Talk:Ontario Highway 413

Highway 413?
The Toronto Star, a RS, in the article "'This is a stupid place to put the highway': Doug Ford’s government has fast-tracked a new GTA freeway during COVID-19, sparking local opposition" from January 27, 2021 (now behind a paywall) states "...organizing opposition to GTA West – also called the 413 – concerned it's being fast-tracked...." but the GTA West FAQ says "7. What is Highway 413? The GTA West Project Team is aware that some stakeholders are referring to the GTA West transportation corridor as Highway 413. The GTA West transportation corridor does not have an official name yet, and if stakeholders are reviewing reports, studies or maps that make reference to a Highway 413, they should be redirected to the GTA West project website for the most up-to-date and accurate information about this study." (Link) For now, I have made a redirect for Ontario Highway 413 but have not altered the text in the GTA West Corridor article. Mapsax (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Might warrant putting text similar to what is on the GTA West FAQ into the article, with citations to both the FAQ and the multitude of newspaper articles from Torstar that mention "413". -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking this over: While I know that making a redirect whose name doesn't appear on the target article is a no-no (and I've been frustrated as a user when that's happened), I'm not sure what could go there. The project is saying "don't call it 413" and the Star isn't saying that it's calling it that, just that some people are. I'm thinking that if the project is discouraging calling it "413" then WP probably shouldn't make an overt reference to it. As for the redirect, I just don't want there to be a dead end when people search for information on "Highway 413". Mapsax (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of redirects that don't appear in target articles. While I've heard of that same frowning upon it, this is the topic people are looking for when they search up Highway 413... so if its a rule, this is a good case for ignoring it. For what its worth, it'll never ever get that number... 13 is still voodoo, and throw that 4 in there (which is similar to the word for death in Cantonese or something) and you got double voodoo haha. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 00:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I didn't see this before I did my edit - I stuck a section in there explaining that it has been referred to as 413, but this hasn't officially been confirmed.
 * In other notes, this article does need a "criticism" section - it's very dry and technical right now. There's lots of sources on it! Turini2 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrote a criticism section - I suspect there's more information to find! Turini2 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got about 25 tabs open at the moment on all the technical documents, newspapers, stakeholder websites, etc. This article has been very popular the past month or two (see WikiProject Canada Roads/Popular pages) so I'm rewriting it from the top down. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism/controversy
Why should we include Toronto's opinion of a route that is entirely outside of their jurisdiction by a good 25 km? Their political grandstanding is WP:UNDUE; we should list actual stakeholders. What if Pickering or Durham Region vote to oppose it? Oshawa? Kingston? On that note, most of the criticism section, which should be incorporated into the history or route description as per WP:CRITS, is also undue weight. I could pull up an article from 1954 with the exact same criticisms of the 401 across Toronto, or for any rural (at the time) freeway in southern Ontario. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Toronto is the key city in the Greater Toronto Area, and the construction (or not) of the highway will affect the city - as the 407 clearly does. Furthermore, Toronto City Council (for better or worse) gets a large amount of media airtime, so their pronouncement on the project will affect what some people think of the project. (again, for better or worse)
 * I disagree that the criticism section should be subsumed into the route description section, given that the many of the points that critics raise affect the whole route (climate change, induced demand, urban sprawl etc etc). An example of when this would be appropriate would be the impact to a particular environmentally important site in a given location. The Bradford Bypass and Holland Marsh comes to mind. Including in the history section could be appropriate for certain issues - such as municipalities stating that they were against the project in "Month 20XX" or whatever.
 * I do think a slight rewording/splitting of the section would be best - for example High Speed 2 has a "Environmental and community impact" section (common sense as to what that contains), as well as a "perspectives" section - points for and against the project, as well as noting key supporters/campaigners and their viewpoints. I think that would best outline the issues that have been raised by various groups and municipalities. "Controversy" in the header is def too strong, despite me writing it in!
