Bradford Bypass (MTO, Hwy 400 - Hwy 404)

[north-of-anything]

If we worried about what every local thinks (and I doubt it's unanimous), then nothing would happen. I've heard that not 100% of people want the highway built at all!

Of course it's not unanimous, but when that extra 4 km to reach County Road 27 has much less utility than the connector between the 400 and 404, the opinions of the community and local landowners hold a lot more weight in the decision making process. There is not enough of a benefit to be gained by building more freeway.

My dealings with those in rural Bradford are bizarre beyond what I've ever seen anywhere in the ... world? There was neighbours next to proposed cemetery fighting it, because it wasn't consistent with the rural setting! I guess they need to knock down all those rural churches as well.

You mean the proposal for a cemetery with two four-storey mausoleum buildings on top of a sensitive aquifer and nobody confirmed to actually manage and operate it? I have no horse in that race, but I can understand why a reasonable person would oppose it. Also, that's completely unrelated to a hypothetical freeway extension to nowhere.

Bradford is pretty protective of their agricultural lands; that doesn't make them super-NIMBYs.

This in a spot that could see high rises in a few decades ... which would they prefer?

There will not be multiple high rises in Bradford in a few decades - maybe a single one on Holland Street.

 

[narduch]

You mean the proposal for a cemetery with two four-storey mausoleum buildings on top of a sensitive aquifer and nobody confirmed to actually manage and operate it? I have no horse in that race, but I can understand why a reasonable person would oppose it. Also, that's completely unrelated to a hypothetical freeway extension to nowhere.

Lmfao.

So it's ok to build a useless highway on important wetlands.

But you draw the line at a mausoleum

 

[north-of-anything]

Lmfao.

So it's ok to build a useless highway on important wetlands.

But you draw the line at a mausoleum

Don't put words in my mouth. You've been in this thread all day slagging the transportation and civic needs of a community as being "a waste of money" without any real evidence or argument. The condescension is palpable and unhelpful, and that "you don't know what's good for you" attitude is frankly why all these towns in sensitive agricultural areas keep voting for people who want to pave over and develop it all.

Have fun on the ignore list with the other bad faith arguers.

 

[narduch]

Don't put words in my mouth. You've been in this thread all day slagging the transportation and civic needs of a community as being "a waste of money" without any real evidence or argument. The condescension is palpable and unhelpful, and that "you don't know what's good for you" attitude is frankly why all these towns in sensitive agricultural areas keep voting for people who want to pave over and develop it all.

Have fun on the ignore list with the other bad faith arguers.

I mean. The people in favour haven't even come up with a compelling argument for why this highway is even necessary. Including yourself.

Other than they like having it as a luxury. Which is a terrible reason to build a new highway.

The environmental concerns are reason enough to not build it. Without getting into the government's fake numbers of time savings.

 

[2323]

The people in favour haven't even come up with a compelling argument for why this highway is even necessary.

- Increased connectivity and redundancy in the highway network that allows more travel routes. Spreading out traffic over multiple routes will always work better than funneling them into one, think why the 401 is so bad. If there is an accident or severe weather impacting the 400, the entire corridor isn't crippled. This happens not even because of cottage country traffic but with commuters and recreational users that want to access the many things to do up there. Let me be clear that this is not a "one lane bro solve traffic forever" scenario, it literally is creating a new connection where there was not one before. And the point is not purely to solve traffic, it is to manage it. The same way that a good transit network does, you don't want Line 1 being your only backbone. Adding more subway lines will increase ridership ("traffic" for arguments sake), but it will also manage those riders far better than a single line could. Think about how the entire TTC network has a meltdown when some portions of the subway close.
- There exists no connection between the 400 and 404 after Bradford for a good 9km until Davis, and even then, you are funneled into inefficient and dangerous Newmarket stroads to get to the 404. The Bradford Bypass would be significant in the fact that as a bypass, it does not interact with any development that slows you down. It is also far safer.
- Takes significant through traffic away from Bradford, meaning the streets don't need to be widened and reduces the bottleneck in that area.
- An at grade expressway would work but it would be somewhat less efficient and probably not even much more environmentally friendly (you're still building a big bridge in the marsh). Also, grade separation would have far better speeds.
- A surface option would create new stroads. Queensville has developmet on it already and if you are going to bother with a new ROW then a freeway is not too different.
- A surface option would still have poor connectivity with the 400 and 404, negating its purpose as a high speed connection.
- It is not just bypassing Bradford, but also everything south of it. Anyone travelling to Markham and eastward will massively benefit from this.
- Usually I would not support a freeway if a transit line could do the job better, but in this situation, transit is not even particularly relevant which shows that it is not about whether to build this or a transit line, but a freeway or some half-assed arterial/7 lane stroad. Let's at least do it right. The Netherlands even knows this, they build freeways everywhere because it is part of having an efficient road network.
- The one thing I will say is that there is room to argue that the footprint is somewhat space inefficient. The median being wide is fine, since expansion can take place there, but I'm not convinced some of the service interchanges need to be as big as they are.
- Yes, it is environmentally destructive, but unless you want to destroy half of Bradford to have a narrower crossing, there really isn't another way to do this, as painful as it is.

 

[nfitz]

You mean the proposal for a cemetery with two four-storey mausoleum buildings on top of a sensitive aquifer and nobody confirmed to actually manage and operate it?

No, not that one - I'd heard there was another one also at a hearing.

This one the mausoleum building was only one storey (certainly no more than two). People seemed more troubled that there was going to be an on-site house for the caretaker (isn't that a good thing? With complaints that it didn't need 4 bedrooms (apparently the caretaker has kids). They seemed more focused on the extra traffic that they were going to get from the occasional burial.

