Northern Light
Superstar
Yes it does; it helps halt it; which is what we need.
|
|
|
Yes it does; it helps halt it; which is what we need.
kamira51
Active Member
So the rest of the GTA gets to develop and Caledon is left in the dust?
dahusbandofbath
Active Member
... as a wealthy, bucolic town? You can argue that highway 413 is necessary to relieve the 401 and the GTA highway network in general, but I haven't heard ANYBODY argue that this road is meant to SAVE Caledon! The only people in Caledon potentially being left in the dust are hopeful land developers.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Ottawa will examine GTA West Highway plan, citing concerns about at-risk wildlife
After a request from Environmental Defence and Ecojustice to take over the approval process for the controversial Highway 413 project, Ottawa has taken a first step.
thepointer.com
Northern Light
Superstar
No, its get left as farms, rolling hills, nature, dotted with a few smaller towns, and ex-urban estates.
My god, the terror of it all.
kamira51
Active Member
Even then, land surrounding this corridor is still being or has already bought up by developers so in the end what did they accomplish other land dumping more cars on the local roads? Why don't I hear the pitch forks regarding the land owned by developers? Defeating this highway does nothing to stop sprawl.
It's as if every municipality has its own development plans, hmm very interesting.
NY99
Active Member
Looks like those developers will just have commit to building 15-minute neighbourhoods, and lobby for an aggressive expansion of transit service.
tsm1072
Active Member
and if the developers don't want to, the local or provincial government should probably adjust the zoning to force them to build less sprawling neighbourhoods.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
But that’s not the debate. The debate is sprawl with a highway or sprawl without one. None of the conversation is about modifying the land use planning regime - just cancelling the highway and saying “problem solved!”
Student99
Active Member
You forget about young families that would have bought said homes. They'll be either: strained by higher prices for the homes in the area (lower supply will increase prices faster), or they'll be pushed further away outside the city, enduring longer commutes and still contributing to traffic when they pass through the existing narrow two-lane roads that are already a poor fit for the area.
.
ARG1
Senior Member
You wish that's what will happen if the highway 413 is cancelled. Unfortunately its the worst of both worlds, you get the same amount of sprawl, except now these people are stuck on local streets polluting even more rather than being on highways. But hey you cancelled an "evil highway" and managed to pretend to actually make a difference for the environment.
Northern Light
Superstar
As is so often the case, we fundamentally disagree.
You choose to accept failure and say we must choose between bad and worse; I will insist on demanding better.
Northern Light
Superstar
No, I don't 'wish' alone as if this were some fairy tale world.
I lobby, actively for the vision I want.
I certainly don't win all the time; but I win a lot of the time.
I will never fault anyone for fighting the good fight.
I will always fault people for surrendering.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Just pointing out the reality of what’s occurring. I don’t disagree with the direction you want to go - just being a bit more pragmatic on what is actually happening.
the change doesn’t need to happen with this highway - it needs to happen with the places to grow act and growth projections. And even then I’m not really sure how possible it is with the real land demands that occur when a city grows by 120k a year, no matter how efficiently that land is used. And we all know how sacrosanct growth rates are. I just don’t really see a realistic, implementable solution that meets the vision you and many others hold. Doesn’t mean some change isn’t possible.. but the expectation of freezing the urban boundary and being able to never see a single environmental impact while adding 3 million more people to the GTA is.. aggressive.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm all for pragmatism.
In this case, a step towards defeating this highway is but one in a process.
I agree completely that Places to Grow, amongst other things would need to change too. I've repeatedly spoken of the need for downzoning and Greenbelt expansion. The highway would conflict w/these other goals.
****
I also believe, indeed, I'm utterly convinced that is not only possible but infinitely preferable to accommodate population growth within the already urbanized region. Of course there is a limit to that......but I feel comfortable in saying we're at least 20 years from that limit.
If we can't find room for 2,400,000 people (to use your number x 20) in a whopping 2,500km2 ++ then shame on us.
That's only 1,000 /km2 more than what's there now.
****
Finally, if I absolutely had to concede development of these lands, which I would do w/the greatest reluctance; I still would not want to see them highway/car-oriented.
I still want a transit-first, pedestrian-centric, 15-minute city model.
If all of the above fails..........its surely not my pragmatism that's the problem