Student99
Active Member
"Why the snark?"
We'll see if any of that actually happens. Like weather forecasts, predictions do not always pan out to be right. Especially predictions from Forbes magazine.
Last edited:
|
|
|
We'll see if any of that actually happens. Like weather forecasts, predictions do not always pan out to be right. Especially predictions from Forbes magazine.
Northern Light
Superstar
"Why the snark?"
We'll see if any of that actually happens. They are predictions, and predictions are not always right. Especially from Forbes magazine.
The snark is because you're so sure of yourself; and so completely dismissive of what science and evidence say.
****
The study was not done by Forbes.
The study was done by:
And published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Lancet.
The link is here:
allengeorge
Senior Member
Specifically on the fertility rate front, I'm fairly sure Canada's fertility rate is well below replacement rate (and indeed a Google shows it is). High price of housing and child care is a significant contributor.
afransen
Senior Member
The one thing not accounted for in current models is any progress on treating diseases associated with old age and thereby significant increases in lifespan/healthspan. That may slow the decline/delay in human population. I'm not sure what that would do to reproduction rates. Right now, women have a biological imperative to have kids at a certain age. That may get relaxed to the point where most of that window is not during the age they are trying to gain financial wherewithal to have a family.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Your confused, that is how debate is. I take your points and counter them. It is then up to you to support them. Breaking up a post into segments/points and responding to each point individually is normal in online discourse, it helps organize specific responses to specific points without getting lost in a larger response/post
When the author is speaking on a topic related to his field of coverage and that topic has some very clear dividing lines (pro car=pro highway, anti highway=anti car)? Yes I question his objectivity in that topic. No different than if someone were to post an article by Christopher Hume (another Star journalist) or Steve Munro (both noted urbanists and pro transit authors) that was against the highway, than you would read their pieces with a bit of skepticism wouldn't you? If not than my credit to you.
Aww I have a debate style, maybe I'll have my own wikipedia page one day /sarcasm.
You accused people's concern for agricultural lands being paved over for a highway as being insincere, and you specifically mentioned vertical farming and rooftop farming. You implied that either there was no support for these initiatives or what support there is is insufficient and minute in comparison to anti highway voices. First given that this is a thread about a highway proposal in a transportation and infrastructure subforum it is only logical that the discussion would focus on highways/transportation/infrastructure. Any post about urban farming would be somewhat out of place here, but might be found in other sub forums, or simply not found at all because urban farming is not as big an issue as a highway proposal.
I simply asked you to support your claim by showing threads, or posts that were specifically against urban farming. Since you didn't I assume you couldn't find any or simply ignored it because you couldn't be bothered to find evidence to support your claim. Either way that defeats that argument.
FWIW here are some threads that do discuss urban farming:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/thorncliffe-park-flemingdon-park.20736/post-1620652
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-courses-in-toronto.31541/page-5#post-1601036
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-888-dupont-54-86m-13s-tas-sa.28319/post-1507047
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-2-tecumseth-108-5m-30s-tas-kpmb.24938/post-1448978
So it's not like it isn't talked about.
You didn't even respond to my post. I asked you to show me a modern development near a highway that isn't sprawl. You didn't, another point defeated.
Also I'm not sure if you are aware but this forum DOES advocate for dense walkable centres.
So now we see why you support the highway, it benefits you. Heck, I'd love to have a maglev line from my front door to my office paid for by the taxpayer, but I mean... Anyway, you don't like sprawl, that's great! See point 2, history has shown that new highways bring sprawl. You know how you stop sprawl, you stop doing the things that enable it, and one of those things is making transportation by private vehicle cheap.
Ah yes the infamous relief line. The one that has been on the books for 40 years, been studied and studied and studied but never acted upon. Meanwhile suburban politicians get to have ribbon cutting ceremonies for their pet subway projects (typically in areas are beneficial to their political careers) and put even more pressure on Bloor/Yonge while the DRL strangely collects dust. Yes if only our leaders had the foresight to build the DRL instead of their vote generating pet projects, if only.
This post is already pretty long but regarding the star piece, let's review his arguments:
1) The commute time savings, his concern is with the model. Note that he doesn't directly critique the model or the assumptions used. He simply says the conclusion does not agree with my views therefore the model must be wrong, not my views. Now granted I don't think we have access to the model or assumptions used, but still. This is effectively *cue homer voice* "Stats! you can prove anything with stats".
His argument can be used in opposite direction, population growth models could be flawed, migration patterns could be flawed, etc, etc, etc. The point of models and projections is to try to come up with a likely scenario, not the exact correct answer.
