[Northern Light]

."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.

It is entirely possible to build truck-only highways where conventional cars are prohibited by law.

It is equally possible to, say, convert the 401 express lanes to same.

If all we need highways for is the movement of goods, we can make far more efficient use of what we already have; and discuss new when we exhaust same.

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.

Right.....but my first thought is that you could choose to live in Brampton. You made a choice to live in a community different from the one in which you work. I appreciate that many households make that choice, for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are very much defensible.

Nonetheless, its not really a good strategy for most people, in the region as a whole.

****

As to transit options, there could be many, but both corridor space and money that could be used to further that have ended up with highways instead.

The 403 to 410 corridor could support transit along its entire length (it does, in part, now via the Mississauga Transitway).

The Milton GO corridor can, and should, have a branch connecting to the Kitchener corridor and Brampton. (using the 407 ROW).

That same corridor could extend into York Region and connect to Line 1, the Barrie Corridor, Line 1 (Yonge), the R-H Corridor, and Stouffville Corridor.

There are an abundance of good choices, But if we spend several billion on 413; the Bradford Bypass, etc etc.; we're going to end up short of money for these far more worthy projects.

 

[afransen]

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.

I don't think that is government policy. It was just an idea floated in an oped.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

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

AoD

I thought that was an odd claim since development is not within the federal government's purview.

That it came from the fraser institute raised my doubts even more.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think that is government policy. It was just an idea floated in an oped.

An op-ed by a conservative think tank. Where did the federal govt announce theyd like to raise our national populationto 100 million

 

[afransen]

Well, it was articulated in a book called 'Maximum Canada' by Doug Sanders. I don't think he is especially conservative. Conservatives tend to be suspicious of high levels of immigration.

Maximum Canada by Doug Saunders: 9780735273108 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

To face the future, Canada needs more Canadians. But why and how many? Canada’s population has always grown slowly, when it has grown at all. That wasn’t by accident. For centuries...

www.penguinrandomhouse.com

Doug Saunders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ARG1]

Right.....but my first thought is that you could choose to live in Brampton. You made a choice to live in a community different from the one in which you work. I appreciate that many households make that choice, for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are very much defensible.

Nonetheless, its not really a good strategy for most people, in the region as a whole.

There are many reasons why someone would live far from where they work. I know someone who had to commute from Western Mississauga to Markham every day because she was Indian, and all of her close friends and relatives lived in Mississauga, meanwhile Markham is the primary hardware tech hub in the gtha, so she had no choice but to make such a commute. Unfortunately there's a lot of commuters that make dispersed routes like these on a daily basis and serving all of them with transit is nigh impossible, and while there are some plans like the 407 and 427 Transitways that could help out with these, they are a long time away.

An op-ed by a conservative think tank. Where did the federal govt announce theyd like to raise our national populationto 100 million

Its an idea floated around by many publications, Fraser was just responding to it.

 

[Northern Light]

Well, it was articulated in a book called 'Maximum Canada' by Doug Sanders. I don't think he is especially conservative. Conservatives tend to be suspicious of high levels of immigration.

Maximum Canada by Doug Saunders: 9780735273108 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

To face the future, Canada needs more Canadians. But why and how many? Canada’s population has always grown slowly, when it has grown at all. That wasn’t by accident. For centuries...

www.penguinrandomhouse.com

Doug Saunders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sanders is married to Globe columnist Elizabeth Renzetti........being a hard right winger in that house would be ........uncomfortable, LOL

 

[Northern Light]

The idea of the '100M' has been around quite awhile.

It does have strong backing among establishment-type Conservatives and Liberals.

The Century Initiative is its leading champion.

Century Initiative

The Century Initiative is focused on responsibly and thoughtfully growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100.

www.centuryinitiative.ca

There's some serious stroke there...............including former TD economist Craig Alexander and well known Conservative Goldy Hyder.

Former PM Brian Mulroney also backs this initiative.

*******

To step back, I agree that population growth is a choice.

I think, overall, Canada has room; and for that matter so does the GTA.

That said, we shouldn't grow for the sake of growth.

We should also carefully identify what we need to make that growth sustainable, ecologically, economically, from the point of view of housing and transport amongst many other areas.

I think its a fair critique to say we haven't kept pace with the investments required to sustain growth of this type.

