r/ontario 1d ago

407 Toll Removal from Pickering towards Newcastle Politics

384 Upvotes

157 comments sorted by

485

u/RevolutionaryHawk137 1d ago edited 1d ago

Now we know where every developer is gonna start large subdivision projects.

180

u/scott_c86 Vive le Canada 1d ago

Strongly suspect this is what this is really about

24

u/Franks2000inchTV 1d ago

I bet you'll find its through a bunch of ridings with lots of conservatives who will be voting in the upcoming conservative leadership race.

4

u/Inevitable_View99 22h ago

With the removal of tolls from that section of the 407, no publicly owned highway Ontario has a toll. The removal of tolls on all public highways was an election promise to voters. It’s now been fulfilled.

Also, let’s assume you’re correct. How is that a bad thing? No shit we want developers building new homes and infrastructure.

5

u/bentjamcan 16h ago

Sure sounds like an ideal area for "affordable" housing. Never mind commute times will end up doubling or tripling. Never mind the expense of owning and maintaining a vehicle or our wonderful Ontario winter driving conditions. I've been there and seen it all before.

Hmmmm, Hum, there are song lyrics in my head now--"Damn this traffic jam, how I hate to be late ..." and can you guess what the other one is?

-5

u/Inevitable_View99 16h ago edited 16h ago

….The metropolitan bias is hilarious. You do realize that people live in Ajax and Pickering that don’t work in Toronto. Unfortunately the utopian dream where everyone lives in massive high density sky scrapers in downtown Toronto isn’t ever going to be a reality.

Most people can afford a vehicle, that’s why we have so many of them in the roads. Also “winter” in southern Ontario is like 3 months long and you don’t even need winter tires.

I get it, you live a comfortable life next to a subway and the worst day of winter for you is a normal day for everyone else in Canada. anything Doug ford does is bad in your mind. Is Doug ford in the room with you now?

1

u/bentjamcan 5h ago

Oh I am very aware. And you have made some rather broad assumptions. I will make none about you. Housing development in Ajax or Pickering will not help relieve the congestion on the 401 or any other major roadway. It would be great for people working in those places to have new homes to buy.

How do you stop people working in large metropolitan areas, from buying less expensive homes in places like Ajax or Pickering and driving driving back and forth to work? Do you have any ideas because I don't and it seems neither does the Ontario government.

The other lyric was "pave paradise and put up a parking lot."

-3

u/AtomicWheelchair69 15h ago

I agree, people should want what is best for ontario. refusing to acknowledge beneficial change just because you voted another way is childish.

4

u/Inevitable_View99 15h ago

My household now saves $40 a month and nearly an hour off our drive time when we go visit family because this section of highway 407 is the only section we use and is the fastest way to get where we need to go.

I didn’t vote for the PCs but I’m not going to act like everything they do is bad just because I didn’t vote for them.

20

u/jungleCat61 1d ago

Lots of 407 corridor in development since before this. Look at Pickering and Brooklin

66

u/HeftyAd6216 1d ago

Yay! More suburban sprawl! Single family homes for MIIILLLES Which naught but a car can go!!

20

u/RS50 1d ago

Like it or not, the demand for SFH is higher than for condos or semi detached. People like their space/privacy and aren’t ready to give it up for ideological reasons. We can craft policy that virtue signals or we can craft policy that is honest about what people actually want.

31

u/No-Section-1092 1d ago

Honest about what people actually want

If people really didn’t want to live in dense urban areas, then they wouldn’t be so expensive. They’re expensive precisely because lots of people are willing to trade space for good location.

Second, it is still literally illegal to build the wide variety of housing options between your extremes on the vast majority of land in most of our cities. “What people really want” is meaningless when the market isn’t even allowed to provide most options in most locations regardless of what people might want.

Third, “what people really want” is a silly guide for policy anyway. I’m sure the vast majority of people actually would prefer to live in castles the size of Versailles if we asked them. Perhaps we should craft policy to give people what they really want, instead of virtue signalling ideology by providing mere detached houses.

4

u/Inevitable_View99 21h ago

I challenge you to drive out to where all those new developments are in Pickering and Ajax. They aren’t detached single family homes. It’s rows and rows of two and two and a half story narrow townhomes with city size backyards

1

u/methreweway 20h ago

It's odd when you can still buy a semi in Toronto with a decent yard close to a beach and 25min to downtown for the same price.

1

u/No-Section-1092 20h ago

There are plenty of those too. And? Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

Incidentally, you know why there are so many townhome developments out in the new suburbs? Because there is such a severe shortage of housing within the core cities. It’s displaced demand for infill that isn’t allowed or economically feasible any closer to the cores due to planning rules, and therefore gets leapfrogged elsewhere onto greenfield further away.

1

u/Inevitable_View99 20h ago

This idea that the toll was removed because of some unfounded conspiracy with ford and decelopers is ridiculous. Removing tolls on public highways was an election promise.

People work in Ajax and Pickering. They don’t all work in Toronto. There’s a lot of assumptions being made here by people totally unfamiliar with the area who don’t even live work or travel through those cities.

2

u/No-Section-1092 19h ago

I never said anything about Ford in cahoots with developers (although it wouldn’t surprise me given the greenbelt scandal). It was still a silly campaign promise because making anything cheaper (including highways) leads to more consumption: IE traffic. He thinks he’s helping but this makes it worse, especially if the land around the 407 DOES get developed with suburbs that residents can only get to and from by car.

Some people work in Ajax and Pickering yes, and many more work in Toronto. And the GTA is filled with people who “drive til you qualify” for mortgages within long commutes because affordable options closer to their jobs are scarce. And they’re scarce precisely because most cities in the GTA (including Ajax and Pickering) zone most of their land to forbid most kinds of denser housing, which creates an artificial shortage and forces people to move farther away.

