Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[Northern Light]

induced demand is a deeply flawed concept anyway.

Yes, new infrastructure induces new use. Of course it does. It's no different than the Ontario line inducing 35,000 new daily transit riders than would exist without it.

Those new trips are new, more efficient economic generators however. Those trips have value. It's more "traffic" and not necessarily great for the environment, but it's better than doing nothing. Doing nothing will just strangle the economy. The whole idea behind induced demand is that a new trip is created because it becomes more economical to make that trip. Without the infrastructure, that trip would have been made in a more inefficient matter (say, public transit or on another road), or likely not at all. Creating more economical and effective transportation is literally the entire point of building infrastructure.

The concept is valuable to compare whether a road project could be more effective as a public transport project, but using it to invalidate absolutely any road project is a silly approach to infrastructure planning. It's a denial of the infrastructure requirements of a modern economy.

Induced sprawl and development has tools that can limit it, I'm not concerned about that.

With all due respect; you've shown a long-term indifference to environmental and landuse concerns in this forum. So be it, you're entitled to your preferences, even if I think and the evidence supports that they have very adverse consequences to the environment and the economy in the longer term.

You're quite keen on sprawl and growth at nearly any cost, and life being convenient for you is paramount in your thinking. Again, that's fine, as far as it goes, but I don't see any room for rational debate between us on this point.

For you, another highway, and another 10,000 hectares of sprawl is just the price of growth and prosperity; even if the truth is that it not only over taxes resources, adds considerable pollution, unaffordable long-term maintenance costs, and produces zero net long-term growth on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis.

We don't need to develop another hectare of land in south-central Ontario and we would do well to take-back some of what we've put down.

We can not only accommodate reasonable population growth within already urbanized areas, we can relocate some existing people from sprawl more cost-efficiently than building an environmentally detrimental highway to serve their inefficient lifestyle choices.

The GTA West corridor is better served by new rail connections than by a new highway, it would have a much smaller footprint and move far more people and goods.

 

[Neutrino]

Just toll the GTA West and restrict development around it. Problem solved.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Just toll the GTA West and restrict development around it. Problem solved.

ding ding ding

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I didn't know what emoticon to use, to describe my feelings about:

a) A transportation minister who doesn't know what induced demand is....

b) An M.O.T. management team that didn't think that was something she should know about in her first 4 months on the job

c)An M.O.T./consultant team who haven't bothered to factor in induced demand into their calculations for what would be necessary by way of highway capacity and what its knock-on effects would be on secondary infrastructure.

Shock? Anger? Sadness? All of the above?? Sigh

A friend showed me a new blind person emoji with the comment glad the blind people will be able to identify themselves via emojii. The irony was not lost on us. This feels like that.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

induced demand is a deeply flawed concept anyway.

Yes, new infrastructure induces new use. Of course it does. It's no different than the Ontario line inducing 35,000 new daily transit riders than would exist without it.

Those new trips are new, more efficient economic generators however. Those trips have value. It's more "traffic" and not necessarily great for the environment, but it's better than doing nothing. Doing nothing will just strangle the economy. The whole idea behind induced demand is that a new trip is created because it becomes more economical to make that trip. Without the infrastructure, that trip would have been made in a more inefficient matter (say, public transit or on another road), or likely not at all. Creating more economical and effective transportation is literally the entire point of building infrastructure.

The concept is valuable to compare whether a road project could be more effective as a public transport project, but using it to invalidate absolutely any road project is a silly approach to infrastructure planning. It's a denial of the infrastructure requirements of a modern economy.

Induced sprawl and development has tools that can limit it, I'm not concerned about that.

Debt in and of itself is not bad, but debt that does not have a positive economic return or is poorly managed can ruin a government. One would expect a finance minister to be aware of the pros and cons of debt and how to use it successfully. Just as one would expect a transportation minster to understand the concept of induced demand its benefits and shortfalls, and be able to provide a intelligent response to a question about it when asked.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Debt in and of itself is not bad, but debt that does not have a positive economic return or is poorly managed can ruin a government. One would expect a finance minister to be aware of the pros and cons of debt and how to use it successfully. Just as one would expect a transportation minster to understand the concept of induced demand its benefits and shortfalls, and be able to provide a intelligent response to a question about it when asked.

