Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[Northern Light]

The problem most people don't seem to realize is that if you don't build the highway that sprawl will still happen. It's already designated, the plans are already underway, and the excavators are already moving in many areas. That video shows nice untouched farmland, but it's all designated for urban boundary expansion and will be industrial areas and housing in 2 generations regardless of this highway.

Those people living in that sprawl will simply be stuck in traffic afterwards instead.

If you hate the sprawl don't hate the highway, hate the land use planning regime.

Sprawl doesn't happen because of a highway. Highways happen because of sprawl.

It's a similar debate to the oil pipeline issue - not building a pipeline doesn't mean the demand for oil disappears.

Right, but I will come back to; lets not build the highway, because that doesn't fix the land-use planning problem.

Lets fix the land-use planning problem, which also corrects the need/desire for the highway.

Lets shrink the urban boundary, expand the Greenbelt and downzone white belt lands!

Its been done before, it can and should be done again.

Don't have the stomach to directly tackle the zoning; fine, pass a 1,000% tax on any new build SFH within 100km of Toronto City Hall.

Pass a tax on building garages, $1,000,000 per garage.

However we get there, its about the outcome, not the process.

 

[DirectionNorth]

The problem most people don't seem to realize is that if you don't build the highway that sprawl will still happen. It's already designated, the plans are already underway, and the excavators are already moving in many areas. That video shows nice untouched farmland, but it's all designated for urban boundary expansion and will be industrial areas and housing in 2 generations regardless of this highway.

Those people living in that sprawl will simply be stuck in traffic afterwards instead.

If you hate the sprawl don't hate the highway, hate the land use planning regime.

Sprawl doesn't happen because of a highway. Highways happen because of sprawl.

It's a similar debate to the oil pipeline issue - not building a pipeline doesn't mean the demand for oil disappears.

It's true the land planning system is awful. On the idea that people will come anyways, the idea is to encourage people to buy housing inside the city. Highways happen because of sprawl, but sprawl also happens because of highways. We need to break the cycle. I would want zoning restriction relaxed within a few hundred meters of GO and subway stations, with more transit built in the cities. But this highway needs to be stopped, because pursuing two opposite planning goals cannot be done.

 

[Student99]

Me brash? You have attacked people over and over again in this thread rather than arguing their points, but I'm brash. You know what if you aren't going to provide support claims you made don't even bother responding

I have not; I've had strong disagreements with one person sure, and we discussed our issues elsewhere. And now you, too, seem to have a bone to pick.
I supported my claims in posting an article that made lots of great points. No I don't rely on (sometimes questionable) numbers and data as much as others spurt out, but there are more human aspects of this too. Lived experiences. Many people on here get so caught up on wanting to see a denser city with taller towers, and will advocate that to the end of time, but they don't consider the actual experiences of the people, many of which who want families, backyards, etc. I have every right to contribute to this thread so you know what, just cause you don't like hearing from a particular poster, doesn't mean I'll just be quiet. Thanks and have a nice day.

 

[Sagaris88]

I have not; I've had strong disagreements with one person sure, and we discussed our issues elsewhere. And now you, too, seem to have a bone to pick.
I supported my claims in posting an article that made lots of great points. No I don't rely on (sometimes questionable) numbers and data as much as others spurt out, but there are more human aspects of this too. Lived experiences. Many people on here get so caught up on wanting to see a denser city with taller towers, and will advocate that to the end of time, but they don't consider the actual experiences of the people, many of which who want families, backyards, etc. I have every right to contribute to this thread so you know what, just cause you don't like hearing from a particular poster, doesn't mean I'll just be quiet. Thanks and have a nice day.

"Ooh what flavour is the Kool-Aid?" is not a productive contribution to this thread. Differing opinions are welcome but being condescending and rude is not.

And by the way, who even drinks Kool-Aid anymore, so 90s. Use a more relevant contemporary beverage insult atleast.

 

[Sagaris88]

So, a lot of this property highlighted here is wealthy white mega estates. These aren't even public lands that everyone gets to enjoy; they're private. Of course these people are invested in preserving their views and their large properties, and they would love others to support them. Meanwhile, this highway would be open to all Ontarians, and many of the primary users would be less wealthy people who work in the city but were forced to buy their homes outside the city where prices are cheaper. The 413 debate is also an issue of privilege and oppression.

