News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 415     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 3K     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2.1K     4 

Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

Northern Light said:
Not remotely true. Further, based on polls, if we had made this a singular issue, the highway would have been defeated.

environmentaldefence.ca

Poll shows that nearly half of GTA Residents oppose Highway 413 - Environmental Defence

A poll by Ekos conducted in December 2021 found that almost half of respondents (49 per cent) are opposed to Highway 413.
environmentaldefence.ca environmentaldefence.ca
Click to expand...

Even if that poll was true, it does not change the fact that the governing majority party that was re-elected supports the 413. Also- it's just for GTA residents. Remember that the election was provincial, not regional.

With the support of 17% of all eligible voters in Ontario. 83% either voted for parties opposed to the highway or didn't vote.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Douggie or the PCs either, but you can't put the people who didn't vote into the group that voted for parties other than PCs. That's not fair and you don't know their intent on this subject.
 
Northern Light said:
Stop!

This is genuinely offensive. Its a gross misrepresentation of the facts to suit your position.

Yes, I have a preference, but I don't shift the facts to support it.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about, I'm basing my judgment on the fact that the RCCAO made a report that lists the benefits, especially the amount of jobs that'll be created for the skilled trades.

Skilled tradesmen will benefit the most from this project.

The industry wants this highway, and I'm not "shifting the facts".
 
I'm not sure it's fair to derive that a majority vote against the PCs indicate that they would have lost under a different system like, say, runoff voting. I imagine many voters who voted Liberal or, yes, NDP, would put the PCs as second on their runoff vote, not the opposite "left" party.

Similarly for proportionate representation, we would end up on a constant minority parliament which would shift political platforms around and would likely see the Liberals supporting a PC government. With the PC's having the 413 as a strong part of their rather limited campaign platform, I would struggle to see the Liberals being able to move to cancel it.

Regardless, it's all speculation and the vote results we had this month are a reflection of the system in which we operate under. The results would most likely have been wildly different with a different electoral system and to speculate on that is exactly that, speculation. The PCs won more seats as a percentage of parliament since John Robarts in 1961. It's very hard to challenge their electoral mandate.

Again, considering polling has indicated strong majority support for the highway in the 905, I would be surprised if the PC mandate says the opposite.

While it's far from conclusive, looking at the two polls available on it, one showing majority opposition and one showing majority support, with the differentiation being one including the 416 and one only polling the 905, we can assume that opposition is concentrated in the Old City of Toronto where the Liberals and NDP did best. This opposition then presumably tapers out as you move away from downtown, and likely switches to majority support close to the City border.

Why the thought that majority opposition on a project in Peel and York Regions from people in Toronto should override the majority support in Peel and York, as well as the democratically elected at large government on the provincial level, I'm not sure.

I would bet there are a lot of issues that receive majority support from Downtown Toronto that would be wildly unpopular on the provincial level, and from what I have seen, this is just one more of them. Ontario outside of the borders of the City of Toronto is a very different place than within it, and there is a reason much of Ontario feels like Toronto too often forgets that.
 
kamira51 said:
Do you guys think this will get canned? The recent news about the "species at risk" sounds like it will be the end of the project.

I really hope this gets built anyway, the area of Southern Caledon and Northern Brampton is growing very fast and the current road network in those areas is inefficient.

Now from what I can tell, the biggest issue is crossing the Humber River. Worst case scenario, the part of the highway east of the 427 interchange gets axed.

The benefit of the highway is still useful as it allows drivers to bypass Brampton, which is badly needed.


Anyway that's my take on this.
Click to expand...
It's far from the first highway project to have to deal with SAR. As long as the province comes up with an EA and accompanying plans that address the SAR issues and satisfy the federal government, there is no reason why the project can't continue.

The HWY 401 Extension in Windsor (Herb Gray Parkway) had lots of SAR considerations, and the Gordie Howe Bridge is the same. I have done some work related to the Gordie Howe Bridge project and the SAR protections are very intense. Massive (in the tens of thousands of dollars per animal, both SAR and non-protected) fines for injuring or killing animals during construction both on and off-Site nearby, specialists on-Site to deal with select species (there are rare snakes in Windsor that require specialists to remove/relocate them), water quality protections and fish monitoring programs for the Detroit River/other nearby minor waterways, and more. The projects continue on despite all of this. I see no reason why the same things wouldn't happen with the 413, especially now with federal involvement.
 
Deadpool X said:
I consider you one of the most valuable members on this forum
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Deadpool X said:
but this statement is just so wrong and twisted.
Click to expand...

It literally is accurate. I'm always cautious about such things and double-check my data before posting.

I'll assume you disagree with my position on the highway, if so, so be it; but I don't see how that makes my statement 'twisted'.
 
Northern Light said:
Thank you.



It literally is accurate. I'm always cautious about such things and double-check my data before posting.