Absolutely. Problem in planning circles is that too often induced demand is used to immediately invalidate new road infrastructure. Induced demand is not in itself a bad thing, it has to be comparatively weighed with a lot of other considerations, whether that be environment, economy, value for money, etc. Just because a road infrastructure project generates new auto trips does not automatically make it a bad project.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Absolutely. Problem in planning circles is that too often induced demand is used to immediately invalidate new road infrastructure. Induced demand is not in itself a bad thing, it has to be comparatively weighed with a lot of other considerations, whether that be environment, economy, value for money, etc. Just because a road infrastructure project generates new auto trips does not automatically make it a bad project.

I think you've missed the point. The minister had never heard of the concept of induced demand. That's akin to a finance minister having never heard of debt financing. Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant to the fact that a minister has never heard of a concept that is crucial to her successfully performing her job as minister.

 

[JasonParis]

Just toll the GTA West and restrict development around it. Problem solved.

Maybe hard to imagine it happening here, but the London Orbital Motorway (M25) runs through the UK capital region's Green Belt and has shockingly little development. It's just driving through farmer's fields and vast green spaces, with a few exceptions (mostly around Heathrow).

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Hard to imagine that happening here, but the London Orbital Motorway (M25) runs through the capital region's Green Belt and has shockingly little development. It's just driving through farmer's fields and vast green spaces, with a few exceptions.

Governments can set aside any land they like for development (or prevention of development). The problem, as I see it here, is two fold 1) There's an element in the right side of the political spectrum that sees this kind of action as excessive government, and an attack on freedoms and 2) Developers in politicians pockets who influence government decisions. Not saying this doesn't happen in London, England, but I certainly think it does happen here.

**Edited for clarity**

 

[Haljackey]

London, Ontario doesn't have any local highways but is still sprawling in the north- the furthest area away from the 401/402

I don't think GTA West will make much sprawl directly- especially if it is tolled. It will be a bypass for people from London / KW bypassing Greater Toronto to access the 400.

 

[darth_freeman]

So people here are surprised to hear a new highway will induce cars to actually drive on it?

This highway will basically connect Milton to Vaughan, through Brampton. It's not like transit will ever be built along this corridor (with exception of course for 407 bus route which is 50 years away).

It is also expected to divert a lot of the truck traffic that goes 401 <-> 400 then to northern Ontario. And inducing demand for more trucks (i.e. productivity/economy) is a good thing.

 

[Steve X]

If this highway could actually make a great profit, even at 25% of the 407. It would be a great investment. Urban sprawl is needs to be controlled by government policies as long as we don't have Ford suggesting to open up some of the green belt for development again.

 

[ericmacm]

This highway won't cause sprawl if greenbelt protections remain in place (which they will). It's primary purpose will be for bypassing the GTA entirely, not to create new commuters. While it will give Bolton and Georgetown highway access, It's really not in a position to cause growth, other than on the southern side of the highway. The provincial government restricting development on the northern side is all it takes.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If you can't trust the government that has thrice been caught trying to open the Greenbelt to totally protect the Greenbelt after approving a new highway the previous government stopped - because it goes through the Greenbelt and people worried it would create more sprawl - who CAN you trust?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-greenbelt-housing-vaughan-milani-rizmi-developer-1.5263980

Bill Kelly: Doug Ford backtracks on Greenbelt promise - Hamilton | Globalnews.ca

Doug Ford's broken Greenbelt promise is more than just a reversal in policy; it's a dangerous retreat to a time of environmental ignorance, Bill Kelly says.

globalnews.ca

Doug Ford assured developers he plans to open up Greenbelt to housing development

PC leader said he will “open a big chunk” of protected GTHA farmland to build housing if the Progressive Conservatives win the June 7 election.

www.thestar.com

I mean, really, folks.
Obviously, IN THEORY, you could build the highway as a bypass road that simply goes from A to B, carrying truck traffic through lovely woods around which development never takes place. But is there actually someone suggesting this is even remotely possible? The underlying notion here - that there isn't an absolutely fundamental connection between where we build transporation infrastructure and where development it takes place - it really pretty stunning to come across on an urbanist discussion board in 2019. Maybe there's an argument to make for the 413; this ain't it.

 

[Haljackey]

Surely building this is better than doing nothing.

If you build it, they will come. Where are they coming from? The overloaded 401.

Using this bypass coming from London / KW, I could avoid Mississauga & Toronto entirely including the snarls at 403/410, 427 and 400 interchanges to get to Barrie. Those highways will flow slightly better because of people like me now using the new route.
-Yes I could use the 407 now but without a transponder that's one hell of a rip off for a short trip from 401 to 400. (This new route could be tolled, but needs to be a modest price).

This isn't a really urban commuter route... It won't promote sprawl nearly as much, especially with modern urban planning & policies like the Greenbelt.