 * I don't think it's reasonable to compare the attitudes of 1954 to today, given the change in environmental legislation/awareness of environmental issues over the last 50 years or so - notwithstanding the effects of climate change! It's clear from the references regarding municipalities and the media coverage that this highway has public opposition against it, and that should be a point in this article. (that's not to say that others don't support it, of course!) Turini2 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point I was making with that reference is that the objections raised to this freeway are raised for every single freeway ever built in Ontario, and don't need 4/5 paragraphs to be described. The only part I'd consider merging to the route description is mentioning the current land use. The rest I was planning on incorporating into the history as I write that section. I also have to respectfully disagree with "and the construction (or not) of the highway will affect [Toronto] - as the 407 clearly does" (how so?) as well as "Furthermore, Toronto City Council (for better or worse) gets a large amount of media airtime, so their pronouncement on the project will affect what some people think of the project." (So does Andrea Horwath... so what? Their pronouncement affecting what some people think is speculation. Now if the feds start their own EA and amongst the reasoning they give is reference to Toronto City Council's opposition, then it would become relevant. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Current land use (agricultural etc etc) in relevant sections of the route description seems fine, yeah. ✅
 * Given the prevalence of reliable, high quality sources noting and listing the objections to the highway (i.e. not just 15 references from the same NIMBY group), I think it's perfectly reasonable for it to remain in the article. I think this is my key point - "many of the points that critics raise affect the whole route (climate change, induced demand, urban sprawl etc etc)" - it's not tied to a particular timeframe of the project. Furthermore, if the same objections have been raised before, they're clearly relevant at a general level (with references backing that up, of course!).
 * Listing the supporters/detractors of the project also shows the differing views on the highway. The NDP/Liberal point is relevant if either party gained control in the next provincial election - as it's exceedingly unlikely that construction could start beforehand.
 * My point about the 407 was that despite not being in "city limits" it functions as a "Toronto Bypass" by avoiding the 401. The GTA West is without doubt a outer ring road/bypass of the GTA - it would allow people to avoid using the busiest parts of the 401 if they were heading for the 400, for example. Changes to the GTA highway network (such as this highway) will have knock on impacts to all parts of the GTA. Turini2 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (as an aside, what's CoT? :D ) Turini2 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The key point has come to me - "65-years of identical anti-highway arguments makes them totally non-unique to the project" - if issues with the highway are a significant viewpoint (which I think are easily demonstrated in the wide range of reliable, high quality sources), then those viewpoints should be clearly demonstrated, regardless of what's happened before. Turini2 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * City of Toronto :) (i.e. the government corporation of Toronto). For the non-CoT objections, I'm not suggesting removing them, but rather summarizing and incorporating it into the overall history of the route as opposed to relegating and condensing it to a dedicated section, which is frowned upon. The "relevant timeframe" is easy to define: pre-2018 are the environmental considerations that resulted in the route not crossing the Niagara Escarpment, and the eventual turfing of the Environmental Assessment. Post-2018 you have the various municipalities opposing the project, the anti-road NGOs trying to get the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to halt the province/MTO, and the opinion of opposition provincial parties that fits alongside the municipality opposition. I think we're at an impasse with regards to including the City of Toronto opposition, so I'll leave that be now while I continue writing the History section. After that, perhaps soliciting some outside opinions from WT:CANADA and WP:HWY might help in determining how to best balance coverage of this controversial project with regards to WP:CRITS. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevancy and accuracy of entire induced demand argument, redundancy of environmental claims being spelled out
So Duranton and Turner's claims are specifically refuted by a piece out of the CATO institute, which also claims that their conclusions are mischaracterised in articles written about their paper. I know I slightly rewrote this sentence, but the bulk of its substance remains as it was on March 18:
 * "Urban planning critics claim the highway will encourage urban sprawl through induced demand,[55][56] as research shows that building new highways tends to attract more drivers and fails to improve congestion levels on other roads.[57]"
 * (This was previously "* induce road traffic,[32][33] as research shows that building new highways tends to attract more drivers and fails to improve congestion levels on other roads.[34]")

Reviewing the sources, the two articles from The Star by Noor Javed (or any of the half dozen articles she's written on the topic, all with the same interview of some head of a concerned citiens coalition) have "“The research shows you can’t really build your way out of traffic congestion,” said Robin Lindsey, professor at the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia." and the opinion of "Sony Rai, a member of the local environmental coalition Sustainable Vaughan."

The Star itself published a paper that questions the whole claim of "saving 30-60" seconds as being "misguided" when population growth will lead to far greater congestion increases than 30-60 seconds.

So it seems right now that the first two sentences of the paragraph that begins "Urban planning critics claim ..." is already succinctly covered by "Environmental groups have criticised the significant impact that the highway would have on the environment." In other news, the sun came up this morning and we predict it most likely will tomorrow morning as well. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this substantively tomorrow - (removed, point made below in substantive response) (Also "In other news, the sun came up this morning and we predict it most likely will tomorrow morning as well." seems unnecessarily flippant, not sure what your intention was with that?) Turini2 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (removed, point made below in substantive response) Turini2 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (removed, point made below in substantive response) Turini2 (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to the small text, I was noting that "environmentalist opposes highway" is a given, sure as the sun coming up tomorrow. To balance this out almost requires inserting the opinions of the developers that would support a highway as sure as the sun comes up each morning. I'll wait for your full input tomorrow before responding though. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right - just seemed .. not very neutral language on your behalf, that's all! Thanks for explaining :) Turini2 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Induced demand and urban sprawl are two separate & related issues with the proposed highway but not completely connected. I would also argue that the urban sprawl and induced demand points are related to, but not necessarily connected to environmental impacts - the current separation of “environmental groups” and “urban planning critics” in the article seems reasonable to me.
 * Urban sprawl would be the consequential building on the Whitebelt adjacent to the highway - as has occurred alongside many beltway highways across North America (such as the 407). The intro section leads nicely into the sources from the NFU and land values that backs the section up very well!
 * Induced demand is a wider point being made against the construction of new highways altogether - (to editorialise) if it doesn’t reduce congestion as claimed, save journey time because it fills up with traffic and encourages car use- what’s the point of building a highway? And the consequences/knock on effects then lead to things like urban sprawl and car dependency as the article goes on to note. (a sidenote that may be of interest - the opposite has also proved true - Cheonggyecheon in Seoul and the Embarcadero in San Francisco had traffic evaporation occur when the highway was removed! but that's another story). There’s a fair number of high quality sources on this - mass media and scholarly, Canadian and international, and primary and secondary sources. The UK government commissioned a decent literature review on the topic. "Induced demand continues to occur and may be significant in some situations".
 * If you’d like some more substantive sources (and quotes) for any of the above, I can go and have a look. As I noted before, I would place more weight on the UofT source than anything from CATO - I would argue they have a substantial bias in this field as a libertarian think tank. WP:RSP (as an example, they’re massively pro toll roads!)
 * (and the opinion piece from the Star should be disregarded for statements of fact, as per policy WP:RSOPINION - maybe use it in the perspectives section? "Norris McDonald, former Editor of Toronto Star Wheels argues that")
 * Given that both points have been raised by critics, are well known and can be well cited internationally - I think it’s reasonable to leave them in the article. I think the article is pretty balanced as best it can be right now - it's a shame there’s not more sources/info from the supporters of the highway at present. WP:NPOV I suspect more “positive” information and sources will follow when the EA is published - “we support building GTA West because etc” from developer X, landowner Y & business Z, but that’s WP:CRYSTAL right now! Turini2 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Found a decent reference from Avison Young regarding the potential amounts of developable land - sadly nothing from landowners jumping up and down for the highway to be built.. yet. May be some positive consultation responses to local municipalities about it, I'll keep looking. Turini2 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If Norris McDonald is just an opinionist, could the same not be said of Sony Rai and Environmental Defence? Also I did a bit of digging. The Ryerson Centre for Urban Research and Land Development (CUR) supports the streamlined EA approach and notes:
 * "Metrolinx’s 2041 Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area predicts that even with all its recommended transit improvements the number of trips by car in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) will increase by 4.4 million daily trips during the peak rush hour by 2041 compared to 2011. Improved 400-series highways like the GTA West corridor are essential to accommodate this growth."
 * We can also note that York Region reaffirmed its support mid-March (after the other municipalities opposed it). King Town Council will be discussing a motion to withdraw support for the highway at tonight's meeting. Now, as for "Urban sprawl would be the consequential building on the Whitebelt adjacent to the highway", the Whitebelt is a term that was just made up and has no actual meaning. A quick look through Brampton, Caledon, and Halton Hills official plans show that these lands have been earmarked for development for years at this point. It's rather disingenuous to state that this is going to pave over farmland that wouldn't be paved over otherwise, or the chicken-and-egg paradox of urban sprawl vs. highway construction. I don't feel it's right to be pointing out the general notion of "highways cause sprawl" unless there is evidence that this particular highway would lead to sprawl as opposed to being proposed to accommodate the sprawl. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a single newspaper columnist and an environmental campaign group that might have caused a federal EA! :) Yep, I added a bit from CUR in the perspectives section, feel free to add further. Thanks for finding the York Region one, and King Town can be added when they've made up their mind.
 * RE: Whitebelt - it's a landuse term in the GTHA that has plenty of references behind it. "This particular highway [will] lead to sprawl" is a concern that environmental groups and other critics have, as per the references. As per the quote from the person comparing land values for farmland/residential development in the area, it could make people a lot of money if the land was rezoned for development, causing urban sprawl etc. For land that is zoned for development (but hasn't been developed yet), highway access would open it up for development, again, causing an expansion of the urban area - sprawl. We as Wikipedians aren't stating this might happen - that would be WP:CRYSTAL - the critics of the highway are saying that. Therefore it's worth pointing out as a potential negative impact of the highway. Turini2 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ach, I was optimistic that York Regional Council would have had some deputations for highway construction. Zilch. Oh well. I'll keep looking.Turini2 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see if "might have" pans out in about a month; regardless their opinions are still weighted at the same level as the published automobile columnist in terms of expertise and bias methinks. Not saying they should have equal weight in the article, but rather the sources themselves should be treated/considered with equal weight in terms of "some are saying this, but others disagree."
 * "it could make people a lot of money if the land was rezoned for development, causing urban sprawl etc. For land that is zoned for development (but hasn't been developed yet), highway access would open it up for development, again, causing an expansion of the urban area - sprawl."
 * That's the thing though. These lands have been earmarked for development since the early 2000s. Halton Hills has been fighting to get back the land that was reserved for the highway so they can expand their employment lands north of Steeles. Brampton West (Bram West) was zoned out in 1998. Bolton is set to expand as well.
 * Anyways, I digress. It's looking pretty darn good now, impressively so compared to just a month ago. I will keep my feelers out for updates; as political opposition mounts, the industry supporters will be sure to make their opinions known in the press. No word on the outcome of the council meeting last night just yet; I assume it was kicked down the road. By the time I went to check it out, they were already in a closed session and remained as such right up to 10pm when the meeting ended. They'll publish the minutes next week. Next up is the IAAC call by May the Fourth (be with you)! -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's looking pretty darn good now, impressively so compared to just a month ago."
 * It certainly is - congratulations on your hard work on this - it's certainly an excellent baseline for whatever happens in the future. Turini2 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Nomination
I'm thinking that this article is a good prospect for a Good Article nomination. Since you've also made major contributions to the article I thought it only polite to check with you first :)  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free - my only concern would be that the project is still a fluid news-wise, and therefore things could change quickly? I don't know exactly what the GA criteria is for "stability" of the article. Apart from that, sure - thanks for asking! :) Turini2 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a concern for me as well... However, I don't see much changing if the project is cancelled (tense changes mostly) or continues forward with news updates every few weeks. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Federal assessment
So there's not much yet, but we know that the reasoning given by the federal government for taking on their EA is the protection of three Species at Risk, specifically the Western Chorus Frog, Red-headed Woodpecker and Rapids Clubtail. There must be some endemic thing here since all three are listed as "least concern". I'm thinking we should dig a little deeper and beat the newspapers to the punch on why these species warranted federal intervention on the project. Thoughts? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 19 of the IAAC report The exercise of federal powers, duties, or functions may affect the habitat for three federally-listed species at risk on non-federal lands: the Western Chorus Frog, Red-headed Woodpecker and Rapids Clubtail. Environment and Climate Change Canada advised that the Project may affect critical habitats for the Western Chorus Frog and the Rapids Clubtail at the Humber River watershed. Additionally, the Project footprint crosses through two critical habitat units for the Red-headed Woodpecker.
 * As long as we don't run into WP:ORIGINAL! I guess noting that they are "federally-listed species at risk" (as per the IAAC report), despite them being least concern globally is the best we can do in the absence of further information at this time. Turini2 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving article
I'm awaiting confirmation from the MTO themselves by email, but for all intensive purposes, it looks like this project is now known as Highway 413. Not sure if that will be the actual route number when/if it is completed, but for now it appears to be adopted officially with the recent announcements. I will follow-up when I get my reply in the next day or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, 3 months later and I am still not getting any response. Given that www.gta-west.com now redirects to www.highway413.ca, I'm going to assume it is now the official name. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * after pounding the sand I got my answer. "As of November 2021 the project has officially been known as Highway 413" -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)