Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

[innsertnamehere]

407 being tolled is a figleaf. The urgency behind the 413 is Ford campaign donors that want to plop down subdivisions on farmland in North Brampton, and need the 413 to juice the prices.

And that assertion comes from.. what, exactly?

The 413 predates Ford at the MTO by about a decade, and has been in planning long before Ford even had provincial politics butterflies in his stomach, before even his brother's first mayoral campaign.

Ford has chosen it as a wedge issue for the election, and has advanced it's timeline a bit (which makes sense given it's contentiousness, pushing it off another decade will be a death sentence for the project), but it's not like this is some pet project of his, just the continuance of existing governmental infrastructure planning processes.

I've explained before that I've had exposure to developer's opinions on this project about 6 years ago when it was earlier in the planning process and the couple that I talked to hated the thing because the study for it froze hundreds of hectares in Peel from development, meaning they had to sit on their development land paying their big mortgages and property taxes on dead land while they waited for the province to play politics with the corridor.

Developers don't care if their buyers are stuck in traffic after, they just want to build their houses. And their houses will sell regardless. This project in their eyes does nothing but remove profitable land from being able to be developed and sold.

 

[leopetr]

Perhaps. I'm going mostly off who funded Ontario Proud in the last election:

- Who the donors were: https://noraloreto.medium.com/who-funds-ontario-proud-76a56ca92de1
- MZOs for them in Durham: https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...tario-proud-pc-party-projects-got-green-light
- Connections to the Bradford Bypass: https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2021/10/31/bradford-bypass-ford-government-secrecy.html
- Connections to the 413: https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...pers-ties-ford-government-benefit-highway-413

It could all be a coincidence in terms of interests simply aligning rather than being caused by one another. I drive, but I never expect to need to drive from Muskoka to Guelph in one trip, so I am not charitably inclined towards the 413. I do go from Toronto to Muskoka fairly often, so the equally problematic but shorter Bradford Bypass through the Holland Marsh is much easier for me to be charitable towards, even if we are entering the century of fire hurricanes

 

[TRONto]

Does it not strike you as a little wrong that the pressing need for building a new highway is being driven by the existence of an overpriced toll?
That to solve what is essentially a paperwork/contract issue, we need to spend billions of dollars, pave over 52 km of agricultural/green lands, lay thousands of cubic yards of concrete and/or asphalt, emit thousands of metric tons of C02, etc?
That's crazy.

It may be wrong but we need to deal with the reality of the current situation. There will be a million more people in the GTA before this highway is in service and the lands around it are already zoned for urban sprawl. An untolled 407 would only delay this highway by another decade (the next million+ people).

 

[Ward8]

And their houses will sell regardless. This project in their eyes does nothing but remove profitable land from being able to be developed and sold.

I think the argument would be that people are less likely to buy houses when they aren't in a place accessible to jobs. I think the 413 will be a traffic disaster, so in many ways it doesn't make sense to me, but the internal logic makes sense.

It may be wrong but we need to deal with the reality of the current situation. There will be a million more people in the GTA before this highway is in service and the lands around it are already zoned for urban sprawl. An untolled 407 would only delay this highway by another decade (the next million+ people).

There is no correlation between the need for highways and an increase in population. There are cities a lot more populous than Toronto that get by on a lot less highway. The $$ for the 413 should be spent on transit projects and the 407 tolls should be sorted out to allow time for the transit to be built. Sprawl and greenfield development should simply be banned, or close to it. This isn't really that complicated and has been done elsewhere all over the world.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Perhaps. I'm going mostly off who funded Ontario Proud in the last election:

- Who the donors were: https://noraloreto.medium.com/who-funds-ontario-proud-76a56ca92de1
- MZOs for them in Durham: https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...tario-proud-pc-party-projects-got-green-light
- Connections to the Bradford Bypass: https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2021/10/31/bradford-bypass-ford-government-secrecy.html
- Connections to the 413: https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...pers-ties-ford-government-benefit-highway-413

It could all be a coincidence in terms of interests simply aligning rather than being caused by one another. I drive, but I never expect to need to drive from Muskoka to Guelph in one trip, so I am not charitably inclined towards the 413. I do go from Toronto to Muskoka fairly often, so the equally problematic but shorter Bradford Bypass through the Holland Marsh is much easier for me to be charitable towards, even if we are entering the century of fire hurricanes

Developers donate to all political parties and lots of political groups - Liberal and Conservative. They tend to be most supportive of the Conservative's as their political ideology is more supportive of developers, encouraging market responses to housing issues and things like regulatory reductions making developer's jobs easier, but they donate to both parties as politics and regulation is such a huge part of the business.