I'll assume you disagree with my position on the highway, if so, so be it; but I don't see how that makes my statement 'twisted'.
Click to expand...
Despite our common disagreements I would also like to reflect Deadpool's comments of value to this community :)

like a lot of data, it can be accurate, if a bit disingenuous. Technically it's correct, but it's a sort of data twisting to show something that isn't the case. It construes that the PCs somehow formed government despite 83% being opposed to them, while the reality is 56.5% of people simply chose not to issue an opinion. Of those that did issue an opinion, 40.8% supported the PCs vs. 59.2% supporting other parties. And even that is slightly disingenuous, again, because it construes that 59.2% voted "against" Ford, and does not explain the break down of parties in a multi-party political system.

To break it down even further, 40.8% of people supported the PCs, 23.7% supported the NDP, and 23.8% supported the Liberals. That's how the election results came in, and makes it clearer why the PCs won and get to govern.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Despite our common disagreements I would also like to reflect Deadpool's comments of value to this community :)
Click to expand...

TY

innsertnamehere said:
like a lot of data, it can be accurate, if a bit disingenuous. Technically it's correct, but it's a sort of data twisting to show something that isn't the case. It construes that the PCs somehow formed government despite 83% being opposed to them, while the reality is 56.5% of people simply chose not to issue an opinion. Of those that did issue an opinion, 40.8% supported the PCs vs. 59.2% supporting other parties.
Click to expand...

The intent was not to mislead; but rather to poke a hole in the notion that a mandate squarely on the subject of the highway has been granted by a clear majority of voters, which its fair to say is not the case.

One can nitpick the degree to which that highway was a motivating issue for some voters (as opposed to license plate fee rebates, or income tax cuts or any number of other policies); and likewise the degree to which any majority government (generally having obtained less than 50% of the popular vote, among those who cast ballots) has a clear mandate on anything.

Pro-highway/Anti-highway don't exaggerate the case for popular support; and I won't deny the obvious either, that a pro-highway government got a plurality of the vote; and that the highway has a significant constituency of support, whether or not
its a majority.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Despite our common disagreements I would also like to reflect Deadpool's comments of value to this community :)

like a lot of data, it can be accurate, if a bit disingenuous. Technically it's correct, but it's a sort of data twisting to show something that isn't the case. It construes that the PCs somehow formed government despite 83% being opposed to them, while the reality is 56.5% of people simply chose not to issue an opinion. Of those that did issue an opinion, 40.8% supported the PCs vs. 59.2% supporting other parties. And even that is slightly disingenuous, again, because it construes that 59.2% voted "against" Ford, and does not explain the break down of parties in a multi-party political system.

To break it down even further, 40.8% of people supported the PCs, 23.7% supported the NDP, and 23.8% supported the Liberals. That's how the election results came in, and makes it clearer why the PCs won and get to govern.
Click to expand...
Honestly this kind of hair splitting bothers me. Because it is incredibly difficult to not appear partisan despite making a valid point.
For Ex. JT's Liberals won with a similar voter split and his opponents were up in arms over the unfair election laws giving power to a leader/party that has the support of less than 50% of the voting populace. Meanwhile Ford's PC win and it's huh well he/they won within the rules of the electoral system we have.

It's still fair to say that politician/party X doesn't have support of the majority despite winning more seats than any other party.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Honestly this kind of hair splitting bothers me. Because it is incredibly difficult to not appear partisan despite making a valid point.
For Ex. JT's Liberals won with a similar voter split and his opponents were up in arms over the unfair election laws giving power to a leader/party that has the support of less than 50% of the voting populace. Meanwhile Ford's PC win and it's huh well he/they won within the rules of the electoral system we have.

It's still fair to say that politician/party X doesn't have support of the majority despite winning more seats than any other party.
Click to expand...

Yes it is fair - but also you will never see me complaining about JTs win.

It ultimately goes both ways and is the nature of partisan politics - Conservatives complain when the Liberals win, Liberals complain when the Conservatives win. Doesn't mean it's right. JT won his election fair and square, Ford won his fair and square. And that's that.
 
Northern Light said:
It literally is accurate. I'm always cautious about such things and double-check my data before posting.
Click to expand...
Accurate mathematically - but it's a fallacy that had the remaining electorate voted, that their vote split would be significantly different than those that did vote. To use that to imply a lack of support, is misleading.

A better argument would be that about 53% of the vote was for progressive parties, and 45% was for conservative parties

It also assumes that everyone is one issue voter on 413. I doubt it even made the top five issues for many voters, even in the western GTA.

Northern Light said:
I'll assume you disagree with my position on the highway, if so, so be it; but I don't see how that makes my statement 'twisted'.
Click to expand...
I agree with your position on the highway myself; that doesn't mean that the truth isn't being twisted.
 
Northern Light said:
It literally is accurate. I'm always cautious about such things and double-check my data before posting.

I'll assume you disagree with my position on the highway, if so, so be it; but I don't see how that makes my statement 'twisted'.
Click to expand...
I don't agree or disagree with your position on the highway but the way you are communicating this point is where I have an issue. Using your analogy, only 27% or so opposed the highway. Rest 73% support or have no opinion. So should we build this highway using that analogy?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top