[Woodbridge_Heights]

Fantastic article- makes many excellent points.
https://www.thestar.com/autos/opinion/2021/03/27/why-objections-to-highway-413-are-misguided.html

An auto journalist in favour of highway construction? Gasp!!!

I'd read the article and write an analysis but since you never got around to responding to my question a few weeks ago I have to assume your not interested in actual debate. So moving on...

Yeah, I don't trust an auto journalist's objectivity on highway proposals

 

[afransen]

While I'm not a fan of the whole "autonomous car" future, and I certainly don't think it will be the future of travel, this is completely wrong. Congestion is often less an issue of theoretical capacity and more an issue of driver error creating ghost traffic jams from obstacle that doesn't exist anymore. A simple example is when a car changes lanes on a congested road, when he does so that usually prompts the driver behind him to stop, and because of disuniform acceleration, that stop creates a chain reaction where every car that passes by that point will slow down which can also reach the all of the cars behind that point, creating a mini traffic jam. If we were to theoretically reach Level 5 automation, the lack of human input would theoretically allow vehicles to run tightly after each other, accelerate uniformly if there is a disruption, and drive in a way that isn't possible by humans without major risk, which will avoid many of the traffic issues we see today, and overall vastly increasing the traffic throughput on roads and highway. The main issue that an automated future has has less to do with what's theoretically possible, and has more to do with feasibility. Any software engineer will tell you that foolproof automation solutions are practically impossible to be 90-95% foolproof, let alone 99-100%, and then you start running into issues such as liability in case of a software failure, and how a driver could take manual control of a vehicle (which if a driver can do that at any point, pretty much kills a lot of the advantages that full automation can bring). Even with stuff like automated trains, there are often cases where control needs to be taken by the central control centre, and this is an environment where all vehicles are on rails with consistent headways which is easy to organize and manage. Doing so with a traffic grid is nigh impossible. As a bonus, Software Engineers are often quite incompetent:
View attachment 307912

I think your pessimism is misplaced.

Yes, this vision of the future is madness, and wrong:

However, autonomous cars can help roads achieve their capacity and avoid the foibles of human drivers (frequent lane changes, following too closely). They are definitely going to work, and the economic imperative is undeniable. Whoever enables autonomous vehicle operation will make trillions. It is foolish to doubt that it is possible.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Re: the cartoon, aircraft are incredible reliant on software for their operation. So, there you go. It was software and training issues that lead to the issues with the 737 Max 8 crashes.

 

[Steve X]

I think your pessimism is misplaced.

Yes, this vision of the future is madness, and wrong:

However, autonomous cars can help roads achieve their capacity and avoid the foibles of human drivers (frequent lane changes, following too closely). They are definitely going to work, and the economic imperative is undeniable. Whoever enables autonomous vehicle operation will make trillions. It is foolish to doubt that it is possible.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Re: the cartoon, aircraft are incredible reliant on software for their operation. So, there you go. It was software and training issues that lead to the issues with the 737 Max 8 crashes.

Making a bunch of automated cars to do what they are suppose to do is easy. Making sure collisions don't happen if one car fails in the middle of the intersection or an object blocks the path is much more difficult. If one of the car gets a flat tire and moves slower than anticipation, there would need to be feedback to signal to the other cars around to slow down.

While I'm not a fan of the whole "autonomous car" future, and I certainly don't think it will be the future of travel, this is completely wrong. Congestion is often less an issue of theoretical capacity and more an issue of driver error creating ghost traffic jams from obstacle that doesn't exist anymore. A simple example is when a car changes lanes on a congested road, when he does so that usually prompts the driver behind him to stop, and because of disuniform acceleration, that stop creates a chain reaction where every car that passes by that point will slow down which can also reach the all of the cars behind that point, creating a mini traffic jam. If we were to theoretically reach Level 5 automation, the lack of human input would theoretically allow vehicles to run tightly after each other, accelerate uniformly if there is a disruption, and drive in a way that isn't possible by humans without major risk, which will avoid many of the traffic issues we see today, and overall vastly increasing the traffic throughput on roads and highway. The main issue that an automated future has has less to do with what's theoretically possible, and has more to do with feasibility. Any software engineer will tell you that foolproof automation solutions are practically impossible to be 90-95% foolproof, let alone 99-100%, and then you start running into issues such as liability in case of a software failure, and how a driver could take manual control of a vehicle (which if a driver can do that at any point, pretty much kills a lot of the advantages that full automation can bring). Even with stuff like automated trains, there are often cases where control needs to be taken by the central control centre, and this is an environment where all vehicles are on rails with consistent headways which is easy to organize and manage. Doing so with a traffic grid is nigh impossible. As a bonus, Software Engineers are often quite incompetent:
View attachment 307912

