[Northern Light]

Now, if you're suggesting that, in the 10 to 20 years that follow the introduction of the new highway, we will see the additional capacity slowly fill up with new commuters, then that has nothing to do with induced demand. That's demand growth due to new population and new employment, and those trips will accumulate with or without the introduction of the new highway. Personally, I'd rather we have excess capacity to fill rather than be above capacity wondering where to put the demand. That simply isn't a reason to cancel the project altogether. Within 20 years of Ontario Line being built, we will be near capacity. Perhaps there's no point building that either due to the induced demand.

If the land is employment land and/or built to be housing that would otherwise not be permitted, or viable but for construction of the highway; then the highway creates the condition for the sprawl and leads the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I love transit. I want more transit. I want the Ontario Line, I want Eglinton Crosstown to open already so we can build the east and west extensions, and I want mixed use corridors throughout our City to provide additional capacity for all modes of travelers. But I also understand the reality faced by individuals at the north end of Peel Region and York Region. I understand that Highway 401 between 410 and 400 is one of the biggest bottlenecks in the City that needs parallel corridors for additional capacity. That's why I'm in favour of this project.

If you resolve the problems in northern Peel and York via a highway; you not only create new and worse problems (development of said farmland; which all suggestions to the contrary is not inevitable); you also dictate the form of said development.

It will be built to serve, to be served by, and oriented to the highway.

There will be no material transit; it won't be viable, because all that was built was highway-oriented.

Low-density, sprawl'ish, expensive to serve, not very walkable or bikeable; long trips to get to anywhere, because everything is spread out.

There is a problem in the areas you identify.

It is best addressed by new investments in pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure; and by better use of the automotive infrastructure we already have.

To the extent that is insufficient, smaller, strategic investments in a 4-lane, urban road or rural, small, highway, could be made through portions of the planned ROW.

 

[Northern Light]

Just curious, would you consider the 407E a mega highway?

Yes.

In terms of overall project scale.

It was a huge negative, it wasted a lot of money; and has not served the province well.

 

[kamira51]

Yes.

In terms of overall project scale.

It was a huge negative, it wasted a lot of money; and has not served the province well.

Personally its been very beneficial, when the finale section opened in 2019, it allows me to bypass a large section of the 401. It saved me alot of time and gas.

 

[Northern Light]

Personally its been very beneficial, when the finale section opened in 2019, it allows me to bypass a large section of the 401. It saved me alot of time and gas.

Right, but with great respect; its not all about you.

A net benefit test is for society writ large.

At what financial and environmental cost have we saved you a few dollars and minutes?

 

[kamira51]

Right, but with great respect; its not all about you.

A net benefit test is for society writ large.

At what financial and environmental cost have we saved you a few dollars and minutes?

I have been acting selfish regarding this project, im just frustrated at the lack of options regarding transit.

A perfect exaample is the situation regarding the orangeville brampton rail corridor. As far as i know, metrolinx doesnt want it, a decent rail corridor wasted.

And its all about "rider numbers" regarding transit proposals. i wish they would just put their foot down and bulldoze houses to laydown track everywhere.

Im sick of the number game, give people options and they will use them.

 

[Northern Light]

I have been acting selfish regarding this project, im just frustrated at the lack of options regarding transit.

A perfect exaample is the situation regarding the orangeville brampton rail corridor. As far as i know, metrolinx doesnt want it, a decent rail corridor wasted.

And its all about "rider numbers" regarding transit proposals. i wish they would just put their foot down and bulldoze houses to laydown track everywhere.

Im sick of the number game, give people options and they will use them.

Then zero-in on the projects you would like to see happen; find the most viable and appealing ones (you won't get trains or BRT to everywhere); and push for those like no one's business.

Write your MPP, write your Councillor, write the Mayor, write the Premier, write the Minister of Transportation, write Metrolinx; post about the projects you want to support on social media, Twitter, Facebook etc.

Take a look at what's already in 'The Big Move'.

Find 2-3 projects; and go all-out for them.

You may desire 8-10 projects, but when you shoot for everything, you tend to get nothing.

