Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[CMQSD402F9011]

You said "to expand and fund public transport like Rail". That's more than an operating subsidy!

Lack of an operating subsidy for TTC isn't a recent issue - it goes back decades. But hasn't the Ford government increased operating subsidies for GO's rail service, with the service expansions, and lower fare for shorter distances? And isn't the funding of inter-agency transfers also increased subsidies?

There's a lot to criticize Ford for - but transit?

I'm not sure the highway expansion is particularly higher under Ford. After 7 years, there aren't a lot of shovels in the ground yet - unlike transit. The McGuinty/Wynne Liberal government gave us the start of not only a 65-km extension of the 407, but the new 10-km Highway 412 and the new almost 10 km Highway 418. That's 85 km alone. Then there's the 15-km 404 extension - 100 km. Along with extensions of the 417 westards, and converting Highway 7 to 400-series standards towards Carleton Place.

In the meantime, the Bradford Bypass is only 16-km long. And the 413 is about 55 km long.

The Ford government is still playing catch-up to the urban sprawl that the Liberals enabled.

Ford government seems to be more pro-transit and less pro-highway than the Liberals,, to me.

(and then there's the 400/11 work ... too much work tountangle, but I think many governments have been equally keen on that; though how Liberals hadn't at least started all the 400 to Sudbury work after 15 years in office I don't know)

And what about expanding Rail Passenger services to areas like Thunder Bay or relay the tracks on the old CP Rail Chalk River sub in the Ottawa Valley? Ford has no plans for that to my knowledge.

 

[robmausser]

Which roads? Mayfield maybe?

It's too far north to help Bovaird or Queen St.

This is wishful thinking.



Exactly. This is the main reason for this highway. To increase property values for the future developments along the route. It has very little to do with helping to move traffic in the GTA. Their own traffic studies have shown that.

View attachment 700913

This happens with everything in government. Its a given.

The Spadina Line extension was pushed through by MP Greg Sorbara.

Who happens to be part of the Sorbara family, owning Sobara Group housing.

Who just happened to own the land where the VMC end stop of the Spadina Line was planned.

 

[nfitz]

And what about expanding Rail Passenger services to areas like Thunder Bay or relay the tracks on the old CP Rail Chalk River sub in the Ottawa Valley? Ford has no plans for that to my knowledge.

Nor should he. The cost-benefit ratio would be near infinite, and the riders few and far between. This would be better served with bus. Much better served, as the bus can stop in every little town on demand, while that's difficult on a train.

I think Thunder Bay is stretching GTA-West corridor a bit!

 

[afransen]

As mentioned earlier, if the province rebated each commercial truck that uses the 407 with tolls, it would be cheaper than building the 413. Trucks currently using the 401 would then use the 407, as well.

Solving nothing but wasting hundreds of millions per year and congesting the 407.

 

[narduch]

Solving nothing but wasting hundreds of millions per year and congesting the 407.

This highway solves nothing too

 

[dullturtle06]

First, Huntsville is a weird choice considering that he's literally building the Northlander which will serve Huntsville. Second, Doug also heavily deregulated the coach bus market that has lead to the current status quo of improved inter city busses to many cities and prices that are a lot cheaper than they were pre-covid during the greyhound days. Finally, exactly what kind of transit do you want in cities like Huntsville and Owen Sound? These are small towns where it's relatively easy to get around on foot, and simply isn't economically feasible to run massive frequent bus networks. The car will inherently always be king in these places.

Small and easy to get around. Sounds perfect for biking, but new bike lanes are illegal in ontario, so drive baby drive.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Small and easy to get around. Sounds perfect for biking, but new bike lanes are illegal in ontario, so drive baby drive.

Bracebridge looks like this for half the year.

It's not exactly a cyclists paradise.

And Bike lanes are absolutely not illegal - only bike lanes which remove lanes of traffic. In small towns like Huntsville or Bracebridge there are few 4-lane roads as it is.

This idea that small towns, where half the population doesn't even live in the urban centre, can become car-free cyclist utopias is just so disconnected from the realities of these communities that I question if people advocating for it as a practical possibility have ever even spent any significant amount of time in a rural community. It's just simply not how rural areas operate basically anywhere globally.

 

[dullturtle06]

Bracebridge looks like this for half the year.

It's not exactly a cyclists paradise.

And Bike lanes are absolutely not illegal - only bike lanes which remove lanes of traffic. In small towns like Huntsville or Bracebridge there are few 4-lane roads as it is.

