traffic - Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition

Auditor General Report Confirms that the Bradford Bypass is a Boondoggle

Media Statement

December 1, 2022 - Simcoe County

On November 30th, the Auditor General of Ontario – an independent officer of the legislature who is tasked with ensuring government spending and programs give Ontarians best value and efficiency – outlined the ballooning costs of the Bradford Bypass and how best practices were not being followed. We’ve been saying this all along.

Internal Ministry estimates show that the Bypass could cost as much as $4 billion dollars. This is a 400% increase from the original budget that the Minister of Transportation begrudgingly announced publicly in 2021 after we demanded transparency around costs of the project. We know from internal documents that the Ministry has known their estimate was a lowball since at least November 2021 and yet there has been no effort that we’ve seen to update municipal partners, local stakeholders or the public about this important piece of information.

The Auditor General also noted that at this point, the Ministry does not have the money to fulfil all of its highway promises. This begs the question of when this project will ever be fully delivered if a cash-strapped Ministry has to start making hard choices about which projects proceed. We have asked when this highway will be completed and ready for use, but again, the answers aren’t forthcoming.

The Bradford Bypass has been sold as a traffic solution. Worryingly, the Auditor General found that travel demand forecasts calculated by consultants are not verified by the Ministry or by independent experts. Despite internal reports that show the Bypass will be congested after construction and that congestion will worsen on highways 400 and 404, the province continues to intentionally mislead Ontarians using unverified traffic studies.

Let’s be clear – the Bradford Bypass was just the first step in opening up huge swaths of land for Greenbelt developers and more sprawl development. The studies they are now doing have been streamlined to a point of being meaningless while other important studies such as impacts to Lake Simcoe and climate are not being done. Protections for our wetlands and waterways have been all but gutted due to Bill 23. Another 7,400 acres from the Greenbelt is slated to be removed to allow speculators to further cash in. The vision that developers want for this region is coming into view and the expense of public health and public funds.

Altogether the province has produced a flimsy case for building this highway. The groups fighting the Bypass are asking for a transparent reconsideration of routes, including regional road improvements, that could reduce costs, provide congestion relief and lower environmental impacts. In all, this provides value for money for taxpayers. Further, we question spending $4 billion on a highway amid healthcare and education sector crises.

Lake Simcoe Watch recently released the results of a November 2022 Oraclepoll survey of which shows that public support for the Bradford Bypass highway (one-third of which traverses Greenbelt Protected Countryside) has fallen to a weak 20 per cent. The same survey shows that support for building homes on the Greenbelt is only 27 per cent.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.

Home

Our Work

Take Action

Contact Us

Highways are the gateway drug for sprawl and the Bypass is a perfect example.

Press Release

Published April 5, 2022

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Province rushing Bradford Bypass shows more concern for politics than Lake Simcoe, climate or affordable housing

Bradford – This morning the province announced that it is awarding a contractor for the early works construction for the Bradford Bypass. These early works are allowed to begin before studies are completed, thanks to an exemption the province gave itself last October. Mulroney announced that construction of the bridge over Yonge Street could begin later this year.

Previous slide

Next slide

Rendering of what a four-lane highway bridge could look like crossing the East Holland River. Credit Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition.

Gord Miller, the former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, characterized this provincial exemption in a recent webinar, saying:

“This is a violation of international standards. It’s widely recognized that when you’re doing an assessment of an initiative you don’t start until you’ve at least measured all of the impacts to the best of your ability so you can make a rational decision. They are clearly violating that.”

“Highways are the gateway drug for sprawl and the Bypass is a perfect example. Developers own over 3000 acres of land around this highway waiting for the greenlight to destroy more farmland and wetlands.

York Region is planning on destroying 24,589 acres of farmland for new development by 2051, and the Bypass would facilitate the worst of this sprawl in East Gwillimbury.

Supporting the Bypass is contrary to building compact and affordable housing, a healthy Lake Simcoe, a productive agriculture sector and climate action,” says Claire Malcolmson, Executive Director of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition.

Although no one in the government has confirmed the price of the highway, estimates show that Ontarians will be paying anywhere from $800 million to $2.2 billion for this 16 km, 400 series highway.