Look for groups that support the projects you want to see happen.

Join them. Back them.

Spread the word about them.

Its possible to make change happen. But its not easy.

via: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/53...-adapts-himself-to-the-world-the-unreasonable

 

[Scotian]

1) If you look at other cities and say they have the same amount of highways, but more transit, then you advocate for more highways? I don't get it when people do that.
2) How many 12-lane collector-express highways does London have? None. The Westway starts at Paddington and ends in White City, 4 km long. Newham's Way starts east of Canary Wharf. The DVP is 15 km and the Gardiner 18.
3) London is fundamentally different from the GTA. London built out in the inter-war years, while Toronto built out after the war. Different timelines, different building styles. London built Tube to go with its suburbs, and expansion stopped with its Greenbelt. Toronto built roads to go with its suburbs, and it has yet to stop.

1) Why does a highway eliminate increased transit? That's such a nonsense argument.

2) Again, this isn't what I was arguing to begin with and I'm not looking to argue about how every city on planet earth developed their transportation systems. All I was pointing out was that North America is hardly alone in having built their regional transportation systems with a focus on highways for access between cities and suburbs.

 

[DirectionNorth]

1) Why does a highway eliminate increased transit? That's such a nonsense argument.

2) Again, this isn't what I was arguing to begin with and I'm not looking to argue about how every city on planet earth developed their transportation systems. All I was pointing out was that North America is hardly alone in having built their regional transportation systems with a focus on highways for access between cities and suburbs.

1) If you build a highway, people will build accordingly. Then, when transit moves in, people will kick and scream, because of property values. Or something. Look at the 905. Does that built form look transit-friendly?

In addition, there are limited dollars. In an ideal world, we would be able to build everything without budget concerns. But that's not the case. Every dollar for this project is a dollar that cannot be used for transit.

I have laid out alternatives for the freeway and sprawl, in this post.

Look at it for the long run. As this highway is built, more housing is built in Northern Brampton, Bolton, Georgetown, etc, this highway is filled with new commuters. The thing is, no one uses their cars because they absolutely love their cars and have to. Or at least, very few people. If we build more transit lines, along major corridors, with 5 minute bus service during all hours (except late night) then we can get more people using transit. All it requires is vision and willingness to build with the plan, rather than just doing endless studies.

People choose their mode based on how fast it is, how much it costs, how convenient it is, and so on. The secret to making transit successful is to make it all of those things. For those saying "we need sprawl," no we don't. I'm not suggesting everyone live in "commie blocks" where each family has 2 bedrooms. To be fair, that is the perception that we have of high-rise in North America. This is because developers go for profit, which means maximizing units, which means small units. We don't have to do that. In both Europe and Asia, many high-rises have multi-storey units, many of them larger than the house I am writing this from. We can densify, while not forcing people to live in cramped apartments, for many years to come and without sprawl.

Many proponents will talk about growing the industrial areas and the need to serve them. We can build something like this:
View attachment 304361
Instead of building a full freeway, which will inevitably get upgraded again and again, we can build an arterial road with fewer lights. If the lesser sprawl option was chosen, it would only have to serve current residential and industrial, but it would leave much less of a scar on the landscape. In the event of a sprawl boom in the area, perhaps land can be reserved for a freeway. Ew.

Finally, another government can come along, sell this highway, and we have another 407 where we can't use the highway to alleviate congestion. The 407 is 7.5 kilometers from the 401 at the 400, and the 407 is only 4 kilometers from the 401 at the 410. I wonder if it would not be cheaper to negotiate with the 407 consortium, to limit toll price raises, and perhaps allow some congestion. While this would diminish the idea that the 407 is an express route, perhaps there can be some sort of compensation. How much would this cost?

2) North America is not the only place that developed around roads. But North America is the only place that has yet to change and build transit rather than endless roads. Most countries eventually start building more transit, but because of cultural expectations, we just build more sprawl. The cycle needs to break somehow. This is a good place to start.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Scotian]

1) Well if you are going to look at the 31,000 sq km of the Greater Golden Horseshoe and compare to the 1,500 sq km of Greater London... ... ... I have no words...