This idea that small towns, where half the population doesn't even live in the urban centre, can become car-free cyclist utopias is just so disconnected from the realities of these communities that I question if people advocating for it as a practical possibility have ever even spent any significant amount of time in a rural community. It's just simply not how rural areas operate basically anywhere globally.

So just like the sidewalk in the picture the snow can be removed. And it's not about cyclists utopian. It's about safe options for mobility. Just how sidewalks are built standard so people can walk, same should be for safe bike lanes. People will drive of course, but provide oppertunties for people to make that choice. Why only force people to drive?
Small towns where everything is undr 3km may have neighbour's chose a healthier mode of transportation especially with e-bike becoming more cost effective. And if people drive into town, that's fine too. But don't have a transportation policy that forces people to do so.

 

[innsertnamehere]

So just like the sidewalk in the picture the snow can be removed. And it's not about cyclists utopian. It's about safe options for mobility. Just how sidewalks are built standard so people can walk, same should be for safe bike lanes. People will drive of course, but provide oppertunties for people to make that choice. Why only force people to drive?
Small towns where everything is undr 3km may have neighbour's chose a healthier mode of transportation especially with e-bike becoming more cost effective. And if people drive into town, that's fine too. But don't have a transportation policy that forces people to do so.

Sure. the municipality can spend days doing that just in time for the next dumping of snow to have to start all over again! Again, I'm not sure if you have ever spent a significant amount of time in Northern Ontario in the winter time, especially in areas that get lake effect like Huntsville/Bracebridge.. but these are not areas that are easy to cycle in for 4 months a year even with top-notch snow clearing services.

Regardless of snow, the reality is you could build beautiful protected cycling lanes here that exceed the highest global design standards and 97% of people will just drive anyway even in perfect cycling weather. It's just generally a waste of time and energy to pursue.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Which roads? Mayfield maybe?

It's too far north to help Bovaird or Queen St.

This is wishful thinking.



Exactly. This is the main reason for this highway. To increase property values for the future developments along the route. It has very little to do with helping to move traffic in the GTA. Their own traffic studies have shown that.

View attachment 700913

I will say that most landowners actually friggen hate this highway. The EA held back lands from development for the better part of 15 years, costing these landowners immense amounts of money. And now that it is locking in, the City is going and redesignating a lot of land along the highway from residential to industrial, which comes with much lower land values.

Developers don't care if their homebuyers will sit in traffic. They can still sell the houses. not having the 413 meant that they got more residential land and way less land expropriated for the highway.

I also hate that map as some how inferring that the highway is backed by developers. Like, "Developers own land on the edge of the city because they want to develop it, more at 11". You could make the same map for basically any rural area close to the urban edge of the GTA. It would be like "Ontario Line backed by developers" and showing a map of how developers own a lot of land in Downtown Toronto.. like, yea. It's a growing area. Developers buy land in growing areas to develop it.

And what traffic studies have you seen that conclude that? The original GTA West Corridor Studies, now removed from the website unfortunately, definitely did not indicate that. The studies showed significant reductions in median travel times in the western GTA, especially in Brampton. Without the Highway Brampton's arterial roads are expected to experience massive levels of congestion as they will have to shoulder all the suburban growth which is clearly happening regardless of this highway.

 

[narduch]

I will say that most landowners actually friggen hate this highway. The EA held back lands from development for the better part of 15 years, costing these landowners immense amounts of money. And now that it is locking in, the City is going and redesignating a lot of land along the highway from residential to industrial, which comes with much lower land values.

Developers don't care if their homebuyers will sit in traffic. They can still sell the houses. not having the 413 meant that they got more residential land and way less land expropriated for the highway.

I also hate that map as some how inferring that the highway is backed by developers. Like, "Developers own land on the edge of the city because they want to develop it, more at 11". You could make the same map for basically any rural area close to the urban edge of the GTA. It would be like "Ontario Line backed by developers" and showing a map of how developers own a lot of land in Downtown Toronto.. like, yea. It's a growing area. Developers buy land in growing areas to develop it.

And what traffic studies have you seen that conclude that? The original GTA West Corridor Studies, now removed from the website unfortunately, definitely did not indicate that. The studies showed significant reductions in median travel times in the western GTA, especially in Brampton. Without the Highway Brampton's arterial roads are expected to experience massive levels of congestion as they will have to shoulder all the suburban growth which is clearly happening regardless of this highway.

The landowners that oppose this aren't developers.

The developers are the ones driving this. It's the only reason Ford is pushing it.