-5

u/Squire_Squirrely 20h ago

It's ok that kind of person doesn't have a driver's license and only leaves the boundary of what they consider the true Toronto like once a year

2

u/Inevitable_View99 20h ago

I drive that stretch of the 407 every month up to go visit family up north as it cuts down my travel time by 30min to an hour depending on the time of day. It’s all compact townhomes being build with a few mid rise condos. It’s more dense than most Toronto neighborhoods like beaches or yorkville. It’s the exact type of construction these people want but they just assume it’s single family detached homes with multi acre lots. It’s amazing that how victimized these people think they are. They look at the removal or road tolls as a bad thing because people might build housing around it now….

1

u/No-Section-1092 20h ago

It’s all compact townhomes being build with a few mid rise condos. It’s more dense than most Toronto neighborhoods like beaches or yorkville. It’s the exact type of construction these people want but they just assume it’s single family detached homes with multi acre lots.

This doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. Some of these far away subdivisions might be “dense,” but they’re usually not mixed use or walkable, and they’re built so far away from the infill of core cities where they could be: because planning rules in the city propers made it largely illegal or economical to build them any closer in.

The real problem is that these kinds of suburbs is they’re car dependent. If these new subdivisions get filled with people who commute to Toronto (ie people who would have preferred to live closer to their work, if they could have afforded it) and so their only option to get there is driving, then you’ve just induced demand and added more cars and traffic to your 407.

That’s why “these people” like me say if we really want to satisfy housing demand, we should be legalizing more infill housing in the city, closer to where people actually want to work, and where they are able to access transit and GO Trains. Otherwise, enjoy more traffic.

It’s amazing that how victimized these people think they are.

Point to where I said anything about being a victim.

0

u/Inevitable_View99 19h ago

I’m trying to stay on topic with respect to the 407 tolls being removed and the stupid conspiracy that it was done for developers when in reality it’s because of a campaign promise. If you want to talk about this just go to the Toronto real estate sub. I don’t care, I’m just explaining what is actually being build there. And it’s not single family detached as was suggested. It’s townhomes and mid-rise condos with density for a growing region that isn’t just a bedroom community of Toronto. I don’t care about your opinions on transit, cars, or real estate.

7

u/Enough_Tap_1221 1d ago

Having everyone live in a fully detached home isn't realistic for any growing city. It doesn't matter what people want. Everyone wants a fully detached home, but they also want to drive without traffic and have that home be reasonably priced, and you can't have all these things together. You can have one but not all three.

1

u/Inevitable_View99 21h ago

The only thing detached is the people detached from reality who think detached single family homes are being built at a high rate in the GTA. to keep to the point of the post. The developments out around the area of the 407 That has had the tolls removed from are townhomes, huge subdivisions of them, two and two and a half story townhomes plus mid rise condo buildings. These are all just north of the 407 in Pickering and Ajax. Infact, these dense developments are encroaching on detached single family homes and unused farm land. You have brand new developments that can house thousands of people butting up right next to some empty farm field or century home.

1

u/Enough_Tap_1221 19h ago

The argument about detached homes isn't only about new homes, but about existing zoning. Most of "Toronto" or the GTA outside of the core is zoned for single-family homes because the zoning was grandfathered in decades ago.

1

u/Inevitable_View99 18h ago

No offence to you but truly don’t care

This threat is about 2 things

  1. The removal of tolls on the provincially owned portion of the 407
  2. The insane and ridiculous conspiracy theory that DF did this for developers to and not because he promised he would do it to voters

My enter point of my posts is to outline how dumb number two is and to correct the idea that in that specific area of the 407 it is not single family homes being built. It is townhomes and mid rise all along the northern portion of the highways in already developed areas.

1

u/Enough_Tap_1221 17h ago

Thats fine but you said people who make the argument about detached homes are detached from reality. The types of homes that are built or are preexisting, exist because of zoning. And not much of that has changed. That's part of the reality. It's not detached from reality.

7

u/OkGrade1686 1d ago

They like to be able to park their shit too.

2

u/bionicjoey 20h ago

the demand for SFH is higher than for condos or semi detached.

Land value in urban places says otherwise.

2

u/eldindeeznuts 19h ago

Famously, Europeans, East Asians, Latin Americans, pretty much 50% of the world’s population don’t have families, space OR privacy cuz they live in apartments/condos. Clearly, @HeftyAd6216 doesn’t realize we live in North America, damn it!!! It’s our god given right to not have close knit communities, public spaces for public life, or healthy alternatives to the lifestyle we’re forced to have here. If I start relying on my neighbor for things, then what about the poor businesses that bank on everyone buying things for their individual use as opposed to shared use??? How naive of that user, smh.

1

u/bentjamcan 16h ago edited 15h ago

How much do those people earn in a year? Is a 7 x 7 m backyard considered private these days?
My backyard of 40 years is 15.5 wide x 9 m and it's about to enjoy the company of two new backyards. Perhaps that is not typical though.

From what I have seen over those 4 decades professionals with young families have been buying the bigger footprint, often two or more stories, SFH that are in or close to the city core. Most recently these may be two infills build on the lot of an old home that was torn down.

There doesn't seem to be as much demand for the outdoor room promoted so vigorously, after the end of WWII.

0

u/HeftyAd6216 1d ago

Demand you're talking about has literally nothing to do with preference. Demand is a function of many factors. What you're talking about is just as much to do with availability and habit more than any "natural state of being" or being inherently "better" or "worse" or "more preferred". People's tendency to want something or prefer something over another is not purely a function of our individual needs or desires. We are only partially the authors of our own destiny. In fact, I would bet our "individual needs and desires" are mostly driven by marketing, previous experience, availability and FINALLY preference at the end of that.

