[Allandale25]

‘Waste of our valuable time’: Peel council shuts down Highway 413 lobby effort

Elected officials had other ideas, striking the item from the agenda and telling the Province their minds on the controversial project had already been made up.

thepointer.com

 

[innsertnamehere]

‘Waste of our valuable time’: Peel council shuts down Highway 413 lobby effort

Elected officials had other ideas, striking the item from the agenda and telling the Province their minds on the controversial project had already been made up.

thepointer.com

Such hypocrisy. Peel pushed for that highway for over a decade and now the breeze has blown the other way and they pretend it's all the provinces fault.

meanwhile all the land use planning the highway was going to support is still going to happen. I hope they don't mind all their residents sitting in over-congested 8 lane arterial roads 20 years from now.

Brampton and Peel generally have overly optimistic and dramatic plans on shifting growth and modal shares over the next couple years that I really think they are going to struggle with. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Allandale25]

meanwhile all the land use planning the highway was going to support is still going to happen. I hope they don't mind all their residents sitting in over-congested 8 lane arterial roads 20 years from now.

All the land use planning? With Brampton's boulevard proposal they are looking at higher densities and more mixed use as part of their OP update with a boulevard as opposed to a highway.

 

[Northern Light]

Such hypocrisy. Peel pushed for that highway for over a decade and now the breeze has blown the other way and they pretend it's all the provinces fault.

There is no hypocrisy, its a different Council; not to mention the project was effectively killed off by the previous provincial government.

Different people than those on today's council, dealing with different political pressures from different constituents once viewed things differently than now.

***

Moreover, what Peel's pols critiqued was that Peel already expressed a negative position on the highway, and they felt the province was lobbying for a different outcome; which is more than likely a fair interpretation.

meanwhile all the land use planning the highway was going to support is still going to happen. I hope they don't mind all their residents sitting in over-congested 8 lane arterial roads 20 years from now.

Its not a given. Many will opppose 8-lane arterials too, as they should.

Brampton and Peel generally have overly optimistic and dramatic plans on shifting growth and modal shares over the next couple years that I really think they are going to struggle with. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Brampton has proven it can generate very high levels of transit share growth.

Lets be clear, notwithstanding they are a leader in quality transit by suburban standards, they are nowhere near providing TTC-like levels of service.

They absolutely have options to generate higher modal shares.

 

[innsertnamehere]

There is no hypocrisy, its a different Council; not to mention the project was effectively killed off by the previous provincial government.

Different people than those on today's council, dealing with different political pressures from different constituents once viewed things differently than now.

***

Moreover, what Peel's pols critiqued was that Peel already expressed a negative position on the highway, and they felt the province was lobbying for a different outcome; which is more than likely a fair interpretation.



Its not a given. Many will opppose 8-lane arterials too, as they should.



Brampton has proven it can generate very high levels of transit share growth.

Lets be clear, notwithstanding they are a leader in quality transit by suburban standards, they are nowhere near providing TTC-like levels of service.

They absolutely have options to generate higher modal shares.

Brampton’s growth rate would require about 30% annual transit ridership growth to offset all new auto trips otherwise generated by new development. Even Brampton’s excellent transit ridership growth, which was slowing even pre-pandemic, was nowhere near enough to offset new population growth.

Brampton grows by about 2.5% a year in population. Presuming an existing 8% transit modal share, you need 33% annual transit growth to offset that. And that is generously assuming that the existing transit modal share is 8% of all trips, not just commutes, including freight movement. Which it’s not.

And it would have to sustain that growth for decades.

 

[ARG1]

Brampton’s growth rate would require about 30% annual transit ridership growth to offset all new auto trips otherwise generated by new development. Even Brampton’s excellent transit ridership growth, which was slowing even pre-pandemic, was nowhere near enough to offset new population growth.

Brampton grows by about 2.5% a year in population. Presuming an existing 8% transit modal share, you need 33% annual transit growth to offset that. And that is generously assuming that the existing transit modal share is 8% of all trips, not just commutes, including freight movement. Which it’s not.

And it would have to sustain that growth for decades.

I don't see why not actually. Brampton is currently facing a massive housing shortage - one of the major reasons why Brampton was such a COVID hotspot is because its the primary location in the 905 for immigrants especially poorer countries to get dumped, which has led to there being many cases of small houses accommodating 24 low income foreign students that don't really have a choice but to take transit, and with the massive increase in headways that Brampton has already done and is planning to add, Brampton has seen an absolutely explosion in transit ridership especially when compared to other agencies in the 905.

 

[Steve X]

Until the time people stop developing transit for the poor, there won't be a huge spike in getting the burbs to transit. Eventually those who started in Brampton gets a footing in Canada, moves to a better location and get themselves a car.

This needs to change. A better development plan, zoning changes and a leading step forward with massive transit improvement is needed to counter people's idea that they need a car.

As for the 413, I totally support it as an economical relief. A major accident shut the 401 express down last week and 400 down this week. All the commercial traffic was stalled for half a day cause they can't get around the city. Toll should apply to none commercial vehicles with emphasis to reduce development around the highway. The GTA is one of the worst place for traffic and it definitely needs relief.