IIRC Mattamy had said that they regretted donating to Ontario Proud as they apparently were not aware of the social political issues the group stands for.

Any MZO or generally pro-housing stance by the PCs would likely appear "corrupt" as basically every developer makes donations to both political parties - it would be no different with the Liberals, and is an issue more so with how political parties finance their campaigns and the issues that comes with it than it is specific corruption issues.

Regarding the developer connections to the 413, yea, developers own land around it. The land around it has long been designated for development. Developers own basically half of southern Ontario. The same thing is the case along any of the subway lines, developers will build lots of new housing along those lines, but nobody is connotating corruption on those ones. And that's because it's not a direct enough link to actually be corruption, it's just that landowners will benefit from new infrastructure. That's not corruption, as much as the Star is trying to paint it as such. I get that they are trying to tie the project to the political donations made to the PCs, but you can see developer's intentions through what BILD is discussing and they are very quiet on the 413. Developers lobbying efforts are focused on housing regulatory issues, not transportation servicing issues. Because as I said, the houses will sell regardless of if the highway is there or not.

Similarly regarding the Bradford Bypass, the associate minister has a conflict as his parents own an adjacent golf course, but he has been clear in declaring his conflict and the PCs have been clear that he has been excluded from all discussions of the project. There isn't really anything more the government can do on that front.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think the argument would be that people are less likely to buy houses when they aren't in a place accessible to jobs. I think the 413 will be a traffic disaster, so in many ways it doesn't make sense to me, but the internal logic makes sense.

The thing is that houses getting built in south Caledon and North Brampton are selling regardless. A developer recently launched a new project at McLaughlin and Mayfield and people were camping out overnight at the sales office for it, with the whole project selling out in basically a day. They don't need help selling units as demand for low-density housing forms is so off the charts due to artificial shortages resulting from the Growth Plan and anti-sprawl policies that Developers can sell anything within 100km of Downtown Toronto basically instantly.

 

[Ward8]

Any MZO or generally pro-housing stance by the PCs would likely appear "corrupt" as basically every developer makes donations to both political parties

Either they appear corrupt or they are corrupt. Sometimes parties receive donations because they hold a particular view, and sometimes they scratch the backs of those who gave them money. Both are true at different times, but it can be hard to know which is which. This, at the very least, has bad optics, at worst...

They tend to be most supportive of the Conservative's as their political ideology is more supportive of developers, encouraging market responses to housing issues and things like regulatory reductions making developer's jobs easier, but they donate to both parties as politics and regulation is such a huge part of the business.

Conservatives tend to wield the red tape in a way that is beneficial to big developers. All parties a bad on housing, but the conservatives are notorious for creating regulation that protects the leafy suburbs from upzoning. They are equal in blame when it comes to the artificial housing scarcity. I would grant that they are much more supportive of major greenfield sprawl as a mechanism to increase supply. I would have plenty to say about other parties if it were relevant.

I would also be curious to know what role, if any, the construction companies have in pushing for these mega infrastructure projects. They have a reputation of bad behaviour (on highways and transit), but it's hard to tell what is talk and what is truth. The 413 follows old ideas about transportation needs, so I could grant that they are just not hip to the latest research, but the Bradford bypass seems like an enormous overbuild. You could grade separate a few intersections on Green Ln/Davis Dr and be done with it. Why the need for such a huge project?

 

[innsertnamehere]

construction companies would push for infrastructure spending, but their inherent bias would be for big infrastructure dollars spent on projects that aren't politically contentious which makes that money more likely to be spent. Aecon and SNC Lavalin don't care if they are building a subway line or a highway, as long as the money is flowing.

These kinds of discussions could happen with any infrastructure project, and aren't a sign of the 413's inherent issues as much as they are a sign of the issues with how politics in this province are currently set up and funded. The same corruption connotations could be attached to literally any project from the Ontario Line to the Hamilton LRT to projects as simple as new hydro plants or sewer lines. I mean the Ontario Line is a huge boon to developers like Cadillac Fairview and other landowners in East York and Liberty Village, the Yonge Extension opens up an insane amount of density in York Region, etc., but nobody is screaming corruption on those ones. And unlike the 413, a lot of that development is actually contingent on the transit servicing.

