kamira51
Active Member
I understand what you're saying, but to honestly fix brampton, you need to demolish 60% of the city, and build from scratch.
|
|
|
asher__jo
Active Member
Good thing we don't have to depend on your and Doug Ford's opinions to justify this project, when their are experts and studies to show that this project is not warranted.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Our deficiency isn't in transit expansion (Toronto has the largest transit expansion program in North America), it's in land use planning. Transport planning and land use planning must go hand-in-hand. All the public transit in the world doesn't mean anything if the land use cannot leverage the benefit of that transit.
In The City of Toronto "Yellowbelt" and "Missing Middle" issues highlight quite clearly how simple zoning reform can lead to significantly increased transit usage. No culture shift necessary.
Last edited:
asher__jo
Active Member
Exactly, and many communities have started to be planned that have a mix of uses and densities. Transit is a great solution but an even better one is creating neighbourhoods where we can live, work AND play.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
In a modern society, that's not really feasible or desirable (for equality and job opportunity reasons). Transit (and biking) is the next best thing.
kamira51
Active Member
No need to be snarky, and remember that these so called "experts" never propose any alternatives, new railway corridors for example.
And no, buying back the 407 solves nothing, how about investing in actual solutions.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Where are these studies? all the studies I've seen indicate otherwise.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
That article contains one quote of the opinion of a lone planner, Victor Doyle, who's professional practice focused on the development of the greenbelt and environmental policies, not transportation and growth management policies. It's hardly a consensus opinion among experts and comes from a retired planner who is no longer actively involved in the planning of the GTA.
I also don't see reference to any actual studies.
Ward8
Active Member
Do you mean studies in direct reference to the 413? As in the information released by this government and the previous one? Like the 2018 viability study that deems the 413 unnecessary? Or are you are asking for academic studies on highways in general, then there is literally decades of scholarship on induced demand, and the fundamental law of congestion.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
which study was that? Is it available? I'd genuinely like to read it, I've just never seen it. As far as I knew the Liberals cancelled based primarily on political pressure and not on study.
edit: found it:
Last edited:
asher__jo
Active Member
Thank God there's someone else in this thread that can see past the politics of this
asher__jo
Active Member
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I’ve taken a look at the report justifying cancellation. A couple of key quotes and criticisms:
“The Panel found that the GTAW Recommended Actions would, as Stage 1 of the EA suggested, deliver significant economic-oriented transportation benefits, but that they would not likely deliver benefits related to the provincial policy objective of complete communities.”
So it results in substantial time savings even according to the report.
“The Panel’s modeling results suggested that half of the GTAW Recommended Actions’ travel time savings would be delivered by the expansions and extensions of existing highways. Although those actions were proposed as part of the GTAW Recommended Actions, many of these were already permitted by other EAs or Class EAs at the time of the TDS. Since then, they have been added to MTO’s Capital Plan and in some cases have been completed or are under way. In any case, the Panel concluded that these actions should not have been rolled into the anticipated benefits of the proposed new highway in the GTAW Recommended Actions. Rather, the actions and their anticipated benefits should have been included as part of the base case scenario at the start of the EA.”
While the original EA study identified time savings from the entire network expansion including projects like the 401 widening currently underway, a full ½ of benefits come from the 413 itself. And while the EA did indeed not present clear benefits of the highway alone, you can discern the benefits as it did do a benefits comparable between widenings only and the new highway.
“Since the GTAW EA used population and job forecasts that were provincially mandated, the benefits of the GTAW Recommended Actions are closely tied to the land uses assumed in those forecasts. However, the Panel’s forecasts based on alternative land uses and growth patterns showed significant changes to the benefits that would be delivered by the GTAW project — changes that could warrant either accelerating, postponing or offsetting the need for building new highway capacity. Recent data suggest that provincial growth has slowed (Ministry of Finance, 2017; Mathew, 2017). Moreover, travel times in the slower-growth, compact scenario and in the GTAW Recommended Actions are similar.”
The study uses dated growth numbers, even at the time of the study in 2018, referencing slower growth that the GTA experiences in the late 2000’s and early 2010’s. This growth reverted to a high growth scenario in 2015, and has actually accelerated since into a high growth scenario with increased immigration rates implemented by the Federal Liberals and a reduction in growth being directed to Alberta following the oil bust.
