Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[innsertnamehere]

Corruption may have been too strong of a word, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for whats known as "soft corruption." Something that is technically legal, but in no way ethical. When they push forward on a project that is unpopular, (at least with all of the relevant municipalities) has already been shelved as unnecessary and expensive, and goes against everything we know in modern planning, not to mention our climate obligations, you have to wonder who benefits. In this case, other than a limited number of off peak drivers, it's the PCs biggest contributors stand to gain the most. I think we'd be naive to think it's a coincidence.

Life isn’t black and white, and polling indicates the highway isn’t as unpopular as you may think. Ford is making it the centrepiece of his election campaign for a reason - he thinks it’s a winning project from the electorate. Just because the opposition is good at being loud doesn’t mean the supporters aren’t there.

It also doesn’t go against everything in modern planning. At all. Sorry. Like life, planning isn’t black and white, there are differing opinions within the profession, and different approaches.

This roads impact on climate obligations will be negligible anyway, compared to its infrastructural impact. Despite what everyone on this board thinks roads won’t be a major emissions source in 20 years. EVs are coming quick.

 

[innsertnamehere]

There are tens of thousands of dollars worth of political donations at play here, yet we’re supposed to believe that none of that has had any impact on the Government’s thinking on this project? Okay.

Are there? Do you really think if Ford were to cut the highway the developers would stop giving their $1,200?

This highway is once again, a small potatoes issue in the development industry. They care a whole lot more about things like Growth Plan policies, IZ policies, MZOs, etc.

 

[Northern Light]

Life isn’t black and white, and polling indicates the highway isn’t as unpopular as you may think. Ford is making it the centrepiece of his election campaign for a reason - he thinks it’s a winning project from the electorate. Just because the opposition is good at being loud doesn’t mean the supporters aren’t there.

Even if that were true, it would not make it good policy; but I fail to see any concrete evidence that it is true. Citations please.

It also doesn’t go against everything in modern planning. At all. Sorry. Like life, planning isn’t black and white, there are differing opinions within the profession, and different approaches.

In this case, there are certainly different approaches; broadly describable as 'right' and 'wrong'; the latter being associated with a pro-highway position.

This roads impact on climate obligations will be negligible anyway, compared to its infrastructural impact. Despite what everyone on this board thinks roads won’t be a major emissions source in 20 years. EVs are coming quick.

This is incorrect; you're making the assumption that emissions from vehicles is the key driver.

I would argue that emissions from sprawl (construction, both of the highway itself and the ensuing development); along with the energy required to power said sprawl; in addition to the reduced vegetation (Carbon Sink) creates a strong net emissions read.

I realize its your take that the sprawl will happen either way; I will simply say it does not have to. The Urban Growth areas can be rescinded, the Greenbelt expanded, land downzoned where necessary, which can be compensation-free in accordance with established legal precedent.

I'm not so naive as not to realize that's a big fight; but its a worthwhile fight; and it starts with defeating this highway.

 

[junctionist]

A parallel multi-use trail following the route of the highway would be nice, with or without the highway.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Even if that were true, it would not make it good policy; but I fail to see any concrete evidence that it is true. Citations please.



In this case, there are certainly different approaches; broadly describable as 'right' and 'wrong'; the latter being associated with a pro-highway position.



This is incorrect; you're making the assumption that emissions from vehicles is the key driver.

I would argue that emissions from sprawl (construction, both of the highway itself and the ensuing development); along with the energy required to power said sprawl; in addition to the reduced vegetation (Carbon Sink) creates a strong net emissions read.

I realize its your take that the sprawl will happen either way; I will simply say it does not have to. The Urban Growth areas can be rescinded, the Greenbelt expanded, land downzoned where necessary, which can be compensation-free in accordance with established legal precedent.

I'm not so naive as not to realize that's a big fight; but its a worthwhile fight; and it starts with defeating this highway.

"A poll commissioned by labour union Liuna last March found that 57% of voters in Toronto supported building Hwy. 413, compared to 25% opposed. It found 67% of voters in Halton and Peel — where the highway will run — support the construction, while 22% oppose."

Doug Ford's case for Ontario Highway 413

The election is still seven months away, but the battle over highways is ratcheting up.

driving.ca

The highway has since become a much larger issue and I presume opinions have changed as more people become informed about the issues, but support vs opposition being on a 2-1 scale shows a lot of "silent support".

I've gone over my reasoning that this won't have as large an impact on sprawl as most think, but that's rehashing old stuff at this point.

My intial point stands that there is nothing wrong with developers owning land along the corridor and the Star's constant push that this highway is for Ford's "developer buddies" is extremely misleading.

 

[Northern Light]

"A poll commissioned by labour union Liuna last March found that 57% of voters in Toronto supported building Hwy. 413, compared to 25% opposed. It found 67% of voters in Halton and Peel — where the highway will run — support the construction, while 22% oppose."

Doug Ford's case for Ontario Highway 413

The election is still seven months away, but the battle over highways is ratcheting up.

driving.ca

The highway has since become a much larger issue and I presume opinions have changed as more people become informed about the issues, but support vs opposition being on a 2-1 scale shows a lot of "silent support".

I've gone over my reasoning that this won't have as large an impact on sprawl as most think, but that's rehashing old stuff at this point.

My intial point stands that there is nothing wrong with developers owning land along the corridor and the Star's constant push that this highway is for Ford's "developer buddies" is extremely misleading.

The poll as cited through the article is interesting....

If I have a moment, I'll see if I can dig up the methodology and question.........assuming those are public.

 

[DirectionNorth]

"A poll commissioned by labour union Liuna last March found that 57% of voters in Toronto supported building Hwy. 413, compared to 25% opposed. It found 67% of voters in Halton and Peel — where the highway will run — support the construction, while 22% oppose."

Doug Ford's case for Ontario Highway 413

The election is still seven months away, but the battle over highways is ratcheting up.

driving.ca

The highway has since become a much larger issue and I presume opinions have changed as more people become informed about the issues, but support vs opposition being on a 2-1 scale shows a lot of "silent support".

I've gone over my reasoning that this won't have as large an impact on sprawl as most think, but that's rehashing old stuff at this point.

My intial point stands that there is nothing wrong with developers owning land along the corridor and the Star's constant push that this highway is for Ford's "developer buddies" is extremely misleading.

For some reason, I don't think "driving.ca" is an accurate source ... just a strange feeling I get.

 

[Krypto98]

A parallel multi-use trail following the route of the highway would be nice, with or without the highway.

Why nobody is suggesting a rail Corridor along the route is really surprising me.

 

[ericmacm]

Why nobody is suggesting a rail Corridor along the route is really surprising me.

There will be a transitway corridor running directly alongside the 413. It will be planned similarly to the Mississauga/403 Transitway and the proposed 407 and 427 Transitways, meaning it will be fully grade-separated and designed to eventually be converted over to rail when needed, similar to what we are currently seeing in Ottawa with sections of the O-Train.

There will be transit along this corridor in the future when the density warrants it. The highway is just a start.

 

[DirectionNorth]

There will be a transitway corridor running directly alongside the 413. It will be planned similarly to the Mississauga/403 Transitway and the proposed 407 and 427 Transitways, meaning it will be fully grade-separated and designed to eventually be converted over to rail when needed, similar to what we are currently seeing in Ottawa with sections of the O-Train.

There will be transit along this corridor in the future when the density warrants it. The highway is just a start.

OK, will we build density that supports hgih quality transit? Does a highway help in making an area more dense?

 

[afransen]

A parallel multi-use trail following the route of the highway would be nice, with or without the highway.

Would it? I wouldn't want to use a MUT in the same ROW as a highway,

 

[asher__jo]

For some reason, I don't think "driving.ca" is an accurate source ... just a strange feeling I get.

“Right now, our 400-series highways are clogged with gridlock. Ask anyone who drives on them, and you’ll hear the same thing: They’re not suitable for the current needs of Ontarians,” Ford said
Hmmmmmm, ever heard of this thing called tolls to better manage supply on the 401 and 403? Blasphemy, I know.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

 

[junctionist]

Would it? I wouldn't want to use a MUT in the same ROW as a highway,

I don't think it would be a problem. You'd have a safe and direct route for cycling across long distances. There could be a landscaped berm separating the freeway corridor and the trail, with underpasses/overpasses/traffic signals at intersecting roads. I have some concerns about air quality on the trail due to vehicle exhaust, but the electrification of private vehicles will eventually address that too.

 

[ericmacm]

I don't think it would be a problem. You'd have a safe and direct route for cycling across long distances. There could be a landscaped berm separating the freeway corridor and the trail, with underpasses/overpasses/traffic signals at intersecting roads. I have some concerns about air quality on the trail due to vehicle exhaust, but the electrification of private vehicles will eventually address that too.

Something like this would definitely not be a problem. Better yet, there is already such a trail in Ontario - the Herb Gray Parkway extension of the 401 in Windsor has a 17km multi-use trail running alongside and over it. I've biked it many times before, and it's an incredible trail. The whole section of the 401 is sunken, and certain segments are covered by short tunnels with green space and paths on top and along the sides. The path is separated by noise barriers and fences, and connects to the local neighbourhoods. There are even new/restored wetland and grassland areas along the corridor.

As for air quality, I never noticed any issues from the truck-heavy traffic, but the air quality in Windsor is bad anyway so I can't say for sure. The only caveat for this kind of project is obviously additional cost from the tunneled sections.