Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[Wm Perkins Bull]

I notice that they propose a station at Bovaird Dr / 413, and not at City of Brampton's preferred location, which is the intersection between the Kitchener Line and the the 413 Transit Way. Perhaps it's the Province's way of say you're not getting that Heritage Road GO Station?
View attachment 514123

The MTO has been adamant that Brampton's Boulevard idea is the very definition of insanity, and as such they will completely disregard it. This does not preclude a Heritage Road GO Station. A Bovaird Transitway location will support Brampton's future Bovaird BRT.

 

[2323]

Long time lurker, first post.

- The size of the 410/413 interchange strikes me as rather excessive

I continue to be confused as to why they are proposing to retain the 410 connection to Highway 10, including expensive flyovers to connect it to the now extended 410, which is effectively replaced by the 413. I feel like they would be better off removing it as most traffic will likely get on the 413 anyway.

They could extend the 410 by about 500m, and use a combination of a Parclo A4 and a full freeway interchange. Coming from the 410 or going onto the 410 would use free flowing ramps, while traffic from 413EB to 10NB would turn left at a typical Parclo which is already what is proposed. Access from 10SB would be through the Parclo. I can't see any disadvantages, and there's no way it isn't more expensive than acquiring a whole new ROW and complicating the interchange with Mayfield.

 

[ericmacm]

I think the main reason why they want to build the new HWY 410 alignment is so it would potentially be easier to build an extension out to Orangeville in the future along a ROW clear of development. As it stands currently, HWY 10 goes through Caledon Village (which itself is surrounded by quarries on the south side), and some small towns, so converting it to a freeway would be difficult when the time comes. Just building something brand new 3 km to the east is much easier.

What confuses me, however, is why they want to maintain the old HWY 410/HWY 10 alignment as well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the connection to Highway 410 is a really substandard design with an 80km/h speed limit on it - I understand MTO doesn't want to use it as the primary connection to the 413.

The question is why it's being maintained at all. It seems like it would be much better for MTO to simply build a direct flyover ramp onto Highway 10 at the 413 interchange.

 

[Haljackey]

The 410/413 interchange could still be a thing, but would only be a partial connection. It would connect 410 NB to 413 EB, and 413 WB to 410 SB. The other connections could be built as flyovers at the highway 10 interchange.

This is probably a better solution for now, and you could rework it a bit if you wanted to extend 410 further north. That future interchange wouldn't need to be as complicated because 2 connections already exist at highway 10.

Could those 80km/h curves be corrected at all on the existing 410 extension? I remember the 401 had it's curves reworked when it was widened from Woodstock to Kitchener, you could do the same here if you wanted to push 6 lanes through this stretch.

 

[2323]

Could those 80km/h curves be corrected at all on the existing 410 extension?

On a map at least, it doesn't seem like these curves are that different from the curves on the 407/401 (10 lanes) and 407/403 (6 lanes) where traffic handles them at full speed.

 

[innsertnamehere]

On a map at least, it doesn't seem like these curves are that different from the curves on the 407/401 (10 lanes) and 407/403 (6 lanes) where traffic handles them at full speed.

The curve as it meets Hurontario is a 525m curve - the modern standard on MTO mainlines for 100km/h posted speeds is a 900m curve. The 407 at the 401 is a 750m curve, which is the previous standard - you can tell if you have driven it that it sort of works, but is also sort of tight for a mainline freeway. the 407/403 curve is 675m, which is generally considered the minimum for a 100km/h posted speed limit, from my understanding. That one genuinely feels substandard when driving it.

There is a reason that stretch of the 410 has a reduced speed limit.

Also, using the existing alignment creates a lot of unnecessary travel distance for those travelling from the 410 to the eastbound 413 and vice-versa.

Looking at google earth, it would be possible to build a 750m curve on the existing 410 alignment, but you wouldn't have any space left for the Hurontario interchange without ripping out a bunch of houses.

At the end of the day MTO likely decided that the new alignment is easier - and I think that's the right call.

 

[darth_freeman]

Not only is the existing 410 extension alignment to a much lower design speed, the layout does not really accommodate future widening beyond 2 lanes per direction. I wonder if the intention was to always treat this as a placeholder extension until 413 was built. And although this project leaves it as is for the most part, it could always be removed/downgraded following completion of 413 to a lesser road once Brampton/Peel/Caledon decide what they want with it.

 

[2323]

And although this project leaves it as is for the most part, it could always be removed/downgraded following completion of 413 to a lesser road once Brampton/Peel/Caledon decide what they want with it.

I would think it would just be tacked on as part of Hwy 10. It would be strange to have Brampton or Caledon (keep in mind Peel will soon cease to exist) manage a road that solely connects two provincial highways.

 

[Northern Light]

I'll put this here........cause why not.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

Apparently, the Federal government is not, as yet, recognizing the SCOC decision on the Impact Assessment and is continuing its Assessments.

The link above is the Ford gov't announcing it is seeking Judicial review of that for a number of projects, this one included.

***

So, until the presser, I had heard this..........so I'm looking for details.