“The Panel’s modeling results suggested that various public transit scenarios would have no impact on level of benefits expected from the GTAW Recommended Actions. This is largely because the GTAW Recommended Actions and public transit actions serve different travel markets. Without significant changes to land use forecasts beyond those assumed in the Growth Plan, our models indicated that public transit is not a viable alternative for linking urban growth centres in the study area, essentially because the travel demand is so low. However, the Panel found that Regional Express Rail, which was assumed to occur under the EA’s 2031 base case scenario, will deliver travel time savings for trips through the GTAW study area and from the study area to Toronto. These travel time savings are approximately three times as high as those of the proposed GTAW highway alone.”
The panel admits that the highway cannot functionally be replaced by public transit.
This is potentially the most interesting:
“The Panel was asked to examine potential alternative approaches to meeting future transportation demand beyond those set out in the EA. This work resulted in the Panel identifying scenarios that would appear to deliver travel time savings in the same order of magnitude as the GTAW Recommended Actions. That said, the travel time savings of many of these alternatives appear to apply more widely across the Greater Golden Horseshoe, rather than primarily within the GTAW study area. The Panel also observes that, although these scenarios are consistent with provincial policy to optimize the use of existing infrastructure before developing new infrastructure, these scenarios raise a number of other policy issues.
Congestion pricing: A range of congestion pricing scenarios indicated that this TDM tool could deliver travel time savings ranging from savings that are equal to the proposed new GTAW highway to savings that are more than 10 times greater than those delivered by the new highway (altogether, more than five times greater than all of the GTAW Recommended Actions). The impacts and benefits of these scenarios would also extend beyond the GTAW area. Notably, some congestion pricing scenarios delivered higher travel time savings for the study area (but a lower share of the Greater Golden Horseshoe total) than the GTAW Recommended Actions. However, these travel time savings need to be interpreted carefully, since they represent a trade-off between higher travel times and a policy that requires users to pay a toll for the use of congestion-free highways.
Hwy 407 Truck Lanes: The Panel’s modeling forecasts indicated that adding dedicated truck lanes to Hwy 407 would deliver significant travel time savings, especially for the goods movement sector. It is notable that the Panel’s Hwy 407 scenarios are similar to Alternative 3-1 in the GTAW EA, which was rejected on the basis of cost and constructabilityxi, in that the Panel’s Hwy 407 scenarios propose additional lanes on Hwy 407. But while Alternative 3-1 in the EA proposed up to six additional lanes on Hwy 407, the Panel’s scenarios added only one lane in each direction, extending them along a much longer stretch in two of the three scenarios.
Land Use Management: The difference between the provincially-mandated planned growth targets and a slower-growth, compact land use scenario exceeds the travel time savings delivered by the full suite of GTAW Recommended Actions (including all widenings and extensions). In the slower-growth, compact scenario, growth is forecasted based on the recent past, rather than the higher target forecasts mandated in the Growth Plan (2006). In short, how land uses are managed appears to impact travel conditions. However, the desirability and likelihood of slower growth or more compact land uses remain unknown.”
“The Panel found that the GTAW Recommended Actions would, as Stage 1 of the EA suggested, deliver significant economic-oriented transportation benefits, but that they would not likely deliver benefits related to the provincial policy objective of complete communities.”
So it results in substantial time savings even according to the report.
“The Panel’s modeling results suggested that half of the GTAW Recommended Actions’ travel time savings would be delivered by the expansions and extensions of existing highways. Although those actions were proposed as part of the GTAW Recommended Actions, many of these were already permitted by other EAs or Class EAs at the time of the TDS. Since then, they have been added to MTO’s Capital Plan and in some cases have been completed or are under way. In any case, the Panel concluded that these actions should not have been rolled into the anticipated benefits of the proposed new highway in the GTAW Recommended Actions. Rather, the actions and their anticipated benefits should have been included as part of the base case scenario at the start of the EA.”
While the original EA study identified time savings from the entire network expansion including projects like the 401 widening currently underway, a full ½ of benefits come from the 413 itself. And while the EA did indeed not present clear benefits of the highway alone, you can discern the benefits as it did do a benefits comparable between widenings only and the new highway.
