 17 or 18 percent by the time this is built. 80 percent of trips in the suburbs are going to be by car almost no matter what you do, and you have to accommodate that.
I believe intensification targets are closer to 60% right now anyway, so sprawl is occurring at a slower rate than what places to grow even requests.
Last edited: