News   Mar 05, 2021
 147     0 
News   Mar 04, 2021
 2.7K     7 
News   Mar 04, 2021
 984     0 

Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413—Guelph to 400

picard102

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
1,638
Reaction score
475
Location
Wilson Heights
You know what externalized costs are; and you know they were excluded from the report in question.

You know what roads were not included in the costing associated with the GTA, as this was discussed in the link I previously posted.

I'm not sure what else you would like.

The answer is a simple no.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,997
Reaction score
3,720
If there's no toll-free to get through or around Greater Toronto, the provincial economy may suffer.

Very much debatable. And any supposed damage to the provincial economy has to be weighed against the cost of an expanded freeway network and all the negative externalities associated with that.

People making these trips may use city streets, adding to congestion and costing the economy, or not take the trip at all and thus costing the economy.

If someone wants to try and get to Ottawa from London using city streets, just to avoid a $10 toll, they are welcome to try.
 

chinesehorse

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
54
Reaction score
94
So this is what Brampton wants instead of the GTA West Corridor. A 104.25 metre right of way lol.

1611702562623.png
 

anb

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
168
Reaction score
135
The 400 is apparently the 404 now according to Brampton lol.


The boulevard concept isn’t bad, but i’m pretty sure people prefer a highway much more in the GTA. I think another highway in Brampton is needed since Mississauga has 3 of them (not including 407), while Brampton only has 1 (also not including 407), thus traffic flow for the former being a lot more better.
 
Last edited:

TorPronto

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
222
Reaction score
200

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
2,087
Has Brampton gone completely nuts?

Edit: I mean, if you take the 6 car lanes and 2 truck lanes out of this picture and put them in a separate ROW that is a limited access freeway, it's not a bad idea. Unless they want pedestrians to cross a crypto highway and truck road to catch the bus. I mean, WTF are they thinking?
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
616
Reaction score
1,594
Location
North Toronto
So we have a 3 lane per direction road with truck lanes, and a BRT running in the middle of it. This is exactly like the 413, except with even more lanes than proposed for the 413 (I'm not expecting the 413 to have more than 2 or 3 lanes, and also the 413 has that transitway that's being planned for it, which since its fully grade separated, would be faster than whatever this BRT is. How this is better than a highway is beyond me.

Also: I find it funny that they have a render with barely any cars on it, and they compare it with rush hour traffic on an unrealistically large highways. If this was built, I wouldn't expect rush hour traffic to look any nicer than what they're "against", in fact with at grade car and pedestrian crossings, this would be even more unsafe and unappealing for pedestrians.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
2,087
I mean, I read through their report. I understand what they are getting at, but they are diagnosing the wrong thing as the problem.

  • Built form and density of the land that gets developed is independent of where through traffic is routed
  • Communities should not be centred on highways, as they suggest. They should be centred on transit.
  • You need truck routes to support jobs and services. It is madness to try and make an 'urban complete street' that has the function of also being a truck route. Imagine the noise. Imagine the danger for pedestrians to cross.

So the answer is:
  1. Build a highway. At least, reserve the ROW for future highway construction. This is a limited access road--no development along it even if for now it has signalized intersections. I'd say you could repurpose Winston Churchill for much of its length here.
  2. Provision ROWs at least, or go ahead and build surface rail ROW as a transit backbone (GO). In this area, we could branch off the Kitchener line running roughly N/S between Brampton and Georgetown, turn SW and pass between Milton and Mississauga. You might even be able to snake alongside the 403 to connect with Lakeshore line)
  3. Build complete 15 minute neighbourhoods as nodes along the the rail ROW. Require high population density (can be achieved with low and mid-rise built form), mix of uses surrounding the transit station. Make the community prioritize local active transportation, make cars slow for local travel (more circuitous).
Here is a quick depiction of what could be done here. 35km of new rail ROW, link Kitchener, Milton and Lakeshore lines, room for 10 new GO stations, each one could support 35k people + jobs or 25k residents, housing for 250k new residents in the GTA. It blows me away that we think ahead for highway ROWs but not for commuter/regional rail. Yellow is the new highway, mostly following Winston Churchill (going around Norwal). Restructure the arterials to go around the edges of each node. At each station, have a square/public space with shopping/dining, with commerial development above (office). A bit further from the station, have residential towers/midrise, and 500m away more lowrise townhouse/semi/detached.


Capture.PNG


The highway should be a highway. Not all development needs to follow arterial streets. They aren't very livable. We're stuck with that for our existing development, but it is not the only way to build greenfield areas.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    1.5 MB · Views: 12

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
2,087
There is a concept/continuum of streets as being prioritized for "space making" or for "flow". The extreme end of "flow" is limited access highways, but arterials are similar. We shouldn't necessarily be seeking to make those "spaces". You can't have a street that is good at flow and at being a good space. This Brampton proposal is trying to achieve the worst of both worlds: slow and poor flow, and not a nice place.
 

anb

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
168
Reaction score
135
Has Brampton gone completely nuts?

Edit: I mean, if you take the 6 car lanes and 2 truck lanes out of this picture and put them in a separate ROW that is a limited access freeway, it's not a bad idea. Unless they want pedestrians to cross a crypto highway and truck road to catch the bus. I mean, WTF are they thinking?
This is the same city with little to no bike infrastructure, too many accidents, thinking zum is a “BRT” and not actually making a proper one on their 3 big east-west corridors (Steeles, Queen, Bovaird), and big multi lane roads with some of them not having a sidewalk or curbside.

And you expect them to think properly when it comes to this concept?
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
353
Reaction score
463
Location
Toronto
The 400 is apparently the 404 now according to Brampton lol


The boulevard concept isn’t bad, but i’m pretty sure people prefer a highway much more in the GTA. I think another highway in Brampton is needed since Mississauga has 3 of them (not including 407), while Brampton only has 1 (also not including 407), thus traffic flow for the former being a lot more better
Mississauga has 4 highways through it (not including 407) - QEW, 401, 403 and 410. Also, 427 is right on the edge of the city and I am sure not all traffic on that highway is bound for or coming from Toronto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anb

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
10,442
Reaction score
15,182
Location
Toronto/EY
I oppose 413 for reasons already outlined (sprawl promotion, expense, adverse ecological impact).

I do not see the Brampton proposal as the correct alternative plan.

That space would be hostile to pedestrians, an inefficient use of land and the streetscape/landscape would do well to survive the pollution, and road salt.

Cancel it all.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
2,087
I oppose 413 for reasons already outlined (sprawl promotion, expense, adverse ecological impact).

I do not see the Brampton proposal as the correct alternative plan.

That space would be hostile to pedestrians, an inefficient use of land and the streetscape/landscape would do well to survive the pollution, and road salt.

Cancel it all.
Brampton is going to have close to a million residents. They need highways to service them. I agree we should resist building highways if we don't have our land use planning under control to encourage transit oriented development. But the ROW should be reserved, because we will need it to service Brampton, particularly as it becomes denser.
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
2,891
Reaction score
703
Brampton is going to have close to a million residents. They need highways to service them. I agree we should resist building highways if we don't have our land use planning under control to encourage transit oriented development. But the ROW should be reserved, because we will need it to service Brampton, particularly as it becomes denser.

There's still a ton of low density single family homes in the downtown (Queen/Main) area. Intensify before sprawling further into farmlands.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
10,442
Reaction score
15,182
Location
Toronto/EY
Brampton is going to have close to a million residents. They need highways to service them. I agree we should resist building highways if we don't have our land use planning under control to encourage transit oriented development. But the ROW should be reserved, because we will need it to service Brampton, particularly as it becomes denser.

The argument for the highway is not traffic within Brampton, its traffic bypassing Brampton or going to/from York Region.

I would suggest there is scant evidence that the environmental destruction associated with this highway will pay off w/shorter commute times, preserved by tight land use.

That's not what 407 showed us, or what the very current 427 extension is showing us (trust me, stuff is in the pipeline and it looks like sprawl to me).

I just can't take the "But it can be different this time" argument all that seriously.

****

There are alternate ways to manage growth, including trucks and passenger vehicle demand.
 
Last edited:

Top