anb
Active Member
I technically counted 403/410 as one but that’s also true and the 427 also makes sense too. That’s more to prove my point haha.
|
|
|
kamira51
Active Member
@Northern Light I understand your opinion on this highway proposal, but we need to realize that the gta is growing and we need to face the reality that the farmland in southern caledon will be developed with or without the highway. while i agree that we should be investing in transit, we will still need Highways, and we can only widen a road so much.
I still think we need this highway.
I still think we need this highway.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
I genuinely do see both sides of the coin here. I am okay with the project so long as additional parameters are met:
1. A transit route, whether BRT with capability to upgrade to heavy rail in the future, is incorporated into the ROW.
2. Ecologically sensitive areas are retained and protected from development.
3. TOD is prioritized in the areas surrounding the 413 route, namely Georgetown, NW Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon-Bolton and Vaughan. Don't allow for heavy sprawl and tract housing to be built along the highways route. Focus on densifying the aforementioned municipalities along already existing avenues in the form of townhomes, row houses and duplexes instead of crappy, high-priced, wannabe luxury condos.
4. 413 is tolled for a given number of years in a manner that generates revenue for the province to support transit but also allows for use by logistics companies and trucks.
The concern with farmland and ecologically sensitive areas is valid and I worry the Ford government won't pay much mind to points 1 - 3 and let the developers run rampant. Realistically there are market constraints within the GTA related to commercial RE capacity for warehousing, e-commerce, logistics and manufacturing. The land surrounding this highway should be prioritized for commercial use given the lack of availability in already developed areas of the GTHA while also protecting these eco-sensitive areas.
Furthermore, current zoning patterns have already earmarked the land along this route for development. Over time, Oakville, Milton, NW Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon, Bolton and Kleinberg will become interconnected. It should not be endless, low-density tract housing, much of which already exists in certain parts of Caledon already.
1. A transit route, whether BRT with capability to upgrade to heavy rail in the future, is incorporated into the ROW.
2. Ecologically sensitive areas are retained and protected from development.
3. TOD is prioritized in the areas surrounding the 413 route, namely Georgetown, NW Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon-Bolton and Vaughan. Don't allow for heavy sprawl and tract housing to be built along the highways route. Focus on densifying the aforementioned municipalities along already existing avenues in the form of townhomes, row houses and duplexes instead of crappy, high-priced, wannabe luxury condos.
4. 413 is tolled for a given number of years in a manner that generates revenue for the province to support transit but also allows for use by logistics companies and trucks.
The concern with farmland and ecologically sensitive areas is valid and I worry the Ford government won't pay much mind to points 1 - 3 and let the developers run rampant. Realistically there are market constraints within the GTA related to commercial RE capacity for warehousing, e-commerce, logistics and manufacturing. The land surrounding this highway should be prioritized for commercial use given the lack of availability in already developed areas of the GTHA while also protecting these eco-sensitive areas.
Furthermore, current zoning patterns have already earmarked the land along this route for development. Over time, Oakville, Milton, NW Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon, Bolton and Kleinberg will become interconnected. It should not be endless, low-density tract housing, much of which already exists in certain parts of Caledon already.
ARG1
Senior Member
I think #1 is happening. They want to make a transitway similar to scope to the 407 transitway.
afransen
Senior Member
I'm not convinced that the BRT transitway is all that supportive of TOD. No one wants to live in a TOD node next to a roaring highway. BRT transitways are a retrofit option for funnelling people from further away into a higher speed corridor. It's inherently a second best kind of solution. If we are building greenfield, why not use rail from the get-go? Rail is expensive when you don't reserve the ROW and you have a lot of crossings. We could build rail from the start and run DMUs on it until we are satisfied it is worth electrifying.
allengeorge
Senior Member
3. Is not happening, which is why I’m not sympathetic to the argument that “Caledon is building anyeays, so we need this highway.”
That said - @Translude15 - that’s a pretty solid proposal and a reasonable compromise.
That said - @Translude15 - that’s a pretty solid proposal and a reasonable compromise.
kamira51
Active Member
Clearly you dont travel east and west along Mayfield and see the land that's for sale and development that's happening at Airport Road.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
1. I believe MTO does this with all their new urban highway corridors. I can't see why this isn't the case here.
2. This is impossible to meet fully with a new highway corridor, but it's been the key driver of quite a few of their alignment selections. Where it can't be met it is typically offset with the creation of new ecological areas to replace those lost.
3. This comes through existing planning policies in the Growth Plan - which set out minimum densities for new greenfield development. Ford has admittingly loosened these regulations a small amount, but they are still very strict and essentially force high densities. If you take a look at what is happening in North Oakville along Dundas Street, that is the sort of density mandated in new greenfield development. Mid-rise apartment blocks along arterials, townhouses and stacked towns behind, and then a limited amount of single detached on the internal areas between arterials.
4. While this hasn't been confirmed, My understanding is that some sort of toll system is mostly expected to finance the project due to it's costs, even if it is a 25 or 30 year toll period only until it's financed. The government may surprise people and finance it with debt though too, who knows.
sche
Active Member
I really don't understand why people are even suggesting TOD - development along this highway is not TOD no matter how we spin it. Even if we build midrises or townhouses we will still be seeing basically no transit mode share here. IMO the BRT is more an effort to pretend they are not doing this solely for cars and urban sprawl - it's a really useless route for transit that pretty much goes nowhere. If it's anything like the BRTs on the 407 or 427 extension, it probably won't even get built for the next 20-30 years. If it is built, then it's a really terrible use of transit dollars.
afransen
Senior Member
Disagree. I don't think it is true that no (reasonable) transit infrastructure provision and built form could encourage high transit mode share. Otherwise we are just giving up. I don't think BRT in the highway ROW is the answer--on that we agree.
I think we could do regional rail TOD that integrates into GO rail expansion on Kitchener, Milton and perhaps Lakeshore.
north-of-anything
Active Member
I was under the impression that Brampton's proposal was going to be an actual urban solution and not "just as many lanes as the freeway but slower". What they've put forward is an absolute joke.
I'm still against this project going forward, especially since we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to Ontario freeways, but holy crap I'll take the 413 over that abomination.
I'm still against this project going forward, especially since we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to Ontario freeways, but holy crap I'll take the 413 over that abomination.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Seriously. If you want to spend extra bucks to reduce the freeways impact, throw some decking a la the Herb Gray Parkway at key locations. You'll get a much better result.
Pretty hard to tell this is directly atop a 6 lane freeway:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
Deadpool X
Senior Member
allengeorge
Senior Member
It’s not clear what you’re disagreeing with me on - could you clarify? The development that’s occurring (and planned for) here is the same detached/semi developments that’s occurred around Airport and Goreway. So dense TOD is not happening here. That’s meant I meant by (3) is not happening.
I see no reason to subsidize bad planning choices by Brampton and Caledon.
kamira51
Active Member
I agree about caledon and northern brampton having God awful planning but planning aside the biggest issue is the increased presence of trucking companies in southern caledon that's only going to increase load on region roadways.
I would prefer a GO line along the highway apposed to a BRT.