That's the problem - media outlets are taking wider scale issues with political funding and narrowing the focus to an individual project they oppose instead of viewing the issue on the proper scale of a society and political system spanning issue. The 413 just happens to fall within that.

Regarding the PC's views on housing issues, that's for another thread, but I would hardly characterize them as "pro leafy suburbs". they have increased intensification policies just as much, if not more, than they have increased greenfield development rights. their aim is more supply period. I mean you just have to look no further than their Major Transit Station Area Policies and the games they played stripping the Midtown and Downtown Secondary Plans of policies which restrict growth. Of course more supply also means more money for developers, so opponents to these issues can jump on that framing of the issue and scream "corruption!" because developers all gave $500 or whatever to the PCs 4 years ago.

 

[DirectionNorth]

That's reasonable, @innsertnamehere. Nevertheless, developing Caledon isn't enough to meet City of Toronto (not GTA, CoT) population growth estimates for 25 years. Sprawl isn't land-efficient, and should be discouraged either way.

I agree that it isn't really corruption. It's still a bad project. Never chalk up to malevolence, what can be attributed to incompetence.

 

[TRONto]

I think the argument would be that people are less likely to buy houses when they aren't in a place accessible to jobs. I think the 413 will be a traffic disaster, so in many ways it doesn't make sense to me, but the internal logic makes sense.


There is no correlation between the need for highways and an increase in population. There are cities a lot more populous than Toronto that get by on a lot less highway. The $$ for the 413 should be spent on transit projects and the 407 tolls should be sorted out to allow time for the transit to be built. Sprawl and greenfield development should simply be banned, or close to it. This isn't really that complicated and has been done elsewhere all over the world.

There is an overwhelming demand for housing so the accessibility issue isn't relevant.
If the 413 is a disaster, is that saying it will be heavily used as in there would be a lot of demand for it?
There is a correlation between the need for infrastructure (including highways) and increasing population.
We are building quite a few transit projects right now so it's not for a lack of funding that projects are missing out.
The 407 tolls issues has been come at a few times, the contract is tight.
The lands for greenfield development are already set aside, banning building is not going to happen with our current house prices.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That's reasonable, @innsertnamehere. Nevertheless, developing Caledon isn't enough to meet City of Toronto (not GTA, CoT) population growth estimates for 25 years. Sprawl isn't land-efficient, and should be discouraged either way.

I agree that it isn't really corruption. It's still a bad project. Never chalk up to malevolence, what can be attributed to incompetence.

You aren't wrong. I personally believe the project should move forward, but there are merits to other angles of opposing the project. Corruption just isn't really one of them if you ask me, short of more damning evidence emerging, which I just don't really see happening. Given Ford held a hasty press conference during the 2018 election cycle to support the highway, I suspect the thought process from Ford was simply "traffic is terrible, new highways will help, I'll support the new highway". I am extremely suspicious it was "my buddy Peter Gilgan wants me to build a highway in Caledon and he gave the party $1,200 so I'll stake my entire political re-election on it".

 

[Ward8]

If the 413 is a disaster, is that saying it will be heavily used as in there would be a lot of demand for it?
There is a correlation between the need for infrastructure (including highways) and increasing population.

The infrastructure we build dictates the available options people have to travel, as well as how housing is built around it. The 413 will induce sprawl and become congested. No argument from me there. If there was a correlation between population and amount of highway then the biggest cities would have the greatest amount of highway miles. That's not the case. Greater Houston and Toronto have comparable populations. Houston has way more highway and worse congestion than we do.

In contrast, Greater Paris is almost triple the population of the GTA and they're talking about removing the perephique. There are a bunch of examples of more populous cities with less highway infrastructure. Heck, If highways had to go up based on population then Tokyo should have the most highway miles in the world. It does not.

We can't just throw our hands up in a climate emergency and say "more people more highways." We need sustained investment in public transit and infill development. In the mean time we can make better use of the 407. The contract is tight but there is lots they could do to improve traffic without nullifying the deal (which they should probably just go ahead and do)

 

[TRONto]

The infrastructure we build dictates the available options people have to travel, as well as how housing is built around it. The 413 will induce sprawl and become congested. No argument from me there. If there was a correlation between population and amount of highway then the biggest cities would have the greatest amount of highway miles. That's not the case. Greater Houston and Toronto have comparable populations. Houston has way more highway and worse congestion than we do.

