News   May 07, 2021
 97     0 
News   May 07, 2021
 243     0 
News   May 07, 2021
 887     2 

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

mjl08

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Toronto
Have there been any opinion polls of local support for the 413, particularly in York and Peel? I've been pleasantly surprised by the opposition from a lot of city and region councils, including communities where the car is 90%+ of commuting choice.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
18,587
Location
Toronto/EY
30 Seconds of Time Savings - Where is this measured from, is it from start to end on the new highway? If I were to travel from Halton Hills to Caledon or Bolton my assumption by looking at the route versus what I drive now is that there would be more than 30 seconds of time savings, but I guess that leaves the question of how much time savings would that route provide. If its sub 5 minutes then I would probably agree that it is not worth it.

I would have to go back and read the underlying report; but my impression was that that is the 'average' savings per commuter. I could stand to be corrected.

That would mean it would be weighted based on how many trips of different distances are likely to be made; with some obviously producing greater savings; and some, seemingly providing less than 30 seconds.

I don't have time to look back at the report just this moment, but will try to do so later, assuming its online.

Contribution to Sprawl - Are people referring to sprawl as just more car dependent development or are they opposed to development occurring on the lands surrounding to highway. Its my understanding that a lot of the lands near the highway are whitebelt and therefore the only pieces of farmland left that we have determined are where growth is to be directed. I don't want to see the area around me turn into endless cookie cutter housing and indistinguishable plazas, but I'm also aware of just how many people immigrate to the GTA each year. Is it realistic to build transit oriented communities in these edge lands when the areas interfacing with them were built focused on the car for the last 60+ years? It would be great to see the last of our developable land built efficently so you don't need a car, but how will people crossover/interact with the surrounding car friendly areas.

I think that if the 407 was open for trucks a lot of the need/desire for this highway would go away.

I would personally oppose most development here, including on the white belt lands, which can, of course, be downzoned.

There is ample room for another 4,000,000 people in the GGH without touching the whitebelt.

At some point, some additional greenfield will likely be needed for development, assuming our growth as a region continues unabated.

But I would like to see that limited by protecting the best lands for Agriculture first; and most important lands for nature and ground-water recharge.

Then, and only then, do we look what portion of those lands that remain being best suited to development.

*****

Lest anyone suggest the land can't be downzoned or that it would be costly, precedent and the law suggest otherwise to me.

Developers and farmers don't write a cheque to the province when their land is upzoned; so the province does not have to write them one when they downzone.
 
Last edited:

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
10,771
So what's an average commuter? Someone going from the 401 and 407 to the 400 at King Road? just users of the highway, or all users including those on area highways that benefit from redirected traffic? Etc.

I'm dubious of the 30 second claim and I've never really seen the source and explanation for the rationale.

The 2012 study that selected the corridor as the preferred alternative projected a reduction of peak hour vehicle-delay (congestion) of about 10% across the entire study area (20,372 hours of delay versus 22,551) versus not constructing the highway and only widening the freeway network. Similarly, it improved the % of the freeway network operating above LOS D from 66% to 72%.

Chapter-4.pdf (gta-west.com)
(page 61 of the PDF, alternative 3-1 is widening only, alternative 4-2 is the GTA west corridor that was selected).

Across all 776,800 auto commuters in the study area, this results in a mere 10 seconds of time saved per commuter. However, the total average congestion without the highway per commuter in the study area is only 1:45, as many commuters experience little to no congestion driving to local employment. The highway would have much greater time savings for longer distance commuters.

Interestingly, it mostly comes from removing traffic from local roads and shifting it to the freeway network, reducing congestion.

This is notably only time savings from congestion only as well. As I said, most of the congestion reductions will be on the local road network, which will be because people shift trips onto the faster freeway. There will be additional time savings from having a new, faster route as well, which will occur at all times of day regardless of congestion.

What this basically means is that without the corridor the new development in Caledon and Brampton would see severe local road network congestion as people drive all the way through Brampton and Vaughan in order to access the freeway network, and they will be the biggest benefactors of the highway, but it will also reduce congestion on the existing freeway network and provide more alternate routes, which will help existing commuters.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
18,587
Location
Toronto/EY
What this basically means is that without the corridor the new development in Caledon and Brampton would see severe local road network congestion as people drive all the way through Brampton and Vaughan in order to access the freeway network, and they will be the biggest benefactors of the highway, but it will also reduce congestion on the existing freeway network and provide more alternate routes, which will help existing commuters.

Which could be resolved by not permitting said development.

Much cheaper!
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
10,771
Which could be resolved by not permitting said development.

Much cheaper!
Where do the people go then? That's about 400,000-500,000 people in that area.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect 100% intensification in the GTA. The market isn't there for it and it doesn't have desirable quality of life outcomes.

lets be real here as well - if the highway does get cancelled, that sprawl won't. It'll just keep happening and be terribly congested.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
18,587
Location
Toronto/EY
Where do the people go then? That's about 400,000-500,000 people in that area.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect 100% intensification in the GTA. The market isn't there for it and it doesn't have desirable quality of life outcomes.

