News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 26K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
242
Well let's take a look at London shall we? In the greater London regions there are, m1, m40, m4, m3, m23, m20, m11, and m25, so 8 highways (10 if you count the m2 and a1). In the Toronto region we have the, qew/gardiner, 403, 401, 407, 410, 427, 400, 404/dvp, 412, and 418, total 10. And I'm not including the stub highway 409 or the remote 115/35. So it appears to me that Toronto and London have a similarly developed highway system despite London having 3 times the population of Toronto.. .

The comparison with Rome is worse as there are only 5 autostrada in the region.



Well I am on record as saying that my preference would be for a provincial style 4 lane limited access highway. However the pro highway crew have commented that we should be building 6 lane lest it be be underbuilt 30 years from now. So that's why we are discussing a 6 lane highway. I will repeat my preference for a 4 lane limited access highway a la hwy 9 vs a full 400 series highway...
yes but London (UK) has an EXTENSIVE subway network. People can get around easily there. Here, we don't have that. We go the less expensive route of building highways, rather than subways. So you know what, we SHOULD have more of a highway network than London despite the populations differences.
 

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
242
The most vocal populations are the ones that live near where this is proposed, so of course they will be NIMBY about it. I am distressed that now that politicians saw some resistance, it is snowballing and they are jumping on board a train to seem like they care about environment and community concerns.

Poll the people that actually have to endure GTA driving... It takes a ridiculous amount of time to get anywhere around here.
 

TransitBart

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,703
City:
Toronto
I must say, I find the tone of some posters here who think no one should have a say in the construction of this highway unless they live within 10 minutes of the proposed route a bit much.

Its fine to say you support the project; as it is fine for me to say that I do not.

But when the environment and quality of life implications and the costs are born by all of us in the GTA it is simply not reasonable that our collective input not be considered.

I'd also wager some of the pro-highway posters here would see little if any benefit from the highway; and in accordance w/their own preferences should have no say in its construction either.

Formal opposition has now been registered from Mississaga, Brampton, Orangeville, Halton Hills............and the Ontario Farmland Trust.

I hasten to add the Globe and Mail has asserted that expert evaluation shows an average commute savings of 30 seconds resulting from this new offering.

From the Globe and Mail editorial:

View attachment 301962

Link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ighway-413-is-a-6-billion-sprawl-accelerator/
Why do I always think the people writing these reports don't drive? Or they went once as a science project to look at something and wrote a report that will affect fifty years of life for millions. Anybody who has driven from the 427 to Guelph and back knows full well that the time savings could be much more than 50 seconds. My two cents.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,795
Reaction score
43,103
Why do I always think the people writing these reports don't drive? Or they went once as a science project to look at something and wrote a report that will affect fifty years of life for millions. Anybody who has driven from the 427 to Guelph and back knows full well that the time savings could be much more than 50 seconds. My two cents.

I believe the language used was 'average' commuter.

I expect that commute would not represent the most typical use of the freeway.

Undoubtedly, savings in time should be larger over longer distances; though that would depend on the directness of the highway route as it pertains a person's origin/destination.
 

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
242
Why do I always think the people writing these reports don't drive? Or they went once as a science project to look at something and wrote a report that will affect fifty years of life for millions. Anybody who has driven from the 427 to Guelph and back knows full well that the time savings could be much more than 50 seconds. My two cents.
So true. I don't know how they come up with these figures.


Human populations are ever-increasing. A highway like this will be needed one day. Even if you densify and build up Toronto now. It's inevitable.
Better to get it in place now before there is more structurally in the way and more nimby's.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
13,263
Reaction score
7,065
Given that most of Toronto Council is in favour of the $28.5B in transit spending for the four priority projects, it shouldn't be a surprise they have an opinion on how $8-10B for a new 400-series highway could be better spent.
This costs how many billions????
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,275
Reaction score
10,295
^ I don't think the Province has put out an official number, but happy to be corrected. I've seen speculation in the 6-10B range.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
13,263
Reaction score
7,065
The most vocal populations are the ones that live near where this is proposed, so of course they will be NIMBY about it. I am distressed that now that politicians saw some resistance, it is snowballing and they are jumping on board a train to seem like they care about environment and community concerns.

Poll the people that actually have to endure GTA driving... It takes a ridiculous amount of time to get anywhere around here.

Sure. Up until recently (COVID) I drove the 401 90 minutes and I absolutely oppose this project. This project will just induce the GTA to become even more of a sprawling wasteland than it already is, putting even more cars on the road, further slowing down commutes for everybody.