This seems like a complete contradiction. You claim the property the highway 413 goes through is "wealthy white mega estates", which means that rich people would live and use the highway. But then you claim "many of the primary users [of the highway] would be less wealthy people" because they had to live in houses outside the city, presumeably in Vaughan, King, Brampton, Caledon etc, which is near the highway. So could you clarify is it going to be rich people living near and using the highway or less wealthy people?

 

[Sagaris88]

Meanwhile, this highway would be open to all Ontarians, and many of the primary users would be less wealthy people who work in the city but were forced to buy their homes outside the city where prices are cheaper. The 413 debate is also an issue of privilege and oppression.

Sorry, but that is absolutely hilarious that you think a highway in suburbs, where housing prices have already skyrocketed, is going to narrow the class divide. Let alone that you say the highway would be open to all Ontarians when the car is a symbol of privilege and many lower class people cannot afford a car at all. I literally live next to this highway. Townhomes are already $1 million. A single detached under $1.2 million in this area? Funny.

 

[ConformistsWake]

Right, but I will come back to; lets not build the highway, because that doesn't fix the land-use planning problem.

Lets fix the land-use planning problem, which also corrects the need/desire for the highway.

Lets shrink the urban boundary, expand the Greenbelt and downzone white belt lands!

Its been done before, it can and should be done again.

Don't have the stomach to directly tackle the zoning; fine, pass a 1,000% tax on any new build SFH within 100km of Toronto City Hall.

Pass a tax on building garages, $1,000,000 per garage.

However we get there, its about the outcome, not the process.

I have mentioned it here before, but has the issue of land use really been brought up in the political debate about this proposal. Supporting infill as opposed to greenfield development is great but I think the numbers involved really need to be brought up.

I've included the quote below by innsertnamehere because I share in their thought that the way the current land use system is setup will create problems. There are a large number of people and jobs coming to the remaining lands in Brampton that this highway will cut through or be near to. Most of these lands are already in very advanced planning stages.

The problem most people don't seem to realize is that if you don't build the highway that sprawl will still happen. It's already designated, the plans are already underway, and the excavators are already moving in many areas

I am sure others can bring up better reports than the two I will link here, but for the sake of the discussion I think it is important to understand what the plan for growth in this area looks like. If we look at these documents in conjunction with the latest Growth Plan numbers. Peel is expected to reach a residential population of 2,280,000 by 2051, so approximately an additional 900,000 more than today. If all that growth gets pulled out of the designated agricultural lands, how big of an area and what levels of density are needed to accommodate that? If we are going to go that route then lets get started on a plan to combat NIMBYism in low density neighbourhoods, because I have a feeling without including them those type of numbers only achievable if every retail plaza in Peel gets turned into 80+ storey towers.

Aside from that, the intensification analysis also has some interesting points about feasibility for different households. Page 14 of the PDF notes that the household characteristics of Brampton show that 48.5% of homes have 4 or more people living in them. It even makes the point that this potentially represents a constraint for achieving the current planned housing mix because of the difficulty accommodating large households in apartments. That opens a whole other can of worms with regards to affordable square footage and maintenance fees in condos.


Regardless of my ranting above, I get the opposition to the highway. I grew up in the rural areas this proposal is slated to go. I appreciate and have enjoyed the natural environment that would be impacted and support its environmental conservation. I have already watched so much of it get eaten up by sprawl. But I also understand the immigration numbers Canada is chasing and that the population projections we are pushing for are what is driving all this. I don't have the solution, but I think opposing this highway needs to account for these factors in a more clear manner so I can understand what the path forward looks like without it. The path with the highway looks gloomy, but the cynic in me worries that if we oppose it, we will just end up with the same endless sprawl only with the addition of even worse traffic.

Region of Peel - Growth Management Fact Sheet

PEEL 2041 MCR Draft – INTENSIFICATION ANALYSIS Strategic Market Demand Assessment

 

[Northern Light]

I am sure others can bring up better reports than the two I will link here, but for the sake of the discussion I think it is important to understand what the plan for growth in this area looks like. If we look at these documents in conjunction with the latest Growth Plan numbers. Peel is expected to reach a residential population of 2,280,000 by 2051, so approximately an additional 900,000 more than today. If all that growth gets pulled out of the designated agricultural lands, how big of an area and what levels of density are needed to accommodate that? If we are going to go that route then lets get started on a plan to combat NIMBYism in low density neighbourhoods, because I have a feeling without including them those type of numbers only achievable if every retail plaza in Peel gets turned into 80+ storey towers.

