Transportfan
Senior Member
Development and transportation interests often go hand-in hand, and they don't always have to be from an environmentalist (or safety advocate) perspective. Why would they necessarily be?
|
|
|
Development and transportation interests often go hand-in hand, and they don't always have to be from an environmentalist (or safety advocate) perspective. Why would they necessarily be?
Jasmine18
Senior Member
I think in the GTA we have very bad extremes.
Either people are like just build endless highways and damn mass transit vs let everyone sit in traffic for hours a day as those people should spend 1.5 hours in a bus for a 30 min drive.
I think we need to build mass trasit but considering the huge population of the GTA, it needs more highways or highways that are expanded with a lot more public transit.
Like I understand that it is not very green to build more highways but is it t smart to have people stuck in traffic polluting anyways?
Either people are like just build endless highways and damn mass transit vs let everyone sit in traffic for hours a day as those people should spend 1.5 hours in a bus for a 30 min drive.
I think we need to build mass trasit but considering the huge population of the GTA, it needs more highways or highways that are expanded with a lot more public transit.
Like I understand that it is not very green to build more highways but is it t smart to have people stuck in traffic polluting anyways?
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
This strikes me as awfully naive. You don't think people said this exact thing about the 401 a few generations ago? That this wasn't the entirety of the logic of building the 407? You don't have to go digging through old microfiche in the library to find that both highways were proposed as by-passes of the city rather than "urban commuter routes."
I'll say this much, there are two competing things that are true:
1) Some "urbanists" object to any new lane of road or highway being built anywhere and cite it as proof of a lack of commitment to a more sustainable future etc. This is ridiculous because no matter how many people we get into trains and transit and whatever else we do, we're still a growing region and need alternative routes etc. We have a lot of drivers and will have more. Not every highway extension is a nail in the coffin of human existence. Sometimes we're just making it easier for people to get from A to B.
2) Induced demand is real. Where a road does not now exist, there will be more cars than you expect once you build it. It's been proven time and time and time again, the best and easiest example perhaps being how every time Robert Moses built a new bridge in NYC, it was to alleviate traffic on another bridge. And every time he did it, both bridges were packed within months of the new one opening. So that shoots down this idea that overcrowding on the 401 will disappear or even be noticeably alleviated. It won't.
I'll also add that we don't know what's happening with autonomous cars and while it's easy to be skeptical, there's also enough going on to make one think twice about the need for another 400-series highway. There seems to be this weird irony-free argument that the highway makes MORE sense if there is no or less or "more sustainable" development around it, but I don't see it. Once the road is there, the demand for development will be there. It's a Catch 22 fundamental to human civilization.
If you wanna build it, you can build it. Arguably this region would indeed benefit from a truck by-pass of the GTA and I'm not saying otherwise.
But don't do it thinking you're really taking cars off the 401 and you'll have 2 easy-going highways instead of 1 super-crowded one and don't do it thinking it won't open the door to potential development in areas that in the Greenbelt or otherwise undeveloped today. (And definitely don't think there are no private landowning interests along the corridor who want to see it built for precisely these reasons).
Haljackey
Active Member
Greater Toronto is growing pretty quickly and I think we need massive expansions to both highways and transit to address the capacity gaps we have now and what's forecasted.
Ah, maybe you're right. My perspective being on the outside looking in is different on this forum. I just can't imagine a 1950s/60s suburban expansion occurring along this highway. Urban planning practices have changed a lot since then, and this highway is much further away from development and (currently) has the greenbelt to protect areas.
Yes the traffic relief on the 401 will just be a drop in the bucket with this highway but it is something. Hopefully a few more drops can be added through other projects, both highways and transit. Life/work changes may also change things. More people working from home, autonomous cars, more deliveries, etc. all have positive and negative impacts on traffic demand and it's hard to predict.
Maybe this route can be tolled until it's paid off? So revenue neutral? Or maybe be a small money-maker for the province? I'd pay to use this highway to bypass the 401 through Greater Toronto to access the 400 if the price is right, unlike the 407.
Ah, maybe you're right. My perspective being on the outside looking in is different on this forum. I just can't imagine a 1950s/60s suburban expansion occurring along this highway. Urban planning practices have changed a lot since then, and this highway is much further away from development and (currently) has the greenbelt to protect areas.
Yes the traffic relief on the 401 will just be a drop in the bucket with this highway but it is something. Hopefully a few more drops can be added through other projects, both highways and transit. Life/work changes may also change things. More people working from home, autonomous cars, more deliveries, etc. all have positive and negative impacts on traffic demand and it's hard to predict.
Maybe this route can be tolled until it's paid off? So revenue neutral? Or maybe be a small money-maker for the province? I'd pay to use this highway to bypass the 401 through Greater Toronto to access the 400 if the price is right, unlike the 407.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Can we have the thread updated? this highway hasn't been planned to go to Guelph for a few years now.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I don't even really have a strong opinion on the highway, though I'm wary of it. And I'm less concerned about the road itself than the likelihood it will encourage sprawl, despite promises to the contrary. Based on my personal travel patterns, I doubt I'd ever take it.
But I definitely agree it should be tolled and by the Province, not a private consortium. I don't know if I'd stop when it's paid off though maybe reducing tolls to only cover maintenance would be fair. Either way, if it's mostly aimed at trucks and goods movement, it should be priced accordingly; let the private corporations pay for it if they want/need it.
BurlOak
Senior Member
You can't change the name of a thread. If you do, you have to sift through the early posts related to Guelph and create a separate thread for them. Thread names should only be changed for spelling.
This portion to Milton is just phase 1.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
lol wat? thread titles change all the time.
When the next "phase" comes up in 20 years I'm sure another thread can be created. In the mean time its best not to confuse people and make them think this highway will go to Guelph.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Yes - thread change names all the time, but it seems wrong. Now if I want to find old information about the Relief Line, I have to look in the Ontario Line thread.
The combined Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown is buried in the Eglinton Crosstown thread - or is it in the Scarborough Subway thread - but it's not easy to find.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
We can build both highways and mass transit. There's no reason nor excuse why dedicated transit lanes couldn't be installed along new highways from inception. Even existing highways like the 401 could have a few lanes converted to only host GO buses.
Neutrino
Senior Member
Those buses better have a 3 minute frequency lol
Northern Light
Superstar
Its important to say, based on the province's current fiscal situation, I don' think we can afford the GTA West and GO RER and the Ontario Line etc etc.
There is a finite amount of money to go around, and in those terms, investments should target the maximum number of people per hour you can move; that will favour transit over highways, every time.
salsa
Senior Member
And from time to time I also hear concerns raised about our construction industry's ability to handle so many large infrastructure projects all at once. This was the excuse the Liberals used to delay the Sheppard LRT into the 2020s, though I'm not sure to what degree they were actually being honest here.
But it requires evidence-based decision making to come to that conclusion, which in politics is often in short supply.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The one thing with highways is that they can be self financing, unlike transit which requires subsidy.
its how the 407 was built in the 90’s - the province couldn’t finance it themselves so they financed it through tolls. I imagine that GTA west could be similar.
I imagine that GTA west will cost around $1.5 billion going off of 407 east construction costs, so it’s not a crazy amount compared to the subway program the province has going right now.I imagine tolls could finance a good chunk of that too.
its how the 407 was built in the 90’s - the province couldn’t finance it themselves so they financed it through tolls. I imagine that GTA west could be similar.
I imagine that GTA west will cost around $1.5 billion going off of 407 east construction costs, so it’s not a crazy amount compared to the subway program the province has going right now.I imagine tolls could finance a good chunk of that too.
Neutrino
Senior Member
More like decision-based evidence making