“Since the GTAW EA used population and job forecasts that were provincially mandated, the benefits of the GTAW Recommended Actions are closely tied to the land uses assumed in those forecasts. However, the Panel’s forecasts based on alternative land uses and growth patterns showed significant changes to the benefits that would be delivered by the GTAW project — changes that could warrant either accelerating, postponing or offsetting the need for building new highway capacity. Recent data suggest that provincial growth has slowed (Ministry of Finance, 2017; Mathew, 2017). Moreover, travel times in the slower-growth, compact scenario and in the GTAW Recommended Actions are similar.”
The study uses dated growth numbers, even at the time of the study in 2018, referencing slower growth that the GTA experiences in the late 2000’s and early 2010’s. This growth reverted to a high growth scenario in 2015, and has actually accelerated since into a high growth scenario with increased immigration rates implemented by the Federal Liberals and a reduction in growth being directed to Alberta following the oil bust.
“The Panel’s modeling results suggested that various public transit scenarios would have no impact on level of benefits expected from the GTAW Recommended Actions. This is largely because the GTAW Recommended Actions and public transit actions serve different travel markets. Without significant changes to land use forecasts beyond those assumed in the Growth Plan, our models indicated that public transit is not a viable alternative for linking urban growth centres in the study area, essentially because the travel demand is so low. However, the Panel found that Regional Express Rail, which was assumed to occur under the EA’s 2031 base case scenario, will deliver travel time savings for trips through the GTAW study area and from the study area to Toronto. These travel time savings are approximately three times as high as those of the proposed GTAW highway alone.”
The panel admits that the highway cannot functionally be replaced by public transit.
This is potentially the most interesting:
“The Panel was asked to examine potential alternative approaches to meeting future transportation demand beyond those set out in the EA. This work resulted in the Panel identifying scenarios that would appear to deliver travel time savings in the same order of magnitude as the GTAW Recommended Actions. That said, the travel time savings of many of these alternatives appear to apply more widely across the Greater Golden Horseshoe, rather than primarily within the GTAW study area. The Panel also observes that, although these scenarios are consistent with provincial policy to optimize the use of existing infrastructure before developing new infrastructure, these scenarios raise a number of other policy issues.
Congestion pricing: A range of congestion pricing scenarios indicated that this TDM tool could deliver travel time savings ranging from savings that are equal to the proposed new GTAW highway to savings that are more than 10 times greater than those delivered by the new highway (altogether, more than five times greater than all of the GTAW Recommended Actions). The impacts and benefits of these scenarios would also extend beyond the GTAW area. Notably, some congestion pricing scenarios delivered higher travel time savings for the study area (but a lower share of the Greater Golden Horseshoe total) than the GTAW Recommended Actions. However, these travel time savings need to be interpreted carefully, since they represent a trade-off between higher travel times and a policy that requires users to pay a toll for the use of congestion-free highways.
Hwy 407 Truck Lanes: The Panel’s modeling forecasts indicated that adding dedicated truck lanes to Hwy 407 would deliver significant travel time savings, especially for the goods movement sector. It is notable that the Panel’s Hwy 407 scenarios are similar to Alternative 3-1 in the GTAW EA, which was rejected on the basis of cost and constructabilityxi, in that the Panel’s Hwy 407 scenarios propose additional lanes on Hwy 407. But while Alternative 3-1 in the EA proposed up to six additional lanes on Hwy 407, the Panel’s scenarios added only one lane in each direction, extending them along a much longer stretch in two of the three scenarios.
Land Use Management: The difference between the provincially-mandated planned growth targets and a slower-growth, compact land use scenario exceeds the travel time savings delivered by the full suite of GTAW Recommended Actions (including all widenings and extensions). In the slower-growth, compact scenario, growth is forecasted based on the recent past, rather than the higher target forecasts mandated in the Growth Plan (2006). In short, how land uses are managed appears to impact travel conditions. However, the desirability and likelihood of slower growth or more compact land uses remain unknown.”
innsertnamehere
Superstar
pt 2..
The report concludes that should the GTA West corridor be cancelled, alternates should be pursued including 407 truck lanes (reasonable, if challenging to implement due to the 407ETR contract), congestion pricing (Ha! Good luck!), and lowered growth scenarios (not happening, in fact the opposite is happening).
The studies conclusion is that the highway should be cancelled and the big move to replace it is to simply let less people move to the province. Not sure how that works.
This is detailed further in their conclusion and recommendations:
“First, the Panel concluded that highway expansions and extensions that are completed, planned or under way will provide travel time benefits that are approximately equal to those anticipated from the EA’s recommended new highway corridor.”