2) His points about sprawl/environment simply amount to "yeah but!". He criticizes Mississauga as being the "king of sprawl" (much of that development done under Hazel Mcallion btw, not Crombie) is as much of a non argument as there can be, and furthermore at some point we do need to stop and say no more and responding with "well you got to develop your city into a cookie cutter sprawlopolis is not productive. And Mississauga is a great example of how easy access to cheap (free) highway infrastructure can result in terrible sprawl. So yes Mississauga is THE poster child for not wanting highway development.
The rest of the piece is just scatter shot. Housing prices are skyrocketing because people don't want to live in city centres, has nothing to do with highways. No one complained about the 407 East extension or the 412, or the 418, except they did. And just because we made an error in the past that doesn't mean we have to continue making the same error over and over again. Electric cars will fix the environmental impact of highways, except you can't fix hundreds of acres of asphalt with electric cars you only move the emissions from the roadway to somewhere else.
Finally I find it interesting that he uses the example of the Bloor Viaduct, a road project that had a transit project tacked on, I'm sure the cost of adding the rail deck was miniscule in comparison to the over project cost since the structure was ALREADY being built they just needed to add the deck and beef up some of the supporting structures. The highway is a road project that is being tacked on to a ??? project? It is not a similar comparison at all, unless the highway is being tacked on to another significant infrastructure project, but it's not.
Student99
Active Member
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.
Ooh what flavour is the Kool-Aid?
Student99
Active Member
Oh yes my confused.
For someone who has never engaged in conversation with me before, it just struck me as an odd (and rather brash) way to start off.
Yes, some debate happens on here, but the forum is not strictly debate. It's conversation. Discussion. Spreading of information. Some "hey, look at this neat thing I found", or "what are your opinions on _____?".
I am pressed for time but will revisit the rest of your post later.
Divas S.
Active Member
There is absolutely value in looking at this though an intersectional lens, there isn't much evidence this has much real benefit for lower income groups like you mentioned. Billion dollar corporations own land in the area and plan on developing them into suburban homes which will be sold at a minimum of 600k, correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen any proposals for affordable housing in the area
. Middle and upper middle class folks are the group that moves the most to the fridges of urban areas in Canada, you can look at the average incomes in areas like Brampton, Milton and York region, they're all above the provincial average. There would be more social benefit (environmental issues aside) in things like bus lanes and regional fare integration.
I don't understand how moving the ownership of land from one rich group of people to another one is going to fix anything.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
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
Northern Light
Superstar
Your commute is private. Yet you seem to wish to bill me and several million others, not to mention causing harm to the public environment, for the sole purpose of a negligible enhancement to your 'private' life.
If you can afford to buy a home, anywhere, in the GTA you are not low-income or even lower-middle income. You were also not 'forced' to own a home at all. You could choose a condo or townhome or to rent.
More the entitlement of its supporters and the reckless disregard they have for the welfare of others.
Clearly, for you, the only thing in the world that matters, is you.
Last edited:
jamincan
Active Member
Count me as someone who would directly benefit from this highway (I regularly drive between KW and Orillia) but remain firmly opposed to it. The truth is that they sell you a highway, but what you actually get is a highway with thousands of acres of sprawl. I don't think it's worth permanently losing the undeveloped land in Halton Hills and Caledon for what might optimistically be a decade of marginally improved commutes for a small number of people in Caledon.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Nice video - thanks. The direct alignment over the river there is a bit off - it'll be a bit to the south in reality, running through a few private estate lands that you can see to the left in the video, and avoiding the large valley area in the humber river valley.
There will be woodland loss, but it's mostly artificial pine row plantings looking at satellite imagery, not mature varied woodland. I presume they will be using a high level bridge that will have a minimal impact on the valley floor where the most valuable features are.
The Humber River crossing is also by far the most sensitive feature on the entire 50km length.
The vast, vast majority of that video is just relatively unsensitive tableland agricultural lands. There are a few sensitive crossings across the Credit and Humber Rivers, but that's not the norm, and there are ways to mitigate those impacts.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Believe it or not, some people have a pretty strong moral compass.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Thank you for posting that. We now know what you believe in.
This will sound awful, but I don't really care about the highway itself. It's bad, for sure, but its impact is relatively minimal, and can be mitigated.
I care about the sprawl this highway will generate. This is some of the best (remaining) agricultural land in Canada. Once we pave it over with subdivisions, there's no going back. Sprawl is also unsustainable, societally.
For those who say it will not be sprawl, every city-oriented highway has generated sprawl. There's no reason for me to think this will be an exception.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
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.
Last edited: