Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[Sagaris88]

This is a really silly blanket statement to make. People are complex. Do you know this author personally? His whole life story, education, etc? Just as I'm sure you know lots about lots of different topics, I'm sure this author knows lots about different topics too.

This is a blanket statement then too to suggest that because I don't know his whole life story then therefore that person could know anything. For all we know, he can write a story on microbiology but because I don't know his whole life story, I must take his word on it that what he's saying is authoritative on the matter.

In his bio, no where does it say his credentials about urban planning, the environment and yes, microbiology. What it does say is that he's a leading the "former Editor of Toronto Star Wheels and thestar.com/autos. His columns, blogs and feature stories, particularly about motorsport, are industry-leading."

Idk about you, but that doesn't scream credibility to talk about the urban planning side of highways and just seems credible to the driving side of highways.

 

[Student99]

I don't care about the effects of the highway itself. I care about the sprawl this would generate. Again, perform a thought exercise. How much land is needed to house 500,000 in sprawl?

No, the cars would not be on the road elsewhere, if we decided tomorrow that we were going to stop sprawl. Of course, that won't happen because our land planning system and government "priorities" and ...

... and the fact that people just don't want to be crammed up in a condo like you want them to be

Look, as much as y'all love your tall buildings, if people want a backyard and space to raise a family, who are you to tell them "no". And after people in the 'burbs and rural areas have helped to fund everything you love so dearly in the city yourself, it's kinda selfish to say that you don't want to help fund their chosen lifestyles too.

 

[Northern Light]

... and the fact that people just don't want to be crammed up in a condo like you want them to be

Look, as much as y'all love your tall buildings, if people want a backyard and space to raise a family, who are you to tell them "no". And after people in the 'burbs and rural areas have helped to fund everything you love so dearly in the city yourself, it's kinda selfish to say that you don't want to help fund their communities too.

Who are you to tell them yes?

****

Public policy should be driven by evidence, by science, by the public interest, not by personal preference.

 

[allengeorge]

And after people in the 'burbs and rural areas have helped to fund everything you love so dearly in the city yourself, it's kinda selfish to say that you don't want to help fund their chosen lifestyles too.

This is a very weird argument. It’s the equivalent of saying that because someone likes self-destructive behavior we should fund it.

As a society we can decide where we want to go, and then fund the behavior that gets us there. Sprawl, long-distance commutes and unwalkable neighbourhoods where you have to drive everywhere are not what we want, so we shouldn’t fund it. If you want to live like that, it’s fine: don’t expect anyone to help you in your pursuit of that, or, the long-term consequences of that choice.

 

[Sagaris88]

oh? tell me more!
...
Going with your auto journalist idea above, we should only listen to you if you are a climate change expert, right?
Also, if you read his article, he makes a good point that with growth of electric cars, car emissions from this highway won't really be contributing to climate change.

Also... whether this highway was built or not, the same cars would be on the road elsewhere ... In your mind, would they not still be contributing to climate change on other roads? Or is it only on this one highway that they would pollute the world?

You are comparing a person on the internet to a person who is writing on the award winning top newspaper in Canada. There is a much higher standard of rigour and research in journalism in print publications than some random person on an Internet forum. So yes, I expect much better in the paid journalist to actually be well versed in the topic they are writing about.

Yes, good on him and that is true that electric cars will lower emissions and make air quality better locally. But as you say in your next paragraph, the cars are going to be there anyways with the highway or not. So then the highway isn't actually helping to reduce (or increase) exhaust emissions. So the point of electric cars kinda becomes moot because the highway has nothing to do with there being more electric cars. The cars are going to be there anyways (in your argument. Though that's not true as the highway will incur more cars on the road because of induced demand discussed below)

Why it's unlikely to trust a person who specializes only in cars on a subject matter like emissions and why the article is facile, is that the author completely ignored the other emissions and environmental effects not created by the vehicle. The loss of green space and trees will add emissions during the deconstruction phase and future deficit of carbon absorption by the now missing trees. Asphalt creates water runoff and pollution from debris and waste from the cars (which the author ignores all the other ways a car pollutes like tire wear). The author makes a true point that electric cars are coming and that the cars on the highway will not pollute. That is the least of all the other concerns damming the Highway 413 project.

Good, I think you are catching on to what many people here are saying. More cars in general are bad for the environment and the urban realm (for pedestrians and cyclists etc). Building a highway allies with the idea of induced demand. That if you build a highway, that extra capacity built will be subsumed by extra demand that wouldn't be there if you didn't build the highway. People are going to want to drive more if they have such a luxurious object like a Highway where they can drive fast. Thus if a highway is built, more cars will be on the road. So no, the highway absolutely does have an effect on the amount of cars on the road (which means more cars on local roads to get to the highway too). There would be less cars on the road if the highway wasn't built. There would be more cars on the road if the highway was built.

 

[Sagaris88]

oh? tell me more!
...
Going with your auto journalist idea above, we should only listen to you if you are a climate change expert, right?
Also, if you read his article, he makes a good point that with growth of electric cars, car emissions from this highway won't really be contributing to climate change.

Also... whether this highway was built or not, the same cars would be on the road elsewhere ... In your mind, would they not still be contributing to climate change on other roads? Or is it only on this one highway that they would pollute the world?

Oh tell me more you say . Climate change is a wide subject but generally comes to that the climate is changing (mostly warmer but some areas colder) and much less predictable because of human intervention like industry, construction, agriculture and yes, transportation.

Many people decades and decades ago did not know about climate change until Al Gore put it up with a spotlight. So if you referenced a 20 yr plan to build a highway it is likely to not have considered too much the local, regional and global effect a highway can occur on the environment. Destruction of green space of trees, wetlands, etc. The loss of carbon absorption because of that. The asphalt and concrete creates emissions (concrete production is one of the biggest emitters of carbon in the atmosphere). The water runoff and pollution caused by the mostly impermeable asphalt and debris/waste from the car. Loss to animal habitat. And then there's the societal effects a highway can create. More people will buy cars because a highway is there, which means the whole gobsmacking emissions producing international production process from raw material to finished product that building a car creates. Yes, electric cars will have no emissions out of a tailpipe because it doesn't have a tailpipe, but there are many more environmental considerations that a car creates than just that. There are still people who ignore all the environmental effects a highway creates. So when you say "oh tell me more", I literally believe you.

 

[Sagaris88]

... and the fact that people just don't want to be crammed up in a condo like you want them to be

Look, as much as y'all love your tall buildings, if people want a backyard and space to raise a family, who are you to tell them "no". And after people in the 'burbs and rural areas have helped to fund everything you love so dearly in the city yourself, it's kinda selfish to say that you don't want to help fund their chosen lifestyles too.

"And after people in the 'burbs and rural areas have helped to fund everything you love so dearly in the city yourself"

ohhhhh I get it now. You are the type of person who hates city slickers for taking up so much money in the budget (even though there's much more people living in the urban area and that the urban area gives more revenue to the province than it receives). This rural/city hatred is non helpful and made up.

 

[Student99]

Who are you to tell them yes?

I think the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms tells them yes. I don't know what big brother totalitarian state you are imagining, but I want no part.

 

[Student99]

"And after people in the 'burbs and rural areas have helped to fund everything you love so dearly in the city yourself"

ohhhhh I get it now. You are the type of person who hates city slickers for taking up so much money in the budget (even though there's much more people living in the urban area and that the urban area gives more revenue to the province than it receives). This rural/city hatred is non helpful and made up.

nah, that's not me. I just think that it's ridiculous that you'll happily accept taxes from all across the province for things that benefit you, but then cry foul about costs of things that would benefit others. I have no hatred for the city; used to live there and I love to visit it regularly.

 

[Northern Light]

I think the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms tells them yes. I don't know what big brother totalitarian state you are imagining, but I want no part.

Clearly, you have never read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have.

You will not find any right to a back yard there, nor any right to a detached home.

If fact, there's not even a right to private property at all.

That is our constitution.

You may wish it were otherwise; but that does not make it so.

***

Of course, I never argued against someone being able to have such things; I simply argue that government has a right to regulate land use; and decide where to build infrastructure.

This may impact how convenient and affordable such a home is to someone.

***

Regardless what I was taking aim at is the hypocritical position that some people here advocate, that their view, and like views should be heard and counted; while others should not be.

You believe your opinion should count, and those opinions that agree with yours should count; but people who disagree with you should all hush and allow you to impose your will on them.

That's not good debate form.

 

[Student99]

Regardless what I was taking aim at is the hypocritical position that some people here advocate, that their view, and like views should be heard and counted; while others should not be.

You believe your opinion should count, and those opinions that agree with yours should count; but people who disagree with you should all hush and allow you to impose your will on them.

That's not good debate form.

Funny, that's how I interpret your position.

 

[afransen]

... and the fact that people just don't want to be crammed up in a condo like you want them to be

You can build neighbourhoods that are almost entirely lowrise and are quite dense. Even some of the new GTA suburbs are built to 5,6,7k people per sqkm. It is possible to build mostly lowrise, highly walkable neighbourhoods with densities upwards of 12k/sqkm, while having fairly large homes and lots of greenspace. The key is not making it so car-oriented, even though everyone can own a car.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

oh? tell me more!
...
Going with your auto journalist idea above, we should only listen to you if you are a climate change expert, right?
Also, if you read his article, he makes a good point that with growth of electric cars, car emissions from this highway won't really be contributing to climate change.

Also... whether this highway was built or not, the same cars would be on the road elsewhere ... In your mind, would they not still be contributing to climate change on other roads? Or is it only on this one highway that they would pollute the world?

Well, I'd trust a climate change expert (definition of terms here, I define a climate change expert as a person with a background in some form of climate science, and has spent the majority of their professional lives in the study of climate science) more than I'd trust a journalist who writes for a petroleum industry news outlet.

I hope you would agree that it is beneficial to weigh the opinions of professionals higher than others.

However as we have seen the value of "experts" has been slowly eroded in public discourse.

 

[allengeorge]

For those who don’t have a Toronto Star subscription, consider listening to its “This Matters” podcast on this:

Developing Highway 413: Who benefits?

This Matters · Episode

open.spotify.com

 

[TheTigerMaster]

You can build neighbourhoods that are almost entirely lowrise and are quite dense. Even some of the new GTA suburbs are built to 5,6,7k people per sqkm. It is possible to build mostly lowrise, highly walkable neighbourhoods with densities upwards of 12k/sqkm, while having fairly large homes and lots of greenspace. The key is not making it so car-oriented, even though everyone can own a car.