It certainly wasn't a sensitive aquifer (nor are burials a particularly sensitive land use, especially as there'd have been no embalming or lead, etc.). The biggest complaint about that was from the downgradient neighbour because they were concerned that it might limit their ability to bury their cattle when there was an outbreak of some disease.

I have no horse in that race, but I can understand why a reasonable person would oppose it.

Why? It's not like a ploughed field, that stinks of manure. Or traffic blocked while someone moves their sheep from one field to another.

Bradford is pretty protective of their agricultural lands; that doesn't make them super-NIMBYs.

The agricultural testimony was that it was pretty marginal soil; one part had been fallow for years (unlike to the south that was much better soiled and still in use). Another part was being used more as an unofficial park for the extant religious building (whatever it's called). Based on the comments, some were very anti-religious.

There will not be multiple high rises in Bradford in a few decades - maybe a single one on Holland Street.

Well, perhaps I exaggerate - though if no high rises, then even more chances that there serene rural properties will be surrounded by sprawl.

If there's no densification around King GO (Kingo!), including more than one high rise, then there's something fundamentally wrong. Has the province already given up on TOD?

 

[north-of-anything]

No, not that one - I'd heard there was another one also at a hearing.

This one the mausoleum building was only one storey (certainly no more than two). People seemed more troubled that there was going to be an on-site house for the caretaker (isn't that a good thing? With complaints that it didn't need 4 bedrooms (apparently the caretaker has kids). They seemed more focused on the extra traffic that they were going to get from the occasional burial.

It certainly wasn't a sensitive aquifer (nor are burials a particularly sensitive land use, especially as there'd have been no embalming or lead, etc.). The biggest complaint about that was from the downgradient neighbour because they were concerned that it might limit their ability to bury their cattle when there was an outbreak of some disease.


Why? It's not like a ploughed field, that stinks of manure. Or traffic blocked while someone moves their sheep from one field to another.

The agricultural testimony was that it was pretty marginal soil; one part had been fallow for years (unlike to the south that was much better soiled and still in use). Another part was being used more as an unofficial park for the extant religious building (whatever it's called). Based on the comments, some were very anti-religious.

Oh, yes, I believe I know what you're referring to now. I looked up "Bradford cemetery" and the first hit was for the multifaith proposal on 13th Line, so I thought it was that one.

The Ahmadiyya property on 10th Sideroad has been the subject of quite a bit of fearmongering over the years, and a cemetery there makes more sense, but I am not surprised by disproportionate public opposition to it. I'm not sure you wouldn't get the same kind of response somewhere like Georgetown, though.

The (marginal) extra traffic from that change in land use would be able to disperse onto the Bypass right off 10th Sideroad, funnily enough.

 

[nfitz]

Oh, yes, I believe I know what you're referring to now. I looked up "Bradford cemetery" and the first hit was for the multifaith proposal on 13th Line, so I thought it was that one.

I had no idea that one was controversial.

The Ahmadiyya property on 10th Sideroad has been the subject of quite a bit of fearmongering over the years, and a cemetery there makes more sense, but I am not surprised by disproportionate public opposition to it. I'm not sure you wouldn't get the same kind of response somewhere like Georgetown, though.

The (marginal) extra traffic from that change in land use would be able to disperse onto the Bypass right off 10th Sideroad, funnily enough.

There were actually complaints not only about how big the parking lot was. But that people would be parking on the side of the street. SO WHICH ONE IS IT!

Racism and bigotry was a clear factor - from the contents of the video of the public meeting. Some of the things that were said about the applicants sounded as if it was said by white nationalist Christianity. No one clearly said something about skin colour, but it was implied. The comments about religion were very explicit. I don't know much about Christianity, but it's clear that hatred is a central tenant.

And then the local councillor who unsuccessfully fought it was completely bent. After council approved it, it was then delayed for years more, when a neighbour appealed it up to both the OMB and the Environmental Review Tribunal (which is now all part of the OLT). Who turned out to the the brother of the councillor who had been working on it ... and they were business partners to boot.

Why he didn't get crucified by the Toronto Star for such massive and truly corrupt conflict of interest, when they go after Tory for accidently voting on some unanimous item about cellphone service I don't know ...

Anyhow, I have no patience for racist Bradford Nimbys.

 

[lenaitch]

If the argument for the highway is to provide connectivity between Hwys 400 and 404 (via however many lanes - I forget) while bypassing the townsite, I'm not sure I see the benefit in extending it to a lower-tier two-lane road would be good design or traffic management. A similar argument could be used at the east end about extending it to Hwy 48 (admittedly, a longer extension).

What? You mean they aren't protecting for a future extension? In an area that's neither green belt, moraine, escarpment, which will surely be developed?

If so, the incompetence is shocking.

According to the MTO's corridor control map, they are not.

I think most people are using real time GPS navigation apps like waze and google maps. Not only do I check the best route when leaving, I get regular updates throughout my drive. I cannot tell you how many times I would have loved to had this direct connection to the 404 when coming south. Instead I was routed into a zigzag pattern on local roads. Redundancy in the system is a very good thing.

My admittedly few years old experience and observations suggest otherwise. We could scoot from Barrie to Pearson usually in an hour on a summer Sunday, with very little accompanying traffic, while watching traffic sitting on Hwy 400.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The 404 is expected to eventually be extended northeast to 48 by Sutton - a connection that makes sense in my mind.

The Bypass was never intended to be some big cross-provincial roadway. it's a distributor highway.

A westward extension just doesn't make sense. Where is it going to? The corridor is too far south to easily connect to Alliston, and there aren't really large amounts of east-west traffic running through this part of the province.. It's designed to redistribute traffic between the 400 and 404 and that's it.