As for automation itself, I think it can definitely save a lot of lives. Since some people can't drive sober or without being distracted by their phones. They shouldn't get the rights to kill others and be handed a light sentence. It also stops dangerous driving and speeding and would reduce fuel consumption too. Should the rights to driving be taken away is a major debatable question. Just like should people have the freedom to not wear masks or avoid the COVID vaccine? I don't think most people are conformable to be in an automated car with no control but the next generation or two down the road 30-50 years later, acceptance would rise. NASA could get a rover to land on Mars with absolutely no live control. It just takes some really good programming and design to make decisions without the human brain. Of course we all fear the sci-fi extinction where AIs can reprogram themselves to be better and eliminate humans.

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1376159590589603842

 

[Northern Light]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1376159590589603842

Great video.

For those who don't see Twitter previews, such as myself; its a 53 minute video that follows (from overhead) the route of the proposed 413.

I'm adding a link here to the section where the highway would cross the Humber River, and you see the how much forest would be devastated; and how lovely it is now.

 

[kamira51]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1376159590589603842

Great video.

For those who don't see Twitter previews, such as myself; its a 53 minute video that follows (from overhead) the route of the proposed 413.

I'm adding a link here to the section where the highway would cross the Humber River, and you see the how much forest would be devastated; and how lovely it is now.

Nice video but the Caledon portion is nothing special, most of the farms are rundown/abandoned or for sale. I dont know too much about the York region portion as I dont live there.

Nice video none the less.

 

[Northern Light]

Nice video but the Caledon portion is nothing special, most of the farms are rundown/abandoned or for sale. I dont know too much about the York region portion as I dont live there.

Nice video none the less.

Sigh.

Class 1 farmland, even when not in production and/or sold; is globally rare, high-yield agricultural land; well over 1,500 acres of it along with few hundred acres of river valley forest.

It is something special.

 

[Student99]

An auto journalist in favour of highway construction? Gasp!!!

I'd read the article and write an analysis but since you never got around to responding to my question a few weeks ago I have to assume your not interested in actual debate. So moving on...

Yeah, I don't trust an auto journalist's objectivity on highway proposals

Didn't feel like responding due to the approach. Quoting me and then simply numbering off criticisms isn't debate; it's an attack. But I digress.

So what about his background? Why does that make it okay to dismiss him? Whatever career you're in, if you were to speak up and say something about the subject matter you work with, should we dismiss you as biased? Or should we look at you as knowing a thing or two about your field?

Okay, so you don't trust an auto journalist's writing. That's cool. I do. Was just putting it here in case other people might be interested in what he's saying.

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

In Woodbridge_Heights style:

1) Didn't say people on here were against it. Just questioned why they aren't passionately arguing for these initiatives as much as they seem to passionately argue against this highway

2) Cool, well, if you want dense walkable centres, advocate for it? Like, I don't follow. Just cause we're hard pressed to find past examples doesn't mean we can't try to "do it right" in the future.

3) I'm not really a big fan of sprawl. So sure, sprawl legislation would be great. But I'm also not a big fan of huge commute times and sitting in traffic. I experience it on a daily basis. I drive through this area, so this project directly affects me and my travel. We now already have a problem with traffic and commute times in the GTA. It's here. Already. If this project could alleviate that and make travel easier for people, I think that's a good thing. I wasn't talking about 4 lane highway or 6 lane expressway. Sure, build it 4 lanes to start, but save some room in case we need to expand it to 6 lanes.

It's better to be proactive rather than reactive. Sometimes we're forced to be reactive due to inadequate planning in the past. Building FOR the future now, instead of building it only when issues arise is far better and less costly in my opinion. Imagine if the subway relief line were built in advance of community development... we wouldn't be spending tons of money in expropriation; we wouldn't have dangerous crowding at Yonge & Bloor subway station

 

[Northern Light]

Didn't feel like responding due to the approach. Quoting me and then simply numbering off criticisms isn't debate; it's an attack. But I digress.