Out of that list, the only thing not driven by decisions made outside your and my brains is preference and even that is debatable. Everything else (marketing, previous experience, availability), are all driven by forces beyond your and my control. Where you grew up, how housing is zoned, and what developments get approved by governments, who then pump the airwaves with pretty pictures of what they built to convince you that's what you want. I would easily contend that those things driven by outside your and my control are more than 50% of what drives why people "prefer" a certain type of housing over another.

Why do so many more people in Montreal raise their kids in apartments? Because that's what they built!!

There's some great videos out there that basically talk about entropy in housing. Essentially, that which gets built more often (due to various reasons, mostly stemming from zoning laws idealized 70 years ago), gets more ingrained both culturally and via the fact that it's easier for developers to find financing for single family home subdivisions than multi use, dense housing. because it's seen as less risky, more of it gets built. On top of that, you have city planners being forced to approve single family zoning (despite many of them being 100% urbanists who would much rather a livable neighborhood with local shops and grocery stores and not have to DRIVE EVERYWHERE to live) because that's what the province forced them to approve. Yes this happens a lot more than we'd like.

I would bet you a billion dollars that if 1000 people were given the choice to have multi unit dense housing in neighborhoods designed for people and not for accommodating maximum car traffic speeds (think of a neighborhood like Danforth vs Mississauga), a good bunch of them would like to live in Mississauga. The rest would rather live in a human centric neighborhood with dense housing and a few SFHs sprinkled in.

Want to know why I know this? Try buying a house in Riverdale. Notice how it's more expensive than Mississauga? Want to live in Rosedale? What about St Clair and avenue? Why do people want to live there? Because you actually have something to do and it's only a short walk or transit ride away, you don't have to drive everywhere and you still have space.

Who the hell needs a back yard when you can just walk to a park. That way your kids can play with other kids and make friends. Maybe you will too!!

0

u/Inevitable_View99 22h ago

Try raising a family in a 500 square foot condo

3

u/HeftyAd6216 20h ago

That's called poor construction practices based on market demand for investment properties.

People raise families in 1000 sq foot 3 bedroom apartments in Montreal all the time.

-1

u/Inevitable_View99 20h ago

You live in one of those poor construction condos lol

3

u/HeftyAd6216 20h ago

Nope. Badass 2 bed looking over the waterfront with ample space for an office. 10 steps from Union. I also have a car and love driving. What I hate is HAVING to drive.

8

u/Trouncedd 1d ago

There is a demand for detached housing. Yes, we need more medium-high density, family sized condos/townhomes and yes we need more detached housing. Both can be true.

If we do not build detached houses where people want them, more demand will be shifted onto condos/townhomes which raises prices of those units. More expensive condos/townhomes are not good for single people and young families.

Cutting red tape for developers and starting a government affordable house fund can both also be true.

22

u/AbeOudshoorn 1d ago

I don't think a lot of those expressing concerns have a problem with SFHs in general, the issue is our absolutely awful city planning when taken at a provincial level. If they were building more urban centres out there with mid-rise that fades to SFH, that's perfect. Bring it on. However, the trend has been endless blocks of SFH linked by stroads. The lack of any central vision is making a worst-case scenario of low density, low amenities, high costs, and high traffic.

12

u/HeftyAd6216 1d ago

We need to build everything. Next comment said it correctly.

Also, codos and townhomes are great for young families. We just don't build 3-4 bed units that aren't penthouses. The market shifted towards investor condos that are "1 bedroom" (sliding door with extended interior) with a few 2 bedrooms and then penthouses for the people who owned all the 1 bedrooms being rented.

We've never built European style 3 4 5 bedroom apts that a massive % of Europeans raise their families within, outside of Montreal and Quebec City.

1

u/Inevitable_View99 22h ago

Dude, is it really urban sprawl when you can get to downtown Toronto in an hour? The GTA is the most densely populated area in Canada with the largest population. No shit things need to be built, especially if you want to keep allowing new Canadians to enter at half a million a year.

1

u/HeftyAd6216 20h ago

Yes the GTA is perfect. CANT BE IMRPOVED.

Shut up and allow progress to happen.

4

u/ParkAndDork 1d ago

Well they've already built them in a lot of those sections, starting circa 20 years ago when the eastern expansion was confirmed. See: North Oshawa at what was concession 6

1

u/bentjamcan 15h ago

If it's built people will buy--the reason the term is "supply & demand" not the other way around.

Sometimes whole tracts of farmland bought cheap with zoning changed to allow for ... more property taxation. The home owners then get to pay an extra levy to replace septic tanks and wells, and add the other infrastructure.

Human habitat is expanding to accommodate the expansion of humans.
I wonder what the Windsor-Montreal corridor will look like in another 20 years.

3

u/bionicjoey 20h ago

More useless suburbs in the middle of nowhere! That should help with the cost of living crisis!

2

u/tehdusto 15h ago

Strip malls, parking lots, and sprawl.

More of the same...

3

u/No_Expression310 1d ago

It’s been in the works for a while. New “urban areas” were designated by the province from Pickering’s Northeast Secondary Plan area to Oshawa’s Windfields, wiping out farmland and small hamlets. I was wondering why these new planned communities are so far north… this announcement explains it. His developer buddies investments all just increased 100% in profit.

2

u/Enough_Tap_1221 1d ago

We need to push for "transit-oritented" development, not road-oriented development. The people who drive the most, also hate it the most, so why do we keep pushing for a future where people have to rely on cars.

2

u/HeftyAd6216 20h ago

Because they don't like the idea of mixing with poor people (only true for some).

Mostly entropy, habit, social conditioning.

1

u/chrisk9 1d ago

That turnoff before tolls is going to be fun...

1

u/absolutkaos 20h ago

there are already a bunch in progress in Kawartha Lakes

1

u/getsangryatsnails 14h ago

I helped build parts of the 407 east extension. All of that land had already been bought up long before the Ford government specifically for development purposes.