This leads opponents to declare that this is a waste of funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

Bill Foster, founder of Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces says, “We are in the sixth wave of the pandemic and our healthcare and education systems are in dire need of investment.

A destructive highway through the Greenbelt that will pollute Lake Simcoe, a regional economic driver, is a wasteful and dangerous way to spend limited tax dollars.

We could save a very small portion of the province a few minutes in driving time or we could provide better healthcare, more nurses, better senior care and more childcare spaces.

The fact that two Greenbelt highways – the Holland Marsh Highway and Highway 413 – are Premier Ford’s major election planks, speaks volumes about his priorities to me.”

Opponents are gravely concerned about how adding more fossil fuel infrastructure will exacerbate the climate crisis.

Margaret Prophet, Executive Director of the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition, “Yesterday, the International Panel on Climate Change outlined how important it is to reduce transportation emissions and how urban areas need to lessen their investment in car dependent infrastructure. Yet, today, we get a doubling down on a Greenbelt destroying highway that clearly contradicts the spirit of what climate scientists are telling us we need to do.

It’s clear there’s no intention here to tackle climate change seriously. We’re still pulling from a 1950s playbook of economic development that created all of this mess to begin with.

This highway is destructive and costly and it will lock in a style of development that will negatively impact our collective health forever and decision makers don’t seem to care.”

Background

IPCC Report about Transportation (See 10.3)

How Could We Invest This Money Differently?

Hire 12,000 Nurses – CCPA director says that $1B would hire 12,000 nurses which is a mid-range cost for the Bypass
Increase teaching staff in all grades across Ontario – $850 million
Fix the backlog of school repairs over the next 10 years (IBID)
Increase staffing levels in LTC so each resident has a minimum standard of 4.1 hours of direct care – $1.6 B

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.

Home

Our Work

Take Action

Contact Us

Tagged Bradford Bypass cars climate COVID habitat highway planning Press Release traffic

The New Growth Plan Puts Sprawl Over All

We can no longer treat land use as its own issue, nor can we always assume that growth is always a net benefit to our communities. This is simply not true. We can grow our communities in ways that provide affordable housing, protect our natural spaces and water and aspire to create healthy, vibrant centres where people can live and work.

Updated:
August 20, 2021
No Comments

The Ford government is rolling back progress on building healthier communities.

How Did We Get Here?

The transition from 1950s sprawl development to smart growth policies as a provincial concern was really solidified by Premier Mike Harris.

Yes, that Mike Harris.

Despite his first term, which gave municipalities more freedom to grow as they wish, by the second term key grassroots movements to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine demonstrated to the public how sprawling growth patterns were hurting our water, our land and our health.

In response, the Harris government decided to get sprawling growth patterns under control and set up a series of Smart Growth Panels across Ontario.

That was in 2002.

The Central Zone panel, which included Simcoe County region, concluded early on in its mandate that the status quo sprawl and growth at all costs mentality would lead to dire consequences for the region by 2035 including: commuting trips that would take 45 percent longer, mostly due to congestion; a marked deterioration in air quality; worsening delays in the movement of goods; and higher taxes.¹

Complete Communities Connected by Public Transit

The panel sketched out a concept of how growth in this area should go to avoid those outcomes – its vision relied heavily on compact, complete communities connected by public transit: TTC rail, GO rail, bus rapid transit, and inter-city and inter-regional rapid transit. There were also delineated areas for protected natural zones and an awareness of agricultural lands that were under increasing pressure from growth.

When the Liberals came into power in 2003, they used a lot of the concepts from the Smart Growth Panels to form Ontario’s first Growth Plan. The award-winning Growth Plan directed growth to form complete communities and stop sprawl.

Ontario's Growth Plans, through the years.

Growth Plan (2020)

This is the most recent version of the Growth Plan, revised by Doug Ford’s government, which contains many of the problems pointed out in this post.

Growth Plan (2017)

The plan as it was under the previous Liberal government.

Ontario's Growth Plan (2006)

The original the Growth Plan, titled “Better Choices, Better Future.”

Unfortunately, these efforts were short lived.