If they really don't want the highway, they should push to stop the GTA or at least Peel from growing. That includes population cause more people consume more food/goods and that needs more trucks to deliver them.

 

[Student99]

If they really don't want the highway, they should push to stop the GTA or at least Peel from growing. That includes population cause more people consume more food/goods and that needs more trucks to deliver them.

Exactly. And there's no signs anyone's stopping the growth... This highway is needed.

 

[Northern Light]

Exactly. And there's no signs anyone's stopping the growth... This highway is needed.

You keep conflating facts and opinions.

The evidence does not support that the highway is needed or a net benefit.

You want the highway (so be it).........that's a preference though.

 

[Student99]

You keep conflating facts and opinions.

The evidence does not support that the highway is needed or a net benefit.

You want the highway (so be it).........that's a preference though.

Your "facts" you're relying on aren't necessarily true. One of the articles linked above mentioned that while there was an earlier study that claimed there would be transit savings of 30 seconds, another claims 30 minutes. Many here keep touting that "30 seconds" isn't much and so this highway is unecessary. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone here believes 30 seconds to be accurate. You're just grasping on and embracing it because it supports your views, even though it is illogical.

A highway has no traffic lights. Regular roadways do. Even one red light can be as long as 30 seconds. Imagine all the red lights that would be bypassed with a highway. Not to mention the higher speed limit of a highway vs a roadway. Logic dictates that the transit time saving would be way longer than 30 seconds.

I don't understand why so many people on here think their perspectives are more important than the people who actually travel through this area. It would be like if I took strong opinions on transit construction in Thunder Bay- I do not travel through there on a daily basis so I am not going to press my opinions there. I trust that the people that travel there know their transit needs better than I do, and I place value on their experiences.

 

[Northern Light]

Your "facts" you're relying on aren't necessarily true. One of the articles linked above mentioned that while there was an earlier study that claimed there would be transit savings of 30 seconds, another claims 30 minutes. Many here keep touting that "30 seconds" isn't much and so this highway is unecessary. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone here believes 30 seconds to be accurate.

You need to grasp what studies are actually saying.
30 seconds was the average savings per commuter.
That will come from looking at those commuting now, who would switch to the new highway, and still go where they were going before.
For many that will mean traveling a greater distance to get to the highway, and then a greater distance from the new the new highway back to their destination.
You have the wrong idea that one is making a comparison between driving 20km on Highway 7 vs 20km on Highway 413.
The typical commuter over that distance already uses the existing highway network (401, or 407 etc.)
The time measure is of their total journey time.
If, for argument's sake, you save 5 minutes on 413 vs a similar distance on 407...........
But it takes you 2'15 extra to get to the new highway, then 2'15 extra to back to your destination, your time savings is 30 seconds.

You're just grasping on and embracing it because it supports your views, even though it is illogical.

No, I'm not.
I actually read the studies, and the citations, and the source material, something you clearly don't do.
Then I form my opinion after getting the facts, instead of before.

A highway has no traffic lights. Regular roadways do. Even one red light can be as long as 30 seconds. Imagine all the red lights that would be bypassed with a highway. Not to mention the higher speed limit of a highway vs a roadway. Logic dictates that the transit time saving would be way longer than 30 seconds.

No it does not, as I explain above.
PS, I've been driving on highways longer than you've been alive............I think I've figured out how they operate.

I don't understand why so many people on here think their perspectives are more important than the people who actually travel through this area.

No one is saying that.
They are saying, as am I, that your opinion/perspective/preference is worth no more and no less than anyone elses.
But facts are more important than opinions.
They ought to form the basis of opinions.

It would be like if I took strong opinions on transit construction in Thunder Bay- I do not travel through there on a daily basis so I am not going to press my opinions there. I trust that the people that travel there know their transit needs better than I do.

These are not remotely comparable.
But for argument's sake........the people of Thunder Bay have decided they would like a GO Train to Toronto as this would help meet their needs.
The bill will be over 20B
You have to pay for it through your taxes.
Are you sure you're willing to defer to their good judgment?

 

[kamira51]

Until the time people stop developing transit for the poor, there won't be a huge spike in getting the burbs to transit. Eventually those who started in Brampton gets a footing in Canada, moves to a better location and get themselves a car.

This needs to change. A better development plan, zoning changes and a leading step forward with massive transit improvement is needed to counter people's idea that they need a car.

As for the 413, I totally support it as an economical relief. A major accident shut the 401 express down last week and 400 down this week. All the commercial traffic was stalled for half a day cause they can't get around the city. Toll should apply to none commercial vehicles with emphasis to reduce development around the highway. The GTA is one of the worst place for traffic and it definitely needs relief.

If they really don't want the highway, they should push to stop the GTA or at least Peel from growing. That includes population cause more people consume more food/goods and that needs more trucks to deliver them.