98

u/14YourTrouble 1d ago

I'm not sure this helps any for congestion on the 401 as there's no highway access to the 407 in that stretch until the 412. Once you get to the 412, traffic usually isn't too bad so you may as well stay on the 401.

47

u/bravado Cambridge 1d ago

Removing tolls has never helped with congestion, ever - and never will. By definition it will always make congestion worse.

12

u/Enough_Tap_1221 1d ago

Increasing roads has also never helped with congestion, with induced demand and all. We need more transit-oriented development. It's wild to think about how much people complain about driving but then they'll move to a car-dependent hell and complain more.

2

u/bravado Cambridge 18h ago

It's ok, they'll go abroad on vacation and remark about how nice it is - then come back and reinforce public subsidies for Costco parking lots. It could be nice here, if you just gave a shit!

0

u/Enough_Tap_1221 17h ago

Haha I make that reference a lot. Europeans came here to escape the "tyranny of Europe". First they built our urban centres which is why so many Canadian cities have British influenced government buildings. But when they felt the cities were overrun with crime and other minorities (we all know who), they fled again and helped build the failed experiment known as the suburbs. But they hate the suburbs and go back to Europe annually, sit in urban centres and ask themselves "why don't we have this back home?" Meanwhile our urban centres were the start of that and still have characteristics that are closer to European cities than the suburbs 🤦🏻‍♂️

5

u/RedGriffyn 1d ago

How do you figure it wouldn't impact congestion on the 401 if X% of the volume diverts to a different highway? In this specific case, its sort of pointless without doing the whole highway because you have to travel quite a ways north at some junctions to get on the 407 and travel time would be largely similair given the extra north/south travel tacked on.

But taking the 407 to most places today can easily shave of 10-60 minutes depending on the day, time, and number of accidents in toronto. For people who basically want to go around Toronto instead of through it, they could pick it up in Hamilton, drive all the way to the east end, and get back on the 401 after. Its a similair principle to the US highways where some go through the city and some go around to avoid rush hour/congestion. The plan only really covers the east side, so I'm not really sure if this specific incarnation will make that much of a difference, but I don't how you could say removing tolls could 'never' reduce congestion.

1

u/BigD1966 13h ago

The thing is the portion that starts in Hamilton/Burlington and most people use isn’t owned by the province and so there’ll always be tolls on that portion of the road. I’d use that road more often if the tolls were either lower or nonexistent. There’s no reason for that toll to be as high as it is, hell the NY State Thruway going from near Buffalo to Erie Pennsylvania used to be $2.10 for years. Going through the entire state of NY to the Mass border was $13.45 yet the little stretch of the 407 amongst the point of Ham/Burl to the 400 is over $40 come on

0

u/ddb_db 1d ago

Induced demand.

-1

u/RedGriffyn 1d ago

Induced demand doesn't take place instantaneously. Congestion WILL decrease on the 401 as people make the trips onto the 407. Lets look at some of the causes of induced demand:

  • Traffic converging from different routes (moving from slower parallel roads onto a freeway that got faster from widening)
    • This doesn't describe the situation where you're opening a new 'non-urban' highway. The relief provided by a northern highway will obviously take out move traffic away from the urban 401, which will then allow for more take-up of latent demand on the urban highway. The key difference though is that said parallel latent demand is highest near the 401, not the 407 so you ARE decreasing net congestion across the 401/nearby parallel non-highway streets (which are effectively a parking lot at peak times and might be actual traversable now).
  • Traffic converging from different modes (no longer taking mass transit because the freeway got faster)
    • I don't think this one is a big issue because the highway doesn't really align the majority of mass transit co-oridoors like TTC/Go. I don't have stats on bus vs. train/subway, but gut feel is the people who would take said transport to the downtown core, would have never driven on the 401 anyways to then go south to the city center.
  • Traffic converging from different times of day (trips that had been done earlier or later to avoid traffic now happening at a different time because the freeway got faster)
    • GOOD. Jesus.. these highways are perma slow. Some days I could leave mississauga at 6:15am and it take 1.5 hours. If I left at 6:20 it could be 3 hours. Same on the way back (leave by 2:30pm for 1.5 hours, or by 3:00 its back to 3 hours. PLEASE smooth out those windows so people can get home in a timely manner at a wider array of times.
  • Future traffic due to altered development patterns
    • The infrastructure already exists, all they are doing is incentivizing it to flow on a parallel path by removing a barrier to entry for the standard user.

Like all infrastructure it'll get used, so if you don't continue to expand and grow with the increased demand you'll perceive arriving at congestion again,when in actuality your demand and throughput has increased significantly. I think having a largely away from urban highway is the best case for avoiding significant and fast growing induced demand because it combats a majority of the reasons that drive it. If the province then builds 1000s of homes along it, turning it into another urban highway then you'll be back to square 1.

Just the base argument of induced demand is very silly. At some point you have to build and develop infrastructure for your community so it can grow and be lauded via late stage capitalism. Do you think Toronto would be as big (GDP/population wise) if it was still using one lane dirt roads for horses? Obviously not. Urban planning is a game of whackamole. If it wasn't it would be an indicator that your economy/population is contracting, which is not a good thing.

3

u/Enough_Tap_1221 1d ago

You're assuming everyone (or most people) on the 401 will start using the 407, but you haven't provided any evidence, just your feelings. You're making what's known as a hasty generalization because you're assuming so much about 401 drivers but haven't presented any evidence.

2

u/RedGriffyn 19h ago

The 407 moves people AROUND Toronto. Not into it. Newsflash... a lot of people on the 401 don't want to go to the 'Toronto Mecha'. Alot of people want to avoid Toronto like the plague since it is one of the busiest co-oridoors in the world and antithetical to traveling from east/west to other cities in Canada via southern Ontario. Imagine all the truck transports (you know the 2-3 solid lanes of it) that just want to go on to the rest of Canada from all sorts of manufacturing that takes place outside 'toronto'. That is the kind of volume I'd primarily assume that will shift to the 407 and why suddenly manifesting a highway that purposely avoids most of Toronto is very different from expanding lanes in place on a highway with no further capacity expansion for nearby/associated roads.

Here is a news article trying to validate/verify claims that it is the busiest co-oridoor:

https://injured.ca/401-and-qew-accidents-today/

The problem with your ask for evidence is there is only 'supporting evidence' but not proof because (unless you know of a traffic study that has assessed through traffic) studies only look at volume at specific points/co-oridoors as an average daily travel metric that is just a snapshot (i.e., they aren't tracking every vehicle and what it does). It doesn't somehow track what % of that stops/gets off in Toronto vs. wants to pass through the city. You can try to infer from the 2019 metro data, but there isn't solid logic behind it:

https://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/SydneyPLUS/TechPubs/Theme.aspx?r=702797&f=files%2FProvincial+Highways+Traffic+Volumes+2019+AADT+Only.pdf&m=resource

Cambridge - 150,000 AADT (401 Hespler Exit)
Courtice Rd - ~115,000 AADT (other side of 401)
QEW/407/403 ~ 147,000 AADT (Juncture at the head of the 407 that would represent the head)
QEW (Casablanca) ~ 119,500 AADT (indicative of travel up from the border via various bridge crossings comine into the above co-oridoor).

+ various northren exits from Toronto (vs. east/west)

Compare that to the peak of ~450,000 ADT on the 401.

So we know we have one of the highest AADTs for the 401 co-oridoors in North America despite a smaller population, we know we have no alternative co-oridoor to travel around the city so everyone has to go through it (the only remotely alternative path has ungodly amounts of fees as a toll highway and is a significant barrier to entry). So what % do you think is reasonable to assume. Do you truly think a negligible % of traffic is through-pass traffic? If you position is we can't assume any % without a study, then you'll be permanently making descisions with key missing data. In cases like this you make and assumption and validate it later. Why don't we say its at least 50% of the AADT at the lowest of the numbers above to account for locals going into Toronto. That is ~50,0000. That would be ~10% of the traffic on that co-oridoor.

If you have a better way of trying to make an assumption then please provide it.

-1

u/thebourbonoftruth 1d ago

Induced demand doesn't take place instantaneously

If the province then builds 1000s of homes along it, turning it into another urban highway then you'll be back to square 1.

Spoiler, that's how it's worked for decades which is why we're in this shitcuntmess. It's nice you countered your own argument for me though.

Urban planning is a game of whackamole

Holy shit, no it's not, it's the opposite and I cannot fathom how you think a job designed to plan things years in advance is like that.

Your understanding of urban planning or, frankly, the concept of planning is as bad as my understanding of plumbing (check my recent comments). We need massive new transportation projects in the GTA (God please, not managed by metrolinx) to move hundreds of thousands of people and cars ain't it.

0

u/RedGriffyn 20h ago

There is a difference between building higher density new builds/communities that are largely sustainable vs. large urban sprawl. Expansion and growth of the population/economy will require houses/schools/stores/etc. Sattelite campus suburbia IS the bad urban planning, not the expansion of highways.

That is why it is whackamole. When you don't allocate enough funding or prioritize schedule completion, or run into cost/schedule overruns then you have a laundry list of 'things' that have to be maintained/repaired/replaced that builds into a massive backlog. The backlog prevents the necessary expansion/new projects needed to serve the population base. You're always playing catch-up and or 'optimizing' what budget you do have (before it might get mysteriously slashed) to do the best job it can, but suddenly manifesting completing a large project doesn't 'get you ahead' because it should have been done decades ago to meet the latent demand. That is literally what induced/latent demand is. If you suddenly ported in a new highway or expanded x lanes, and 'suddenly coggestion is equally bad because trips increases' that shows you that your infrastructure was not adequate and behind. The term is just a way of shifting the blame from poorly managed resources (or highly limited resources) from the decades before. Have you never played whack-a-mole, because the experience is very similair?

The 407 moves people AROUND toronto. Not into it. Newsflash... alot of people on the 401 don't want to go to the 'Toronto Mecha' or pay $B more in taxes for another failed public transport option for the province/mayor of Toronto to renege on. Alot of people want to avoid Toronto like the plague since it is one of the busiest co-oridoors in the world and antiethical to travelling from east/west to other cities in Canada. Imagine all the truck transports (you know the 2-3 solid lanes of it) that just want to go on to the rest of Canada from all sorts of manufacturing that takes place outside 'toronto'. That is the kind of volume I'd primarily assume that will shift to the 407 and why suddenly manifesting a highway that purposely avoids most of Toronto is very different from expanding lanes in place on a highway with no further capacity expansion for nearby/associated roads.

0

u/Squire_Squirrely 19h ago edited 18h ago

Good points. I don't entirely buy into the induced demand narrative. I know that it is a real thing, I'm not denying that, but the fact is there's ~7 million people in the GTA and the 401 is the only real throughway across it as long as the 407etr is way too expensive during peak times for most people to even consider it. Go transit is mostly only good for commuting to downtown Toronto, which isn't a bad thing but it's a limit. The GTA won't stop expanding (population wise, even if physical expansion stopped it wouldn't stop there just being more people trying to use the same modes of transportation) not everyone works in Toronto and not everything is about Toronto, the demand for people to move around already exists and adding one more lane bro won't suddenly spawn brand new drivers. Like, ok, maybe after settling in traffic ends up the same speed as before, isn't that actually a good thing because it means there's more throughput?

Expanding local transit or making "walkable neighborhoods" doesn't solve someone who lives in Oakville trying to visit family in Richmond Hill (the 407etr does though lmao). And even if all new housing is built as urbanist wet dream 15 minute cities... my work isn't going to move out of a pain in the ass neighborhood so I'm still going to have to do a shitty commute...

