1. 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
006 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.

2. 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 Scenarios
006 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.