Traffic delays caused by congestion are expected to be worse in the absence of the Growth Plan. A sample commute that included 10 minutes of delay in 2006, is estimated to see a one-and-a-half minute increase in delay under the Growth Plan scenario. In contrast, the same commute under business-as-usual conditions would take an additional 14 minutes in 2031. View the full report and tell us what you think at www.placestogrow.ca Visit www.placestogrow.ca Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 for more information Progress Report FIVE YEARS IN006 COMPUTER MODELLING TO 2031 Date Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006: Key Findings Places to Grow Concept Inner Ring: Georgian Bay Curbing Sprawl Housing Construction Starts by Unit Type OUTER Intensification and downtown redevelopment are RING happening. Of the 63,000 new residential units added to the Greater Golden Horseshoe between Apartment or June 2009 and June 2010, 42,000 – or 67% – Lake 29% Simcoe Multi-Residential Apartment or were located in the existing built-up area. Row or 40% Multi-Residential Urban Strategies Inc. 15% Townhouse Row or 9% Semi-detached 15% Townhouse INNER 7% Semi-detached RING Building Better Suburbs Planned residential densities have increased in suburban developments since the Growth Plan came into effect. The increase is most evident 47% Single 38% Single in “Outer Ring” communities of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 2001- 2005 2006-2010 Outer Ring: Housing Construction Starts by Unit Type Lake Ontario Providing Housing Choice Apartment or 9% A shift toward a wider range of housing types is Multi-Residential Apartment or 17% Multi-Residential occurring across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Row or Townhouse 16% Many municipalities are reporting that develop 4% Semi-detached Row or ment patterns are incorporating more apart ents, m 20% Townhouse 4% Semi-detached condominiums and townhouses. A broader range of housing can better meet the needs of residents of different ages and income levels. City of Cambridge Photo Gallery Revitalizing Downtowns 71% 59% Single Single Investments in public institutions, parks and Lake Erie public spaces are leading revitalization efforts 2001- 2005 2006-2010 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Municipal Implementation in many urban growth centres, for example in The charts above are based on Census Metropolitan Areas. Oshawa, Mississauga and Kitchener. Major office Horseshoe, 2006 All upper and single tier municipalities have development is picking up in some downtowns adopted an official plan amendment to conform and starting to move back into others, for A 25-year plan that aims to curb urban sprawl, to the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater example in Markham Centre, downtown Toronto revitalize downtowns, create complete communities Golden Horseshoe. and downtown Pickering. and increase housing and transportation choice. Annual Transit Passenger Trips in the Margaret Antkowski - suburbantourist.ca Greater Golden Horseshoe (in millions) In Effect Appealed* Awaiting Other Decision The Greater Golden Horseshoe 6 12 1 2 Increasing Transportation Choice 637 653 657 593 614 Canada’s largest and most populous urban region Counties of Regions of County of Brant Counties of Transit ridership has been increasing steadily 544 558 556 550 526 accounts for approximately 20% of Canada’s Peterborough, Wellington and Halton, York, Durham, Northumberland and Dufferin in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, from a low GDP and 70% of Ontario’s GDP. Its population is Haldimand; Peel, Niagara, point of 526 million transit passenger trips in and Cities of Waterloo; forecast to grow from 8.4 million in 2006 to 11.5 Brantford, Cities of 2004 to 657 million transit passenger trips in million in 2031. Guelph and Barrie, Toronto, 2009. Since 2006, the Province has invested Peterborough Hamilton, Orillia, Kawartha Lakes; approximately $8.6 billion in public transit Simcoe County across Ontario, including $4.1 billion in 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 * he reason for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board may not be related to the T GO Transit. Growth Plan. Chart current as of February 7, 2012. This information was developed to assist individuals in understanding the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, Current as of which was released under the Places to Grow Act, 2005. The information provided should not be relied upon as a substitute for FEBRUARY 2012 legal or professional advice in connection with any particular matter.
