[Woodbridge_Heights]

That wasn't an insult, that was a question.

If adequate farmland is an issue, since you and others here are very pro-densification of urban centers, then why not advocate for vertical farming? Or rooftop farming?

I don't know why everyone is also saying that if we build this highway, it is condoning sprawl and automatically bring sprawl. Is it not possible to build this with legislation to prevent extra sprawl around it? We have plenty of highways that go through greenbelt without sprawl around them there.

I've driven all across the US, which has an EXCELLENT system of interconnected highways through the interstates, and many of them do not have sprawl around them. It is sad how our terrible highway system compares.

******
Also FYI Caledon approved a whole lot more residential development and a Go station this week, despite now being opposed to the highway. So, you see, it's very possible we could end up with more sprawl and NOT have a needed highway, and have more congestion on our streets.

1) I'd like to see you go through this site and find any specific instance where a member of this site explicitly expressed an opinion AGAINST urban food initiatives such as community gardens, rooftop gardens, and vertical farming. I'd wager you can't, most people here are pretty progressive on issues like this and would support any initiative that brings food sources close to our dinner tables.

2) Experience both empirically and anecdotally is that developers often win out when wanting to build sprawl type developments near highway corridors and that these developments wind up being the worst kind or auto centric sprawl. Can you show me one recent development near a highway that was built around a "dense walkable centre" with single family homes surrounding it, vs a spaghetti bowl of winding residential streets with a bunch of cul de sacs and a big box power centre located near the highway off ramp?

3) All the things you suggest can be done with a 4 lane semicontrolled access highway, not a 6 lane expressway. But you also seem to think that demand on this highway will outstrip the 4 lane highway in the next 5 decades. It seems like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You promote the idea that anti sprawl legislation can prevent massive sprawl but also that we should build a highway to be capable of handling the massive sprawl that you propose can be prevented with legislation because it's inevitable? Which one is it

 

[sonysnob]

The land for GTA West (I hate the 413 monikor -- it won't be numbered 413) is going to be paved one way or another. The land in question is owned by developers and isn't part of the greenbelt. It's going to be converted to subdvisions either way, it's just a matter of whether we build the infrastructure to support it.

I don't know if any of the members on this forum actually drive the 401 with any regularity or not. But at any given thursday at 11:00, the 401 is full. And much of the traffic that is commercial traffic. Commercial traffic isn't going to hop onto an LRT or BRT or any other transit development. 30 years from now, there is going to be even more commercial traffic on our roads. Where is it going to go unless we build more roads? There isn't enough capacity as is, let alone the needs for the future. To think otherwise is dreaming.

Those who oppose GTA West, while I understand the reasoning, you are voting to cripple Ontario's economy in the future.

 

[afransen]

1) I'd like to see you go through this site and find any specific instance where a member of this site explicitly expressed an opinion AGAINST urban food initiatives such as community gardens, rooftop gardens, and vertical farming. I'd wager you can't, most people here are pretty progressive on issues like this and would support any initiative that brings food sources close to our dinner tables.

These are all toys, not meaningful ways of feeding people.

 

[Northern Light]

These are all toys, not meaningful ways of feeding people.

@Woodbridge_Heights was specifically responding to a previous poster who was advocating that vertical farming and rooftop gardens could replace all the farmland; and that somehow I or other UTers were unaware of these brilliant ideas.

 

[Northern Light]

The land for GTA West (I hate the 413 monikor -- it won't be numbered 413) is going to be paved one way or another. The land in question is owned by developers and isn't part of the greenbelt. It's going to be converted to subdvisions either way, it's just a matter of whether we build the infrastructure to support it.

I don't know if any of the members on this forum actually drive the 401 with any regularity or not. But at any given thursday at 11:00, the 401 is full. And much of the traffic that is commercial traffic. Commercial traffic isn't going to hop onto an LRT or BRT or any other transit development. 30 years from now, there is going to be even more commercial traffic on our roads. Where is it going to go unless we build more roads? There isn't enough capacity as is, let alone the needs for the future. To think otherwise is dreaming.

Those who oppose GTA West, while I understand the reasoning, you are voting to cripple Ontario's economy in the future.

The land will not be paved if we choose not to service it.

The province has contracted the urban boundary before; and it can do so again.

The suggestion that other members here are obtuse is not fair or reasonable.

Thirty years from now, computers will drive cars more often than people; and the rate of personal vehicle ownership will have dropped by more than 1/3.

Lots of things will change in how goods are produced and distributed.

Growth, for its own sake, particularly in the form of sprawl is neither inevitable, nor desirable.

Killing this highway alone won't stop it; but building this highway will facilitate it.

One battle at a time.

