# Talk:Ontario 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Popular pages) so I'm rewriting it from the top down. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Y
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)

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.[1]
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."[2] and the opinion of "Sony Rai, a member of the local environmental coalition Sustainable Vaughan."[3]
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.[4]
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).[5] 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.[6] Brampton West (Bram West) was zoned out in 1998.[7] Bolton is set to expand as well.[8]
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)

@Turini2: 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)

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:GTA West Corridor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mcguy15 (talk · contribs) 14:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN! It might be a little slower than expected because this is my first time and I would like to read through the criteria / essays with precision. Mcguy15  (talk, contribs) 14:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. I'm pretty familiar with things, so hopefully we'll have a mutually beneficial exchange here :) Just {{ping}} me when you're done. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Floydian, I'm done! This article was a very interesting read, thanks for improving it. Let me know if you have any feedback for my GA review, because as I said, it was my first one. :) As someone who lives west of the GTA, the proposed construction of the highway baffles me— I can think of just a few any routes that would be benefited from it. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
To your last bit, all you gotta see is the insane number of shipping/distribution centres that have opened up in that area these past 2 years! Anyways, I've responded to your points as need be, indented. Anything with no response (except a couple wikilink requests in the Route description) I have fixed as per your suggestions.
As for feedback... consider doing reviews at WP:FAC, as this was a very detailed examination of the article. Some of this may not really fall under the WP:WIAGA criteria. But, since I'm hoping to eventually take this to FAC, I appreciate and work with it regardless; thank you! The two maps I mention making below will probably take me a week or two to complete, but they're on the to-do list! - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Everything looks good, thank you! I'm fine with all of the objections you made (replied to a few) This gets a  Pass! Sorry for being too detailed haha, maybe I will go a FAC one day. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 15:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


### Lead and infobox
Move "Some stakeholders have referred to the [...] a route number from the MTO" to the first paragraph of the lead.
Wikilink Brampton
The note in the infobox on "Proposed September 2003" is unneeded. One can read the History section for that information instead.


### Route description
Consider changing "Route description" header to "Proposed route"
Specify who wrote / published the "Technically Preferred Route report"
Wikilink transitway (Bus rapid transit)
Already linked in the opening sentence of the article... not sure it's necessary again so soon thereafter, per MOS:OVERLINK / MOS:REPEATLINK. This applies to most of the similar requests listed below (except Humber River, which I've linked). - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change "Fifteen interchanges are proposed." to "Fifteen interchanges were proposed."
Change "Four of those interchanges, including the ones at each end of the route, would be freeway-to-freeway." to "Four of the interchanges, including the terminuses, would be freeway-to-freeway."
Done, just with "termini", which is the plural I use in many other freeway articles in Ontario.
The regions link is not clear. (See: MOS:LINKCLARITY)
The term "region" for Ontario (as well as "county" or "District") is what are actually known as upper-tier municipalities. This is the best article we have covering the subject by far. However, I made it link to the appropriate section of the target article. Otherwise I'd just be removing the link. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change "northwest into York Region" to "northwest into the York Region"
York Region is a proper name, "the" would be incorrect in this case. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Highway 401 and Highway 407ETR
Change "An interchange with Peel Regional Road 107 (Bovaird Drive) would lie just east of where that road becomes Highway 7 at the Brampton – Halton Hills boundary" to "It would intersect Regional Road 107 (Bovaird Drive), which is known as Highway 7 to the west after the Brampton–Halton Hills boundary." (note that " – " is replaced with "–" for consistency within the article).
I've changed it to a slightly tweaked version of this, as intersect is the wrong term. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Caledon
Wikilink Highway 410
Wikilink Bolton
"the route would curve east to pass between the town of Bolton" How could it curve east? To me, at least on the map, the route looks like it continues going east until the end; if anything it curves slightly south.
It's actually going northeast for the most part north of Brampton. Local maps of Peel are often skewed about 45 degrees northwest. Toronto and York maps are often skewed at about 16 degrees. While it does dip slightly south (by about 300 metres) between The Gore Road and Mayfield Road, the predominate direction is eastward until the proposed Highway 427 extension. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Humber River
Wikilink Highway 400


### History
2002 to 2018

Expand and wikilink first instance of MTO.
This one I'll do, since it
Why is North-South Corridor Feasibility Study italicized?
This is a case where MOS:TITLE is unclear what a published independent study counts as. I figured it counts as a full publication, and should be italicised as a book would. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Controlled-access highway
Although I normally would not, I suppose this one has also gone unmentioned for a while. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Inconsistent italics: why are "Places to Grow Act" and "North-South Corridor Feasibility Study" in italics but "Central Ontario Strategic Transportation Directions study" and "Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe" are not.
Good catch... apparently acts of government are not italicised nor surrounded in quotes, but the other two should be italicised. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"Following the submission of a Terms of Reference" clarify what a Terms of Reference is.
Wikilinked it, too technical to explain in the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change "EA" to "Environmental Assessment (EA)"
Why? This is an ideal case for the use of that template I think, no? (I kinda feel the same way about the similar example below) - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, this wasn't a necessary or correct suggestion. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 15:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change "with the Guelph–Kitchener/Waterloo–Cambridge." to "with Guelph and the Waterloo Region."
Change "from Kitchener/Waterloo to Vaughan" to "between Kitchener/Waterloo and Vaughan"
Wikilink first instance of Vaughan
Change "North-South Corridor Feasibility Study" to "North–South Corridor Feasibility Study" (MOS:DASH)
Change "recommended a north-south" to "recommended a north–south"
If possible, an image detailing the routes would be extremely helpful for visualizing them.
Didn't even think of that, great idea. I could trace the map in the report into a vector image. That won't be a short task though.
I'm glad!
Change "opposition to the corridor began to materialize" to "opposition to the corridor began to appear" (or "take place")
Wikilink 2018 provincial election (2018 Ontario general election)
2018 to present

