I feel the proposed changes…

I feel the proposed changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe will only lead to increased urban sprawl and car-dependency across the region, with accompanying pollution and traffic congestion.

The original intent of the 2017 Growth Plan was to manage growth by encouraging the development of affordable housing options, improving and increasing transportation options while reducing congestion, focusing investments in downtown areas, protecting agricultural and natural areas, and promoting economic growth.

The proposed amendment to the Growth Plan is likely to lead to increased urban sprawl and car-dependency through two major changes:

First, the proposed revisions create weaker density targets for new development in greenfield areas. The previous density target for greenfields was 80 people or jobs per hectare, and the new targets now range from 40 to 60 per hectare. A greenfield development with 80 people or jobs per hectare typically includes a mix of housing types, and enough density to support mixed uses and a compact, complete community. In contrast, the lower density targets will encourage the development of typical suburban land use patterns and contribute to car-dependent urban sprawl.

Second, there are proposed revisions that will make it easier for municipalities to create lower densities in transit areas. The proposed revisions will expand the density radius around transit station areas from 500 to 800 metres. To put this in perspective, 800 metres is roughly equal to a 10-minute walk. In theory, this could lead to an increased opportunity for municipalities to add more multi-unit housing within walking distance to transit stations. However, the revisions also allow municipalities to request lower density targets in transit station areas. This would make it easier for municipalities to build car-oriented transit stations, encouraging more car trips and providing a disincentive for accessing transit by bike or on foot.

Also, the proposed revisions to the Growth Plan weaken environmental language. The revisions remove concrete commitments to create “net-zero” or “low carbon” communities. In their place is language about creating “environmentally sustainable” communities.