A series of amendments and regulations watered down the objectives over the years, but at its core it still aspired to keep sprawl in check through limiting growth in rural areas, ensuring large developments were on municipal services, promotion of public transit, climate change considerations and rigorous criteria in order to expand settlement areas.

So why the history lesson on planning?

Well it’s important to note that governments, over previous decades, have been trying to avoid the situation the province is now promoting, which is sprawling subdivisions, and with a very little strategy to deal with climate impacts, water impacts, and loss of farmland and biodiversity that come with it.

What is Happening Now?

It’s not hyperbole to say that the changes made recently by the province with respect to growth and planning take us back to the 1990s. Some of the problematic changes include:

Density targets for our region have been scaled back tremendously.

This calculation outlines how efficiently we use land to house people and places of employment.

The limits that were put on growth, previously known as population allocations, are now set as a minimum target, not as a maximum as they were before.
Formerly, settlement areas could only be expanded during the Official Plan (OP) process, so long as evidence is presented to demonstrate need. Now they can be expanded up to 40 hectares outside of the OP period.
New developments no longer need to prioritize being serviced by municipal water or wastewater – septics and communal septics are now allowed more easily.

This enables development to get into more natural, rural areas, and puts water quality at risk.

Calculations to determine how much land must be set aside for new growth outside of built upon land have changed too.

The municipality must now plan for growth to 2051. This means that in the middle of a pandemic with no knowledge of how work/commute/travel patterns will change, municipalities must decide by June, 2022, how much new land to give up to development.

It also means that due to COVID restrictions this Municipal Comprehensive (MCR) process, that requires public consultations, is limited to online interactions. That’s why many communities are asking their local government to delay these decisions until people can properly consult with staff and neighbours.

Municipalities are now forced to calculate how much land based on market needs.

Simply put, there are two ways to calculate this – looking to see what you will need in the future based on changing demographics, what you already have planned, and anticipated need (e.g. more rentals/apartments/seniors residences etc.)…

…you can look back to what has historically been provided by the market (e.g. detached homes, McMansions) and then just extrapolate that forward.

The current government chose the second option.

This means that in places like Simcoe County where large homes dominate housing stock, we can expect more of that despite more people requiring smaller units and apartments (seniors downsizing, youth, low income).

This also means that more of our green spaces and farmland will be sacrificed to provide for McMansions and sprawl, while people who need housing types that are more affordable (laneway homes, stacked townhomes, apartments) will be mostly ignored.

Why Is It A Concern?

In all of this we need to understand one simple truth – how we grow and where we grow has a massive impact on climate change, water health, biodiversity and our health consequently.

Growth patterns lock in centuries of impacts and GHG emissions. We can no longer treat land use as its own issue, nor can we always assume that growth is always a net benefit to our communities.

This is simply not true. We can grow our communities in ways that provide affordable housing, protect our natural spaces and water and aspire to create healthy, vibrant centres where people can live and work.

Or, we can grow our communities in ways that use 1950s thinking to deal with 21st century challenges – which will lead to more sprawl, more highways and less public oversight.

One path chooses the needs of the people and our natural communities, the other helps line the pockets of speculative developers at the community’s expense.

Unfortunately, the province’s policies are 60 years behind the evidence and science, and our communities, now and in the future, will be worse for it.

How Can You Get Involved?

Push back against mega-projects, such as the Bradford ByPass, The Orbit, and the Upper York Sewage Solution.
Share your concerns on social media.
Sign up to our newsletter to stay informed on developments with growing the Greenbelt and limiting sprawl.

Links to Further Reading

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.

Home

Our Work

Take Action

Contact Us

Tagged Climate Change congestion growth Growth Plan Mike Harris Oak Ridges Moraine Official Plan pollution Smart Growth sprawl traffic water

The controversial highway planned through wetlands and the Greenbelt.

The Bradford By-Pass

Project Timeline (Updated April 22, 2022)

1997 – Route Planning and Environmental Assessment Study

2002 – Environmental Assessment

2008 – Simcoe County includes link in its Master Transportation Plan.

2008 – Highway is not included in the Growth Plan.

2020 – Province announces the Bradford Bypass will proceed.