Not sure I understand this – the other highway widenings planned provide benefits, yes, but the GTA west provides even greater benefits. The GTA West EA identifies pretty extensive needs illustrating that more interventions are needed than simply widening existing corridors, and these corridor widenings are largely already occurring irrespective of the 413. Later on in the report the panel also states that widening only was not assessed as a separate alternative in the GTA West EA, which is plainly false. You can review the various options, including highway widenings only, here:
The highway widening only alternative is clearly shown on page 26 of the PDF. There are a lot of other, smaller errors in the report as well I’ve noticed with only a quick skim over.
“Second, consistent with provincial policy that requires the optimization of existing infrastructure, the Panel found that congestion pricing as a demand management tool on the existing highway system appears capable of delivering travel time benefits that are equal to or greater than the proposed new GTAW corridor. Using current MTO modelling, the Panel’s forecasts predict travel time savings associated with tolling either Hwy 401 or all GGH multi-lane highways that are, respectively, from three times greater to more than 10 times greater than those of the new GTAW corridor.
The Panel recognizes that these two tolling scenarios will have significant equity implications. More intermediate scenarios, with fewer equity implications, include: a) tolling one lane on all GGH multi-lane highways, or b) tolling only Hwy 401’s express lanes. These scenarios would also provide travel time savings, approximately equal to those anticipated from the new GTAW corridor.”
This is all well and good, but extremely unlikely and not a practical alternative politically. It’ll just never fly and would be unprecedented on a global scale. As the report mentions elsewhere, it also has serious equity issues and wouldn’t produce as much economic benefits as other congestion reduction methods as it will reduce congestion by pricing trips out of existence. I’m not sure that’s as conductive.
“Third, providing truck priority on Hwy 407 through additional highway capacity or subsidy (e.g., trucks would pay no toll) would deliver travel time benefits that are similar to the new GTAW corridor. Such opportunities, however, should be viewed cautiously, given that the Panel did not examine the physical limitations in the right-of-way available in the Hwy 407 corridor, or barriers to expanding Hwy 407 beyond the 10-lane limit specified in the current 407 ETR legislation and agreement. “
This is the most actually practical alternate solution and even then the report cautions it as it hasn’t passed even a basic feasibility test.
“Fourth, alternate land use and growth scenarios appear to impact transportation system performance, including travel time savings. For example, the Panel modeled a scenario with slower growth and more compact land use patterns than those forecast in the Growth Plan (2006), and the scenario resulted in shorter travel times. ….. As noted earlier, forecasts prepared in 2017 by the Ministry of Finance suggest slower population and economic growth in Ontario to 2040. The Panel’s results do not separate the independent effects of slower growth from compact land uses in analyses, but the Panel believes that these findings merit more attention.”
No sh*t, less people living in the GTA will result in less congestion. What a non-answer cop out, and it’s completely contrary to what the GTA has been experiencing for the last 6 years. More compact development can also absolutely help I’m sure, but the way they have assessed it isn’t independent of the slower growth scenario that the 2017 Growth Plan had that has since been reversed in the 2019 Growth Plan.
The report also recommends integrating transportation and land use planning at the provincial level more, as it’s currently largely split into 3 different silos right now (Metrolinx for transit, MTO for highways, and MMAH for land use), which I agree is an appropriate response. This is a good needs identification, though I don’t believe it justifies dropping the 413 plan on it’s own.
And finally, the real money quote of the report is here:
“Through comments received during public consultation and a review of the many forward-looking aspects of our mandate, the Panel believes that there is a better way to address transportation issues in the GTAW, and more broadly across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Panel concludes that the bigger picture (i.e., the contribution of transportation projects to broad public policy goals such as mitigating climate change, testing alternatives across modes, and assessing the robustness of actions with respect to uncertainty) can best be addressed through the development of an integrated multi-modal regional transportation plan.”
i.e. – we think the highway should be cancelled because a bunch of environmentalists showed up at public consultations and made a stink, and we should continue to let the GTA grow while we subject ourselves to another decade of “study” while building nothing, following decades of “study” and building nothing.
The report concludes that should the GTA West corridor be cancelled, alternates should be pursued including 407 truck lanes (reasonable, if challenging to implement due to the 407ETR contract), congestion pricing (Ha! Good luck!), and lowered growth scenarios (not happening, in fact the opposite is happening).
