News   Jul 08, 2024
Proposal For 1260 Kennedy Doubles in Height in Latest Resubmission
 441     2 
News   Jul 08, 2024
News Roundup for July 8, 2024
 417     0 
News   Jul 08, 2024
That View, Private
 908     0 

Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

Allandale25 said:
www.theglobeandmail.com

Toronto roads czar championed Spadina Expressway plan

He brought marked crosswalks and computerized traffic-signal control to the city but he is most known for his scheme to build a network of downtown highways, which was never realized
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...
Never understood why the Spadina was seen as necessary whereas a southern extension of the 400 to the Gardiner would've been more feasible above or alongside the railway and frankly, better overall for the network.
 
Thanks. Hopefully they will do it right with some new interchanges and a second carriageway as originally intended, not some cheap road with at grade intersections and non-separated lanes.

I suspect there will be a second carriageway, but at grade intersections for now, sort of like the Hanlon Parkway in Guelph.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Thanks. Hopefully they will do it right with some new interchanges and a second carriageway as originally intended, not some cheap road with at grade intersections and non-separated lanes.

I suspect there will be a second carriageway, but at grade intersections for now, sort of like the Hanlon Parkway in Guelph.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty confident that it will be a second carriageway with at-grade intersections for now. This corridor will likely eventually serve a similar purpose as the 409/427 at Pearson, as Munro gradually evolves into a busier airport, so it should definitely be built with a planned future as a major 400-series highway.
 
yup.

I drive the highway 3-4 times a year probably, so I'm fairly familiar with it. It's gotten a lot busier in the last few years, particularly with trucks. The 4-lanes will be appreciated, as traffic is typically moving in the 70-80km/h range on it right now. Eliminating the lights would be nice as well, especially since they recently installed a second signalized intersection at the Airport. At least an interchange at Book Road would be nice.

I suspect they will stagger that work as you said though, with those interchanges getting built another decade from now as development in the airport employment areas in Hamilton really ramps up.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Thanks. Hopefully they will do it right with some new interchanges and a second carriageway as originally intended, not some cheap road with at grade intersections and non-separated lanes.

I suspect there will be a second carriageway, but at grade intersections for now, sort of like the Hanlon Parkway in Guelph.
Click to expand...
ericmacm said:
I'm pretty confident that it will be a second carriageway with at-grade intersections for now. This corridor will likely eventually serve a similar purpose as the 409/427 at Pearson, as Munro gradually evolves into a busier airport, so it should definitely be built with a planned future as a major 400-series highway.
Click to expand...

My usual aversion to highway expansion notwithstanding, I see merit in the idea of 4-laning this road; the exact design form is also one I have an open mind on, I see the merits of a grade-separated highway here; though I do have some concerns about some nice patches of woods close to the existing ROW I would hope would be retained.

Now a couple of observations and maybe questions.

I see they previously grade-separated White Church Road, and it would appear, left room for up to 3 lanes per direction underneath:

1645115360272.png


Just beyond White Church, there is a subdivision under construction, that would seem to put some constraint on the future size of the highway, though certainly seems to allow for six lanes, but I assume a sound wall will end up required there.
I wonder if that was in the renders for the homes! LOL

1645115478716.png


Commentary note: Just like in Toronto/Mississauga these homes are very close to the airport; that seems like a recipe for conflict.

****

I do think it would be nice to consider some of the following:

1) a multi-use trail on at least one side of the highway for cyclists/pedestrians, outside the sound wall, where applicable, and otherwise set well back, with generous plantings to make use of the trail pleasant.

2) consideration of better bridge crossings of the highway for pedestrians and cyclists. (wider sidewalks, cycle tracks, physical barriers between the cycle tracks and the vehicle lanes, nice landscaping on the approaches.

3) Vision Zero principles for the interchanges (no slips lanes, all exits arrive at traffic lights)

4) A management plan for the remaining healthy forests to ensure they stay that way, and if opportunity allows, even growing them somewhat.

5) Proper consideration for future inter-city/public transit servicing the airport by this and/or other corridors that may be affected by this project.
 
The city of Hamilton is upgrading it's "A-Line" bus route this year with transit priority signals, improved bus stops, etc. along Upper James which will result in significantly increased transit service to the airport area and employment areas.

Other than Book Road and the airport connecting road, all roads crossing the highway are already grade separated with bridges built for a second carriageway.

There are a handful of small wooded areas along the route that MTO didn't remove when 6 was built in the early 2000's, but not any major ones that are concerning. Most tree cutting required would be relatively narrow areas.

The second carriageway would go on the south side of the highway, away from that new subdivision in Mount Hope.

Mount Hope has a lot of new houses going in indeed, but they are generally away from the airport runways, particularly the east-west runway which handles the vast majority of flight traffic for YHM. Hamilton has a massive employment area surrounding the airport planned because of the airport noise influence area.

Regarding vision zero, this is a literal rural area. There are zero pedestrians to protect.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Regarding vision zero, this is a literal rural area. There are zero pedestrians to protect.
Click to expand...

That subdivision will change that; so will built-up employment lands.

Consideration needs to be given to pedestrian and cycling safety before pedestrians and cyclists arrive, not after.
 
Northern Light said:
My usual aversion to highway expansion notwithstanding, I see merit in the idea of 4-laning this road; the exact design form is also one I have an open mind on, I see the merits of a grade-separated highway here; though I do have some concerns about some nice patches of woods close to the existing ROW I would hope would be retained.

Now a couple of observations and maybe questions.

I see they previously grade-separated White Church Road, and it would appear, left room for up to 3 lanes per direction underneath:

View attachment 380694

Just beyond White Church, there is a subdivision under construction, that would seem to put some constraint on the future size of the highway, though certainly seems to allow for six lanes, but I assume a sound wall will end up required there.
I wonder if that was in the renders for the homes! LOL
Click to expand...
That is assuming they won't build an interchange here.

If the 6 is extended to meet with the Caledonia Bypass, the current link to Upper James might be removed unless they build a trumpet interchange connect to Upper James.
 
I really hope that the planned interchange for Book Rd is included in this twinning. With the AEGD (Airport Employment Growth District) starting to come online within the planning & construction timeline of this project, the removal of the one signal along the entire stretch would go a long way. It would also be the primary access point to the AEGD from the 403.

As for the south end, I'd imagine if the connection to the Caledonia Bypass ever happens that they would build a trumpet interchange to connect with Upper James, or just build an interchange at Chippewa (the next concession down).

All of this may be moot though unless something is done about the 403 through Ancaster. Linc WB to 403 WB has become a pretty popular trip pattern, and the section of the 403 between the Linc and Wilson St is a complete mess.
 
gweed123 said:
I really hope that the planned interchange for Book Rd is included in this twinning. With the AEGD (Airport Employment Growth District) starting to come online within the planning & construction timeline of this project, the removal of the one signal along the entire stretch would go a long way. It would also be the primary access point to the AEGD from the 403.

As for the south end, I'd imagine if the connection to the Caledonia Bypass ever happens that they would build a trumpet interchange to connect with Upper James, or just build an interchange at Chippewa (the next concession down).

All of this may be moot though unless something is done about the 403 through Ancaster. Linc WB to 403 WB has become a pretty popular trip pattern, and the section of the 403 between the Linc and Wilson St is a complete mess.
Click to expand...
A signal was installed at the airport access road in the fall BTW - so there are now two signals on the stretch.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top