Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

[Transportfan]

Uh, did you consider that maybe people (at least the road travelling/map using sort) viewed them in conjunction? Sure, for primary purposes such as addressing, etc. Yonge is, was, and always shall be Yonge--no argument about that. Only a true idiot or absolute out-of-town motorist would have viewed it primarily as "Hwy 11", a la Hwy 27 in Etobicoke, Hwy 7 in York County/Region, etc. However, as long as common maps, highway maps and street maps, depicted Yonge as the central vertical red line with the "11" shield, it served a duel identity. Yonge Street it was, but it was a Yonge Street that also served as Hwy 11...and, of course, that "also-servedness" wound up being curdled into the cloying Queen's-Quay-to-Rainy-River longest-street-in-the-world mythos in the 70s. Yet however contrived that "mythos" was, there was an inherent grandeur to it, that of Yonge/11 as a gateway to the Great Beyond much as Michigan Ave/Route 66 was in Chicago (and re some of the "specially marked heritage highway" discussion in this thread, it's something that could even have been threaded on a la Historic Route 66, making lemonade out of that wretched "Longest Street In The World" lemon). It may have been subtle, but the "dual identity" of Yonge was strong...even if it's lost to younger generations who never really knew anything but the 400 as a primary corridor up north, and for whom Yonge/11 would have been a sprawly hellhole that no "sane" parent would have opted for en route to Muskoka and beyond.

I don't think you really now what I'm talking about.

 

[adma]

I don't think you really now what I'm talking about.

Well, actually, to turn the tables, *I* don't think *you* really know what *I'm" talking about, probably because your prism of "highway definition" is so thoroughly that of, well, as I suggested, a generation or generations born after the map fragment I posted. Who never really *knew* that era, at least as an active map-user--and indeed, for whom the Google/GPS era has rendered such maps as antiquated as adding machines and typewriters, maybe once relevant but now out of sight, out of mind. And because there really isn't much beyond, say, the Route 66 cult (with a touch of Steinbeck or Kerouac on the side, I suppose) to "communicate" something of that old ethos in a manner that younger generations can comprehend (and unfortunately, it's an ethos that's increasingly grandparental or even great-grandparental at this point--the parental generation was already pretty much 400/Interstated), the utilitarian, disinterested amnesia is understandable.

Indeed, it would make an interesting study, that of how different generations have come to perceive "highways" or, in general, our "driveable landscape"--which could also overlap with the technological issue, traditional maps vs GPS as something that affects our perception, et al...

 

[Dan416]

I for one am 100% of the highway = 400-series generation. Things like "Hwy 10" and "Hwy 7" aren't highways, they're just roads. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, even knowing and acknowledging their history as "highways".

 

[adma]

I for one am 100% of the highway = 400-series generation. Things like "Hwy 10" and "Hwy 7" aren't highways, they're just roads. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, even knowing and acknowledging their history as "highways".

And as far as I'm concerned, you've become a bunch of uninspired dolts, because you weren't privileged to have parents or siblings like me (or even your own innate curiosity) in the car, guiding the way. You have no sense, whatsoever, of the c20 SteinbeckKerouac-ian "soul of the road".

Or, to paraphrase your proud statement, with an earlier-in-this-thread reference of mine...

I for one am 100% of the Brutalism = ugly eyesore generation. Things like Boston City Hall aren't beautiful architectural landmarks, they're just dysfunctional concrete turds. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, even knowing and acknowledging their significance in 1960s architectural history.

And personally, I'd tell the, uh, uninspired dolts who'd hold that opinion to shove it.

 

[interchange42]

Adma, that's a bit harsh.

Coruscante; so, it's got to be controlled access freeway to be a highway? That's a pretty narrow view. Not everywhere has the traffic to warrant a freeway, but is still worthy of provincially significant roads to get there. Why not include those roads in your definition of highway?

42

 

[adma]

Ultimately, it may come down to this principle: "It's a 20th century thing; you wouldn't understand it".

Because we're talking about two camps here: one that is so much "of our time" that the c20 way of framing things is but a remote artifact (i.e. those who've been so acclimatized by the advent of GPS that old mapping/atlassing standards seem as remote as vaudeville and sheet music was to the TV and Top 40 generation); and one that seeks to dig and delve deeper still into the geographic landscape almost by way of corrective critique. Sort of like, that c20 motor-travel configuration of the landscape "failed" in the same way that modern planning, Ville Radieuse and Broadacre City, urban renewal and suburban sprawl and all of that, "failed". The sorts of people who'd embrace North End Boston at the expense of the City Hall/Civic Center zone, or Kensington at the expense of (the presently endangered) 60s Alexandra Park. Thus, they'd be so much "into" the formative settlement patterns of the c18/19 in Ontario, or perhaps a present-day "back roads/city streets" tranquility, values that may have been lost to the common c20 motor traveller...so much into it as to disengage from that c20 phase entirely, or regard it as a blur or a blot in the bigger picture. As in, metaphorically speaking "Highway 10" did to "Hurontario" what Boston's Civic Center did to the urban fabric.
In fact, as I see it, the more sophisticated approach is not "at the expense of", but "in conjunction with and as an enhancement of.". People who are able to thoughtfully appreciate both the North End and the Civic Center, as faits accompli--and both Kensington and 60s Alexandra Park, however presently-endangered the latter might be. And believe it or not, the both/and approach is closer to today's cutting edge of creative urban/geographic beholding: those who'd actually cherish Highway 11 shields rather than be all "call 3-1-1" about them. And if they cherish the shields, you can be sure that they'd cherish the system they belonged to; i.e. inherently, they'd be a step ahead of the "400-series = highway; 10/7= just-roads" crowd. Much as those who've repatriated the c18/19 settlement infrastructure were, in their turn, a step ahead from the admittedly more obtuse aspects of the bygone King's Highway (or Boston Civic Center) approach. So, the more layered elements of geographic-repatriation-upon-geographic-repatriation we get, the richer (if often delightfully contradictory and paradoxical) things get....