Here's the post-decision Federal Ministerial Statement:

Statement by Ministers Guilbeault and Virani on the Supreme Court of Canada’s opinion on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act - Canada.ca

Four years ago, the Impact Assessment Act came into force to address the concerns the Government of Canada heard about the federal approval process for major projects like oil and gas pipelines, mines, hydroelectric dams, ports and nuclear facilities.

www.canada.ca

From same:

Edit to add, an interesting legal take on the decision from an Environmental group that deemed the decision favourable overall, with some caveats, and said it upholds the Federal process overall, subject to certain changes.

Two wins, a loss, and a question mark: What the Impact Assessment Act reference case means for the environment

This is a detailed analysis of the case – stay tuned for a shorter summary coming soon

www.wcel.org

Of note, this decision was in fact a reference opinion, meaning it is not actually legally binding on the federal government; through presumably a tested case on a specific project would follow that decision and would be binding.

 

[DirectionNorth]

-snip-

View attachment 515266

-snip-

The quote "we will continue to build on 50 years of federal leadership in impact assessments" nearly killed me! Are you sure that isn't satire?

 

[Allandale25]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/impact-assessment-act-guilbeault-1.7008932

 

[ericmacm]

Nothing is going to change while they amend the legislation. It would not be wise for any party to be speculative and stop co-operating while the legislation is being amended. I also think it was an unrealistic expectation by the opposition to repeal the legislation. It sucks that they will need to take time to assess the assessments (lmfao) but I think we are going to see many of these projects drop off the list. Regional assessments that don’t target any particular project (like the Ring of Fire, NL/NS Offshore Wind, NL Offshore Oil IAs) are also considered to be in the federal jurisdiction, so they won’t be impacted.

Federal jurisdiction in specific projects is considered to be a relatively narrow set of circumstances:

• Projects financed by the federal government;
• Projects on federal lands; and
• Projects outside of Canada.

Given how narrow this list of criteria is, it seems pretty obvious (in my opinion at least) that HWY 413 will no longer require a federal IA. I’d much rather see the federal government focus their IA resources on the regional assessments instead of specific projects. I was always under the impression that these IAs were supposed to be most useful for being broad and getting a lot of preliminary information out of the way to supplement the provincial ESA processes, but having them moreso target specific projects mainly results in duplication for something that was going to require a provincial ESA anyway.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Nothing is going to change while they amend the legislation. It would not be wise for any party to be speculative and stop co-operating while the legislation is being amended. I also think it was an unrealistic expectation by the opposition to repeal the legislation. It sucks that they will need to take time to assess the assessments (lmfao) but I think we are going to see many of these projects drop off the list. Regional assessments that don’t target any particular project (like the Ring of Fire, NL/NS Offshore Wind, NL Offshore Oil IAs) are also considered to be in the federal jurisdiction, so they won’t be impacted.

Federal jurisdiction in specific projects is considered to be a relatively narrow set of circumstances:

• Projects financed by the federal government;
• Projects on federal lands; and
• Projects outside of Canada.

Given how narrow this list of criteria is, it seems pretty obvious (in my opinion at least) that HWY 413 will no longer require a federal IA. I’d much rather see the federal government focus their IA resources on the regional assessments instead of specific projects. I was always under the impression that these IAs were supposed to be most useful for being broad and getting a lot of preliminary information out of the way to supplement the provincial ESA processes, but having them moreso target specific projects mainly results in duplication for something that was going to require a provincial ESA anyway.

Not sure this is the interpretation I take - the court ruling allows IAs on other projects, but limited in scope to impacts on federally regulated concerns.

In the case of the 413, that would basically only be endangered species and navigable waterways, which is pretty limited. The province would have to prove mitigation of those impacts, and on it will go.

The question as well is that there has to be the potential for substantial impacts for an IA to be warranted - whether the highway will have substantial enough impacts to trigger an IA through the amended legislation is the question.

 

[Northern Light]

Nothing is going to change while they amend the legislation. It would not be wise for any party to be speculative and stop co-operating while the legislation is being amended. I also think it was an unrealistic expectation by the opposition to repeal the legislation. It sucks that they will need to take time to assess the assessments (lmfao) but I think we are going to see many of these projects drop off the list. Regional assessments that don’t target any particular project (like the Ring of Fire, NL/NS Offshore Wind, NL Offshore Oil IAs) are also considered to be in the federal jurisdiction, so they won’t be impacted.

Federal jurisdiction in specific projects is considered to be a relatively narrow set of circumstances:

• Projects financed by the federal government;
• Projects on federal lands; and
• Projects outside of Canada.

Given how narrow this list of criteria is, it seems pretty obvious (in my opinion at least) that HWY 413 will no longer require a federal IA. I’d much rather see the federal government focus their IA resources on the regional assessments instead of specific projects. I was always under the impression that these IAs were supposed to be most useful for being broad and getting a lot of preliminary information out of the way to supplement the provincial ESA processes, but having them moreso target specific projects mainly results in duplication for something that was going to require a provincial ESA anyway.

I would encourage you to read this legal take from an enviro group, which I posted above.

Two wins, a loss, and a question mark: What the Impact Assessment Act reference case means for the environment

This is a detailed analysis of the case – stay tuned for a shorter summary coming soon

www.wcel.org