I'm not sure why you feel that way.

There's ample room when looking at the both the inner and outer burbs to intensify.

The density in parts of Toronto is high, but in many parts is quite low.

I'm not sure why quality of life can be obtained through said intensification either.

One can built mid-rise or hirise with larger suite sizes.

One can also take current one-storey big box plazas or the like, and do a mid-rise or hirise edge; but then build a reasonably dense interior of townhomes, duplexes or ever some SFH.

If the proposition works in Toronto, to take a 40ft lot with one home, and divide into two homes on 20ft lots (and it does); there I can't see a reason we can't go into ranch-home 70s suburbia and replace 60ft lot homes with 30ft for those who really want and prepared to pay for a back yard.


lets be real here as well - if the highway does get cancelled, that sprawl won't. It'll just keep happening and be terribly congested.

That's rather defeatist.

I fundamentally disagree that it has to be that way.

We cannot only add everything that isn't white belt to the Greenbelt; we can also downzone a good chunk of the white belt into Greenbelt.

And

We should.
 
Last edited:

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
533
Reaction score
189
Where do the people go then? That's about 400,000-500,000 people in that area.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect 100% intensification in the GTA. The market isn't there for it and it doesn't have desirable quality of life outcomes.

lets be real here as well - if the highway does get cancelled, that sprawl won't. It'll just keep happening and be terribly congested.
agreed
I'm not sure why you feel that way.

There's ample room when looking at the both the inner and outer burbs to intensify.

The density in parts of Toronto is high, but in many parts is quite low.

I'm not why quality of life can be obtained through said intensification either.

One can built mid-rise or hirise with larger suite sizes.

One can also take current one-storey big box plazas or the like, and do a mid-rise or hirise edge; but then build a reasonably dense interior of townhomes, duplexes or ever some SFH.

If the proposition works in Toronto, to take a 40ft lot with one home, and divide into two homes on 20ft lots (and it does); there I can't see a reason we can't go into ranch-home 70s suburbia and replace 60ft lot homes with 30ft for those who really want and prepared to pay for a back yard.




That's rather defeatist.

I fundamentally disagree that it has to be that way.

We cannot only add everything that isn't white belt to the Greenbelt; we can also downzone a good chunk of the white belt into Greenbelt.

And

We should.
you are being too idealist though.
yes, sure, toronto COULD intensify further.
but given the suburban growth we've seen, many people newly settling in the GTA WANT houses. That's the lifestyle they desire. You can't simply say hey, please buy a condo so that Toronto can intensify. Humans are inherently selfish. If they don't want it, they don't want it.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
18,587
Location
Toronto/EY
agreed

you are being too idealist though.
yes, sure, toronto COULD intensify further.
but given the suburban growth we've seen, many people newly settling in the GTA WANT houses. That's the lifestyle they desire. You can't simply say hey, please buy a condo so that Toronto can intensify. Humans are inherently selfish. If they don't want it, they don't want it.

If you don't provide it, as a matter of law, they will have to deal.
 

allengeorge

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
624
Reaction score
1,330
but given the suburban growth we've seen, many people newly settling in the GTA WANT houses.
People want space and more space per dollar. Which is why we’re starting to see outflows past Peel now, and into KW etc.

It’s a pricing and unit size problem, and we’re boxing ourselves into this situation by preventing upzoning, lot splitting, multi-units etc. We absolutely can fit way, way more into the current developed land without everyone living in tiny apartments:
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,871
Reaction score
930
Pretty stunning stuff from Vaughan, particularly following Misissauga and Caledon. Noor Javed's subsequent tweets eplained it was a 5-4 split with the local, ward councillors voting against and the regional councillors + mayor voting for the highway (and she corrected her EXPECTED to UNEXPECTED).

When you've lost Vaughan council, you're really fighting uphill. There might be enough backroom support to get this thing through but it's clearly wildly unpopular with ordinary joes/voters.

One thing we've learned through this whole Ford era is that if there's one issue that pretty much everyone in Ontario seems to agree with it's that we shouldn't be building stuff in the Greenbelt.
 
Last edited:

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
3,064
Pretty stunning stuff from Vaughan, particularly following Misissauga and Caledon. Noor Javed's subsequent tweets eplained it was a 5-4 split with the local, ward councillors voting against and the regional councillors + mayor voting for the highway (and she corrected her EXPECTEd to UNEXPECTED).

When you've lost Vaughan council, you're really fighting uphill. There might be enough backroom support to get this thing through but it's clearly wildly unpopular with ordinary joes/voters.

One thing we've learned through this whole Ford era is that if there's one issue that prety much everyone in Ontario seems to agree with it's that we shouldn't be building stuff in the Greenbelt.
This is almost as much of a watershed as killing Spadina Expressway.
 

Top