2021 – EcoJustice requests the federal government conduct an analysis of the project under the Impact Assessment Act.

2021 – York Region Council votes to send letter to the federal government stating its support of construction of the highway.

2021 (March) – Bradford ByPass is mentioned in the provincial budget in section outlining money to be spent on highway construction and maintenance.

2021 (October) – Bypass is exempted from the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The government says this will help “ensure appropriate environmental protection.”

2021 (October) – The Toronto Star and the National Observer publish an investigation on ties between developers and the provincial government and how developers stand to gain from building the Bypass. The piece also notes that, through information obtained by SCGC via a FOI request, the government was intending on making the highway a toll route.

2022 (January) – Petition of more than 10,000 signatures released opposing construction of the Bypass.

2022 (February) – The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada decides not to designate the project.

2022 (March) – Lawsuit brought against the federal government by seven ENGOs challenging its refusal to designate the Bypass for a federal impact assessment.

2022 (April) – Contract awarded by provincial government for the Yonge Street bridge. This is part of the ‘early works’, which are to be started prior to all the studies being completed.

What's Happening?

The provincial government is moving forward with building a highway connecting highways 404 and 400. The route passes along the northern edge of Bradford, and through portions of the Holland Marsh.

The highway is controversial due to the route running through portions of the Greenbelt and the Holland Marsh, which is a significant wetland and agricultural area, as well as the fact that it is based, largely, on an environmental assessment that was done more than 20 years ago. (More recently the provincial government decided to exempt most of the project from environmental assessment requirements.)

Opponents also argue that highways should not be prioritized in a climate crisis.

Finally, the government argues the highway is needed to ease congestion. Highways DO NOT accomplish this, though. This is well known, as outlined by the video we share below, yet they continue to push the project. If congestion is indeed the primary concern, it is clear that the government is mismanaging public money, throwing good after bad, with the project.

Quick Facts

Outdated Environmental Assessment

Increases Car Use in Climate Crisis

Runs through the Greenbelt

Why is it a concern?

There are a number of major concerns with respect to this project:

Early Works

The province would allow so-called “early works”, which include bridges, so proceed before key studies on the impacts they might have on wildlife are completed. This is putting the cart before the horse, to use a well worn analogy, and in effect is saying that the project will proceed regardless of the outcome of studies. This is the opposite of evidence-based planning.

Outdated Environmental Assessment

The Environmental Assessment the project is using was done 23 years ago, before the two major land-use plans in the area, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, had been created.

These plans exist for a reason. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is intended to enhance and protect the health of Lake Simcoe, and the Greenbelt Plan delimits lands to be protected from urban growth, which is most often in the form of sprawl.

Basing a project on an EA that pre-dates these plans, such that the concerns these plans address aren’t taken into account, effectively nullifies them.

Further, the EA was contingent on the completion of further studies, including archaeological assessments, stormwater management, hydrological systems, noise, and compliance monitoring. The province is proposing that the highway be exempted from these additional studies.

Map Legend

Issues of concern that are have received support from necessary levels of government and are currently being implemented.

Issues that have the support of the municipality but are waiting on approval from the province or another entity.

Issues that have been proposed but have not yet received the support of the municipality.

Issues of concern, such as MZOs, that have been denied by the province but that are still progressing at the local level.

Issues that have been successfully resolved.

Subject Lands Outline

Greenbelt

GO Train Line and Stops

Road/Highway Construction

500 m High Risk Air Pollution

Evaluated Wetlands

Unevaluated Wetlands

Negative Impacts

The proposed route is anticipated to negatively impact high quality woodlands, the Holland Marsh, Provincially Significant Wetlands, and significant wildlife habitat. These are the direct impacts.

There are additional, and perhaps far more significant, impacts that will result from building infrastructure that enables an increase in single vehicle car use.

At a time when we are facing a climate emergency, when it is becoming increasingly clear that our inability to address it is leading us towards a worst case scenario, continuing to base our communities around a reliance on cars as the primary mode of transportation is extremely irresponsible.