Its also fair to point out that a proper calculation of the value of growth (economically speaking) is one that looks not at gross GDP, but at Real GDP, per capita, growth; and factors that growth against the investments
required to sustain it.

I think there is a case for population growth in Canada, but it isn't particularly well articulated, nor is the supporting investment being made in a sufficiently timely way.

No reason that couldn't be fixed though.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Right.....but my first thought is that you could choose to live in Brampton. You made a choice to live in a community different from the one in which you work. I appreciate that many households make that choice, for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are very much defensible.

Nonetheless, its not really a good strategy for most people, in the region as a whole.

Moving's not easy, especially in this sort of housing climate. But commuting by car and transit over the, say, Markham - Brampton corridor is a pain. Since I don't see new highways helping much on most (all?) corridors, so the solution is to improve transit.

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.

Of course, if we had transit, then those single occupancy cars wouldn't be using the highway, and the truckers would have a clear road.

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.

There will always be people using the highways, but the goal is to get more off of it. Which cannot be done if we're building car-oriented sprawl.

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

Others have addressed the fact that that's not the plan.

Cities with larger people need to have better mass transit, or they choke on their traffic. Just ask Los Angeles. As Toronto becomes a big city, we have to accept that some traffic is a way of life, and find a way to start moving people in transit, to minimize them.

 

[afransen]

I don't think anyone really doubts Canada will hit 100M population, it's really just a matter of when.

We really need to get better at growth before I will unreservedly support that goal (or bringing it forward).

 

[anb]

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 completely agree, as I half suggested more towards relief on the other highway thread. As much as it sounds ridiculous, I think we need to future proof both our highway system and the transit and this isn't what people are getting, which is the rapid growth of Ontario as a whole. Another accident on the 401 in Milton shut down the entire westbound beyond Guelph Line and it left motorists and trucks stranded for 2-3 hours because of the huge gap between that exit and regional road 25. Imagine if there was a highway north of the 401 that helped relief the Kitchener-Peel Region traffic that trucks could just detour to and be on their way. We also need better express train service, a "hyperlink" let's say, to most of the outer region as possible. As well as proper direct bus connections between these train lines from areas such as Kitchener, Barrie, Niagara and Oshawa to prove to people that taking transit could be the most effective method into getting people around the Horseshoe, which would cause less traditional commuter motorists to be on the road. It needs to work both ways with the highway and the transit.

 

[Allandale25]

Latest on the Draft Heritage Heights Secondary Plan and the City of Brampton's idea for a boulevard instead of a 400-series highway.

Presentation deck in here for a Brampton Council workshop: https://pub-brampton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=27739

 

[afransen]

Latest on the Draft Heritage Heights Secondary Plan and the City of Brampton's idea for a boulevard instead of a 400-series highway.

Presentation deck in here for a Brampton Council workshop: https://pub-brampton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=27739

The boulevard idea is complete looney toons. Why even build that monstrosity? Would it have high speed limits? It will never be pleasantly urban due to the sheer deafening noise. Will it have signalized intersections? Why on earth would anyone use this road as a through route? Is it not meant to be a through route? No? Then why build it so absurdly wide?!

I can't believe professionals came up with this idea.

 

[kamira51]

The boulevard idea is complete looney toons. Why even build that monstrosity? Would it have high speed limits? It will never be pleasantly urban due to the sheer deafening noise. Will it have signalized intersections? Why on earth would anyone use this road as a through route? Is it not meant to be a through route? No? Then why build it so absurdly wide?!

I can't believe professionals came up with this idea.

Honestly the biggest issue with Brampton is the amount of stop lights, my hope from this highway was to allow me to bypass Brampton entirely, thus saving me 30-45 minutes having to go through Brampton.

But if this "boulevard" proposal is just another typical Brampton road then what's the point of this?

 

[Rainforest]

The boulevard idea is complete looney toons. Why even build that monstrosity? Would it have high speed limits? It will never be pleasantly urban due to the sheer deafening noise. Will it have signalized intersections? Why on earth would anyone use this road as a through route? Is it not meant to be a through route? No? Then why build it so absurdly wide?!

I can't believe professionals came up with this idea.

Indeed. Sounds like a please-everyone option, that might in effect be worse than either of the two consistent options.