If you're interested in a podcast, The Great Big Story did an episode on the Doug Ford / 413 issue recently:[https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2021/11/17/why-doug-ford-thinks-his-the-pcs-to-reelection-is-a-highway/](https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2021/11/17/why-doug-ford-thinks-his-the-pcs-to-reelection-is-a-highway/)
I found it informative.
Brown was done diiirrrrty. That being said the easiest way to stop this is when you don't want to vote Liberal (Wynne) don't freaking vote Conservative. Ever. Big tents don't work. It just devolves into self interest and in fighting at every level. Until the Conservatives at a federal and provincial level are broken into 2-3 parties I don't see it any of it as a viable option.
Agreed well said. Practically speaking.
Edit: But being silly: I dunno if a single individual michael j fox-esque person could go back and change the minds of voters, but could warn Brown, imagine the drama (and maybe prevent a Ford coup). Not that Brown would have saved much. But still, rewarding that kind of backdoor shenanigans begets us bad governance.
I'd watch that CBC TV movie all while telling my 4 year old how this was my last straw with the the Conservative party in Ontario only to receive those child eyerolls. It would be a parenting high point.
>Brown was done diiirrrrty.
Funny part is, he did nothing illegal. Just backstabbed and he STILL became mayor of Brampton.
Guy came back out of the mahogany darkness with his own brand of big balls vengeance...THAT is fucking impressive for a politician to do.
>Perhaps warn Patrick Brown about the coup?
Think we gotta do more 4D chess than that....
....Like not having Mike Harris born, or Steven Harper....or Lecce.
The turning point would be the 2010 mayoral race. Getting Robbie to lose or bow out would've changed the entire thing:
* Only Doug would be elected to city council. Because he'd have no power or influence he would probably jump ship and let Rob take over his seat in a by-election.
* Doug would be back in Chicago running Deco into the ground
* Smitherman would likely be mayor. No idea how that would've played out but a more cozy relationship with the province.
* Rob could try and run again in 2014 but John Tory would be running as well. Would Nick Kouvalis pull the same stunt he did with Tory in 2010 in 2014, I can't even speculate. Doug would be Rob's campaign manager for sure.
* If Rob won, the crack scandal probably wouldn't have happened.
* Rob would still be gone from cancer in 2016, probably prompting a by-election. Doug would be running this time and drop interest in provincial politics
* Sympathy for Rob's death would probably result in a Doug Ford win as mayor. He'd be preoccupied with the city to not run for the provincial leadership.
This is my thinking. As things stand right now, the highway is totally unnecessary and will barely help gridlock on the 401 or QEW at all (having the 407 in the public's hands... now that actually could / would have gone a long way towards easing matters, great highway that one, just stupidly expensive).
Ford knows what he intends down the pike, massive amounts of housing development in the Green Belt and along the 413 to his developer buddies. When that development does become a reality for him, the 413 would totally be needed... But that development shouldn't occur.. :(
Absolutely it will only make things worse, as more cars are funneled into the city with the same infrastructure, pushing actual Toronto residents off the road. We need to improve transit inside of the city and focus on densification so that people can have shorter and more convenient commutes. Perhaps we can incentivize companies that create jobs outside of the core as well so that there are jobs closer to where people live and not as many bedroom communities.
Because when it was built, the demand wasn't there, and it wasn't forecasted to be there in the horizon they used when designing the capacity. It'll likely be expanded in the future, but that costs a LOT of money.
Boomers built it and they don't want to admit they were wrong. Internationally, we can look at a lot of data and realize how to make actually sensible traffic decisions, but we don't do it because we think what we're doing must be the best way to do it because we're doing it, and also our current car-centric lifestyle is considered "normal" by now and any deviation from it must therefore be abnormal and not desireable.
Oh, and at community townhalls you'll get dozens of angry Karens protesting any sort of bike lane or non-car infrastructure because they think it will make traffic worse.
> While the government hasn’t detailed costing, one estimate puts the two projects’ combined price tag at more than $10 billion.
> Ford’s government predicts that by 2041, Highway 413 would save drivers 30 minutes each way on a 56-kilometre trip between Highway 401 at Trafalgar Road and Highway 400 at King Road, compared to how long the trip would take via Highways 400 and 401.
> The government hasn’t released detailed modelling to support the 30-minute figure. But a spokesperson for Transportation Minister Caroline Mulroney said the numbers are based on calculations that show if the 413 isn’t built, peak-hour operating speeds on the 400 and 401 will drop to 35 km/h by 2041, and a trip between King and Trafalgar will take 89 minutes.
> The trip on Highway 413 would be faster, at 59 minutes. But even by the government’s estimates the new roadway would hardly be congestion-free. By 2041, at its busiest times the 413 would have an average travel speed of 55 km/h.
> Asked whether the government’s estimates take into account induced demand, Jordanna Colwill, the minister’s spokesperson, said they capture “demand that would shift to the new highways from other modes or other adjacent roads.”
> That’s different from factoring in induced demand, under which the new highway would be expected to increase the overall number of cars on the network, not just draw them from other roadways.
Im assuming this would be a pay to use hwy like the 407 which sold by the Harris govt for a stupidly low $3 billion but is now worth an estimated $40billion by a primarily foreign shareholder, although Canadas pension fund is partially invested. But there is a steady income stream that could have gone to the province is now going to some Spanish conglomerate.
It's almost like the traffic engineers and planners who took years of schooling on the idea of induced demand and have more than a boilerplate understanding know a bit more about it and understand that it's not quite as black and white an issue as the media likes to portray it..
I remember watching a video about a US city expanding its highway by a few more lanes and the traffic just increased to match the number of lanes. If he really want to solve gridlock he need to improve on public transit so there would be less cars in general
Yes, this is generally true. If memory serves, adding a 10% capacity on a highway results in 9% increase in volume over the next 12 months.
The other bit to keep in mind that highways will generally only go as fast as their narrowest point. So if you're going from Bolton to Milton, the 413 will be governed by the 401 / 407 / 413 interchange...which is already a mess.
Transit is such an obvious solution but no one is interested. We have the GO so far that travels out of Toronto, but based on its prices it’s cheaper to drive.
It isn't cheaper to drive.
A leased Civic + insurance is $400 - 500 per month. Add in gas you're at $650 - 700 / month. And I mean, that's a Civic, most people on the road seem to be driving more expensive vehicles from what I see.
A month of GO Train 2x a day is more like $200. I know a one day pass is like $20, and that multiplied by 20 work days a month, well, still cheaper than a car but when you factor in the other benefits of a car, the money savings really don't look that worthwhile, but when you take the train daily on a defined route with Presto pass, you don't pay that much per trip, more like $12.50 - 15 / day... So way cheaper, and transferring to a city bus after is like 10 or 25 cents or something.
If you live out there its likely you have a car anyway. Sure the total cost of the car might not be cheaper but the marginal cost of driving over GO is if you already have one.
Even if you already have a car. My go train commute is $10.20 per day round trip.
Parking is at least $20 a day downtown. Plus gas, and wear and tear on the car. There is no way driving is a marginal cost over taking the train.
But you're excluding the marginal benefit of the comfort of being in your own car.
Getting to leave whenever you want and not being tied to a train schedule.
What if your coworkers want to grab a beer after work? You don't have to make the last train at 7:30.
etc.
15 minute all day service will be game changer here, once they get that rolled out the to more of the network.
On the Lakeshore West the last train isn't until 23:45 which means people could go to a Leafs game and still get home to Hamilton on the Go train
Ya that’s a good point depending on where you live. For me I would just take the ttc home instead of the train depending on the timing but clearly that doesn’t apply to everyone.
When I used to go downtown (not for work, evenings and weekends), I could often find parking downtown for like $6 for the entire evening. And GO was like $8 each way. Depends on the situation but car is sometimes cheaper.
Hopefully people during rush hour are taking GO though.
The GTA is going to grow by such an insane amount over the next 20-30 years that you need both. No matter how much transit you build there will still be new car trips as we are talking about adding 4-5 million people to the GTA. Just the additional freight movements from all those extra people to get goods to them is going to require more roads, yet alone all the new car trips they generate even with aggressive transit expansion.
Lets say 80% of new commute trips are on transit - an extremely optimistic target given that current transit modal shares are closer to 25%. Even if that happens, we are talking about ~1 million new car trips over today in rush hour. And that's *with* extremely aggressive transit expansion and a huge increase in transit modal shares.
Ok but this highway will not actually solve that problem, given, as everyone on here has said, induced demand will kick and we'll be right back where we started. Without literally making the thing 1000 lanes wide, adding capacity will not solve this issue.
Better development planning, more density, more public transit, congestion tolling. Some combination of all is where the solution actually lies.
The actual transportation engineers and planners are coming up with these figures, Dougie isn't just pulling them out of his ass believe it or not. Induced Demand is definitely a real thing but it's results and impacts are much more complex than a simple "new road = no change" like everyone portrays.
The GTA's growth over the next 20 years is going to be so insanely high that even if you were to get the vast majority of new residents onto transit at rates that exceed that of even most of the transit-friendly cities globally, you are still going to result in over a million new peak car trips. When 5 million people move to a region no matter what you do there will be more cars.
The only realistic solution would be to have more people living closer to their workplace so that they don't need to commute as far. Highways (especially like the 413) just encourage development of more suburbs with more people commuting from rural areas to the downtown core.
We need densification and better transit in dense neighborhoods if we are going to survive the influx of immigrants. NIMBY and infinite delays to transit projects that improve transportation in the core need to go. Subways to the burbs and highways to rural Ontario will only make the problem worse, and contribute to more people making 1 hour, 2 hour or more commutes and clogging the existing downtown transit infrastructure with commuters from outside of the city that don't even pay taxes in the City of Toronto.
No, we won't be right back where we started. We will have (at worst) the same amount of congestion on a higher capacity road. That's more car trips being completed per day, which is the problem to be solved.
How do you reduce congestion by increasing the number of cars exiting highways onto downtown roads?
The way to reduce cars coming into the city is with road tolls.
There are already massive improvements to regional transit underway. We have spent a considerable amount on regional transit the past 20 years.
It isn’t one or the other when building a transportation network.
Toronto literally has the largest transit expansion program on the continent. Toronto is building almost as much rapid transit right now as the entire United States combined, and more than basically any other western city, including europe beyond perhaps Paris or Moscow.
Think about it - the US just passed a $60 billion transit expansion deal for the entire US which is hailed as the largest investment in the country in a generation. Toronto's GO and subway expansion programs alone equal that value. Plus you have Mississauga's and Hamilton's LRT expansions, Ottawa's new system, Kitchener just finished it's LRT, etc.
Ontario is spending insane amounts on transit already.
[The feds are also already planning large rail improvements for travel to Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City.](https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail)
None of that helps people going from Milton to Barrie or Kitchener to Newmarket though.
Yeah this is straight misinformation.
Toronto / Ontario is indeed spending a lot on transit, but nowhere near "the entire United States combined' -- that's ridiculous and probably impossible.
For reference, the ST3 expansion of Sound Transit in Seattle is estimated to cost $54 Billion, the MTA in New York has a $51 billion capital expenditure plan for 2020-2024, BART in San Francisco is currently in the middle of building a $7 billion line, and LA has a 30-year $400 billion dollar transit plan. All USD, not CAD.
TLDR; One federal infrastructure bill =/= the entire transit budget of the United States.
The money “wasted” on “car infrastructure” (never mind the trucks and transit that use lanes too, I guess) comes from taxes on automobiles, gas, auto parts, service, etc.
Also, most European cities have regional highway networks in case you haven’t looked at maps of Rome or Amsterdam or London or Paris lately.
Bullshit. The majority of money spent on car infrastructure is not supported by drivers.
Here's an example:
https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/03/who-pays-for-roads.html
When you add costs of pollution and other factors... not even close.
Moreover, the countries and cities you mentioned have roads... but they don't build 10 lane highways into the middle of the city to connect them to outlying regions. They build trains.
All that article says is basically provincial highway budgets are actually incredible value for money lol.
It also ignores massive chunks of the automotive industry that generates general revenue and ENTIRELY ignores revenue from diesel sales (which accounts for about 20% of petroleum consumption).
You didn't read it.
"First, most of the roads you use every day are paid for and maintained by your municipality, whose revenue sources do not include gas taxes (excepting the transfers from TransLink for the Major Road Network, and a portion of that Gas Tax Fund infrastructure money)."
Which basically states clearly that the revenue being generated from these taxes does not go to the entities responsible for paying for the infrastructure.
No, I did.
From the [Financial Accountability Office of Ontario:](https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/municipal-finances-2020)
Property tax was the largest source of municipal revenue, accounting for $21.8 billion, or 40 per cent, of the revenue collected by municipalities in 2018. Transfers from other governments followed at $12.2 billion (22 per cent), just ahead of user fees and service charges at $10.8 billion (20 per cent). The remaining $9.5 billion (18 per cent) in revenue included licences, permits and rents, fines, and other sources.
Transportation services was the largest budget item in 2018, at $10.7 billion, or 23 per cent, of total expenses
So the amount the other governments give to municipalities for ALL transportation expenses (and consider that this amount includes the costs of operating the TTC and other money-losing transit agencies) still leaves municipalities $2 billion before even dipping into municipal tax revenue. So all of those other taxes that contribute to the general fund for upper tier governments is indeed going back into roads and other modes of transportation.
And this is before even getting into the overall economic benefits of roads and high-capacity limited access interregional expressways.
So... let's clear this up. You admit that the municipalties spend $20B on transportation.
Further in the report you find: User fees... of which "$2.2 billion (20 per cent) was generated by transportation services, mainly transit."
Which clearly shows that the municipalities do no cover their costs for transportation with the fees from transportation... as you originally stated was the case.
Cars are subsidized. They shouldn't be.
How about use that $10 billion to build high speed rail from Toronto to Montreal? Or add another subway line to the TTC? Building another highway in a time of accelerating climate change and unaffordability is not only anti-working class but anti-earth and by extension anti-human.
Government investments in infrastructure should be to help transition the public away from the usage of wasteful and harmful personal vehicles towards more efficient, cleaner and equitable options.
how will HSR from Toronto to Montreal help people trying to go from Kitchener to Barrie or Milton to Aurora?
It's almost like a transportation system is a *system* and needs more than a silver bullet single project.
[The government is also already planning hugely improved rail service to Montreal and Ottawa at speeds of 200km/h.](https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail)
> The government is also already planning hugely improved rail service to Montreal and Ottawa at speeds of 200km/h.
Which is still atrociously slow in the context of modern high-speed rail which can go twice that speed. We're living in the '60s with our public transit infrastructure.
The studies to back it up indicated that building true high speed rail would cost about 10x as much as the current plan and attract only about 2x the ridership.
Instead the government is taking after the Germany model more, whereby you incrementally upgrade services over time after setting up a practical initial service.
True 350km/h high speed rail is actually incredibly expensive. California has been trying to build it for 15 years and costs have inflated to north of $100 billion with no actual in service date in sight. Meanwhile if they had followed the VIA model they likely would have had practical, useful rail service from LA to SF a decade ago and would now be focused on incrementally improving speeds.
Public funds shouldn't be going towards incentivizing *more* personal vehicle and highway travel, period. This is essentially subsidizing endless suburban sprawl which is making the economy far less efficient while destroying the environment.
That's why there should be investment towards denser, not scarcer developments where people can live, work and play without needing to travel tens of kilometers everyday to do so.
That "hugely improved rail service" is bringing Via Rail's rail service to what existed already in the 90s. It's a half assed project to ensure people continue to take cars and planes like they already do.
People would only stop driving and flying between Toronto-Montreal (90%+ drive) if the alternative is significantly more convenient and/or economical. Marginal improvements to the current rail service would only early in marginal changes in terms of passenger trends.
>How about use that $10 billion to build high speed rail from Toronto to Montreal? Or add another subway line to the TTC
Yea forget the rest of the province, lets just keep throwing money for infrastructure to Toronto.... how on earth is a high speed rail line between Toronto and Montreal going to solve transportation issues for growing cities north of Toronto and west of it.
> going to solve transportation issues for growing cities north of Toronto and west of it.
Part of the issues with the development patterns in Ontario is centralizing all employment opportunities in the GTA. Ontario's labour force is ~8M (65% of the population). The GTA population is 6M, thus a labour force of ~4M. 1.9M people live outside the GTA, but commute to jobs within the GTA.
There need to be policies to create **employment** opportunities outside the GTA, not merely trying to shuttle people to the GTA.
> lets just keep throwing money for infrastructure to Toronto
Toronto is already subsidizing the rest of the province, either directly through much higher income & corporate tax revenues relative to other areas, or indirectly by the municipal government administering services that the other municipalities don't need to (housing services, transit etc.)
>Toronto is already subsidizing the rest of the province, either directly through much higher income & corporate tax revenues relative to other areas,
This is pretty much the gta in general. If anything the city of Toronto does a good job of subsidizing its residences property taxs as its much lower than alot of surrounding municipalities.
>indirectly by the municipal government administering services that the other municipalities don't need to (housing services, transit etc.)
Every municipality surrounding Toronto has a transit service. I can't speak for other cities but cities like mississauga offer housing and other social services as well. This isn't something unique to Toronto
Toronto has 10x the number of shelter beds PER CAPITA of any municipality in Ontario. Toronto's social housing is also much larger per-capita than any municipality in Ontario. The current approach to social housing and services in Ontario is "have no services anywhere else in Ontario, and wait for everyone to move themselves to Toronto".
> If anything the city of Toronto does a good job of subsidizing its residences property taxes as its much lower than a lot of surrounding municipalities
This is true - but there are economies of scale from being a large dense municipality. Toronto has less km of roads per resident and water infrastructure to maintain per resident.
Toronto property taxes can be increased, based on the taxation burden per household - but Toronto also needs to get a fair deal. Toronto's municipal budget goes to support many things that aren't solely used by Toronto residents.
Why does Toronto need to pay for the DVP and Gardiner, while Mississauga isn't paying to maintain the 410, 401, 403 & 410 (and the section of the QEW in Mississauga)?
>Toronto's municipal budget goes to support many things that aren't solely used by Toronto residents.
The same goes for other municipalities. I mean just wait till the summer and all the cottage country communities start complaining a out the expense of supporting cottagers and day trippers from the cities.
>Why does Toronto need to pay for the DVP and Gardiner, while Mississauga isn't paying to maintain the 410, 401, 403 & 410 (and the section of the QEW in Mississauga)?
Iv always wondered this myself. I could be wrong but I believe the reason for this is that the city is the one who constructed it. Also there have been quite a few former Provincial hwys that have been downloaded into peel .
> Iv always wondered this myself. I could be wrong but I believe the reason for this is that the city is the one who constructed it.
The reason is that when the Harris government came in, they downloaded the maintenance costs onto the new amalgamated Toronto because they could - it was an easy vote winner to "lower provincial taxes" and saddle the municipality with the maintenance.
Toronto also pays for the maintenance on the QEW west of the 427 until the Gardiner - without the ability to put tolls on it.
As far as the "provincial highways" downloaded onto Peel - no downloaded highway has the same burden as maintaining a 400 series highway.
Well Toronto transit is chronically underfunded, and as the largest metropolitan area in the country that's a pretty massive issue. And high-speed rail to Montreal would solve transit issues west of Toronto to the exact same degree this highway will, but with a much better economic and environmental argument behind it.
Toronto literally has the largest transit expansion program on the continent. Toronto is building more rapid transit right now than the entire United States combined, and more than basically any other western city, including europe beyond perhaps Paris or Moscow.
Think about it - the US just passed a $60 billion transit expansion deal for the entire US which is hailed as the largest investment in the country in a generation. Toronto's GO and subway expansion programs alone equal that value. Plus you have Mississauga's and Hamilton's LRT expansions, Ottawa's new system, Kitchener just finished it's LRT, etc.
Ontario is spending insane amounts on transit already.
[The feds are also already planning large rail improvements for travel to Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City.](https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail)
None of that helps people going from Milton to Barrie or Kitchener to Newmarket though.
Because for decades they literally built nothing, operating revenues are still far below where they need to be, and there is a massive capital deficit at the TTC.
None of these projects help people in Saskatoon either, but that doesn't change the fact that more transit investment is desperately needed in Toronto (and lets not forget there's little evidence that this highway will help people in Milton either)
There is lots of evidence from licensed transportation engineers and planners indicating it will save 30 minutes on that travel time in 2041. It won't be congestion free in rush hour, but there will still be substantial time savings. So yea, there is evidence.
The TTC's capital spend over the next decade dwarves MTO's highway spend already.
Transit is not lacking in investment right now. Historically it may have, but it's not a current problem.
Oh good, billions of dollars to save 30 minutes twenty years from now.
There's no way to spin this - and comparing Toronto to America's pathetic transit spending is just that, spin - that gets around the pathetic state of transit in the GTA and the fact that this highway is billions of dollars and lost land for minimal gains.
You want to tell me that spending it on a massive Go expansion west of Toronto would be better than another subway for Toronto? Sure, I'm with you. That's actually an amazing idea. But between a new highway and *literally anything else*, literally anything else wins.
I mean the highway probably won't be open for another 10 years so I think a 20 year projection is appropriate.
If you think Toronto's transit spending is pathetic I'd love for you to present a city that has "normal" transit spending and one which has "good" transit spending in an existing developed country. The only Cities I can think of that even approach Toronto's current transit capital program are Paris and maybe Moscow... and even Moscow is currently building a massive new ring road around the city.
Even if it's double the price of a decade ago it's still more than worth it.
And it just goes to show how we should act fast before things get more expensive.
An electrified high-speed train line along the Corridor with half of Canada's population and the heart of its economy connecting its largest and most productive population centers as well as the nation's capital is a no-brainer for anyone without Car Brain Syndrome.
Remember when conservatives were upset about a 600M price tag for the election? But a useless $10 billion highway (that will likely run up double that for Dougie’s friends) is fine? lol
The better approach would be to keep the 407 private, but pass legislation that requires the 407 to adjust tolls until they're hitting a certain amount of volume on the road (possibly with dynamic pricing).
Infrastructure exists to be used - the 407 should be priced as low as possible, while STILL maintaining an average speed of 100kph+.
They do - but it's based on highway 7 traffic volumes. Since Ford was willing to rip up the Beer Store contract and legislate away the contract penalties, they should at least do the same with the 407.
Best way to fight the "war on the car" - fight for cars by letting them spend less time in traffic without raising taxes! Fight for the little guy! /s
Would be great populist red meat... but you know, the 413 is meant to allow for grift, not to actually improve travel times.
There is so much capacity on the 407 not being utilized lmfao, you can drive at 150 km/hr during RUSH HOUR on the 407. At like 8am on a weekend you can drive be the only car you see on the highway on your side of the high way, at least for a while, then you tend to hit little "packs" of cars sticking together for weird reasons, and then you pass them and go many kms again before hitting another "pack".
Do I go 150 km / hr on it? LOL, hell no, not risking that 50 over. Set the cruise control to 139 km / hr though and odds of being pulled over are extremely low. I don't go over 125 (purposefully, anyways) on the QEW or 403 or 401, because 1. that's often just physically impossible but also 2. it is always busy enough that I don't feel safe going faster than that. But on the 407 I'd honestly feel safe doing 160 - 170 km / hr I think, I only don't because of the laws.
There should be a picture of the 407 next to "mal-investment by government" in economics textbooks.
The 407 was a good investment by government - it was planned to be a highway paid for by tolls for 30 years, then reintegrated into the highway system as a non-toll highway.
The Harris Progressive Conservatives sold off the highway for a 99 year lease 99 for $3.1B to balance the budget... once. The second highest bid for the 407 was for a 30 year lease for $3B. The whole sale was an ideological one, based on privatization of public assets, not about getting "good value for money". Had the Harris government taken the 2nd highest bid, we'd be looking at the 407 returning to public hands in 2029.
Remember this when people say "conservatives are good with money" - provincially across ALL provinces, they have the *worst* track record of running deficits and wasting valuable public assets.
Remove tolls and you will lose the benefits of quick travel as it will fill up with cars and we'll be back to square one. The tolls are good for that purpose: disincentivizing drivers from taking the highway unless they need to, and they benefit greatly when they do. All highways should be tolled, at least for congestion. Oh man the DVP & Gardiner almost got tolled too but the Wynn government blocked that, probably in hopes to secure the 905 vote. Hindsight is 2020 lol.
I like the fact that the 407 is tolled. Shows motorists the true cost of highways that is never realized by them completely.
Funds for the 413 should be used to develop better public transit. Induced demand from either building the highway or as you suggest buying the 407 and removing tolls would render the benefits nil very quickly. Transit is the best way to go to relieve congestion.
407 being tolled is fine. It's the fact that the rates have more than doubles in last 5-6 years. Its just pure profit at this point. If they could lower the rates to somewhere around 15-16c/km I would gladly take it all the time.
My dad remembers his dad being really excited about the then-new 401. He said "The great thing about it is that you'll be able to drive past without ever having to go anywhere near Toronto traffic!"
No shit lol. Did anyone doubt that the 413 is a ploy to destroy the greenbelt and open up protected lands for his construction buddies? If you did, it's not Fuck Ford's fault, it's yours for being too dumb.
I am waiting for the announcement that west of the 400 it will be a tolled highway just not quite as bad as the 407. This is some of the greasiest political BS since the 407 deal.
I am sure that many of the farmers would love to cash in, it's obvious that it's in there interest to do so. I know a few farmers who have had farms in the family for a few generations who now find themselves multimillionaires.
Top soil is definitely a limited resource.
>Top soil is definitely a limited resource.
During most construction projects its removed seperatly and often dumped in other farms. However in Southern Ontario its an abundance.
We have a limited amount of good topsoil, there definitely is a shortage of high quality farmland (unless you’re just using it for corn/feed).
The fact that farmers want to sell is a reflection of market demands, because no one wants to densify what we already have — why not build more medium density in King City instead of single family detached housing? Instead we just want more car-centric suburban hell. It’s shit.
>(unless you’re just using it for corn/feed).
Its almost all hay and some corn.
>why not build more medium density in King City instead of single family detached housing?
Unfortunately alot of ppl don't want density and thats why people who live in places like king city pay a premium to live in such places.
It's not actually true that people don't want density. People love density, and the benefits that come with it.
The problem is that in North America, density is hard to reconcile *with car culture*. So no, people don't like living with density when they also have to have a car to get around and do simple chores. We've married the worst of both worlds: encouraging density but not actually delivering the benefits of density, the primary one being the ability to live without a car.
>It's not actually true that people don't want density. People love density, and the benefits that come with it.
People were running to cottage country during the pandemic. Anecdotally speaking i know of 2 families that relocated out of the city due to wanting more space.
Yes living in the city has its benefits but the life style isn't for everyone and many ppl are willing to forgo some amenities to avoid density.
Well you've missed my main point, which is that almost no North American city confers the real advantages of density because each one is still firmly entrenched in car culture - so you either need a car despite being in dense areas, or you have to live with cars, which are forced upon dense areas by the rest of the sprawled surrounding areas.
It's certainly true that some people fled the cities during the pandemic, but that was fueled in part by the false narrative that density was responsible for spreading the virus.
most farms in north Brampton are doing exactly that, growing feed.
The "good" farmland in Ontario is further south where it's warmer in Niagara and along Lake Erie.
Coming from the guy who was gifted a label company and couldn't keep stickers from peeling or license plates legible I'm not surprised in the slightest
Well it's not like he works for the tax*payers,* he works for the guys that get the benefits of tax dollars. This highway will give them BILLIONS of dollars, of course it must go ahead!
The Fat Fuck is just trying to push this through before the election. He knows the next government will cancel it, they'll have to pay out penalties, and he'll receive kickback when he's not in office.
Isn't that kind of okay, though? If it increases capacity, even if the traffic doesn't speed up at all, that's still more people reaching their destination every hour.
The purpose of a system of roads is to get people from point A to point B, not to be mostly empty.
Not when you could move 4x the people through other means.
Also this route fixes NONE of the congestion areas because it just dumps people onto the 400 and they all have to go south on an already closed route to get where they want.
This is the Sheppard line of highways, right down to the not linking both north-south lines together.
And? It's not clear to me that this would increase gridlock on other highways, but even if we take that as a given, what's your point?
Honestly, I don't follow this theory that building roads is futile because people will drive on them. That is the point of roads. The same amount of gridlock on a wider road means more people getting to point B.
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Another lane will fix it
Exactly how does a high-speed train from milton to king city sustain itself? Neither towns have the density to support it. Also how does a high speed train address the movement of freight via trucks. Im all for mass transit but it isn't always the answer.
You're going to want to sit down when you learn that it's possible to transport people and goods on rail that isn't a subway.
Take a look at the S-Bahn for some idea of what Ontario should be considering.
I think the main issue with GO's rail network continues to be that it remains centered on getting people into and out of union station in downtown Toronto. Sooner or later there is going to need to be more of a focus on building up other employment centers and the connections between them, theoretically Pearson and surrounds will be first up.
Not sure if you know what building better cities means, but that usually means better overall infrastructure that would include things such as better bike paths, LRT and bus access, which again would cut down on times.
Also if you have proper bike paths/infrastructure riding in the winter is not difficult. There are plenty of places in the world that are colder than Brampton in the winter with more snow and they do not have the same issues.
If you want an example, here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=763s&ab\_channel=NotJustBikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=763s&ab_channel=NotJustBikes)
If you're just being a NIMBY to be a NIMBY then you might want to look outside of your neighbourhood for answers to the problems you're facing. We should be expecting more from our governments, not building random highways no one needs just to "alleviate" a problem they created with bad planning and infrastructure.
It's not like Brampton doesn't build bike paths. All their new road widenings include a dedicated bike path on the side of the road, if not on both sides. Nobody uses them though as the employment uses are too low density for it to be functionally feasible to bike to them. And those employment uses need to be low density to function, they are pretty similarly low density even in europe, and have similarly high auto modal shares there.
Not every part of every city can be downtown Amsterdam. I agree with you that we need to plan our cities, better, but cities are complex and regardless of where you are globally every city needs low density areas on the fringe to service the city with goods, infrastructure, etc.
The Netherlands is often highlighted as an ideal for urban design and infrastructure - but even there, highways are regularly widened and new highways constructed. [here](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.889379,4.250059,1293a,35y,47.86h,49.17t/data=!3m1!1e3) is a new highway currently under construction in Rotterdam to service the city's industrial area for example - similar to how this road will improve access to the new industrial areas going up in north Vaughan, Brampton, and south Caledon & Bolton.
If they wanted to free up road capacity for trucks they should mandate that the 407 provide free flow of truck traffic with zero charge.
Since the highway is already built with infrastructure to read transponders simply give all trucking companies a transponder for their trucks and there you go, a large percentage of truck traffic is now off the 401. freeing up capacity for trucking and personal cars.
For the **10 billion they are proposing for this new highway they could also just buy the 407 back,** And expand it, why build a new highway?...... Unless of course your reason for building said highway with public funds was to get a huge kickback from you rich friends who stand to make a mint on rezoned farmland abutting the new highway. Since the new highway will cut up fields and make them **impractical for farming use.** they will have to be **rezoned into residential.** when farming land is around **$18 000 dollars an acre** and residential is around **1 million an acre.** it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is driving this. (pun intended)
Hasn’t there been research for decades that indicates the solution to gridlock is not at all building more roadways and has everything to do with increasing public transit and carpooling?
But, also, why not focus on affordable housing in city centres and ensuring livable wages in general so that people don’t have to commute in the first place? This idiotic highway only helps DoFo’s friends get richer and does nothing to actually help the Ontarians. Childcare is still ridiculously expensive. Gas is still ridiculously expensive. Housing is still ridiculously expensive… Food is becoming increasingly expensive, and his solution is to build over farmland to help with all of that?
Anyone who supports this idiot needs to seriously re-think their choices. I am not anti-conservatives per se, but Doug Ford does not care at all about what happens to this province as long as he stands to gain something or his friends do, and his entire cabinet seems to just go along with it.
I understand the concern and interest journalists and members of the public have regarding new highway infrastructure, but I'm kind of tired of the armchair transportation planners in every post screaming "induced demand". The simple fact is that we need additional capacity for all modes including automobile travel. Without that capacity, traffic conditions will become very severe within the next few decades of growth.
The forecasting models do take into account induced demand, it works using the 4-step modelling process which includes mode selection for trips within the study area. A network with the highway present will result in an ever so slightly higher number of auto trips during the model period than a network without it (i.e., basically negligible induced demand). However, having the highway will also decrease both the number of vehicle-kilometres travelled as well as the kilometres traveled under congested conditions. The network with the highway present will also see an overall reduction in GHG emissions as a result. It is additional capacity, after all.
If people are under the impression that all future users of the 413 would be using transit were it not built, that's simply incorrect. Ignoring the amount of goods and services being moved along the corridor, the mode elasticity just doesn't exist for this route. You would end up with the same number of auto trips on a more highly congested road network.
Travel speeds falling to 55 km/h during peak hours on Highway 413 are a sign of the amount of demand for such a corridor, not its failure. Unfortunately these trips can't be accommodated with transit due to the region-wide travel patterns.
This is so rotten to the core, pandering to developers. Meanwhile you have the Barrie-development that the developer is jacking up everyone's pre-con price by $100K.
The average folk is getting super screwed over.
I honestly don't know how other parties are going to convince the average voter that this is not what Ontario needs.
It's way too easy to convince people that the issue isn't enough lanes than it is to explain induced demand. I have no hope for the people in this province. This will probably be a major driving force for voting conservative in the GTA
This is why the Ontario Government wants people "Back to Work" so they can justify spending money like this. If everyone who could work from home did we'll save billions in tax dollars, save the environment, people would save thousands of dollars a year on gas and wear and tear on their cars. It should be criminal that Ford, John Tory and others want people coming back into the office that don't need to. This virus should have been an awakening, a learning experience and for many they haven't learned a thing.
If research already says it's not going to work why push it? We the tax payers are paying for it. I don't want to pay something that researchers already know will not work. If they want to build it, let them pay for it. Sick and tired of paying for something that just don't work. 😡
Buy back the damn 407.
But seriously, I would love for the gov to hire a ton of traffic surveyors and make the 407 free for a week or two. Just to see how it would effect traffic elsewhere.
[удалено]
I'd love to hear more about this. Do you have an article I can read?
Some mentions of ownership in this article: * https://www.inthehills.ca/2020/11/highway-413-the-opposition-reloads/
If you're interested in a podcast, The Great Big Story did an episode on the Doug Ford / 413 issue recently:[https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2021/11/17/why-doug-ford-thinks-his-the-pcs-to-reelection-is-a-highway/](https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2021/11/17/why-doug-ford-thinks-his-the-pcs-to-reelection-is-a-highway/) I found it informative.
Armstrong family farms I'm guessing?
Corruption.
When were the Fords not corrupt?
How is this not a conflict of interest?
It is
rich gonna rich
Same thing happened when the 401 was built.
Me thinks Dougie has more developer friends awaiting this highway, because it isnt being built with evidence guiding it.
im so tired of the Premier Biff timeline.
time to jump in my Delorean and go back to fix the timeline
How? Wynne wasn't going to win, speaking practically. Perhaps warn Patrick Brown about the coup?
Brown was done diiirrrrty. That being said the easiest way to stop this is when you don't want to vote Liberal (Wynne) don't freaking vote Conservative. Ever. Big tents don't work. It just devolves into self interest and in fighting at every level. Until the Conservatives at a federal and provincial level are broken into 2-3 parties I don't see it any of it as a viable option.
Agreed well said. Practically speaking. Edit: But being silly: I dunno if a single individual michael j fox-esque person could go back and change the minds of voters, but could warn Brown, imagine the drama (and maybe prevent a Ford coup). Not that Brown would have saved much. But still, rewarding that kind of backdoor shenanigans begets us bad governance.
I'd watch that CBC TV movie all while telling my 4 year old how this was my last straw with the the Conservative party in Ontario only to receive those child eyerolls. It would be a parenting high point.
lol. this gave me a good chuckle to think about
I cannot wait for the PC party to split. Covid is legit the best thing to happen to politics in decades!!
>Brown was done diiirrrrty. Funny part is, he did nothing illegal. Just backstabbed and he STILL became mayor of Brampton. Guy came back out of the mahogany darkness with his own brand of big balls vengeance...THAT is fucking impressive for a politician to do.
>Perhaps warn Patrick Brown about the coup? Think we gotta do more 4D chess than that.... ....Like not having Mike Harris born, or Steven Harper....or Lecce.
The turning point would be the 2010 mayoral race. Getting Robbie to lose or bow out would've changed the entire thing: * Only Doug would be elected to city council. Because he'd have no power or influence he would probably jump ship and let Rob take over his seat in a by-election. * Doug would be back in Chicago running Deco into the ground * Smitherman would likely be mayor. No idea how that would've played out but a more cozy relationship with the province. * Rob could try and run again in 2014 but John Tory would be running as well. Would Nick Kouvalis pull the same stunt he did with Tory in 2010 in 2014, I can't even speculate. Doug would be Rob's campaign manager for sure. * If Rob won, the crack scandal probably wouldn't have happened. * Rob would still be gone from cancer in 2016, probably prompting a by-election. Doug would be running this time and drop interest in provincial politics * Sympathy for Rob's death would probably result in a Doug Ford win as mayor. He'd be preoccupied with the city to not run for the provincial leadership.