The studies conclusion is that the highway should be cancelled and the big move to replace it is to simply let less people move to the province. Not sure how that works.
This is detailed further in their conclusion and recommendations:
“First, the Panel concluded that highway expansions and extensions that are completed, planned or under way will provide travel time benefits that are approximately equal to those anticipated from the EA’s recommended new highway corridor.”
Not sure I understand this – the other highway widenings planned provide benefits, yes, but the GTA west provides even greater benefits. The GTA West EA identifies pretty extensive needs illustrating that more interventions are needed than simply widening existing corridors, and these corridor widenings are largely already occurring irrespective of the 413. Later on in the report the panel also states that widening only was not assessed as a separate alternative in the GTA West EA, which is plainly false. You can review the various options, including highway widenings only, here:
The highway widening only alternative is clearly shown on page 26 of the PDF. There are a lot of other, smaller errors in the report as well I’ve noticed with only a quick skim over.
“Second, consistent with provincial policy that requires the optimization of existing infrastructure, the Panel found that congestion pricing as a demand management tool on the existing highway system appears capable of delivering travel time benefits that are equal to or greater than the proposed new GTAW corridor. Using current MTO modelling, the Panel’s forecasts predict travel time savings associated with tolling either Hwy 401 or all GGH multi-lane highways that are, respectively, from three times greater to more than 10 times greater than those of the new GTAW corridor.
The Panel recognizes that these two tolling scenarios will have significant equity implications. More intermediate scenarios, with fewer equity implications, include: a) tolling one lane on all GGH multi-lane highways, or b) tolling only Hwy 401’s express lanes. These scenarios would also provide travel time savings, approximately equal to those anticipated from the new GTAW corridor.”
This is all well and good, but extremely unlikely and not a practical alternative politically. It’ll just never fly and would be unprecedented on a global scale. As the report mentions elsewhere, it also has serious equity issues and wouldn’t produce as much economic benefits as other congestion reduction methods as it will reduce congestion by pricing trips out of existence. I’m not sure that’s as conductive.
“Third, providing truck priority on Hwy 407 through additional highway capacity or subsidy (e.g., trucks would pay no toll) would deliver travel time benefits that are similar to the new GTAW corridor. Such opportunities, however, should be viewed cautiously, given that the Panel did not examine the physical limitations in the right-of-way available in the Hwy 407 corridor, or barriers to expanding Hwy 407 beyond the 10-lane limit specified in the current 407 ETR legislation and agreement. “
This is the most actually practical alternate solution and even then the report cautions it as it hasn’t passed even a basic feasibility test.
“Fourth, alternate land use and growth scenarios appear to impact transportation system performance, including travel time savings. For example, the Panel modeled a scenario with slower growth and more compact land use patterns than those forecast in the Growth Plan (2006), and the scenario resulted in shorter travel times. ….. As noted earlier, forecasts prepared in 2017 by the Ministry of Finance suggest slower population and economic growth in Ontario to 2040. The Panel’s results do not separate the independent effects of slower growth from compact land uses in analyses, but the Panel believes that these findings merit more attention.”
No sh*t, less people living in the GTA will result in less congestion. What a non-answer cop out, and it’s completely contrary to what the GTA has been experiencing for the last 6 years. More compact development can also absolutely help I’m sure, but the way they have assessed it isn’t independent of the slower growth scenario that the 2017 Growth Plan had that has since been reversed in the 2019 Growth Plan.
The report also recommends integrating transportation and land use planning at the provincial level more, as it’s currently largely split into 3 different silos right now (Metrolinx for transit, MTO for highways, and MMAH for land use), which I agree is an appropriate response. This is a good needs identification, though I don’t believe it justifies dropping the 413 plan on it’s own.
And finally, the real money quote of the report is here:
“Through comments received during public consultation and a review of the many forward-looking aspects of our mandate, the Panel believes that there is a better way to address transportation issues in the GTAW, and more broadly across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Panel concludes that the bigger picture (i.e., the contribution of transportation projects to broad public policy goals such as mitigating climate change, testing alternatives across modes, and assessing the robustness of actions with respect to uncertainty) can best be addressed through the development of an integrated multi-modal regional transportation plan.”
i.e. – we think the highway should be cancelled because a bunch of environmentalists showed up at public consultations and made a stink, and we should continue to let the GTA grow while we subject ourselves to another decade of “study” while building nothing, following decades of “study” and building nothing.