I enjoy a good debate; but I think its incredibly important not to engage in wild hyperbole when doing so.

The current population of Mississauga is ~720000

Brampton is around 600,000

So 1.3M people and change.

The above noted projection, should it come to pass, represents an increase of ~1 million, or roughly 77%.

So we're talking about an increase in density level of 77% if every one of those people were accommodated by infill.

The population density of both cities is still only around 2,500per km2.

This compared with the City of Toronto at roughly 4,400per km2.

(* note, all these numbers are circa 2016, the last census, so are a bit low).

Raising the average density in Peel to the same level as the City of Toronto circa 2016 is an almost perfect match (76% higher).

This does not require 80 storey towers here, there and everywhere.

It would require a solid set of towers along major streets, typically in the 20-30 storey range, where the areas are currently residential/retail/mixed-use.

Certainly, zero sprawl is ambitious, I wouldn't deny that for a moment; but its really very do-able.

Regardless of my ranting above, I get the opposition to the highway. I grew up in the rural areas this proposal is slated to go. I appreciate and have enjoyed the natural environment that would be impacted and support its environmental conservation. I have already watched so much of it get eaten up by sprawl. But I also understand the immigration numbers Canada is chasing and that the population projections we are pushing for are what is driving all this. I don't have the solution, but I think opposing this highway needs to account for these factors in a more clear manner so I can understand what the path forward looks like without it. The path with the highway looks gloomy, but the cynic in me worries that if we oppose it, we will just end up with the same endless sprawl only with the addition of even worse traffic.

Region of Peel - Growth Management Fact Sheet

PEEL 2041 MCR Draft – INTENSIFICATION ANALYSIS Strategic Market Demand Assessment

I can understand that; but I certainly think a variety of solutions are plausible; and that one more highway is definitely not the solution.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I have mentioned it here before, but has the issue of land use really been brought up in the political debate about this proposal. Supporting infill as opposed to greenfield development is great but I think the numbers involved really need to be brought up.

I've included the quote below by innsertnamehere because I share in their thought that the way the current land use system is setup will create problems. There are a large number of people and jobs coming to the remaining lands in Brampton that this highway will cut through or be near to. Most of these lands are already in very advanced planning stages.


I am sure others can bring up better reports than the two I will link here, but for the sake of the discussion I think it is important to understand what the plan for growth in this area looks like. If we look at these documents in conjunction with the latest Growth Plan numbers. Peel is expected to reach a residential population of 2,280,000 by 2051, so approximately an additional 900,000 more than today. If all that growth gets pulled out of the designated agricultural lands, how big of an area and what levels of density are needed to accommodate that? If we are going to go that route then lets get started on a plan to combat NIMBYism in low density neighbourhoods, because I have a feeling without including them those type of numbers only achievable if every retail plaza in Peel gets turned into 80+ storey towers.

Aside from that, the intensification analysis also has some interesting points about feasibility for different households. Page 14 of the PDF notes that the household characteristics of Brampton show that 48.5% of homes have 4 or more people living in them. It even makes the point that this potentially represents a constraint for achieving the current planned housing mix because of the difficulty accommodating large households in apartments. That opens a whole other can of worms with regards to affordable square footage and maintenance fees in condos.


Regardless of my ranting above, I get the opposition to the highway. I grew up in the rural areas this proposal is slated to go. I appreciate and have enjoyed the natural environment that would be impacted and support its environmental conservation. I have already watched so much of it get eaten up by sprawl. But I also understand the immigration numbers Canada is chasing and that the population projections we are pushing for are what is driving all this. I don't have the solution, but I think opposing this highway needs to account for these factors in a more clear manner so I can understand what the path forward looks like without it. The path with the highway looks gloomy, but the cynic in me worries that if we oppose it, we will just end up with the same endless sprawl only with the addition of even worse traffic.

