|
|
|
ericmacm
Active Member
I agree, one of the main reasons that I like the 413 proposal despite the sprawl concerns is because it will help form a ring around the edge of the GGH when combined with the 408 (mid-peninsula highway), if that ever gets built. I like the prospect of decentralizing travel and making it easier for peripheral regions (Niagara, York/Simcoe, Southwest Ontario) to access each other without having to go through the central congested highways of the GTA and make existing congestion problems worse.
A side thought of my own, I'm really glad that all of these new highways/extensions within the GTA are all planned to have accompanying Transitway projects. The fact that there are Transitways being planned for the 407, 413, and 427 is honestly pretty wild. Imagine having a BRT corridor in the future that could span from Vaughan to Fort Erie, assuming the 408 will have a similar Transitway allocation. While these transit routes may not be built for some time, I think there is much more foresight going into these greenfield highway projects than just mindless sprawl and we take it for granted. Certainly more foresight than the projects that we are seeing in US cities like Los Angeles, Austin, Denver, or Houston that are straight-up planning on razing neighbourhoods for more lanes with little to no transit planning whatsoever.
afransen
Senior Member
I'd rather we had the foresight to reserve regional rail ROWs. Bus transitways on highways are something but hardly the gold standard of provisioning for future transit.
ericmacm
Active Member
I agree with this as well, in conjunction with highway infrastructure. However, the extension of regional rail further outside of the GTA is just something I don't realistically see happening until GO RER/electrification plans are closer to being finished and the non-Metrolinx owned lines have been bought out.
What I like about Transitways is that they are basic grade-separated transit corridors which can be more easily expanded into higher-order LRT or further when the time is right. That kind of demand won't exist along these highway corridors for some time, but the land and basic infrastructure will be there for when it needs to happen. Having it there for the future is the most important part so less money needs to be spent on acquiring the land later.
afransen
Senior Member
Putting LRT in the highway transitways is absolutely pointless. The only value of the transitways is that branching bus lines can use them. LRT would require people to transfer. If you want rail, it needs to go where people actually live/work, and not next to a roaring highway.
Even if you think we should/will hold off on investing in new regional rail infrastructure beyond the legacy freight rail ROWs, we should be reserving the ROWs. It would cost next to nothing and yield enormous dividends in the future.
ericmacm
Active Member
Is it pointless though? Both Ottawa and Montreal are building portions of their LRTs along highway corridors, with Ottawa having additional BRTs along the 417. Lots of both residential and commercial development happens along highways, especially in the GTA (specifically Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham, Milton, etc). Sure, it's not all that great from an urban design perspective, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't happen or won't happen for any future highways.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of future rail expansion and ROW reservation, but my point is that I don't realistically see Metrolinx doing it right now because they are clearly still of the mind that GO should be a commuter network as opposed to a true regional network. For any regions that could potentially be connected by extension in the future (like London, Woodstock, Stratford, Brantford, Peterborough, Collingwood, Welland, etc), they all have rail lines already going through the main population centres, so would it not just make more sense to try and buy/negotiate usage for these lines instead of building new ones that won't be able to go through the densest areas? The only major area I can think of where protecting for a future corridor makes sense is Bolton.
Last edited:
ARG1
Senior Member
I think it really depends on how its used. Something I support is eventually turning the 407 Transitway into a REM or some form of longer distance light metro similar to the Grand Paris Express. Sure it doesn't directly serve many locations, but the point of it would be a long distance rail corridor that doesn't involve entering the CBD, a route where if you're travelling from Mississauga to Markham, you can take local transit (Hurontario LRT or a MiExpress Bus) to the corridor, take the Metro all the way to Markham, and take the Stouffville or a future Ontario Line extension, or Viva to your final destination.
Sagaris88
New Member
Huh? That's totally a disingenuous comparison. An auto journalist doesn't know one bit of urbanism, they only know cars. An urbanist would know quite a bit about urbanism and the consequences to urbanism goof or bad that a highway creates. Just because you drive a car on a road doesn't mean you are an expert on the pros and, especially cons, of highways.
Sagaris88
New Member
This once again belies the false narrative that highways magically solve traffic problems on arterial roads. They don't. Overflowing is such a massive extrapolation to what is the reality of traffic on normal suburban roads. Unless Google Maps traffic shows deep red on all suburban arterials on a normal rush hour then maybe overflowing is the right word. Otherwise, it just sounds like you get angry whenever your commute on that one Thursday is five minutes longer.
Sagaris88
New Member
Yes and in that 20 years, people decided to care about this thing called climate change. Things change. Just because it was a good idea 20 years ago, doesn't mean it is a good idea now.
Sagaris88
New Member
This is a bad comparison because you are putting two choices of Ford helping developers and building a highway and of Del Duca helping developers and not building a highway. Seems like an easy choice. The key difference between the PC's and the Libs is that one wants to build a highway, and one doesn't. So it's not the same BS at all.
Sagaris88
New Member
Your praise of the Transitway is great but the highway and the transitway can be split off into separate projects. I don't see the transitway as being wholly attached to the highway project. So if you like the transitway, just build that and without the highway.
Student99
Active Member
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.
Student99
Active Member
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?
DirectionNorth
Active Member
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 ...