kamira51
Active Member
Where's the proof?
|
|
|
Steve X
Senior Member
We do need more roads to move around the GTA but they also have to make it more expensive to own vehicles and to drive around. Congestion fees and higher licensing prices for the GTA is necessary to reduce car reliance. Then of course they have to take the money to invest in transit.
I do support the 413 but making it non-toll is wrong. They'll be expanding it to 6 lanes in each direction to keep up.
toaster29
Active Member
This hasn't really happened here to the extent that one would assume, though. Toronto drivers have the longest commute times in North America, hours in their cars every day. if this hasn't convinced them to jump ship and change,I'm not so sure anything would make them 'adapt'. I think we should want people to be happy. Quality of life is important, and spending hours in a car commuting doesn't make happy people. I do also think that this anti-highway, or "don't build any more homes or 'sprawl'" has a tinge of anti-immigration and racism attached to it. If we continue to grow at these huge rates, infrastructure needs to keep up.
kamira51
Active Member
While I agree with what you said, we first need to build that transit first before we put a tax on vehicles, and one that that annoys me the most is ,"just add more buses" it's such a bandade soultion to a bigger problem.
I believe we need to build brand new rail corridors to serve areas that are car dependent,
Caledon East, should have a railway following the same route like the old one did before it(through Mono Road)and build a massive parking lot for all the people to park and take the train down. but that's just my opinion.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
In new districts, we should have rail. Definitely.
More park and rides?
Ward8
Active Member
For one, there is a huge difference between building "more homes" and "more sprawl." Most people here argue vehemently for more homes through the end of single family zoning and a more dense, sustainable, built form. Sprawl is a very specific type of development that many people here are against because it is bad for the environment, mandates car dependancy, and increases the cost of housing overall, by using up the maximum amount of land for the minimum amount of housing supply.
I don't think it can be racist for people to promote good city building (or at least what they view as good city building.) There is a lot of research on the negative aspects of highways in city building, and avoiding the construction of new highways doesn't inhibit the construction of new housing, nor does it have to impact the ability of people to travel around the city. There is plenty of disagreement on the merits of the 413 but I do believe people are arguing in good faith and not out of racial animus. I personally believe that the 413 is an expensive project (both financially and environmentally) that provides a very limited benefit to those who would use it, and a large detriment to the wider region. I believe those funds should be directed to more effective forms of transport (and more effectively using the 407). Most of the gta could easily double, or triple, in population without any greenfield development, and it would only make mass public transit more viable. It's ok if that is a disagreeable opinion, but I don't see the connection to xenophobia.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
We’re committed to fighting climate change and congestion, yet we continue to build sprawling suburbs that we know damn well will disproportionately induce more sprawl and climate change. I don’t think even the most pro-sprawl people could argue against this.
If we were serious about cutting back on GHG emissions, reducing congestion, increasing transit usage and all the other things we aspire to, we would’ve outlawed sprawl years ago. Note that outlawing sprawl doesn’t mean outlawing development, it means outlawing sprawl.
There are many other models of more sustainable suburban development around the world. Look to any of them end emulate it. The only thing stopping us is our collective cultural attachment to this particularly destructive, inefficient and unsustainable mode of suburban development.
If we were serious about cutting back on GHG emissions, reducing congestion, increasing transit usage and all the other things we aspire to, we would’ve outlawed sprawl years ago. Note that outlawing sprawl doesn’t mean outlawing development, it means outlawing sprawl.
There are many other models of more sustainable suburban development around the world. Look to any of them end emulate it. The only thing stopping us is our collective cultural attachment to this particularly destructive, inefficient and unsustainable mode of suburban development.
toaster29
Active Member
Yes, all true. But let's be honest, this is a highway that would mostly serve Brampton, Milton and (to a lesser extent) York region, the most immigrant (read non-white) areas of Ontario. These are areas, for whatever reason, financial (or otherwise) these communities have decided (and will continue to decide) to live and settle in when moving in as immigrants. It's an area of Ontario that is neglected on all fronts, Hospitals, Health Care, Education Universities, and highways are just another part of it. Take a look at the lot sizes of new homes in Brampton or Milton - these are not the old single family dwelling lots sizes that were common 40 years ago. They are as small as lots in the old city of Toronto.
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
Here’s my 2 cents on this.
With already limited housing supply and skyrocketing home prices this is going to fuel the belief that the highway will open up more housing stock. The general public especially newcomers don’t care about the environment. Let’s be honest here. The Canadian dream is to own a house and a car or two. They’re not going to ride public transit once they get a car. Just look at York Region, how many people really take transit once they get a car? Once one can afford a car, that’s it. That is the reality beyond the 416.
Transit isn’t being built fast enough nor is it funded properly to sustain a cultural shift. We aren’t going to be able to build new rail corridors without huge amounts of money and the lengthy time to do environmental assessments; compounding the problem of delivering transit quickly. Rail isn’t being built where it’s needed due to numerous factors but it’s shoe horning a line where it never existed before and after development has occurred. It’s not like Europe or Chicago or the Northeast where rail was built before or in conjunction with development.
We’re sadly past the era of being able to build infrastructure quickly and not be hindered by numerous assessments and opposition.
With already limited housing supply and skyrocketing home prices this is going to fuel the belief that the highway will open up more housing stock. The general public especially newcomers don’t care about the environment. Let’s be honest here. The Canadian dream is to own a house and a car or two. They’re not going to ride public transit once they get a car. Just look at York Region, how many people really take transit once they get a car? Once one can afford a car, that’s it. That is the reality beyond the 416.
Transit isn’t being built fast enough nor is it funded properly to sustain a cultural shift. We aren’t going to be able to build new rail corridors without huge amounts of money and the lengthy time to do environmental assessments; compounding the problem of delivering transit quickly. Rail isn’t being built where it’s needed due to numerous factors but it’s shoe horning a line where it never existed before and after development has occurred. It’s not like Europe or Chicago or the Northeast where rail was built before or in conjunction with development.
We’re sadly past the era of being able to build infrastructure quickly and not be hindered by numerous assessments and opposition.
kamira51
Active Member
Perfectly said.
This one gives me a chuckle, since Doug Ford came to power and passed legislation giving Metrolinx more power, the crown corporation has done more in four years than under the Liberals. It's a fact that all these assessments, public consultations waste so much time, and money.
Ward8
Active Member
In my very rough calculation the km of freeway per capita is pretty similar between Toronto and Brampton. Although I have no way of adjusting for the impossible number of lanes on the 401. All of that is beside the point though. I think most people that are against this highway feel that it would be another form of neglect. After all, why shouldn't Brampton or other municipalities have walkable, affordable, transit friendly neighbourhoods? Why should farmers be pushed out? Why should Brampton face the brunt of the environmental degradation? Lots of people here would disagree with my position, but my position is genuine.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I just did the math on this as well, and surprsingly, you are right. Assuming the 401 through Toronto is mostly 14 lanes across on average, Toronto has about 400 metres of freeway lanes per 1,000 residents, while Brampton has about 460 metres. Notably, over half of Brampton's freeway-km are on the 407 as well which is a toll road.
As a result of the 407, Bramptons' effective freeway-lane-kms per capita once accounting for capacity is actually likely lower than Toronto, surprisingly.
This is likely mostly a geographic quirk of how the freeway system is laid out, and not as indicative as it may initially appear.
I did the math for Mississauga as well for example, and Mississauga has 820 metres of freeway lane km per 1,000 people. If you do Peel Region as a whole, it has 620 metres per 1,000 people.
Considering how much more auto-dependent Peel Region is, these numbers are actually fairly surprising. I think it shows how much more traffic is handled on arterial roads in Peel, particularly in Brampton. Which is partially why the freeway is needed.
If you travel to the Netherlands, you realize that high capacity roads are still provided which separate auto traffic from local streets which better support active transportation. It has a dense freeway network which tries to handle as much of the auto network as possible, which is then supplemented by large arterial roads through towns which are generally limited access with large right of ways and dedicated cycling and pedestrian facilities well separated from the auto traffic. These arterial roads are interspersed with local neighbourhoods areas with dense, local streets with very low speeds and which serve as the residential areas of cities, generally within cycling distance of a rapid transit station.
This is a typical neighbourhood in Almere, for example:
Notice the freeway, with local roads separated from houses, which front onto small local, very low speed streets, all connected by dedicated cycle paths. The Cycle path crossing the freeway connects to a commuter rail station bringing passengers into Amsterdam about 3km to the east.
Not building the 413 isn't going to magically make outer Brampton into a bike-haven full of public transit users. Quite the opposite - it's going to force all car trips onto local arterials which will make them total traffic sewers. Many will have to be 8 lanes wide to accommodate it. It'll actually do the opposite of making the city more transit and active transportation friendly.
The City needs to build the 413, route as much car traffic onto the highway as it can, and build proper, well designed arterial roads and active transportation networks servicing it's new growth areas, connecting to local rapid transit like the planned transitway on the 413 and the various GO corridors that will potentially run through the city. The city has started building relatively decent cycle paths on each arterial reconstruction which is a good start, but they need more connections into neighbourhoods and slower neighbourhood vehicle speeds, as well as better connectivity to freeway networks to pull cars off arterial roads. Areas like those surrounding Mount Pleasant GO are actually surprisingly close to this already.
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Of course, the City of Toronto calculations probably don't include capacity needed from suburban destinations. I think the number of through trips through the CoT is much higher.
But ...
Cancellation is not going to automatically make Brampton transit-friendly. For sure.
Making it easy to drive with the 413 also doesn't make anything walkable or transit-accessible.
You mean divert? If this thing gets built, that's the right path.
Or build the communities without the highway and make them transit-friendly? If you have transit friendly neighborhoods, I don't see the need for a freeway.
Ward8
Active Member
I don't think that quite represents the argument. The non environmental argument (I can't speak for everyone) is that the 413 will compound traffic issues. It will add cars to the arterials rather than take them away, it will induce sprawl, and it is a misallocation of resources that could be spent in a more productive way. It will certainly increase road capacity, but with that comes an eventual increase in travel times. More cars equals longer travel times. It's true for the 401, the katy freeway and most every other highway. I think it would be better to invest money in ways that make car travel less necessary to begin with -- thereby improving traffic for those who still need to drive. It will take years, but I believe the 413 is absolutely a step in the wrong direction.