2) And Ontario has plenty of mid level provincial highways (hwy 9, 27, 6, 7, 26, 35/115, etc) as well as the old concession roads which tend to act a proto mid level highways. I limited my comparison to top level expressways to simplify my search/comparison. I will repeat for the third time that I support a provincial level 4 land limited access highway in this region, and reiterate that providing easy E-W travel from between Northern Peel and York Regions is important.

3) As has been shown other "world cities' have as much of if not smaller highway networks (particularly if you control for population) and that they have far more well developed transit systems. But you have your opinion and I won't discuss it further.

1) Ever heard of the Home Counties?

2) Those aren't exactly limited or controlled access roads other than 35/115. If they were to build something like that, hey, great. I'm just guessing if the government announced that the response from these same groups would be something like "it's a highway by any other name".

3) Again wondering why not both? Why does building one thing exclude building something else?

 

[Scotian]

1) If you build a highway, people will build accordingly. Then, when transit moves in, people will kick and scream, because of property values. Or something. Look at the 905. Does that built form look transit-friendly?

In addition, there are limited dollars. In an ideal world, we would be able to build everything without budget concerns. But that's not the case. Every dollar for this project is a dollar that cannot be used for transit.

I have laid out alternatives for the freeway and sprawl, in this post.


2) North America is not the only place that developed around roads. But North America is the only place that has yet to change and build transit rather than endless roads.

Edited for clarity.

1) What transit are we realistically talking about for areas like the region in question? At most what would you construct? BRT? Explain to me why they can't do both at the same time? Plan to reserve lanes on both a new highway and regional roads? Who would complain about that so loud as to prevent it?

2) I think many places in North America have put serious effort into transit, even the GTHA. Yeah they're playing catchup, but they are playing.

 

[DirectionNorth]

1) What transit are we realistically talking about for areas like the region in question? At most what would you construct? BRT? Explain to me why they can't do both at the same time? Plan to reserve lanes on both a new highway and regional roads? Who would complain about that so loud as to prevent it?

2) I think many places in North America have put serious effort into transit, even the GTHA. Yeah they're playing catchup, but they are playing.

1) North-South connections to central Brampton, to take the GO. East-West connections, to connect it to other suburbs. They can't do both, because people will not use transit with roads. These people then clog up the roads. Of course, the reserved space is just going to be used for new lanes. A better question is "Why are we building new subdivisions 40-50 kilometers from downtown?" I know not everybody works downtown. We can still densify, especially in the Yellowbelt and parts of Mississauga, Pickering, Ajax, etc.

If you spend too much money building a freeway when a 4-lane controlled access arterial is sufficient, then you don't have the money to build transit.

People have complained loud enough to stop or slow projects. Ontario Line, Hurontario LRT in central Brampton, are both examples.

2) If you're building a new bypass-to-a-bypass-to-a-bypass, you're also creating more problems. If you build a line on the cheapest routing, to save money, while also building new freeways in straight lines, it's not catching up, it's pretending to catch up while also serving more sprawl. Toronto is quite awful for sprawl. Measuring on a map, the GTHA is about 3000 km2. Even Phoenix is only 3000 km2. Las Vegas is only 1500 km2. Not a model we want to emulate. Even excluding areas that did not depend on Toronto for development like Hamilton and Pickering, gives a figure of 1800 km2 excluding Bolton, Milton, and Stouffville.

 

[Northern Light]

1) What transit are we realistically talking about for areas like the region in question? At most what would you construct? BRT? Explain to me why they can't do both at the same time? Plan to reserve lanes on both a new highway and regional roads? Who would complain about that so loud as to prevent it?

2) I think many places in North America have put serious effort into transit, even the GTHA. Yeah they're playing catchup, but they are playing.

This is straight-forward.

1) There is a finite amount of money. If you spend $10B on something, that's 10B unavailable to spend on something else.

You may wish it were otherwise, but you'll find a shortage of precedents to support your case.

2) As noted above, once you build the highway, the development style will serve the highway, in a style that makes transit non-economical and impractical.

3) Transit modal share is abysmal throughout North America.