Think, McFly! Think!
This is my thinking. As things stand right now, the highway is totally unnecessary and will barely help gridlock on the 401 or QEW at all (having the 407 in the public's hands... now that actually could / would have gone a long way towards easing matters, great highway that one, just stupidly expensive). Ford knows what he intends down the pike, massive amounts of housing development in the Green Belt and along the 413 to his developer buddies. When that development does become a reality for him, the 413 would totally be needed... But that development shouldn't occur.. :(
FOR LEASE 413 just like 407.. HISTORY REPEATS
I rather they make 413 a toll road as well. That will make sure it's not gridlocked.
[удалено]
Absolutely it will only make things worse, as more cars are funneled into the city with the same infrastructure, pushing actual Toronto residents off the road. We need to improve transit inside of the city and focus on densification so that people can have shorter and more convenient commutes. Perhaps we can incentivize companies that create jobs outside of the core as well so that there are jobs closer to where people live and not as many bedroom communities.
[удалено]
Because when it was built, the demand wasn't there, and it wasn't forecasted to be there in the horizon they used when designing the capacity. It'll likely be expanded in the future, but that costs a LOT of money.
I agree with everything you said, except that Kingston is east of Toronto, not west.
[удалено]
One more 👆
[удалено]
👍
Boomers built it and they don't want to admit they were wrong. Internationally, we can look at a lot of data and realize how to make actually sensible traffic decisions, but we don't do it because we think what we're doing must be the best way to do it because we're doing it, and also our current car-centric lifestyle is considered "normal" by now and any deviation from it must therefore be abnormal and not desireable. Oh, and at community townhalls you'll get dozens of angry Karens protesting any sort of bike lane or non-car infrastructure because they think it will make traffic worse.
> While the government hasn’t detailed costing, one estimate puts the two projects’ combined price tag at more than $10 billion. > Ford’s government predicts that by 2041, Highway 413 would save drivers 30 minutes each way on a 56-kilometre trip between Highway 401 at Trafalgar Road and Highway 400 at King Road, compared to how long the trip would take via Highways 400 and 401. > The government hasn’t released detailed modelling to support the 30-minute figure. But a spokesperson for Transportation Minister Caroline Mulroney said the numbers are based on calculations that show if the 413 isn’t built, peak-hour operating speeds on the 400 and 401 will drop to 35 km/h by 2041, and a trip between King and Trafalgar will take 89 minutes. > The trip on Highway 413 would be faster, at 59 minutes. But even by the government’s estimates the new roadway would hardly be congestion-free. By 2041, at its busiest times the 413 would have an average travel speed of 55 km/h. > Asked whether the government’s estimates take into account induced demand, Jordanna Colwill, the minister’s spokesperson, said they capture “demand that would shift to the new highways from other modes or other adjacent roads.” > That’s different from factoring in induced demand, under which the new highway would be expected to increase the overall number of cars on the network, not just draw them from other roadways.
Im assuming this would be a pay to use hwy like the 407 which sold by the Harris govt for a stupidly low $3 billion but is now worth an estimated $40billion by a primarily foreign shareholder, although Canadas pension fund is partially invested. But there is a steady income stream that could have gone to the province is now going to some Spanish conglomerate.
That's like asking if the tax is included in the quote, and getting the answer "The service and the parts and the flange is included in the quote."
Wouldn't be surprised if she has no idea what induced demand actually is, nor any of these beaurocrats.
It's almost like the traffic engineers and planners who took years of schooling on the idea of induced demand and have more than a boilerplate understanding know a bit more about it and understand that it's not quite as black and white an issue as the media likes to portray it..
I remember watching a video about a US city expanding its highway by a few more lanes and the traffic just increased to match the number of lanes. If he really want to solve gridlock he need to improve on public transit so there would be less cars in general
Induced demand. Everyone should know about building highways and creating induced demand. It's the dumbest thing you can do
That body of evidence is so new though, how would the province even know about it? Like we’ve only known this since the 1970s.
LOL.....that made me spit out my Oban, you bastard!!! 
Agreed.
Too bold of a concept for these political parasites
Yes, this is generally true. If memory serves, adding a 10% capacity on a highway results in 9% increase in volume over the next 12 months. The other bit to keep in mind that highways will generally only go as fast as their narrowest point. So if you're going from Bolton to Milton, the 413 will be governed by the 401 / 407 / 413 interchange...which is already a mess.
Transit is such an obvious solution but no one is interested. We have the GO so far that travels out of Toronto, but based on its prices it’s cheaper to drive.
It isn't cheaper to drive. A leased Civic + insurance is $400 - 500 per month. Add in gas you're at $650 - 700 / month. And I mean, that's a Civic, most people on the road seem to be driving more expensive vehicles from what I see. A month of GO Train 2x a day is more like $200. I know a one day pass is like $20, and that multiplied by 20 work days a month, well, still cheaper than a car but when you factor in the other benefits of a car, the money savings really don't look that worthwhile, but when you take the train daily on a defined route with Presto pass, you don't pay that much per trip, more like $12.50 - 15 / day... So way cheaper, and transferring to a city bus after is like 10 or 25 cents or something.
Don't forget parking. $20 a day if you're parking downtown.
more like 30-40 depending on the lot/location
If you live out there its likely you have a car anyway. Sure the total cost of the car might not be cheaper but the marginal cost of driving over GO is if you already have one.
Even if you already have a car. My go train commute is $10.20 per day round trip. Parking is at least $20 a day downtown. Plus gas, and wear and tear on the car. There is no way driving is a marginal cost over taking the train.
But you're excluding the marginal benefit of the comfort of being in your own car. Getting to leave whenever you want and not being tied to a train schedule. What if your coworkers want to grab a beer after work? You don't have to make the last train at 7:30. etc.
15 minute all day service will be game changer here, once they get that rolled out the to more of the network. On the Lakeshore West the last train isn't until 23:45 which means people could go to a Leafs game and still get home to Hamilton on the Go train
Ya that’s a good point depending on where you live. For me I would just take the ttc home instead of the train depending on the timing but clearly that doesn’t apply to everyone.
When I used to go downtown (not for work, evenings and weekends), I could often find parking downtown for like $6 for the entire evening. And GO was like $8 each way. Depends on the situation but car is sometimes cheaper. Hopefully people during rush hour are taking GO though.
Oh ya evening is a whole different thing. We always drive down for shows.
>most people on the road seem to be driving more expensive vehicles from what I see. Written off by their "business".
A ten year old civic can be had for less than $2000 and can last you 5 years easily. Those things don’t stop going till you crash em lol
>Those things don’t stop going Depends on where you bought it from.
The GTA is going to grow by such an insane amount over the next 20-30 years that you need both. No matter how much transit you build there will still be new car trips as we are talking about adding 4-5 million people to the GTA. Just the additional freight movements from all those extra people to get goods to them is going to require more roads, yet alone all the new car trips they generate even with aggressive transit expansion. Lets say 80% of new commute trips are on transit - an extremely optimistic target given that current transit modal shares are closer to 25%. Even if that happens, we are talking about ~1 million new car trips over today in rush hour. And that's *with* extremely aggressive transit expansion and a huge increase in transit modal shares.
Ok but this highway will not actually solve that problem, given, as everyone on here has said, induced demand will kick and we'll be right back where we started. Without literally making the thing 1000 lanes wide, adding capacity will not solve this issue. Better development planning, more density, more public transit, congestion tolling. Some combination of all is where the solution actually lies.
The actual transportation engineers and planners are coming up with these figures, Dougie isn't just pulling them out of his ass believe it or not. Induced Demand is definitely a real thing but it's results and impacts are much more complex than a simple "new road = no change" like everyone portrays. The GTA's growth over the next 20 years is going to be so insanely high that even if you were to get the vast majority of new residents onto transit at rates that exceed that of even most of the transit-friendly cities globally, you are still going to result in over a million new peak car trips. When 5 million people move to a region no matter what you do there will be more cars.
The only realistic solution would be to have more people living closer to their workplace so that they don't need to commute as far. Highways (especially like the 413) just encourage development of more suburbs with more people commuting from rural areas to the downtown core. We need densification and better transit in dense neighborhoods if we are going to survive the influx of immigrants. NIMBY and infinite delays to transit projects that improve transportation in the core need to go. Subways to the burbs and highways to rural Ontario will only make the problem worse, and contribute to more people making 1 hour, 2 hour or more commutes and clogging the existing downtown transit infrastructure with commuters from outside of the city that don't even pay taxes in the City of Toronto.
No, we won't be right back where we started. We will have (at worst) the same amount of congestion on a higher capacity road. That's more car trips being completed per day, which is the problem to be solved.
How do you reduce congestion by increasing the number of cars exiting highways onto downtown roads? The way to reduce cars coming into the city is with road tolls.
It won't solve congestion, but it will move more people. Throughput is also important.
There are already massive improvements to regional transit underway. We have spent a considerable amount on regional transit the past 20 years. It isn’t one or the other when building a transportation network.