That is incorrect. That is exactly what debate is; point, counter-point.

So what about his background? Why does that make it okay to dismiss him?

He's a terrible writer, ill-informed on almost every subject, reactionary, and doesn't support his points with cogent evidence.

That makes it ok to dismiss him.

But I'm also not a big fan of huge commute times and sitting in traffic.......... If this project could alleviate that and make travel easier for people, I think that's a good thing. I wasn't talking about 4 lane highway or 6 lane expressway. Sure, build it 4 lanes to start, but save some room in case we need to expand it to 6 lanes.

It would not materially change your commute.

It would not be worth the sacrifice if it did.

 

[Student99]

Sigh.

Class 1 farmland, even when not in production and/or sold; globally rare, high-yield agricultural land; well over 1,500 acres of it along with few hundred acres of river valley forest.

It is something special.

Should we not have built any part of Toronto here then?

 

[Northern Light]

Should we not have built any part of Toronto here then?

There was a global abundance of class 1 farmland when Toronto was established.

There were also less than 1B people globally in 1793 when York was founded.

****

Should we have stopped sprawling sooner? For sure.

We should have known better by the time we started in earnest post WWII.

By 1980 people should have been deeply concerned at the idea of no farmland between Toronto and Markham, or btw Toronto and Ajax.

But the mistake was made.

All we can do is stop making it.

Then, perhaps, we can reverse a small amount of it, when global populations begin to fall later this century.

 

[Student99]

That is incorrect. That is exactly what debate is; point, counter-point.



He's a terrible writer, ill-informed on almost every subject, reactionary, and doesn't support his points with cogent evidence.

That makes it ok to dismiss him.



It would not materially change your commute.

It would not be worth the sacrifice it if it did.

You can have debate without simply numbering off at someone. Transition words are key.


And okay, you keep on dismissing him then.

Your opinions. I drive this, so, you know what, I think I know a little bit more about my own experiences. Spin it whatever way you want, quote whatever study you want, but when I have a route without traffic lights vs a route where I get stopped at red light after red light with only one or two lanes, the route without traffic lights is much faster.

Many of the things you currently enjoy wherever you live were indeed worth the environmental sacrifice though? If this project actually affected your commute then I think you would sing a different tune.

 

[Student99]

Then, perhaps, we can reverse a small amount of it, when global populations begin to fall later this century.

Are you joking here? What makes you think global populations will suddenly fall?

Human populations have increased since, well, since human origins. People like to mate. Yes, birth rates in some countries go up and down, but overall, long term and globally, our populations have risen. Unless the whole world adopts China's one child policy, I think this is doubtful.

 

[Northern Light]

Many of the things you currently enjoy wherever you live were indeed worth the environmental sacrifice though?

You would need to itemize a list and we could discuss it.

Some were, some were not; but in most cases, I didn't have a say.

If this project actually affected your commute then I think you would sing a different tune.

You would be wrong.

I reverse commuted for a long while from East York to N/E Scarborough.

I took advantage of other opportunities and left that job rather than abide the commute.

Which wouldn't have been bad to some (40-45m).

The Scarborough Expressway would have saved me a good 10-15 minutes.

I was opposed, and remain opposed.

The greater good is more important.

 

[Northern Light]

Are you joking here? What makes you think global populations will suddenly fall?

Human populations have increased since, well, since human origins. People like to mate. Yes, birth rates in some countries go up and down, but overall, globally, our populations have risen. Unless the whole world adopts China's one child policy, I think this is doubtful.

Because some of us actually do research.

Wow.

Reproduction rate in most of the world is below 2.1 babies per woman.

That's the rate necessary to maintain population at constant.

Populations are naturally set to shrink as the baby boomers time comes to an end in most of the developed/western world.

Italy is already shrinking.

China is also below replacement.

Japan is too.

The change has to do w/contraception, and women's access to education and working outside the home.

Assuming these things continue to spread into less developed (currently) countries, as all modelling suggests they will.

Global population will begin shrinking by the turn of the 22nd Century, but probably sooner.

The study noted here, forecasts global population peak in 2064 at 9.7B

World Population Expected To Peak In Just 44 Years As Fertility Rates Sink

Globally, fertility rates are decreasing at significant rates, leading to a prediction of peak global population in a little over 4 decades.

www.forbes.com