All major infrastructure projects – all publicly funded projects – should require a full climate change assessment. It could not be more clear that the public interest is directly tied to addressing the impacts of climate change, and accordingly no public money should be spent that exacerbates the crisis. This project profoundly misses that mark.

This is a rendering of what a four-lane highway bridge could look like crossing over the East Holland River looking to the north and Lake Simcoe.

The bridge crossing of the East Holland River is likely to disturb one of the most significant archeological sites in southern Ontario, where artifacts have been found dating back nearly two-thousand years.

Image: Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition

There are also costs that communities built around cars have that aren’t evident or easy to see.

Negative health impacts, such as obesity, can be correlated with communities built for cars as people drive to get basic amenities, such as groceries, rather than walk or bike. There are more direct consequences, though perhaps less acknowledged, as well, such as the fact that cars are a leading cause of death in the United States for children.

It is also likely that there will be economic impacts to the town, with development being drawn toward the highway and associated traffic, and away from the downtown. This form of development is most suited to larger commercial operators, and the jobs offered often pay less than what a smaller, locally based business provides.

This development pattern has been repeated just about every time a highway has been built near a town, and it can seriously impact the ability of local businesses to remain viable.

One of the main argument proponents are making in favour of this project is that it will reduce commute times. It is highly unlikely this will be the case in the long term. Evidence shows, repeatedly, that building and increasing car infrastructure does not ease congestion, rather the opposite happens. This is known as “induced demand.”

Basically, induced demand is when the increased capacity of a road leads to increased development along the road and increased use of that road. Think of what happens with Waze and the alternate routes it shows drivers to help them get around heavy traffic – before long those alternate routes become clogged themselves.

For a more detailed explanation watch the video below.

With induced demand what we will end up with is over a billion dollars spent (which could otherwise be spent on enhancing transit options such as the GO line), increased sprawl, and increased congestion. In other words, after all has been said and done it is highly likely that we will find ourselves confronted with the same dilemma, though with a greatly degraded environment.

Finally, the costs associated with car dependant communities¹²³ – the key characteristic of sprawl – are higher than those associated with complete, walkable communities. This cost is passed on to taxpayers.

How Can You Get Involved?

Follow and support those fighting this project on social media. See #stopthebradfordbypass’s linktr.ee for links.
Learn more by watching our webinar, done on March 16th, adding the issue. (Find it above as well.)
Sign up to our newsletter to stay informed on how you can help grow the Greenbelt and stop wasteful sprawl.
Oh, and you can listen to our podcast episode with Laura Bowman of EcoJustice where we talk about exactly this issue! 👇👇

Additional Resources

Rescue Lake SimcoeCoalition’s Bradford Bypass Fact Sheet
EcoJustice’s letter to the federal government requesting a review
Provincial project page
Town of East Gwillimbury Response to the Bradford Bypass
FOI documents regarding the route being tolled attained by SCGC (Document Guide; Documents: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.

Auditor General Report Confirms that the Bradford Bypass is a Boondoggle

Media Statement

December 1, 2022 - Simcoe County

Related Content

Community supported, advocacy for a safe and secure future.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Highways are the gateway drug for sprawl and the Bypass is a perfect example.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Province rushing Bradford Bypass shows more concern for politics than Lake Simcoe, climate or affordable housing

Related Content

Community supported, advocacy for a safe and secure future.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

The New Growth Plan Puts Sprawl Over All

The Ford government is rolling back progress on building healthier communities.

Complete Communities Connected by Public Transit

Ontario's Growth Plans, through the years.

Growth Plan (2020)

Growth Plan (2017)

Ontario's Growth Plan (2006)

What is Happening Now?

Why Is It A Concern?

How Can You Get Involved?

Links to Further Reading

Related Content

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

The controversial highway planned through wetlands and the Greenbelt.

The Bradford By-Pass

What's Happening?

Quick Facts

Outdated Environmental Assessment

Increases Car Use in Climate Crisis

Runs through the Greenbelt

Why is it a concern?

How Can You Get Involved?

Additional Resources

Related Content

Community supported, advocacy for a safe and secure future.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Thank you for signing up!

Hi there!

Subscribe to Our Newsletter!

Become part of our network. Stay informed. Take action. Protect Ontario.