Traffic delays caused by congestion are expected to be worse in the absence of the Growth Plan. A sample commute that included 10 minutes of delay in 2006, is estimated to see a one-and-a-half minute increase in delay under the Growth Plan scenario. In contrast, the same commute under business-as-usual conditions would take an additional 14 minutes in 2031. View the full report and tell us what you think at www.placestogrow.ca Visit www.placestogrow.ca Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 for more information Progress Report FIVE YEARS IN Modeling Future Scenarios006 COMPUTER MODELLING TO 2031 Date 2031 Urbanized Land: Growth Plan Scenario – 2031 Urbanized Land: No Growth Plan Scenario – Conceptual Conceptual Modeling the Growth Plan’s Future Impacts Greater Golden Horseshoe Population Computer modeling was undertaken to compare trends that would occur under (in millions) a “No Growth Plan” scenario – as if the Growth Plan had never come into effect – with a scenario in which the land use and transportation policies of the Plan 1981 5.4 are fully implemented. Using the Growth Plan’s forecasts, population growth was assumed to be the same in each scenario, and the model predicts how 1991 6.5 land development and commuter trips would differ in the future in each case. The findings provide a picture of alternative future trends and do not represent 2001 7.8 actual results after 2006. 2006 8.4 FORECASTED 2011 9.1 2021 10.3 The map above depicts modeling of conceptual future urban growth to 2031 based on the Note: The information displayed on the maps is not to scale, does not accurately reflect approved land- 2031 11.5 implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. The map at right depicts use and planning boundaries, and may be out of date. For more information on precise boundaries, the modeling of conceptual future urban growth to 2031 based on development trends that existed prior appropriate municipality should be consulted. For more information on Greenbelt Area boundaries, the to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. The maps are for demonstration purposes Greenbelt Plan 2005 should be consulted. The Province of Ontario assumes no responsibility or liability only and do not indicate or endorse the specific location, timing or approval of any lands or uses to be for any consequences of any use made of the maps. developed. Curbing Sprawl to 2031 Differences in Projected Land Use Patterns: No Growth Plan versus Growth Plan Scenarios Mitigating Traffic Example of Projected Increases in Road Delay Increasing Transportation Differences in Forecasted Changes to Travel Patterns: No Growth Plan versus Growth Plan Scenarios Computer modeling indicates that in a Growth 2006 to 2031 Change – No Growth Plan Delays to 2031 Delay Choice to 2031 2006 to 2031 Change – No Growth Plan Plan Scenario, by 2031: 2006 to 2031 Change – Growth Plan 2006 to 2031 Change – Growth Plan Traffic delays caused In both a Growth Plan and a no • Approximately one-third the amount of by congestion in 2031 Growth Plan scenario, population greenfield land would be urbanized compared would be worse in growth in the region will result 2006 to a “no Growth Plan” development pattern. the absence of the in more car trips, more vehicle • Conserving as much as 800 square Growth Plan. A sample kilometres traveled and an kilometres of agricultural and rural land commute that takes 30 increase in average length of car • More than half of all development would occur minutes today would 2031 (Growth Plan) trips. In the Growth Plan scenario, through intensification within the built-up take 43 minutes in however, the outcomes are better: area, compared with less than one-quarter a “no Growth Plan” there are more “sustainable” trips, without the Growth Plan. scenario. relatively fewer auto trips, fewer 2031 (No Growth Plan) vehicle kilometres traveled and • Average urban densities, measured by people lower greenhouse gas emissions. and jobs per hectare, would go up 20%. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Note: All transportation figures reflect morning peak Notes 39% 14% 22% 54% 20% 31% 23% 33% 61% 47% 30% 16% 2% 29% 13% Commute (minutes) period (3 hour) travel data 1 ew urbanized land is defined as lands that are built on beyond the Growth N Plan’s 2006 built boundary. -2% Increase in Increase in Increase in Increase Increase in 2 ntensification refers to the total number of people and jobs accommodated I the Number Sustainable Total Vehicle in Average Greenhouse within the Growth Plan’s 2006 built-up area. of Auto Trips Trips (Transit, Kilometres Auto Trip Gas Increase in New Share of Change in 3 otal urbanized area is defined as the Growth Plan’s 2006 built-up area T Walking, Travelled Length Emissions Urbanized Land 1 Total Growth Average Density plus new urbanized land (see note 1 above). Cycling) (kilometres) from Auto Accommodated Within Total and Transit Through Urbanized Area 3 Modes Intensification 2 This information was developed to assist individuals in understanding the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, Current as of which was released under the Places to Grow Act, 2005. The information provided should not be relied upon as a substitute for FEBRUARY 2012 legal or professional advice in connection with any particular matter.