In contrast, Greater Paris is almost triple the population of the GTA and they're talking about removing the perephique. There are a bunch of examples of more populous cities with less highway infrastructure. Heck, If highways had to go up based on population then Tokyo should have the most highway miles in the world. It does not.

We can't just throw our hands up in a climate emergency and say "more people more highways." We need sustained investment in public transit and infill development. In the mean time we can make better use of the 407. The contract is tight but there is lots they could do to improve traffic without nullifying the deal (which they should probably just go ahead and do)

You hit the nail on the head. We don't have the urban layout or infrastructure of Paris or Tokyo which is exactly why we need the highway. I would prefer to the GTA to be zoned into a Vienna or Barcelona with accompanying transit service but it's not going to happen. I bike and walk more than I drive and at the same time, I know my friends who have moved out to Guelph, Kitchener, Newmarket, Oshawa, etc who need their cars and the highways. I am happy to live in Toronto where I can do most of my days without getting into a car but I know I am the exception.

I agree with you all the way in principal but practically, it isn't happening. If you were to predict the next 30 years or 50 years in the GTA what do you see? I think the highway needs to happen because of the likely form of the GTA in 2050 and 2070.

"The 413 will induce sprawl and become congested"
The sprawl is already planned for and is coming with or without the highway.

I don't see highways as a climate change issue anymore. Cars are being electrified (look at Norway for the future) and most of our electricity is carbon free. In Ontario, that marginal dependence on fossil fuels will go down with time.

 

[Ward8]

You hit the nail on the head. We don't have the urban layout or infrastructure of Paris or Tokyo which is exactly why we need the highway.

This is classic chicken or the egg. If we keep building sprawl and highways thats the built form we'll get. It's hard to predict what the next 30-50 years will look like, but it is a choose your own adventure story. We have agency over the way our cities are built and we are not passive onlookers of sprawl. I don't accept the premise that it is inevitable. Highways are important, but if 20 lanes of 401 don't improve traffic, 4 more lanes of the 413 aren't going to help either.

Amidst the current housing crisis there is a real possibility that single family zoning is eliminated in Toronto. Every municipality in the GTA could change dramatically in the coming years. Ryerson did a study on Mississauga and showed that its population could double without tearing down a single house or acre of farm.

Norway is still only at 15% electric cars and were decades behind them. The added cars are a climate change issue, as well as the damage to the greenbelt and the crappy built forms.

 

[innsertnamehere]

This is classic chicken or the egg. If we keep building sprawl and highways thats the built form we'll get. It's hard to predict what the next 30-50 years will look like, but it is a choose your own adventure story. We have agency over the way our cities are built and we are not passive onlookers of sprawl. I don't accept the premise that it is inevitable. Highways are important, but if 20 lanes of 401 don't improve traffic, 4 more lanes of the 413 aren't going to help either.

Amidst the current housing crisis there is a real possibility that single family zoning is eliminated in Toronto. Every municipality in the GTA could change dramatically in the coming years. Ryerson did a study on Mississauga and showed that its population could double without tearing down a single house or acre of farm.

Norway is still only at 15% electric cars and were decades behind them. The added cars are a climate change issue, as well as the damage to the greenbelt and the crappy built forms.

Norway is at 18% electric in it's entire fleet but new sales are at 85%, and rising fast.

Norway is also not really decades ahead, just a few short years ago it's electric market share was similar to Canada's. It's generous subsidies for electric vehicles (or rather lack of mega-taxes that apply to gas vehicles) mean that electric vehicles have rocketed to massive market share very quickly compared to globally.

The same thing will happen in Canada over the next decade, by the time this highway is built I expect similar sales numbers as Norway has today as a minimum for new vehicles.

Of course it takes time for vehicles to age out of use, so it will be a while yet before gas vehicles disappear, but many if not most vehicle manufacturers are already stopping new engine development and focusing all R&D funds on electric.

Of course electric cars aren't 0 emissions, but they have IIRC about 1/10 the lifetime emissions of a comparable gas vehicle and that is expected to fall even more as the technology matures with more efficient manufacturing methods and the electric grid becomes cleaner.

The future negatives of vehicles will be their built form impacts, not their emissions. Or at least not nearly to the same extent.