 

[Dan416]

Adma, that's a bit harsh.

Coruscante; so, it's got to be controlled access freeway to be a highway? That's a pretty narrow view. Not everywhere has the traffic to warrant a freeway, but is still worthy of provincially significant roads to get there. Why not include those roads in your definition of highway?

42

It's Coruscanti.

And I'm not commenting on the correctness of my views, I'm just stating what they are. To me highway=400-series road. Why call it a highway if it's not different from a regular road? What else would distinguish being a highway from being a road, besides being controlled access and not having traffic lights?

 

[Paolo]

but coruscante, highway 7 is a highway and it has traffic lights, so i don't get your comment at all, makes no sense?

 

[adma]

What else would distinguish being a highway from being a road, besides being controlled access and not having traffic lights?

Historical and generational perspective.

but coruscante, highway 7 is a highway and it has traffic lights, so i don't get your comment at all, makes no sense?

Then again, the fact that Hwy 7 thru York has been downloaded may answer that question--the "Highway" label currently being purely vestigial, and maybe a little like various US strips and arterials which still bear names like "Lincoln Highway", "Dixie Highway", etc.

But yeah, speaking of the States--remember that their US Highway network is still mostly extant (notwithstanding Route 66's retirement and the decimation of most of the California network), as are State highway systems. Last I recall, they're still referred to as "highways", even when not controlled access--it ain't all Interstates-or-nothin' there, kiddo...

 

[gweed123]

I think the King's Highway system does still have relevance, and that streets like Hurontario should keep their Highway 10 designation, because for a lot of the Province, the King's Highway system is still the only way to get there. As to the question of "what distinguishes it from just another road"? It's the fact that it actually goes somewhere. Dixie Road randomly ends, but Hurontario (Highway 10) goes almost the whole way up to Owen Sound. Major Mackenzie runs through most of York Region, but not beyond that. Highway 7 runs from Ottawa all the way to Southwestern Ontario (ownership not factored in).

Using the term "highway" for both a 2 lane road and a 4+ lane controlled access expressway may be a confusing, but there is still a difference between a concession road and a King's Highway road.

 

[adma]

Highway 7 runs from Ottawa all the way to Southwestern Ontario (ownership not factored in).

Though for someone who never really "knew" Hwy 7, its going-somewhere routing can be hard to comprehend, esp. w/various jogs and turns in SW Ontario. Also, there's been a fair number of King's Highways over the years that have been as apparently "abrupt" as Major Mac; while Airport Road, as a straightaway en route to Georgian Bay, really does "go somewhere".

A lot of those King's Highway routings, like those of US and State Highways, were accidents of circumstance; and in places like Southern Ontario where they've been augmented or superceded by non-highway county/regional arterials, their present/recent-day value is mainly semiotic, i.e. as a bygone/entrenched signifier of "traveller's network". But some of this school of thought that they shouldn't be regarded as "highways" anymore reminds me of the school of thought (esp. common in the discussion over the Eaton Centre railings) that retail/commercial architecture shouldn't be thought of as "heritage"...

 

[Paolo]

highway 7 goes from north of london to all the way to ottawa

 

[CDL.TO]

And I'm not commenting on the correctness of my views, I'm just stating what they are. To me highway=400-series road. Why call it a highway if it's not different from a regular road? What else would distinguish being a highway from being a road, besides being controlled access and not having traffic lights?

Have you considered basing your views on more than just "that's what it is to me"? Basing it instead on some sort of logical or historical perspective, perhaps?

This forum would be unreadable if everyone just posted their views, not based upon anything but feelings, and expected everyone else to just nod and say "OK".

 

[Transportfan]

Well, actually, to turn the tables, *I* don't think *you* really know what *I'm" talking about, probably because your prism of "highway definition" is so thoroughly that of, well, as I suggested, a generation or generations born after the map fragment I posted. Who never really *knew* that era, at least as an active map-user--and indeed, for whom the Google/GPS era has rendered such maps as antiquated as adding machines and typewriters, maybe once relevant but now out of sight, out of mind. And because there really isn't much beyond, say, the Route 66 cult (with a touch of Steinbeck or Kerouac on the side, I suppose) to "communicate" something of that old ethos in a manner that younger generations can comprehend (and unfortunately, it's an ethos that's increasingly grandparental or even great-grandparental at this point--the parental generation was already pretty much 400/Interstated), the utilitarian, disinterested amnesia is understandable.

Indeed, it would make an interesting study, that of how different generations have come to perceive "highways" or, in general, our "driveable landscape"--which could also overlap with the technological issue, traditional maps vs GPS as something that affects our perception, et al...

No, you don't get what I'm talking about, because if you carefully read post #508 where I quoted you saying streets in Toronto with a highway number had a "highwayness" in the sense that seemed to indicate people called them as such in the same sense Hurontario is called "10". They do not and never did. Yonge has never been labelled "11" in popular nomenclature.

 

[Dan416]

Have you considered basing your views on more than just "that's what it is to me"? Basing it instead on some sort of logical or historical perspective, perhaps?

This forum would be unreadable if everyone just posted their views, not based upon anything but feelings, and expected everyone else to just nod and say "OK".

Sorry I'll try to post less opinions.