Region of Peel - Growth Management Fact Sheet

PEEL 2041 MCR Draft – INTENSIFICATION ANALYSIS Strategic Market Demand Assessment

OK, here's a simple question. How much land does it take to accommodate 900 thousand in sprawl? Based on Mississauga density, about the entire size of Caledon. The Old City of Toronto, with a similar population, uses 1/3 of the land area. If we continue sprawl, we will end up with huge commutes. The way to affordability isn't sprawl, it's density.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This seems like a complete contradiction. You claim the property the highway 413 goes through is "wealthy white mega estates", which means that rich people would live and use the highway. But then you claim "many of the primary users [of the highway] would be less wealthy people" because they had to live in houses outside the city, presumeably in Vaughan, King, Brampton, Caledon etc, which is near the highway. So could you clarify is it going to be rich people living near and using the highway or less wealthy people?

No kidding

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I have mentioned it here before, but has the issue of land use really been brought up in the political debate about this proposal. Supporting infill as opposed to greenfield development is great but I think the numbers involved really need to be brought up.

I've included the quote below by innsertnamehere because I share in their thought that the way the current land use system is setup will create problems. There are a large number of people and jobs coming to the remaining lands in Brampton that this highway will cut through or be near to. Most of these lands are already in very advanced planning stages.


I am sure others can bring up better reports than the two I will link here, but for the sake of the discussion I think it is important to understand what the plan for growth in this area looks like. If we look at these documents in conjunction with the latest Growth Plan numbers. Peel is expected to reach a residential population of 2,280,000 by 2051, so approximately an additional 900,000 more than today. If all that growth gets pulled out of the designated agricultural lands, how big of an area and what levels of density are needed to accommodate that? If we are going to go that route then lets get started on a plan to combat NIMBYism in low density neighbourhoods, because I have a feeling without including them those type of numbers only achievable if every retail plaza in Peel gets turned into 80+ storey towers.

Aside from that, the intensification analysis also has some interesting points about feasibility for different households. Page 14 of the PDF notes that the household characteristics of Brampton show that 48.5% of homes have 4 or more people living in them. It even makes the point that this potentially represents a constraint for achieving the current planned housing mix because of the difficulty accommodating large households in apartments. That opens a whole other can of worms with regards to affordable square footage and maintenance fees in condos.


Regardless of my ranting above, I get the opposition to the highway. I grew up in the rural areas this proposal is slated to go. I appreciate and have enjoyed the natural environment that would be impacted and support its environmental conservation. I have already watched so much of it get eaten up by sprawl. But I also understand the immigration numbers Canada is chasing and that the population projections we are pushing for are what is driving all this. I don't have the solution, but I think opposing this highway needs to account for these factors in a more clear manner so I can understand what the path forward looks like without it. The path with the highway looks gloomy, but the cynic in me worries that if we oppose it, we will just end up with the same endless sprawl only with the addition of even worse traffic.

Region of Peel - Growth Management Fact Sheet

PEEL 2041 MCR Draft – INTENSIFICATION ANALYSIS Strategic Market Demand Assessment

This is the rock and hard place planners are stuck in. Planners can set density targets (x residents, or residents + jobs per hectare), but these goals can always be reached in many different ways. It could be one supertall tower surrounded by low density SFH's, it could spread the density evenly across the region, or it could be a mix of high, medium, and low density, and the appropriate mix of densities is it's own infinite set of possibilities.

Unfortunately cities are stick between developers looking to maximize profits, and nimbys shutting down nearly all development plans. What that causes now is a tendency towards massive density in small pockets (thanks to omb) surrounded by low density, there is little to no middle ground of 4+ storey developments along major corridors.

 

[afransen]

I enjoy a good debate; but I think its incredibly important not to engage in wild hyperbole when doing so.

The current population of Mississauga is ~720000

Brampton is around 600,000

So 1.3M people and change.

The above noted projection, should it come to pass, represents an increase of ~1 million, or roughly 77%.

So we're talking about an increase in density level of 77% if every one of those people were accommodated by infill.

The population density of both cities is still only around 2,500per km2.

This compared with the City of Toronto at roughly 4,400per km2.

(* note, all these numbers are circa 2016, the last census, so are a bit low).

Raising the average density in Peel to the same level as the City of Toronto circa 2016 is an almost perfect match (76% higher).

This does not require 80 storey towers here, there and everywhere.

It would require a solid set of towers along major streets, typically in the 20-30 storey range, where the areas are currently residential/retail/mixed-use.

Certainly, zero sprawl is ambitious, I wouldn't deny that for a moment; but its really very do-able.



I can understand that; but I certainly think a variety of solutions are plausible; and that one more highway is definitely not the solution.