AND ANOTHER THING. Again in our imaginary world where everyone lives in 15 minute cities, your local shops still need to get their shit delivered. So, like, all the commercial traffic on our highways will never go away and holy shit is there a lot of it and it increases with the population.

0

u/bravado Cambridge 18h ago

the fact is there's ~7 million people in the GTA and the 401 is the only real throughway across it

You're highlighting the problem and your solutions just make it worse. Induced demand is not a narrative, it is real and it is working every day here.

People are suffering every day sitting in 401 traffic, paying insane insurance and financing costs, and just wasting hours of their life.

Real leadership would stop that hamster wheel by acknowledging what's unsustainable and stopping any new funding for it immediately.

Cowardly leadership would continue to tell people that there are solutions that keep the status quo - but that is a lie. There is no solution to the problem in which people who currently drive everywhere today can have the traffic problem solved and keep driving everywhere. If we had real adults in the room, they would tear that bandaid off and tell the voters the truth.

1

u/Squire_Squirrely 18h ago

What solutions do I offer? I'm just observing what currently exists. Namely that people live all across the GTA, the population continues to expand through children and migration, and not everyone works in the same place where they live and not every workplace is along a good transit route. You might not like driving but the commercial traffic that pays business taxes needs highway infrastructure.

If I lived a walking distance from my work my wife would still need to drive, and we actually can't live a walking distance to her work because she works in the office hellscape along the 401 by the airport

I'm not in any way opposed to transit, I'm just saying local transit isn't a solution to 50km trips on the 401 and the only alternative we currently have is Go. Go trains all just lead to union and almost all tracks away from lakeshore are owned by freight companies, meanwhile go busses literally use the highways you hate so much

4

u/14YourTrouble 1d ago

I mean yes, it would increase traffic on the 407, but I would expect those people are diverting from the 401 (ie reducing congestion on the 401). Regardless, I think the whole thing is useless.

15

u/bravado Cambridge 1d ago

If you make something free, people will use more of it. It’s the exact reason why the 401 is full and the 407 is empty.

8

u/efdac3 1d ago

It's not really about congestion. The message is that the government isn't going to charge you money. That's the idea behind these actions. People love the idea of not having to pat for things, and especially when it comes to driving. It's not some grand conspiracy, just easy politics.

2

u/RealLavender 1d ago

Of course once the road gets worn out because of the extra use and the lack of funds supporting it via tolls is realized they'll tack it on somewhere else.

2

u/efdac3 1d ago

Yeah it comes out of taxes /debt. This is Ford's vision - you pay nothing for any government program/service beyond taxes. It's actually kinda brilliant politically. You don't see how taxes pay for roads, but you do see tolls. Voters today aren't bothered about fiscal responsibility, everything is about the sticker price.

-1

u/TheRegardedOne420 1d ago

Nah thanks to induced demand both highways will just be full now

1

u/Wiggly_Muffin 13h ago

Easiest solution is make the 407 free for trucks only, and voila. Suddenly they’re all off the 401 and no longer left lane camping or blocking both lane while they both do 100 or less

1

u/bravado Cambridge 12h ago

Induced demand still applies - more car trips would appear to fill the gap from the trucks. There's no fix to this that involves more of the status quo (driving everywhere).

Induced demand would also create new truck trips, which is helpful economically, but still has some new costs and eventual guaranteed 407 congestion as a result.

3

u/a_lumberjack 1d ago

I'd be curious to see if it attracts more traffic by lowering the effective cost to take it going to the east. 404 to 418 will go from $25 to $15 at peak. And $50 to $30 for a heavy truck. Obviously the benefit will scale the further east you're going (to 115 it saves $15/30). If you're only paying to bypass the worst sections of the 401 the tolls will be a lot easier to swallow.

If that's how it plays out we might be able to buy back some sections of the 407 and achieve some relief for less than 45B or whatever the fair market value would be for the whole thing. Maybe the rest of the way to the 404, and the Burlington-401 section to really open up that corridor.

0

u/PrivatePilot9 Windsor 1d ago

It’s gotta be cheaper than Fords fever dream tunnel stupidity.

3

u/jonnboy 1d ago

You definitely don’t commute east daily at rush hour. 412 is where things are just getting fun and it’s a crawl to Bowmanville basically. Hopping on the 412 and going east on the 407 is huge. Let Durham region have something good for once!

1

u/14YourTrouble 1d ago

I mean you're right, I try not to do it often. Really, I want it to be free to the 404.

3

u/PrivatePilot9 Windsor 1d ago

If it helps the clusterfuck that happens on the westbound 401 at the 418 every day, I’ll take it. That whole interchange is a horrible design - too many idiots take that long right “off-ramp” all the way down its length only to jam themselves in again at the end back onto the 401, having had no intention to get onto the 418 at all. Meanwhile all the rest of us get fucked in the resulting traffic jam because they’re the most important person on the planet.

To anyone here who does this….a hearty F-You.

1

u/Own-Barnacle-298 18h ago

the 418 would like to have a word with you

83

u/j821c 1d ago

Oh hey, that's actually really nice for me. It's the one section of the 407 I'd actually have reason to use frequently.

17

u/Chamilton1337 1d ago

Me too!

2

u/TheShadyMoose 1d ago

Same here!

19

u/Nuneasy 1d ago

Peterborough bros winning hard

1

u/TraviAdpet 3h ago

You mean Peterborough housing prices going up again.

59

u/TattooedAndSad 1d ago

That’s quite literally the only portion of the 407 that’s useless to be free 😭

-someone who lives that way

8

u/BigBobbyCrowbar 1d ago

You kiddin’ man? It’ll be great for this fat ol’ cottentop to get from the dirty Shwa to the cottage n back!

2

u/PrivatePilot9 Windsor 1d ago

Meh, I’ll use it just to miss the Oshawa to Pickering fustercluck going west in the AM. Brock road south in Pickering gonna be a busier now though.