 

[sonysnob]

The province isn't going to contract the urban limits. The developers line the pockets of whatever party is in power. They did with the Liberals, and they surely are doing the same with the conservatives. The land is going to be serviced and it is going to be paved, with or without the highway. Much like the Seaton lands are being paved right now in Pickering. 30 years from now, millions more people will live in southern Ontario -- and they won't all live in huge condo towers, and they aren't all going to ride the bus for every trip they make outside their home.

To think otherwise is a pipe dream.

 

[Northern Light]

The province isn't going to contract the urban limits. The developers line the pockets of whatever party is in power. They did with the Liberals, and they surely are doing the same with the conservatives. The land is going to be serviced and it is going to be paved, with or without the highway. Much like the Seaton lands are being paved right now in Pickering. 30 years from now, millions more people will live in southern Ontario -- and they won't all live in huge condo towers, and they aren't all going to ride the bus for every trip they make outside their home.

To think otherwise is a pipe dream.

We very much disagree.

 

[DirectionNorth]

The province isn't going to contract the urban limits. The developers line the pockets of whatever party is in power. They did with the Liberals, and they surely are doing the same with the conservatives. The land is going to be serviced and it is going to be paved, with or without the highway. Much like the Seaton lands are being paved right now in Pickering.

OK, so we can accept that developers are in control of the parties pockets? So we're going accept it and go on our way? Nobody ever got anything done by saying "It's too hard, it can't be done. Let's move on." If we continue building, then we're going to end up with this:

30 years from now, millions more people will live in southern Ontario -- and they won't all live in huge condo towers, and they aren't all going to ride the bus for every trip they make outside their home.

To think otherwise is a pipe dream.

I outlined the issues people have with condo living in this post, and how to address those issues.

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.

The land for GTA West (I hate the 413 monikor -- it won't be numbered 413) is going to be paved one way or another. The land in question is owned by developers and isn't part of the greenbelt. It's going to be converted to subdvisions either way, it's just a matter of whether we build the infrastructure to support it.


Those who oppose GTA West, while I understand the reasoning, you are voting to cripple Ontario's economy in the future.

If we have to build subdivision (we don't, see my post) then we should build them around transit, with transit links to other places.

I don't know if any of the members on this forum actually drive the 401 with any regularity or not. But at any given thursday at 11:00, the 401 is full. And much of the traffic that is commercial traffic. Commercial traffic isn't going to hop onto an LRT or BRT or any other transit development. 30 years from now, there is going to be even more commercial traffic on our roads. Where is it going to go unless we build more roads? There isn't enough capacity as is, let alone the needs for the future. To think otherwise is dreaming.

It can go on new freight rail lines. I laid out alternatives for a full freeway (that let's face it, will get upgraded) 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?

To conclude, this freeway has some advantages (industrial access) but the disadvantages outweigh it. The cost, the damage, and the sprawl incentive make me conclude this freeway should not be built. Instead, we need reduced tolls on the 407, a 4-lane limited access, though not full freeway, road through the area, more transit, and less sprawl. All it takes is vision and determination to get around the power of the 905.

It's not binary. There are many choices, and each one has implications on the region. We need to pick the one that not only gives the best outcomes for congestion now, but also for land use, society, and congestion 50 years into the future.

 

[wopchop]

I don't know if any of the members on this forum actually drive the 401 with any regularity or not. But at any given thursday at 11:00, the 401 is full. And much of the traffic that is commercial traffic. Commercial traffic isn't going to hop onto an LRT or BRT or any other transit development. 30 years from now, there is going to be even more commercial traffic on our roads. Where is it going to go unless we build more roads? There isn't enough capacity as is, let alone the needs for the future. To think otherwise is dreaming.

We already have a perfect bypass to the 401, and it allows any traffic to bypass the 401 and still access 427, 400, 404, and then rejoin the 401 beyond the GTA. It also directly serves a gigantic swath of commercial/industrial land through Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham, and Scarborough.

It is unfortunate that a legislative solution / compromise could not be reached to allow the use of the 407, as its purpose when first proposed was as a bypass of the 401, which it accomplishes perfectly, and it is certainly not at capacity.

 

[ARG1]

We already have a perfect bypass to the 401, and it allows any traffic to bypass the 401 and still access 427, 400, 404, and then rejoin the 401 beyond the GTA. It also directly serves a gigantic swath of commercial/industrial land through Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham, and Scarborough.

It is unfortunate that a legislative solution / compromise could not be reached to allow the use of the 407, as its purpose when first proposed was as a bypass of the 401, which it accomplishes perfectly, and it is certainly not at capacity.

Unfortunately the cost of requiring that highway would be about as much as building the 413 so doing so is fiscally nonsensical.