This would logically suggest a similar level of transit investment in Mississauga and Brampton as has taken place in Toronto.

 

[afransen]

OK, here's a simple question. How much land does it take to accommodate 900 thousand in sprawl? Based on Mississauga density, about the entire size of Caledon. The Old City of Toronto, with a similar population, uses 1/3 of the land area. If we continue sprawl, we will end up with huge commutes. The way to affordability isn't sprawl, it's density.

I wouldn't use all of Mississauga. At current 'sprawl' standards, later Mississauga neighbourhoods are denser than those from the 60s-80s. Meadowvale is 5300/sqkm with some towers. Lisgar is basically 100% low-rise, and 4500/sqkm. At that density, you need about half of Caledon to house 900k people. Older neighbourhoods like Lorne Park are only 1900/sqkm. If you look at some of the newer parts of Milton, it is also relatively dense. 'Clarke' is over 6700/sqkm. So it is really the old sprawl that is the problem. Not to say there aren't opportunities to make new sprawl a bit denser. I think 8k/sqkm can be quite livable even if it was all low-rise. It just needs the right urban design and transit provision to reduce car mode-share to moderate levels.

The real culprits for low density are the mid-century suburbs, mostly in Toronto and the earlier development in the surrounding municipalities.

 

[ConformistsWake]

I enjoy a good debate; but I think its incredibly important not to engage in wild hyperbole when doing so.

I think it is a little disingenuous/unfair that you call what I wrote to be "wild hyperbole". I did not imply that there would need to be "80 storey towers here, there and everywhere" to soley meet those population targets via intensification. I specifically referred to redevelopment of retail plazas as the likely way of achieving infill in Peel given the current planning regime.

Woodbridge_Heights articulated the issue much better than me

Unfortunately cities are stick between developers looking to maximize profits, and nimbys shutting down nearly all development plans. What that causes now is a tendency towards massive density in small pockets (thanks to omb) surrounded by low density, there is little to no middle ground of 4+ storey developments along major corridors.

It would be great if we could redevelop dense street walls along major roads in Peel, but it is the same thing again in terms of land use planning approvals. Most of the length of these roadways in the region are flanked by SFH's. Realistically those areas aren't being intensified with the current political climate.



I also want to make clear that the points I'm making aren't some show of support for the status quo. I'm fully onboard with intensification of existing neighbourhoods - I'm trying to highlight the realities of the current system and the pieces required to do the kind of infill you and others are talking about.

I honestly think there is a good chance that pressure against this project succeeds and it isn't built. What I don't think there is a good chance of is the lands surrounding it not being developed as currently planned and places like the yellowbelt being opened up any time soon for intensification - but maybe with the way things are going with housing affordability I will be presently surprised about the latter.

 

[Northern Light]

I think it is a little disingenuous/unfair that you call what I wrote to be "wild hyperbole". I did not imply that there would need to be "80 storey towers here, there and everywhere" to soley meet those population targets via intensification. I specifically referred to redevelopment of retail plazas as the likely way of achieving infill in Peel given the current planning regime.

I don't think I did call what you wrote 'wild hyperbole'; I was more stating a general principle; in response to what I perceived to be over-reach.

Though, I certainly implied that the reference to 80-storey towers seemed a bit much.

I apologize if I was (or seemed) inadvertently over zealous in that response.

It would be great if we could redevelop dense street walls along major roads in Peel, but it is the same thing again in terms of land use planning approvals. Most of the length of these roadways in the region are flanked by SFH's. Realistically those areas aren't being intensified with the current political climate.

Then the political climate must change.

I also want to make clear that the points I'm making aren't some show of support for the status quo. I'm fully onboard with intensification of existing neighbourhoods - I'm trying to highlight the realities of the current system and the pieces required to do the kind of infill you and others are talking about.

I understand that. I'm simply saying one can't accept the unacceptable. One must change it.

It will never change if you accept it.

I honestly think there is a good chance that pressure against this project succeeds and it isn't built. What I don't think there is a good chance of is the lands surrounding it not being developed as currently planned and places like the yellowbelt being opened up any time soon for intensification - but maybe with the way things are going with housing affordability I will be presently surprised about the latter.

I will hope for the latter and do my damnedest to make it a reality.

****

A quote: ( I seem to be having a moment for those as of late)

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

- George Bernard Shaw.

Count me among the unreasonable. The world must progress............I insist.