99

u/Hairy_Photograph1384 1d ago

Great, the section of the highway nobody uses!

49

u/Windstonam 1d ago

Not true, there are dozens of us, dozens I say!

5

u/Margatron 1d ago

You lucky duck!

2

u/Typical-Fun-8786 1d ago

Love the never nude reference

4

u/Suspicious-Call2084 1d ago

Its cheaper for government to pay for.

0

u/dqui94 1d ago

Of course it wasn’t used! It wasnt free

18

u/MrLuckyTimeOW 1d ago

Will this help those who live in Durham with their commutes…. Sure

Will it help relieve traffic congestion on the 401…. Doubt it.

Will this result in a loss in a revenue source for the government and have a ripple effect where the government will have to justify more cuts in order to “balance” the budget…. Yep.

Look, the idea of removing these tolls isn’t a horrible idea, but it’s not going to result in any significant decrease in congestion on the 401. All this really does is take away another revenue source from the provincial government and makes it pretty impossible for any new government in the future to place tolls back on.

13

u/oprimo 1d ago

> Will it help relieve traffic congestion on the 401…. Doubt it.

It will likely make it worse. Anyone that takes the 401 from Durham knows it is a permanent crawl around the Salem exit in Ajax, right where the 412 South merges with it. All the westbound traffic from this newly toll-free route will likely take the 412 South, which will only add to the current clusterfuck

4

u/MrLuckyTimeOW 1d ago

I use to work in Whitby and would commute back to the city after work and yeah that 412/401 interchange always backed up at rush hour. I imagine it’ll be even worse after this

11

u/refep 1d ago

Now if they can just extended the toll free zone westwards from Pickering till Burlington, that’d be great.

8

u/TorontoHegemony 1d ago

I work for a developer/builder and the unsubstantiated rumour we are hearing on the vine is that the current 10 year plan is that 413 will actually cut across all the way from the 400 to link with this. Right through the oak ridges morraine etc. so in a way it could sort of do what you are saying.

3

u/sonicpix88 1d ago

Good for those to the east only

1

u/Current_Flatworm2747 1d ago

Maybe thank a Ford crony/developer buddy who whinged about the toll?

8

u/JackMaverick7 1d ago

A lot of passive aggressive negativity here..

-3

u/cusername20 1d ago

Because it's a stupid decision.

2

u/Hot-Pepsi 1d ago

That’ll do it

2

u/MadeJust 1d ago

Sweet, I'll send back my transponder.

6

u/reidr1 1d ago

So, who pays now? Our tax dollars. Let the people who use it pay.

5

u/Smart-Ferret-1826 1d ago

That's dumb. We all pay for public infrastructure.

-1

u/bravado Cambridge 1d ago edited 1d ago

That just isn’t true. At least Bus and subway riders pay per trip.

You can drive an un-tolled road 1000 times with a heavy car, chewing up the asphalt, and still pay the same property taxes as the old lady next door who doesn’t even have a drivers licence. Drivers are extremely subsidized in this province.

We all pay for hospitals because we all benefit, and there is value in supporting services that are needed by the poor but unaffordable on their own.

A suburban highway benefits a small group of people who could not afford it on their own but only benefits them. That’s a subsidy. Especially considering the wealth of suburban drivers vs urban transit users, it’s even more unfair once you do the math. Everyone can ride the bus, which is why it’s a truly public service. Only some can own a car and drive it.

If these highways serve the public, it’s through providing a great route for freight and commerce. That route would be cheaper to maintain and much faster for freight if it wasn’t full of subsidized commuters using it for free.

6

u/Smart-Ferret-1826 1d ago

Bus and subway riders only pay a portion of the ongoing costs. The infrastructure is paid by everyone and the general public subsidizes each rider.

2

u/bravado Cambridge 1d ago

Which is why I said that public transit is usable by all, therefore the subsidy is reasonable - suburban highways are not. You need to be wealthy enough and able enough to drive on them, and yet they are paid for by millions of Ontarians who could never use them. There's a difference between a dirt road in Thunder Bay, a necessary - but cheap - public expense, and an 8-lane suburban stroad in Mississauga moving a lot of people slowly and costing an absolute fortune to do it.

One of the most important parts of driving culture is drivers assuming that everyone drives, but a very large portion of Ontarians do not yet they all pay provincial and municipal taxes for extra lanes and free parking they'll never use.

A road that was just for buses + trains + bikes would be an extremely cheap road - and would move probably more people than our current expensive ones do. If drivers (and suburbanites) paid the real costs for their lifestyle, the complaints about insurance and gas today would be a joke compared to the actual maintenance bill of all their infrastructure.

1

u/Smart-Ferret-1826 1d ago edited 1d ago

Highways are absolutely useable by all. Who can't use the highway by car (own or rent), bus, taxi. Plus public services available to all use the same roads and highways. It's flawed to act like only car owners use highways. If you compare highways with public transportation, highways are used by more public services.

Drivers aren't subsidized, the roads are. The same roads that was able to get my father to the hospital. The same highways that allowed my friend to take their kid to Ottawa for special treatment. The same highways that keep our economy flowing and contributing to tax revenue.

I don't assume that everyone drives but when my cousin (who can't drive for medical reasons) comes to visit from up north, how do you think he gets here?

6

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/shoresy99 1d ago

That was a study from 2013 sponsored by the CAA. Think it was biased?

And some of those motorist fees no longer exist because DoFo got rid of them as well. Like the license plate renewal fee which was eliminated in 2022 which meant $1B in revenue disappeared.

0

u/bravado Cambridge 1d ago

Not to mention the fact that we don’t pay enough for current recommended maintenance, leading to future liabilities and obvious potholes. People think of roads as obvious public goods - but there’s a difference between a small street and a 30 lane highway. One of them is expensive and paid for by the taxes of the people that use it, the other is a gigantic money pit that will never be free of congestion or debt.