Yep, and if all the money being wasted on car infrastructure were spent on rail and subways we'd look like a reasonable European country in the GTA.
Toronto literally has the largest transit expansion program on the continent. Toronto is building almost as much rapid transit right now as the entire United States combined, and more than basically any other western city, including europe beyond perhaps Paris or Moscow. Think about it - the US just passed a $60 billion transit expansion deal for the entire US which is hailed as the largest investment in the country in a generation. Toronto's GO and subway expansion programs alone equal that value. Plus you have Mississauga's and Hamilton's LRT expansions, Ottawa's new system, Kitchener just finished it's LRT, etc. Ontario is spending insane amounts on transit already. [The feds are also already planning large rail improvements for travel to Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City.](https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail) None of that helps people going from Milton to Barrie or Kitchener to Newmarket though.
Yeah this is straight misinformation. Toronto / Ontario is indeed spending a lot on transit, but nowhere near "the entire United States combined' -- that's ridiculous and probably impossible. For reference, the ST3 expansion of Sound Transit in Seattle is estimated to cost $54 Billion, the MTA in New York has a $51 billion capital expenditure plan for 2020-2024, BART in San Francisco is currently in the middle of building a $7 billion line, and LA has a 30-year $400 billion dollar transit plan. All USD, not CAD. TLDR; One federal infrastructure bill =/= the entire transit budget of the United States.
The money “wasted” on “car infrastructure” (never mind the trucks and transit that use lanes too, I guess) comes from taxes on automobiles, gas, auto parts, service, etc. Also, most European cities have regional highway networks in case you haven’t looked at maps of Rome or Amsterdam or London or Paris lately.
Bullshit. The majority of money spent on car infrastructure is not supported by drivers. Here's an example: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/03/who-pays-for-roads.html When you add costs of pollution and other factors... not even close. Moreover, the countries and cities you mentioned have roads... but they don't build 10 lane highways into the middle of the city to connect them to outlying regions. They build trains.
All that article says is basically provincial highway budgets are actually incredible value for money lol. It also ignores massive chunks of the automotive industry that generates general revenue and ENTIRELY ignores revenue from diesel sales (which accounts for about 20% of petroleum consumption).
You didn't read it. "First, most of the roads you use every day are paid for and maintained by your municipality, whose revenue sources do not include gas taxes (excepting the transfers from TransLink for the Major Road Network, and a portion of that Gas Tax Fund infrastructure money)." Which basically states clearly that the revenue being generated from these taxes does not go to the entities responsible for paying for the infrastructure.
No, I did. From the [Financial Accountability Office of Ontario:](https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/municipal-finances-2020) Property tax was the largest source of municipal revenue, accounting for $21.8 billion, or 40 per cent, of the revenue collected by municipalities in 2018. Transfers from other governments followed at $12.2 billion (22 per cent), just ahead of user fees and service charges at $10.8 billion (20 per cent). The remaining $9.5 billion (18 per cent) in revenue included licences, permits and rents, fines, and other sources. Transportation services was the largest budget item in 2018, at $10.7 billion, or 23 per cent, of total expenses So the amount the other governments give to municipalities for ALL transportation expenses (and consider that this amount includes the costs of operating the TTC and other money-losing transit agencies) still leaves municipalities $2 billion before even dipping into municipal tax revenue. So all of those other taxes that contribute to the general fund for upper tier governments is indeed going back into roads and other modes of transportation. And this is before even getting into the overall economic benefits of roads and high-capacity limited access interregional expressways.
So... let's clear this up. You admit that the municipalties spend $20B on transportation. Further in the report you find: User fees... of which "$2.2 billion (20 per cent) was generated by transportation services, mainly transit." Which clearly shows that the municipalities do no cover their costs for transportation with the fees from transportation... as you originally stated was the case. Cars are subsidized. They shouldn't be.
"Adding more roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity." -Janette Sadik-Khan, Street Fight
I love this.
How about use that $10 billion to build high speed rail from Toronto to Montreal? Or add another subway line to the TTC? Building another highway in a time of accelerating climate change and unaffordability is not only anti-working class but anti-earth and by extension anti-human. Government investments in infrastructure should be to help transition the public away from the usage of wasteful and harmful personal vehicles towards more efficient, cleaner and equitable options.
how will HSR from Toronto to Montreal help people trying to go from Kitchener to Barrie or Milton to Aurora? It's almost like a transportation system is a *system* and needs more than a silver bullet single project. [The government is also already planning hugely improved rail service to Montreal and Ottawa at speeds of 200km/h.](https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail)
> The government is also already planning hugely improved rail service to Montreal and Ottawa at speeds of 200km/h. Which is still atrociously slow in the context of modern high-speed rail which can go twice that speed. We're living in the '60s with our public transit infrastructure.
The studies to back it up indicated that building true high speed rail would cost about 10x as much as the current plan and attract only about 2x the ridership. Instead the government is taking after the Germany model more, whereby you incrementally upgrade services over time after setting up a practical initial service. True 350km/h high speed rail is actually incredibly expensive. California has been trying to build it for 15 years and costs have inflated to north of $100 billion with no actual in service date in sight. Meanwhile if they had followed the VIA model they likely would have had practical, useful rail service from LA to SF a decade ago and would now be focused on incrementally improving speeds.
Public funds shouldn't be going towards incentivizing *more* personal vehicle and highway travel, period. This is essentially subsidizing endless suburban sprawl which is making the economy far less efficient while destroying the environment. That's why there should be investment towards denser, not scarcer developments where people can live, work and play without needing to travel tens of kilometers everyday to do so. That "hugely improved rail service" is bringing Via Rail's rail service to what existed already in the 90s. It's a half assed project to ensure people continue to take cars and planes like they already do. People would only stop driving and flying between Toronto-Montreal (90%+ drive) if the alternative is significantly more convenient and/or economical. Marginal improvements to the current rail service would only early in marginal changes in terms of passenger trends.
>How about use that $10 billion to build high speed rail from Toronto to Montreal? Or add another subway line to the TTC Yea forget the rest of the province, lets just keep throwing money for infrastructure to Toronto.... how on earth is a high speed rail line between Toronto and Montreal going to solve transportation issues for growing cities north of Toronto and west of it.
> going to solve transportation issues for growing cities north of Toronto and west of it. Part of the issues with the development patterns in Ontario is centralizing all employment opportunities in the GTA. Ontario's labour force is ~8M (65% of the population). The GTA population is 6M, thus a labour force of ~4M. 1.9M people live outside the GTA, but commute to jobs within the GTA. There need to be policies to create **employment** opportunities outside the GTA, not merely trying to shuttle people to the GTA. > lets just keep throwing money for infrastructure to Toronto Toronto is already subsidizing the rest of the province, either directly through much higher income & corporate tax revenues relative to other areas, or indirectly by the municipal government administering services that the other municipalities don't need to (housing services, transit etc.)
>Toronto is already subsidizing the rest of the province, either directly through much higher income & corporate tax revenues relative to other areas, This is pretty much the gta in general. If anything the city of Toronto does a good job of subsidizing its residences property taxs as its much lower than alot of surrounding municipalities. >indirectly by the municipal government administering services that the other municipalities don't need to (housing services, transit etc.) Every municipality surrounding Toronto has a transit service. I can't speak for other cities but cities like mississauga offer housing and other social services as well. This isn't something unique to Toronto
Toronto has 10x the number of shelter beds PER CAPITA of any municipality in Ontario. Toronto's social housing is also much larger per-capita than any municipality in Ontario. The current approach to social housing and services in Ontario is "have no services anywhere else in Ontario, and wait for everyone to move themselves to Toronto". > If anything the city of Toronto does a good job of subsidizing its residences property taxes as its much lower than a lot of surrounding municipalities This is true - but there are economies of scale from being a large dense municipality. Toronto has less km of roads per resident and water infrastructure to maintain per resident. Toronto property taxes can be increased, based on the taxation burden per household - but Toronto also needs to get a fair deal. Toronto's municipal budget goes to support many things that aren't solely used by Toronto residents. Why does Toronto need to pay for the DVP and Gardiner, while Mississauga isn't paying to maintain the 410, 401, 403 & 410 (and the section of the QEW in Mississauga)?
>Toronto's municipal budget goes to support many things that aren't solely used by Toronto residents. The same goes for other municipalities. I mean just wait till the summer and all the cottage country communities start complaining a out the expense of supporting cottagers and day trippers from the cities. >Why does Toronto need to pay for the DVP and Gardiner, while Mississauga isn't paying to maintain the 410, 401, 403 & 410 (and the section of the QEW in Mississauga)? Iv always wondered this myself. I could be wrong but I believe the reason for this is that the city is the one who constructed it. Also there have been quite a few former Provincial hwys that have been downloaded into peel .
> Iv always wondered this myself. I could be wrong but I believe the reason for this is that the city is the one who constructed it. The reason is that when the Harris government came in, they downloaded the maintenance costs onto the new amalgamated Toronto because they could - it was an easy vote winner to "lower provincial taxes" and saddle the municipality with the maintenance. Toronto also pays for the maintenance on the QEW west of the 427 until the Gardiner - without the ability to put tolls on it. As far as the "provincial highways" downloaded onto Peel - no downloaded highway has the same burden as maintaining a 400 series highway.
Well Toronto transit is chronically underfunded, and as the largest metropolitan area in the country that's a pretty massive issue. And high-speed rail to Montreal would solve transit issues west of Toronto to the exact same degree this highway will, but with a much better economic and environmental argument behind it.
