Halton-Peel Freeway (MTO/Region of Peel, Proposal)

[Electrify]

I don't see a need for this highway, to be honest. Even if the area does get developed, it will still be within proximity to other major highways like the 401 and 407. The most I can see is a highway linking the QEW to Milton and Georgetown.

 

[MisterF]

I see the road building industry is as powerful as ever. This money should be spent on vastly improving transit. Frequent, electrified, high speed trains (200 km/h) would be far more beneficial than more highways and six lane arterials. All day, high speed service could go not only to Brampton, but Guelph, Kitchener, Cambridge, Milton, from the Brampton/Georgetown area to Hamilton, and across York Region. If we shifted our resources from more highway building to transit there's no reason that couldn't happen.

If these highways are built, they should be tolled and interchanges should be farther apart than on current highways. There's no reason for an interchange at every concession like on our existing highways.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ I agree. But these highways just shouldn't be built in the first place, as you said. All highways should be tolled though, and that money put to improving transit infrastructure.

 

[Lone Primate]

Why not? You bought the land.

Ooo, ooo!!! I'm gonna use that the next time someone's whining about an expressway plowing through their neighbourhood!

 

[cfloryan]

...And the anti car crowd comes out in force

 

[TOareaFan]

All day, high speed service could go not only to Brampton, but Guelph, Kitchener, Cambridge, Milton, from the Brampton/Georgetown area to Hamilton, and across York Region. If we shifted our resources from more highway building to transit there's no reason that couldn't happen.

Sounds good but can you do all of that for this amount of money?:

The final report was released in May (28 MB PDF)

Report calls for new freeway and Norval bypass
http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/805719--report-calls-for-new-freeway-and-norval-bypass

A new north/south freeway on the east side of Halton Hills and a Norval bypass are among the new roads recommended in the Halton-Peel Boundary Area Transportation Study Final Report.

The report outlines $629 million in new roads and road improvements within the study area (between King St. to the north, approximately Hwy. 401 to the south, Trafalgar Rd. to the west and Chinguacousy Rd. to the east) by 2031 to accommodate the expected tripling of the population to 295,700 (from 91,200 in 2006).

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ The same place as the billions that were spent on roads and highways in the past?

 

[TOareaFan]

^^ The same place as the billions that were spent on roads and highways in the past?

not sure I understand? I ddn't ask where the money comes from....I was simply asking if you could build anywhere near what MisterF suggests for the $629million that these roads will cost.

Irrespective of what has, or has not, been built in the past...I think this shows that you can get a lot more road (and, therefore, immediate impact on the transportation lives of people) for the money.

 

[rbt]

not sure I understand? I ddn't ask where the money comes from....I was simply asking if you could build anywhere near what MisterF suggests for the $629million that these roads will cost.

I should think for that area you could easily double or triple the total amount of bus service in that area for a large number of years on $629M (lifetime of a road is 50 years?).

Not that it really matters but roads with single occupant vehicles have a pretty low carrying capacity for the space required.

Anyway, a 6 lane road today can be turned into a 4 lane road + LRT when capacity becomes an issue. We're just having a hard time with the restructuring to increase carrying capacity of the right of way.

 

[TOareaFan]

I should think for that area you could easily double or triple the total amount of bus service in that area for a large number of years on $629M (lifetime of a road is 50 years?).

That could be true but I was responding to a post that suggested the money could be used to deliver all day full service 200km/hr rail service linking Brampton, Guelph, Kitchener, Cambridge, Milton, Hamilton, and York Region.

I was questioning that math.

 

[Second_in_pie]

not sure I understand? I ddn't ask where the money comes from....I was simply asking if you could build anywhere near what MisterF suggests for the $629million that these roads will cost.

Irrespective of what has, or has not, been built in the past...I think this shows that you can get a lot more road (and, therefore, immediate impact on the transportation lives of people) for the money.

I misunderstand, but my point still stands. It's not a question of replacing road money with transit money now, if the region is to be successful we need to start making up our transit debt.

But $629 million could do great things for all day Go service, and many, many, many busses as rbt said.
And I don't think that MisterF was talking about just this one project. The point was that if we shifted our resources in general, and started working out public transit debt, we could have all sorts of great things.

 

[MisterF]

^Exactly.

Sounds good but can you do all of that for this amount of money?:

I was talking more in general terms, and threw out a bunch of projects off the top of my head. I wasn't suggesting all that could be built for the cost of this one specific roads project - obviously the scope is far larger.

This part of Ontario is the one part of Canada that could support rail service comparable to the more densely populated parts of Europe. Rail lines are cheaper than freeways per kilometre.

 

[Dan416]

^Exactly.


I was talking more in general terms, and threw out a bunch of projects off the top of my head. I wasn't suggesting all that could be built for the cost of this one specific roads project - obviously the scope is far larger.

This part of Ontario is the one part of Canada that could support rail service comparable to the more densely populated parts of Europe. Rail lines are cheaper than freeways per kilometre.

Rail lines are cheaper? Maybe existing ones. Building new ones is surely more expensive than roads, hence the high price tag of HSR.

 

[rbt]

Rail lines are cheaper? Maybe existing ones. Building new ones is surely more expensive than roads, hence the high price tag of HSR.

I don't think building a new HSR would be more expensive than a new 4 to 6 lane 400 series highway of similar length; particularly through urban areas where tunnelling may be required/wanted for either option.

HSR has broader curves and more grade issues but the highway requires a significantly larger chunk of land particularly for interchanges.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I don't think building a new HSR would be more expensive than a new 4 to 6 lane 400 series highway of similar length; particularly through urban areas where tunnelling may be required/wanted for either option.

HSR has broader curves and more grade issues but the highway requires a significantly larger chunk of land particularly for interchanges.

It all depends on what speed is meant in HSR. If it is any speed up to 200 km/h then this can achieved on what you might call 'traditional' lines. In other words, no need for broad curves and other measures. If it is greater than 200 km/h (so the speed that TGV or other high speed services operate at) then construction is much different and more expensive.

Even then, the cost of a line able to support speeds of 300 km/h (or a bit more) is about $13 million/km (CDN). This is a rough estimate based on recent European projects such as the LGV Est. And that is through terrain that is not complicated, but not flat either.

A line able to support speeds up to 200 km/h would probably be about $10 million/km (all other factors being constant). This would likely be more in built up, urban areas since there would probably be a greater need for bridges, sound barriers, etc. But the same cost increase applies to freeways too.

Im not sure what the going rate of a kilometre of freeway is. But I do remember reading that in general rail lines are marginally cheaper than freeways (its not radically cheaper, but in most cases not more expensive either).