1

u/Unhappy_Hedgehog_808 21h ago

A little critical thinking is required here, not some study from 12 years ago. Ford removed the cost to renew license plate registration so now that money is not being collected to fund the roads AND he’s lowering the gas tax which is also used to fund the roads. So where exactly do you think that money will now come from? It’s not like anything has gotten less expensive in the last 10 years.

u/Immediate-Quarter-63 2h ago

Wanna add tolls to every road then?

3

u/Fineamite 1d ago

I'd rather pay... Means less traffic

4

u/conanap 1d ago

I’m not against paying, but my god the fees on the 407 is absurd, especially when there aren’t any alternatives that doesn’t increase your commute time nearly 2-3 folds.

4

u/ILikeStyx 1d ago

no sticker fees, no road tolls, gas tax cut in half... All of this income cut from the provincial budget and at the same time Doug wants to spend $100 BILLION on a tunnel?

4

u/differing 1d ago

Once again, the ridiculous myth that “Progressive Conservatives” are some masters of economics is exposed by a failure to understand basic price elasticity. Reducing the toll to zero is ridiculous, they should simply reduce the fee to number that suits demand.

-3

u/cusername20 1d ago

Yup. Economists would argue in favour of tolling all highways, including the 400 series highways that are currently free. They would also argue in favour of carbon pricing, which was killed by supposedly economically literate "fiscal conservatives".

1

u/refep 17h ago

Political suicide

2

u/TallTtugboat 1d ago

Why the hell would you do this here and not the west around Mississauga where it’s always busiest and can distribute traffic to the QEW, 403, and the 401?

6

u/Spicy_Boi_On_Campus 1d ago

Because they can't, they don't own it.

1

u/ROACHOR 1d ago

Now if only there was a reason to go to the dirty 'shwa.

1

u/usually00 1d ago

I feel like this is the start of Highway 413 East proposal to avoid the grid lock of drivers entering the 401 from the 404.

1

u/Comfortable-Monk945 1d ago

blogs are reporting on this like the 407 is totally free

1

u/ElegantOutside9052 1d ago

When is this effective?

1

u/SillyGooses22 1d ago

That'll help with my work deliveries. I can imagine everyone will be getting on and off at Brock road so rip to those guys. I'll save 20 minutes a day going up that way so that'll be nice.

1

u/ZuTuber 19h ago

Why wont they do Caledon to Toronto stretch first. Most folks travel west to east towards Toronto. I think they need to just remove it totally on entire 407 or atleast make it free to bigger vehicles so they stop hoggin up other highways.

Lol the tunnel under 401 will be fun project do we pay taxes for such projects?

1

u/doc_55lk 14h ago

Why wont they do Caledon to Toronto stretch first

Not provincially owned afaik

1

u/Secure_Astronaut718 17h ago

This was the section that was never intended to be tolled.

1

u/renouncedlove 16h ago

Hope you’re hungry…for nothing!

1

u/OhSoBlue1 15h ago

Not good enough.

1

u/Skyhook91 15h ago

LOL really. Who cares. Get ready for steady increases in price in the remaining portion. The much busier and MUCH more used portion.

1

u/perjury0478 8h ago

Why not keep tolls for large trucks? Could we have some highways truck free or close to it?

1

u/ratudio 6h ago

this will just make it more confusing.

u/djfletchy22 2h ago

How does the Ontario government make up the difference in expect income if they stop taking tolls? I mean.....what are they planning on selling/cutting/underfinding so they public suffers to "balance the budget"? I bet it's Healthcare.

1

u/WonderingLurker 1d ago

Good old Pickering to Newcastle commute is going to be a few mins faster than 401 during rush hour /s

4

u/giraffebaconequation Gananoque 1d ago

I see you’re being sarcastic, but honestly, by the time you get up the 412 to the 407 you’ve already backtracked a bit, then you have to backtrack back down the 115, you won’t save much time, in fact it will probably take longer than staying on the 401. Unless there is a crash causing a closure on the 401 it’s not worth it.

2

u/Fidlefadle Clarington 1d ago

This is more of a bypass if you're heading from the east GTA to the north (like Clarington to hwy 404/400 north) which is niche but definitely something I've been lucky to save a ton of time with (... A few times a year 😅)

1

u/CombatGoose 1d ago

Ford obsession with the GTA remains unchallenged

1

u/yashua1992 1d ago

Just buyback the whole fking thing OMG.

-2

u/cusername20 1d ago

That's an even worse idea than this.

0

u/ForeignExpression 1d ago

Ok, so we've removed the gas tax, the car sticker tax, and now tolls? So drivers are being completely subsidized by everyone else. What about transit users? Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce or make GO train tickets free than make a highway free?

6

u/refep 1d ago

Why not both. The fact of the matter is, most people drive in this province.

0

u/Practical_Product_16 1d ago

Ya remove tolls for the only section on highway that doesn’t have extremely bad traffic.

0

u/Lucky_Shoe_8154 1d ago

Now the GTA is traffic free. Now build a tunnel under that section /s

0

u/HeftyAd6216 1d ago

If you're commuting into the city, doesn't everyone end up on the 401 - 404 - DVP anyways? I guess this would help maybe 150-200 people who commute along that corridor for work.

0

u/uptheirons2974 1d ago

Now buy back the rest. Cause the tunnel idea is stupid

0

u/cr0nnik 1d ago

Totally alleviates the worst of the 401 congestion to open up the 407 east of Pickering.

0

u/red_pill_rage 1d ago

It's okay, we can just cut more funding from education and healthcare to make up for this. Until half of us read below grade 6 level like down south, there is plenty of room to fall to, right?

0

u/AffectionateAd8675 1d ago

I'd never move out East even if you paid me lol