I absoluty do not buy the arguments that these highways are necessary to accommodate future growth. There are plenty of cities far denser than the GTHA with far better transport systems. The GTHA's growth should be concentrated inwards, where commerce and transport is most effective.

As far as I'm concerned, not a single square inch of Greenfield should be used to accommodate population growth, when there is so much under-utilized space in the GTHA (and heck, even the City of Toronto proper).
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,795
Reaction score
43,103
So true. I don't know how they come up with these figures.


Human populations are ever-increasing. A highway like this will be needed one day. Even if you densify and build up Toronto now. It's inevitable.
Better to get it in place now before there is more structurally in the way and more nimby's.

This position is not supported by the evidence.

1) Birth rates are in free fall in most of the world. The Global population should start to contract in the second half of this century. And its about time!

2) Toronto can accommodate plenty of growth, as in several million people without developing a single acre of rural land ever again.

3) Sprawl isn't just bad for the environment. Its expensive. It drives up your taxes. Whether you lean left or right, there are good reasons to oppose this highway.

4) Your commute is better resolved by transit; or by moving to a location in the GTA where your commute would be shorter. Wasting not just 8-10B upfront, but the cost of servicing land, with sewer, water, electricity, fibre, and homes with parks, roads, libraries, schools etc etc. is enormous and goes on as far as the eye can see.

Yes, those services are required even if you develop in a more intensive way. But to a great degree that infrastructure is in place, or can be scaled up at a lower cost.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
13,263
Reaction score
7,065
Sure. Up until recently (COVID) I drove the 401 90 minutes and I absolutely oppose this project. This project will just induce the GTA to become even more of a sprawling wasteland than it already is, putting even more cars on the road, further slowing down commutes for everybody.

I absoluty do not buy the arguments that these highways are necessary to accommodate future growth. There are plenty of cities far denser than the GTHA with far better transport systems. The GTHA's growth should be concentrated inwards, where commerce and transport is most effective.

As far as I'm concerned, not a single square inch of Greenfield should be used to accommodate population growth, when there is so much under-utilized space in the GTHA (and heck, even the City of Toronto proper).
Take a drive through suburban Toronto (Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York), and you'll see single-family homes, and major arterials lined with strip malls and enormous parking lots. When the region's most dense city looks like that, there isn't any sound reason to support the continued sprawl of this region.

Toronto's inner suburbs are where we should be concentrating the bulk of the growth in our region. There is such an abundance of space in the inner suburbs, that we could accommodate much of the growth, without even sticking people in condo towers.

Transport in Toronto's inner suburbs will always be more efficient than in these far flung regions of the GTHA. The tens of billions of dollars we're wasting on expansions to our freeway network could be used to build an efficient suburban rail transport system to allow us to comfortably absorb this growth.

We keep doing the same things (with regards to sprawl) and expecting different results. It's the definition of insanity. Build more highways, induce more sprawl, then act surprised as the highways get clogged. Enough is enough. Quit with the highways, quit with the new sprawl, and do what we know we need to do to get out of this trap.
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
965
yes but London (UK) has an EXTENSIVE subway network. People can get around easily there. Here, we don't have that. We go the less expensive route of building highways, rather than subways. So you know what, we SHOULD have more of a highway network than London despite the populations differences.
Wait, so Toronto and London have roughly equivalent urban freeway networks but London has a far more developed public transit system, and THAT is the rationale for further highway construction???

Wouldn't the logical conclusion be to improve the public transit system?
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
4,549
City:
Toronto
^ I don't think the Province has put out an official number, but happy to be corrected. I've seen speculation in the 6-10B range.
This number honestly seems ridiculous. The entirety of the 407 East project (which was larger and had the same number of major interchanges) was 2 billion dollars. If the 413 is 6-10B dollars, something is horribly, HORRIBLY, wrong.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
4,549
City:
Toronto
I mean, Toronto is spending ~$1 billion dollars on rebuilding just 2.4km of highway, so it's not like anyone is paying attention to the cost and value of these highways anymore. Imagine if fiscal conservatives actually believed their rhetoric, we'd never see a highway be built again!

Well to be fair the Gardiner is an elevated highway running through the downtown core, so the context is quite different. There's a massive difference between an urban highway, and greenfield roads.
 

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
242
4) Your commute is better resolved by transit; or by moving to a location in the GTA where your commute would be shorter. Wasting not just 8-10B upfront, but the cost of servicing land, with sewer, water, electricity, fibre, and homes with parks, roads, libraries, schools etc etc. is enormous and goes on as far as the eye can see.
Oh why didn't I think of that. Good thing I have the $1,000,000+ laying around that's now required to own the average home in the GTA :rolleyes:
 

Top