 

[wopchop]

Unfortunately the cost of requiring that highway would be about as much as building the 413 so doing so is fiscally nonsensical.

OK? But people are saying that we should look at this highway 413 as an investment in our futures - on horizons of 50 - 100 years.

Using that same logic, should we also not look at the 407 as an asset that could and rightly should serve our future for the next 50 - 100 years? Are we supposed to simply ignore that it exists because we don't own it anymore?

I'm not suggesting buying it - perhaps a contract can be negotiated with the consortium? Has utilizing it to a further degree been analyzed by the government? That's a question that should certainly be answered prior to deciding that a brand new 400-series highway is needed. The service area for highway 413 serves an order of magnitude less people than the 407 does - so to me it's asset value to our society is significantly lower.

What people are suggesting is that since commercial traffic doesn't want to pay exorbitant 407ETR tolls, despite the highway directly serving their great need of a 401 bypass, we should subsidize them to the tune of $6 billion dollars + lifetime maintenance/rehab costs of the 413.

 

[afransen]

I have to wonder what logic was used to agree on a 99 year lease. Surely a 40-50 year lease would have netted basically the same amount when Harris sold it on.

 

[ARG1]

OK? But people are saying that we should look at this highway 413 as an investment in our futures - on horizons of 50 - 100 years.

Using that same logic, should we also not look at the 407 as an asset that could and rightly should serve our future for the next 50 - 100 years? Are we supposed to simply ignore that it exists because we don't own it anymore?

I'm not suggesting buying it - perhaps a contract can be negotiated with the consortium? Has utilizing it to a further degree been analyzed by the government? That's a question that should certainly be answered prior to deciding that a brand new 400-series highway is needed. The service area for highway 413 serves an order of magnitude less people than the 407 does - so to me it's asset value to our society is significantly lower.

What people are suggesting is that since commercial traffic doesn't want to pay exorbitant 407ETR tolls, despite the highway directly serving their great need of a 401 bypass, we should subsidize them to the tune of $6 billion dollars + lifetime maintenance/rehab costs of the 413.

Sure but tell me what makes fiscally more sense. Building a brand new highway that will serve more communities and open up new trucking paths and will serve more industrial areas, or spending the same amount of money to purchase an existing highway to make better use of it.

As for negotiating a contract, remember that this is a 99 year lease. The amount of money the government would have to pay in subsidies to have trucks use it would quickly exceed the cost of both a new highway and flat out purchasing the highway long before we reach the end of the lease.

 

[wopchop]

Sure but tell me what makes fiscally more sense. Building a brand new highway that will serve more communities and open up new trucking paths and will serve more industrial areas, or spending the same amount of money to purchase an existing highway to make better use of it.

As for negotiating a contract, remember that this is a 99 year lease. The amount of money the government would have to pay in subsidies to have trucks use it would quickly exceed the cost of both a new highway and flat out purchasing the highway long before we reach the end of the lease.

If the issue really is commercial traffic, and if the government had real balls and vision, they could simply implement tolls for commercial vehicles on the 401. The reason why industry prefers the 401 over the 407 is because of the cost differential. When the cost differential between 401-to-407 is 100%, then it's an easy choice for industry to make. But as that cost differential drops, more and more companies will consider paying the premium cost for the time savings. Has this been studied at all as an alternative?

From what I know, this Highway 413 is proposed to be tolled as well (I think?) so what makes us so sure that industry will choose a toll highway over the free highway, because they have not done that so far. And if they do choose to pay cheaper 413 tolls to avoid the 401, then would they choose to pay cheaper tolls on the 407? Has that been studied? And if commercial tolls on the 401 are untenable, but commercial tolls on the 413 are acceptable, then something really doesn't jive with the arguments.

You are saying that the new highway will open new trucking paths and serve more industrial areas? Is that true? Because the 407 already accomplishes the bypass thing, and essentially services the largest swath of commercial/industrial areas in the region. From what I can see, the proposed route of the 413 services very little existing commercial/industrial land. Except for what might be proposed by developers. Oh right - real estate. Now we are starting to get to some real reasons for this Highway, aren't we?

 

[north-of-anything]

Why don't people use the 407, which already exists and serves as a bypass around the most congested parts of the 401? Because it's a tolled highway that people don't want to spend money on when the 401 is free. Any proposal to make a tolled freeway here is straight up insanity. It will not solve congestion or reduce commute times or divert traffic, even before you factor in induced demand.

If renegotiating the 407 contracts does cost as much as building a new highway, we should be doing that! It would lead to a better and fuller use of existing resources, and it would be good PR for whatever government does that to "save money in the long term for taxpayers and small businesses". If there's a concern about greenfield density, then maybe we should be encouraging missing-middle development in the greenfields, with laneway housing and secondary units.