Absolutely true, but good luck trying to tell these "environmentalists" that what their protesting wont stop the very thing they fear, S P R A W L

its absolutely hysterical

 

[DirectionNorth]

Absolutely true, but good luck trying to tell these "environmentalists" that what their protesting wont stop the very thing they fear, S P R A W L

its absolutely hysterical

View attachment 330670

Which is why we need better land planning, not just "NO DEVELOPMENT." Haha, that won't happen.

Until the time people stop developing transit for the poor, there won't be a huge spike in getting the burbs to transit. Eventually those who started in Brampton gets a footing in Canada, moves to a better location and get themselves a car.

This needs to change. A better development plan, zoning changes and a leading step forward with massive transit improvement is needed to counter people's idea that they need a car.

As for the 413, I totally support it as an economical relief. A major accident shut the 401 express down last week and 400 down this week. All the commercial traffic was stalled for half a day cause they can't get around the city. Toll should apply to none commercial vehicles with emphasis to reduce development around the highway. The GTA is one of the worst place for traffic and it definitely needs relief.

If they really don't want the highway, they should push to stop the GTA or at least Peel from growing. That includes population cause more people consume more food/goods and that needs more trucks to deliver them.

I agree with you, but if we want to keep the roads free for trucks/long distance travellers, the best way to do so is to reduce local traffic, which means better transit. I would agree with tolls, if and only if, the transit system becomes more effective in the 905.

Your "facts" you're relying on aren't necessarily true. One of the articles linked above mentioned that while there was an earlier study that claimed there would be transit savings of 30 seconds, another claims 30 minutes. Many here keep touting that "30 seconds" isn't much and so this highway is unecessary. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone here believes 30 seconds to be accurate. You're just grasping on and embracing it because it supports your views, even though it is illogical.

I haven't had the time to go through the studies, but I think that the time savings from the highway would initially be more than 30 seconds. Once the sprawl it brings comes up, we won't have any time savings at all.

A highway has no traffic lights. Regular roadways do. Even one red light can be as long as 30 seconds. Imagine all the red lights that would be bypassed with a highway. Not to mention the higher speed limit of a highway vs a roadway. Logic dictates that the transit time saving would be way longer than 30 seconds.

After the increased demand, would the savings still be 30 minutes? What about the extra time taken travelling to and from the highway? Nobody goes out of their way to use Mayfield Road right now.

I don't understand why so many people on here think their perspectives are more important than the people who actually travel through this area. It would be like if I took strong opinions on transit construction in Thunder Bay- I do not travel through there on a daily basis so I am not going to press my opinions there. I trust that the people that travel there know their transit needs better than I do, and I place value on their experiences.

OK, but if they asked you to pay billions of dollars for a waterfront freeway, through your provincial tax dollars, would you just fork it over? There are already lots of folks complaining about the cost of northern road construction (I'm not one of them. This is an example).

 

[Bojaxs]

Until the time people stop developing transit for the poor, there won't be a huge spike in getting the burbs to transit. Eventually those who started in Brampton gets a footing in Canada, moves to a better location and get themselves a car.

This needs to change. A better development plan, zoning changes and a leading step forward with massive transit improvement is needed to counter people's idea that they need a car.

As for the 413, I totally support it as an economical relief. A major accident shut the 401 express down last week and 400 down this week. All the commercial traffic was stalled for half a day cause they can't get around the city. Toll should apply to none commercial vehicles with emphasis to reduce development around the highway. The GTA is one of the worst place for traffic and it definitely needs relief.

If they really don't want the highway, they should push to stop the GTA or at least Peel from growing. That includes population cause more people consume more food/goods and that needs more trucks to deliver them.

One of the most balanced and sensible posts I've seen in this thread.

"Transit puritans" always rage against construction of new highways, but what they fail to understand is that the 400 series highways are built with trucks in mind. To help with the flow of goods. The fact that so many single occupancy cars will flood these new highways is just an unfortunate outcome.

The other problem is people who live in one suburb, but work in another. I live in Oakville, and work in Brampton. Show me my rapid, mass transit options. And, no my work can't "re-locate to the downtown", because I work in the railroad/ trucking industry.

Lastly, the Federal government has issued a mandate to grow Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Even with sound investments in mass, rapid transit, we will still need this highway eventually to help facilitate the increase in trucks, buses, and cars that will naturally come with this larger population.

A population of 100 million comes with a price; Are Canadians willing to pay it?: op-ed

A recent series of articles in the Globe & Mail suggested Canada should double its annual intake of immigrants to 500,000 with the goal of raising the country's population to 75 million in 50 years and 100 million by the end of the century. The justification for this policy is almost entirely...

www.fraserinstitute.org

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Lastly, the Federal government has issued a mandate to grow Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Even with sound investments in mass, rapid transit, we will still need this highway eventually to help facilitate the increase in trucks, buses, and cars that will naturally come with this larger population.

A population of 100 million comes with a price; Are Canadians willing to pay it?: op-ed

A recent series of articles in the Globe & Mail suggested Canada should double its annual intake of immigrants to 500,000 with the goal of raising the country's population to 75 million in 50 years and 100 million by the end of the century. The justification for this policy is almost entirely...

www.fraserinstitute.org

As an aside - the Federal government did not issue a mandate to grow Canada's population to 100M.

AoD