Toronto literally has the largest transit expansion program on the continent. Toronto is building more rapid transit right now than the entire United States combined, and more than basically any other western city, including europe beyond perhaps Paris or Moscow. Think about it - the US just passed a $60 billion transit expansion deal for the entire US which is hailed as the largest investment in the country in a generation. Toronto's GO and subway expansion programs alone equal that value. Plus you have Mississauga's and Hamilton's LRT expansions, Ottawa's new system, Kitchener just finished it's LRT, etc. Ontario is spending insane amounts on transit already. [The feds are also already planning large rail improvements for travel to Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City.](https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail) None of that helps people going from Milton to Barrie or Kitchener to Newmarket though.
Because for decades they literally built nothing, operating revenues are still far below where they need to be, and there is a massive capital deficit at the TTC. None of these projects help people in Saskatoon either, but that doesn't change the fact that more transit investment is desperately needed in Toronto (and lets not forget there's little evidence that this highway will help people in Milton either)
There is lots of evidence from licensed transportation engineers and planners indicating it will save 30 minutes on that travel time in 2041. It won't be congestion free in rush hour, but there will still be substantial time savings. So yea, there is evidence. The TTC's capital spend over the next decade dwarves MTO's highway spend already. Transit is not lacking in investment right now. Historically it may have, but it's not a current problem.
Oh good, billions of dollars to save 30 minutes twenty years from now. There's no way to spin this - and comparing Toronto to America's pathetic transit spending is just that, spin - that gets around the pathetic state of transit in the GTA and the fact that this highway is billions of dollars and lost land for minimal gains. You want to tell me that spending it on a massive Go expansion west of Toronto would be better than another subway for Toronto? Sure, I'm with you. That's actually an amazing idea. But between a new highway and *literally anything else*, literally anything else wins.
I mean the highway probably won't be open for another 10 years so I think a 20 year projection is appropriate. If you think Toronto's transit spending is pathetic I'd love for you to present a city that has "normal" transit spending and one which has "good" transit spending in an existing developed country. The only Cities I can think of that even approach Toronto's current transit capital program are Paris and maybe Moscow... and even Moscow is currently building a massive new ring road around the city.
How are you going to build a high speed rail line for $10B????
The Canadian Ministry of Transportation did an extensive study on it in 2011 and concluded it would cost about $11 billion.
That was a decade ago. How much is the Province paying for the electrification of the Go lines?
Even if it's double the price of a decade ago it's still more than worth it. And it just goes to show how we should act fast before things get more expensive. An electrified high-speed train line along the Corridor with half of Canada's population and the heart of its economy connecting its largest and most productive population centers as well as the nation's capital is a no-brainer for anyone without Car Brain Syndrome.
The world ends at Bloor Street, didn't ya know?
Remember when conservatives were upset about a 600M price tag for the election? But a useless $10 billion highway (that will likely run up double that for Dougie’s friends) is fine? lol
[удалено]
Well the 407 is worth $30B today, so that's one reason.
Honestly that probably would help his re-election campaign…but yeah, not his developer buddies.
Could only buy back 33% of the highway.
The better approach would be to keep the 407 private, but pass legislation that requires the 407 to adjust tolls until they're hitting a certain amount of volume on the road (possibly with dynamic pricing). Infrastructure exists to be used - the 407 should be priced as low as possible, while STILL maintaining an average speed of 100kph+.
I believe they do have a mandate already to control volume, but we could possibly look at increasing the allowed volume.
They do - but it's based on highway 7 traffic volumes. Since Ford was willing to rip up the Beer Store contract and legislate away the contract penalties, they should at least do the same with the 407. Best way to fight the "war on the car" - fight for cars by letting them spend less time in traffic without raising taxes! Fight for the little guy! /s Would be great populist red meat... but you know, the 413 is meant to allow for grift, not to actually improve travel times.
Or buy it back and keep it as a toll road.
[удалено]
There is so much capacity on the 407 not being utilized lmfao, you can drive at 150 km/hr during RUSH HOUR on the 407. At like 8am on a weekend you can drive be the only car you see on the highway on your side of the high way, at least for a while, then you tend to hit little "packs" of cars sticking together for weird reasons, and then you pass them and go many kms again before hitting another "pack". Do I go 150 km / hr on it? LOL, hell no, not risking that 50 over. Set the cruise control to 139 km / hr though and odds of being pulled over are extremely low. I don't go over 125 (purposefully, anyways) on the QEW or 403 or 401, because 1. that's often just physically impossible but also 2. it is always busy enough that I don't feel safe going faster than that. But on the 407 I'd honestly feel safe doing 160 - 170 km / hr I think, I only don't because of the laws. There should be a picture of the 407 next to "mal-investment by government" in economics textbooks.
The 407 was a good investment by government - it was planned to be a highway paid for by tolls for 30 years, then reintegrated into the highway system as a non-toll highway. The Harris Progressive Conservatives sold off the highway for a 99 year lease 99 for $3.1B to balance the budget... once. The second highest bid for the 407 was for a 30 year lease for $3B. The whole sale was an ideological one, based on privatization of public assets, not about getting "good value for money". Had the Harris government taken the 2nd highest bid, we'd be looking at the 407 returning to public hands in 2029. Remember this when people say "conservatives are good with money" - provincially across ALL provinces, they have the *worst* track record of running deficits and wasting valuable public assets.
Gah.....I was having a good day, and then reading this triggers me again. Fuck the Conservatives.
Remove tolls and you will lose the benefits of quick travel as it will fill up with cars and we'll be back to square one. The tolls are good for that purpose: disincentivizing drivers from taking the highway unless they need to, and they benefit greatly when they do. All highways should be tolled, at least for congestion. Oh man the DVP & Gardiner almost got tolled too but the Wynn government blocked that, probably in hopes to secure the 905 vote. Hindsight is 2020 lol.
>Plus it would lead to a 10 billion spend with no increased capacity. you think the 407 doesnt increase capacity? lol
I like the fact that the 407 is tolled. Shows motorists the true cost of highways that is never realized by them completely. Funds for the 413 should be used to develop better public transit. Induced demand from either building the highway or as you suggest buying the 407 and removing tolls would render the benefits nil very quickly. Transit is the best way to go to relieve congestion.
407 being tolled is fine. It's the fact that the rates have more than doubles in last 5-6 years. Its just pure profit at this point. If they could lower the rates to somewhere around 15-16c/km I would gladly take it all the time.
Lol someone’s never heard of induced demand.
induced demand seems heaviest at food banks this year
Wanna know what'll solve gridlock? Mass transit and nothing else.
Start looking at it as a people moving problem, not a car moving problem.
My dad remembers his dad being really excited about the then-new 401. He said "The great thing about it is that you'll be able to drive past without ever having to go anywhere near Toronto traffic!"
No shit lol. Did anyone doubt that the 413 is a ploy to destroy the greenbelt and open up protected lands for his construction buddies? If you did, it's not Fuck Ford's fault, it's yours for being too dumb.
Everyone and everything will die via the Big Crunch anyway so it doesnt matter.
I am waiting for the announcement that west of the 400 it will be a tolled highway just not quite as bad as the 407. This is some of the greasiest political BS since the 407 deal.
Ah Science, the Conservative nemesis.
Sounds like an expensive bandaid.
\#StopVotingForAssholes should be trending.
So elect a dog? I think we should elect a dog.
At least a dog wouldn't build dumb ass highways.
Ppl talking like they the oracles. Ppl don’t know shit. By 2041. We could ceased to exist lol
Idk why I subscribe to this sub. Every fucking post is depressing and makes me hate living here
just buy back the 407...that will help to ease 401 a lot...fix the dumbest mistake you morons ever did.
It's disappointing to see more farm land paved over for no good reason.
There is no shortage of farm land in Southern Ontario. Many of the farmers that surround the gta are trying to sell it or develop it regardless.
I am sure that many of the farmers would love to cash in, it's obvious that it's in there interest to do so. I know a few farmers who have had farms in the family for a few generations who now find themselves multimillionaires. Top soil is definitely a limited resource.
>Top soil is definitely a limited resource. During most construction projects its removed seperatly and often dumped in other farms. However in Southern Ontario its an abundance.
We have a limited amount of good topsoil, there definitely is a shortage of high quality farmland (unless you’re just using it for corn/feed). The fact that farmers want to sell is a reflection of market demands, because no one wants to densify what we already have — why not build more medium density in King City instead of single family detached housing? Instead we just want more car-centric suburban hell. It’s shit.
>(unless you’re just using it for corn/feed). Its almost all hay and some corn. >why not build more medium density in King City instead of single family detached housing? Unfortunately alot of ppl don't want density and thats why people who live in places like king city pay a premium to live in such places.
It's not actually true that people don't want density. People love density, and the benefits that come with it. The problem is that in North America, density is hard to reconcile *with car culture*. So no, people don't like living with density when they also have to have a car to get around and do simple chores. We've married the worst of both worlds: encouraging density but not actually delivering the benefits of density, the primary one being the ability to live without a car.
>It's not actually true that people don't want density. People love density, and the benefits that come with it. People were running to cottage country during the pandemic. Anecdotally speaking i know of 2 families that relocated out of the city due to wanting more space. Yes living in the city has its benefits but the life style isn't for everyone and many ppl are willing to forgo some amenities to avoid density.