Canadian cities do better than their U.S. counterparts; but most still manage no better than 20% modal share for transit.

If you want to curtail the negatives associated with sprawl, including the sprawl itself; you need a modal share closer to 50%.

That requires vast levels of investment in transit in both the inner and outer burbs; which isn't yet funded.

We're not talking about a few billion dollars here, but tens of billions conservatively.

As an example, Vaughan continues to have a low modal share for transit notwithstanding that it got a subway extension right to its heart.

That's because most of Vaughan was developed in a car-friendly way, specifically due to the 407 being built, along with the grade-separated portions of Highway 7.

That shows what happens when a highway precedes transit.

It also shows how expensive a mess it is to un-do once its done.

It will take at least 2 decades of redevelopment to begin to make a dent in the mess that is Vaughan.

It will also require the 407 Transitway, it will also require vast upgrades to GO (that at least is underway, but not fully funded); it will require the Yonge Line northern extension; and it will require vast upgrades to York Region transit for a start.

****

Where is that money coming from?

A cancelled 413 would be a good place to start.

 

[Scotian]

1) North-South connections to central Brampton, to take the GO. East-West connections, to connect it to other suburbs. They can't do both, because people will not use transit with roads. These people then clog up the roads. Of course, the reserved space is just going to be used for new lanes. A better question is "Why are we building new subdivisions 40-50 kilometers from downtown?" I know not everybody works downtown. We can still densify, especially in the Yellowbelt and parts of Mississauga, Pickering, Ajax, etc.

If you spend too much money building a freeway when a 4-lane controlled access arterial is sufficient, then you don't have the money to build transit.

People have complained loud enough to stop or slow projects. Ontario Line, Hurontario LRT in central Brampton, are both examples.

2) If you're building a new bypass-to-a-bypass-to-a-bypass, you're also creating more problems. If you build a line on the cheapest routing, to save money, while also building new freeways in straight lines, it's not catching up, it's pretending to catch up while also serving more sprawl. Toronto is quite awful for sprawl. Measuring on a map, the GTHA is about 3000 km2. Even Phoenix is only 3000 km2. Las Vegas is only 1500 km2. Not a model we want to emulate. Even excluding areas that did not depend on Toronto for development like Hamilton and Pickering, gives a figure of 1800 km2 excluding Bolton, Milton, and Stouffville.

1) "They can't do both, because people will not use transit with roads"

I rode the Lakeshore West line for 10 years. Yes they absolutely will lol what is this?

Re: the money, if they're tolling this road to recoup building costs i'm not sure how it's going to affect transit. The 407 extension didn't stop Eglinton Crosstown. I'm not buying that.

Re: Complaining about slowing projects, both of those examples are local opposition that stopped them. I guess yell at those residents & politicians? They were bad cancellations and I don't agree with them.

And for the record, the local opposition to this highway is not going to get any quieter when you suddenly tell them instead of the highway we're going to put a few train lines there instead.

2) This is all true but I'm not sure what there is to do about it. This area isn't not going to get developed because there's no highway, and much of the development will come in single family detached homes. Niagara is going to continue to sprawl. The areas outside Hamilton and K-W. London. People want to live in the region and they need places to go and fewer of them want the condo life. What else are we supposed to do here?

 

[DirectionNorth]

1) "They can't do both, because people will not use transit with roads"

I rode the Lakeshore West line for 10 years. Yes they absolutely will lol what is this?

Re: the money, if they're tolling this road to recoup building costs i'm not sure how it's going to affect transit. The 407 extension didn't stop Eglinton Crosstown. I'm not buying that.

Re: Complaining about slowing projects, both of those examples are local opposition that stopped them. I guess yell at those residents & politicians? They were bad cancellations and I don't agree with them.

And for the record, the local opposition to this highway is not going to get any quieter when you suddenly tell them instead of the highway we're going to put a few train lines there instead.

2) This is all true but I'm not sure what there is to do about it. This area isn't not going to get developed because there's no highway, and much of the development will come in single family detached homes. Niagara is going to continue to sprawl. The areas outside Hamilton and K-W. London. People want to live in the region and they need places to go and fewer of them want the condo life. What else are we supposed to do here?