Change "Premier Kathleen Wynne" to "Premier Kathleen Wynne"
Wikilink Doug Ford
Remove EA abbr (either keep as EA or write "Environmental Assessment (EA)")
See above regarding same issue - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change "announced that he'd" to "announced that he had"
Abbreviate "undergo environmental assessment" to "undergo an EA"


### Impacts and environmental concerns
Change "The highway will travel through both the Greenbelt, the Whitebelt" to "The highway would travel through both the Greenbelt, the Whitebelt"
Change "Watersheds" to "watersheds"
De-hyphenate "species-at-risk"
Change "that 'Agricultural land" to "that 'agricultural land"
Consider using a {{To USD}} for the money amounts in the quote (possibly in a footnote) or clarify the amounts are in CAD.
It was in a quote, but I made it C$ (standard shorthand for Canadian Dollar). - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink highways 412, and 418.
Change "stakeholders have suggested investment in local transportation improvements" to "stakeholders have suggested investing in local transportation improvements"
Remove second wikilink of Highway 407 and move it to first mention of it in the section.
Change "Examples suggested include" to "Some proposed suggestions include"
Change "public transit investment" to "public transit investments"


### Perspectives
Change "The majority of local municipalities have opposed the project, with [...] opposing the project" to "The majority of local municipalities have opposed the project, including [...]"
Change "that they will scrap" to "that they would scrap"
Change "freeway include York Region[77] (a regional municipality) as" to "freeway include the Regional Municipality of York[77] as"
Wikilink "Progressive Conservative"


### Exit list
Replace all spaced en dashes with en dashes (for consistency within the article)
This is the way they should be displayed per WP:RJL. See also the "separating parts of a list" or "when used as punctuation" lines in MOS:DASH. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Are these footnotes really necessary? Any further explanation they provide should have been explained in the Route description section. (Or could be moved there)
They're more of a detailed aside that would be too distracting in the text. Standard fare. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change "County" heading to "Municipality"
Weird, that was using the wrong header template. It now displays the proper "Division"
Why does "Bridge over the Credit River" extend into the Notes row?
Standard practise per WP:RJL#What_to_include - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that section of the MOS! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 15:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


### Source review
WSP. "Frequently Asked Questions  – GTA West". is a deadlink.
Fixed - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems a bit silly to cite Google Maps, when that map was created by a user unless it wasn't, then it would be good to mention that. Especially since every instance of that ref is coupled with this, which the map was presumably derived from. Probably just remove the Google Maps ref.
The map was created by me by tracing that map (it's the exact same data as used in the infobox map). and is simply to provide an interactive alternative to the simple line map in the report. I believe it merits inclusion, with the Aecom bulletin providing the validation that the map is correct. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"Plan For The People". Ontario PC Party. Retrieved March 23, 2021. redirects to the homepage.
Fixed - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Every Yahoo ref is deadlinked (there are 3)
Stupid Yahoo, down after 4 months... fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
What makes www.trucknews.com a WP:RS?
It's the online news arm of Today's Trucking magazine. Truckers like more highways :) - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hunt, Geoff (July 12, 2001). "Council Minutes". Peelregion.ca. Regional Municipality of Peel. Retrieved April 7, 2018. is a deadlink.
This one doesn't surprise me... I copied it from another article and it's 3 years old. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Is Building Highway 413 the Best Option for Moving People & Goods in the GTA West Region? (PDF) (Report). Environmental Defence. August 2020. Retrieved March 18, 2021.{{cite report}}:  CS1 maint: url-status (link) is a deadlink PDF.
Fixed
What's up with bramptonguardian.com, yorkregion.com, and orangeville.com having the same exact website appearance? I'm assuming they are run by the same organization. (This isn't really a concern, just thought I would mention)
Yeah, all local subsidiaries of Metroland media (which used to print the free Metro newspaper in Toronto, but is now all digital).
Especially because of the high amount of link rot I've seen, I'd highly recommend adding archive links to some of the sources, with priority to ones used twice / thrice.
Indeed. It's been 4 months since I nominated this so I'm not surprised there are deadlinks abound. There used to be a bot that would check the links and tag them, but alas. It may be fortuitous however, given the controversial nature of the topic and the tendency of participants in those skirmishes to randomly erase pages when they get one-upped by the opponent. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


### Images
I don't really find the first image that informative. Viewing the Highway 410 extension at such a (relatively) close angle doesn't really help conceptualize anything better. Especially since the highway is under construction, more map images would be useful for the route description section instead.
The second image however, is a lot more useful.

For now it's a placeholder showing what may eventually become an abandoned section of highway. Perhaps soon I will do up a drawing of the massive interchange proposed at Highway 401/407. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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)