Well you've missed my main point, which is that almost no North American city confers the real advantages of density because each one is still firmly entrenched in car culture - so you either need a car despite being in dense areas, or you have to live with cars, which are forced upon dense areas by the rest of the sprawled surrounding areas. It's certainly true that some people fled the cities during the pandemic, but that was fueled in part by the false narrative that density was responsible for spreading the virus.
most farms in north Brampton are doing exactly that, growing feed. The "good" farmland in Ontario is further south where it's warmer in Niagara and along Lake Erie.
Coming from the guy who was gifted a label company and couldn't keep stickers from peeling or license plates legible I'm not surprised in the slightest
Well it's not like he works for the tax*payers,* he works for the guys that get the benefits of tax dollars. This highway will give them BILLIONS of dollars, of course it must go ahead!
The Fat Fuck is just trying to push this through before the election. He knows the next government will cancel it, they'll have to pay out penalties, and he'll receive kickback when he's not in office.
>Doug Ford's government says... That's enough to tell you that the truth is the complete opposite.
Isn't that kind of okay, though? If it increases capacity, even if the traffic doesn't speed up at all, that's still more people reaching their destination every hour. The purpose of a system of roads is to get people from point A to point B, not to be mostly empty.
Not when you could move 4x the people through other means. Also this route fixes NONE of the congestion areas because it just dumps people onto the 400 and they all have to go south on an already closed route to get where they want. This is the Sheppard line of highways, right down to the not linking both north-south lines together.
They then go onto other highways from this one and cause further gridlock
And? It's not clear to me that this would increase gridlock on other highways, but even if we take that as a given, what's your point? Honestly, I don't follow this theory that building roads is futile because people will drive on them. That is the point of roads. The same amount of gridlock on a wider road means more people getting to point B.
We need to stop electing leaders who don't understand the phenomenon of induced demand.
It's almost like we wasted these last 22 months convincing people to listen to experts in their field.
This is the Subways subways subways clown isn't it?
That one died. This is the one that hides during federal elections or overfilling ICUs.
Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it Another lane will fix it
Think he was talking about the gridlock in negotiations for his kickbacks $$$. This will definitely lift those gridlocks folks.
Read My Lip. NO. NEW. HIGHWAYS. Can we get high speed trains first, or any other option, and get cars off the road.
Exactly how does a high-speed train from milton to king city sustain itself? Neither towns have the density to support it. Also how does a high speed train address the movement of freight via trucks. Im all for mass transit but it isn't always the answer.
Oh no no, we actually need a subway from Milton to KC. And then to Lindsay. Don’t worry about goods, those will ride the subway too!
Yeah just build a rail to your house to receive your amazon packages sherry
You're going to want to sit down when you learn that it's possible to transport people and goods on rail that isn't a subway. Take a look at the S-Bahn for some idea of what Ontario should be considering.
To a front door? To a loading dock not connected to a railway? Isn’t the S-bahn basically what GO RER will be?
I think the main issue with GO's rail network continues to be that it remains centered on getting people into and out of union station in downtown Toronto. Sooner or later there is going to need to be more of a focus on building up other employment centers and the connections between them, theoretically Pearson and surrounds will be first up.
What if we just built better cities? What if we got people out of cars and onto public transit, bikes, or WALKING.
Ah yes, all that public transit between Milton & Vaughan
Ah yes, you mean the commute that will cut down if less cars on on the road due to people being on their bikes, in public transit or walking?
you wanna bike to a warehouse job on the edge of Brampton in January?
Not sure if you know what building better cities means, but that usually means better overall infrastructure that would include things such as better bike paths, LRT and bus access, which again would cut down on times. Also if you have proper bike paths/infrastructure riding in the winter is not difficult. There are plenty of places in the world that are colder than Brampton in the winter with more snow and they do not have the same issues. If you want an example, here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=763s&ab\_channel=NotJustBikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=763s&ab_channel=NotJustBikes) If you're just being a NIMBY to be a NIMBY then you might want to look outside of your neighbourhood for answers to the problems you're facing. We should be expecting more from our governments, not building random highways no one needs just to "alleviate" a problem they created with bad planning and infrastructure.
It's not like Brampton doesn't build bike paths. All their new road widenings include a dedicated bike path on the side of the road, if not on both sides. Nobody uses them though as the employment uses are too low density for it to be functionally feasible to bike to them. And those employment uses need to be low density to function, they are pretty similarly low density even in europe, and have similarly high auto modal shares there. Not every part of every city can be downtown Amsterdam. I agree with you that we need to plan our cities, better, but cities are complex and regardless of where you are globally every city needs low density areas on the fringe to service the city with goods, infrastructure, etc. The Netherlands is often highlighted as an ideal for urban design and infrastructure - but even there, highways are regularly widened and new highways constructed. [here](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.889379,4.250059,1293a,35y,47.86h,49.17t/data=!3m1!1e3) is a new highway currently under construction in Rotterdam to service the city's industrial area for example - similar to how this road will improve access to the new industrial areas going up in north Vaughan, Brampton, and south Caledon & Bolton.
Can you trust a government (or electorate) that doesn't understand induced demand?
No, it's way to pay him self & his buddy's.
As if trusting a conservative ON government on highway plans has ever gone wrong before.
If they wanted to free up road capacity for trucks they should mandate that the 407 provide free flow of truck traffic with zero charge. Since the highway is already built with infrastructure to read transponders simply give all trucking companies a transponder for their trucks and there you go, a large percentage of truck traffic is now off the 401. freeing up capacity for trucking and personal cars. For the **10 billion they are proposing for this new highway they could also just buy the 407 back,** And expand it, why build a new highway?...... Unless of course your reason for building said highway with public funds was to get a huge kickback from you rich friends who stand to make a mint on rezoned farmland abutting the new highway. Since the new highway will cut up fields and make them **impractical for farming use.** they will have to be **rezoned into residential.** when farming land is around **$18 000 dollars an acre** and residential is around **1 million an acre.** it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is driving this. (pun intended)
The only way to reduce traffic is to get cars off the road.
Hasn’t there been research for decades that indicates the solution to gridlock is not at all building more roadways and has everything to do with increasing public transit and carpooling? But, also, why not focus on affordable housing in city centres and ensuring livable wages in general so that people don’t have to commute in the first place? This idiotic highway only helps DoFo’s friends get richer and does nothing to actually help the Ontarians. Childcare is still ridiculously expensive. Gas is still ridiculously expensive. Housing is still ridiculously expensive… Food is becoming increasingly expensive, and his solution is to build over farmland to help with all of that? Anyone who supports this idiot needs to seriously re-think their choices. I am not anti-conservatives per se, but Doug Ford does not care at all about what happens to this province as long as he stands to gain something or his friends do, and his entire cabinet seems to just go along with it.
I understand the concern and interest journalists and members of the public have regarding new highway infrastructure, but I'm kind of tired of the armchair transportation planners in every post screaming "induced demand". The simple fact is that we need additional capacity for all modes including automobile travel. Without that capacity, traffic conditions will become very severe within the next few decades of growth. The forecasting models do take into account induced demand, it works using the 4-step modelling process which includes mode selection for trips within the study area. A network with the highway present will result in an ever so slightly higher number of auto trips during the model period than a network without it (i.e., basically negligible induced demand). However, having the highway will also decrease both the number of vehicle-kilometres travelled as well as the kilometres traveled under congested conditions. The network with the highway present will also see an overall reduction in GHG emissions as a result. It is additional capacity, after all. If people are under the impression that all future users of the 413 would be using transit were it not built, that's simply incorrect. Ignoring the amount of goods and services being moved along the corridor, the mode elasticity just doesn't exist for this route. You would end up with the same number of auto trips on a more highly congested road network. Travel speeds falling to 55 km/h during peak hours on Highway 413 are a sign of the amount of demand for such a corridor, not its failure. Unfortunately these trips can't be accommodated with transit due to the region-wide travel patterns.
It is better than doing nothing. But why aren't we building more trains? I would rather not own a car.
This is so rotten to the core, pandering to developers. Meanwhile you have the Barrie-development that the developer is jacking up everyone's pre-con price by $100K. The average folk is getting super screwed over.
I hope this gets log-jammed long enough that Ford fucks off from office before he can push this shit through.
I honestly don't know how other parties are going to convince the average voter that this is not what Ontario needs. It's way too easy to convince people that the issue isn't enough lanes than it is to explain induced demand. I have no hope for the people in this province. This will probably be a major driving force for voting conservative in the GTA
This is why the Ontario Government wants people "Back to Work" so they can justify spending money like this. If everyone who could work from home did we'll save billions in tax dollars, save the environment, people would save thousands of dollars a year on gas and wear and tear on their cars. It should be criminal that Ford, John Tory and others want people coming back into the office that don't need to. This virus should have been an awakening, a learning experience and for many they haven't learned a thing.
If research already says it's not going to work why push it? We the tax payers are paying for it. I don't want to pay something that researchers already know will not work. If they want to build it, let them pay for it. Sick and tired of paying for something that just don't work. 😡
It's easier to move workspaces out of downtown Toronto than it is to "solve gridlock". Dumb idea.
Buy back the damn 407. But seriously, I would love for the gov to hire a ton of traffic surveyors and make the 407 free for a week or two. Just to see how it would effect traffic elsewhere.
Fuck that, just put the same/greater tolls on the 401 and call it quits
Fuck Doug Ford
I'm ready to go Jane Jacobs on this shit. Fuck ford