You rode transit because it was: faster, or more convenient than using your car. During off-peak hours, I doubt that is the case. We need to make it the case, to increase transit usage. I doubt many people would have cars if transit was as fast as cars, because having one is expensive.

Cancellations: They were cancelled. I don't care whether you yell at them or not, they were cancelled.

My main fear with this highway is that it will also be sold off/tolled like the 407, making another "Cadillac" highway that most people don't use.

As for local opposition, how about we don't build more sprawl that requires immense transport resources? Problem solved.

2) Unfortunately, there is a societal cost to all of us living in detached houses. You can't always have what you want. People live in the housing type that they perceive to be cheapest, closest to their activities, and the most suited to their lifestyle. Let's look at why a "condo lifestyle" is undesirable.

a) The size of units is too small. This one is totally valid. There's a simple solution. Have developers build bigger units, by regulation. Or have the government build it.
b) Condo fees. This one is also valid. Unfortunately, there's not a good way around it. On the other hand, people in houses also have to pay for maintenance.
c) Association rules. Some of them are stupid. Some of them are not. A valid point, but in a condo, you have to have some rules to keep people from destroying the building.
d) Limited outdoor space. Not as concerning, and here's why. How many people with huge yards, actually use most of it? Or view mowing the lawn as fun, rather than a necessary chore? Probably very few.
e) Privacy. This one is valid, but again. There's not much around it, other than soundproofing walls. I believe only some condos are soundproofed. All of them should be.
f) Cultural perceptions that condos are for "poor" people, or something like that. This one is stupid. With the above factors (partially) fixed, this can change.

Again, we can stop sprawl with the right combination of policy. I can't really see a reason for building a full freeway when a smaller road would be sufficient.

 

[Scotian]

You rode transit because it was: faster, or more convenient than using your car. During off-peak hours, I doubt that is the case. We need to make it the case, to increase transit usage. I doubt many people would have cars if transit was as fast as cars, because having one is expensive.

Cancellations: They were cancelled. I don't care whether you yell at them or not, they were cancelled.

My main fear with this highway is that it will also be sold off/tolled like the 407, making another "Cadillac" highway that most people don't use.

As for local opposition, how about we don't build more sprawl that requires immense transport resources? Problem solved.

2) Unfortunately, there is a societal cost to all of us living in detached houses. You can't always have what you want. People live in the housing type that they perceive to be cheapest, closest to their activities, and the most suited to their lifestyle. Let's look at why a "condo lifestyle" is undesirable.

a) The size of units is too small. This one is totally valid. There's a simple solution. Have developers build bigger units, by regulation. Or have the government build it.
b) Condo fees. This one is also valid. Unfortunately, there's not a good way around it. On the other hand, people in houses also have to pay for maintenance.
c) Association rules. Some of them are stupid. Some of them are not. A valid point, but in a condo, you have to have some rules to keep people from destroying the building.
d) Limited outdoor space. Not as concerning, and here's why. How many people with huge yards, actually use most of it? Or view mowing the lawn as fun, rather than a necessary chore? Probably very few.
e) Privacy. This one is valid, but again. There's not much around it, other than soundproofing walls. I believe only some condos are soundproofed. All of them should be.
f) Cultural perceptions that condos are for "poor" people, or something like that. This one is stupid. With the above factors (partially) fixed, this can change.

Again, we can stop sprawl with the right combination of policy. I can't really see a reason for building a full freeway when a smaller road would be sufficient.

During off peak hours I would prefer to drive my car. I still take transit sometimes but I have the option as do countless others and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. If the idea of this thread is to vilify drivers in general then this is a different conversation.

I would want legislation preventing privatization but I think the PC's know that they were basically held out of office for 15 years for large part because they sold the 407 and people didn't forget that. I think they'd likely sell management of the road to the lowest bidder but hold control of tolling at worst. They can't be that stupid.

I'll leave the development part because I'm not really for one side or the other but I think the fact people want detached homes at the moment is pretty obvious.