Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

[Jonny5]

I don’t understand the logic of the provincial government at times. Look at the many highway options just south of us in New York. Yes it is in a completely different country, but the traffic flow of the many different highways are impressive, even just north of the big city itself, where you would have 2 or 3 parallel highways running next to each other to keep the overall traffic flow. Imagine if the 427, 400, and 404 all got extended further north connected to Highway 11, which would be upgraded and fixed to 400 series standards. Then this route would connect us with a twinned 417/17, running from Winnipeg to the Quebec border, giving Northern and Eastern Ontario a complete transportation link, and a half relief off the 401.

I don't want anything to do with the highways in New York State. They may look impressive on maps, but to drive on them is another story. You will find many are dilapidated, beyond a point I have rarely, or sometimes never seen in Ontario. And that's all over the state. I haven't been there since 2019, but for obvious reasons I don't think much improved in 2020. The infrastructure in Upstate New York through to the fringes of NYC all seemed to be falling apart, and I mean visibly falling apart. Everything concrete and asphalt had chunks missing, and big cracks all over. They are massively in debt too, and literally can't afford to pay the upkeep so some of those expressways have permanent lane closures simply because they can't pay to repave the whole road, only half of it. They just walled off one or two lanes on each side and let them go derelict!
New York is broke. They have layered debt and hidden it among dozens of agencies and regions so it doesn't all fall into that pesky "sub-sovereign" category people in Ontario obsess over. It really shows much better off we are even with that "unthinkable" debt.

 

[Undead]

^Ontario is insanely deep in debt. But I was always impressed how well MTO maintains the 400 series around the GTA especially given the massive traffic volumes using the network.

 

[lenaitch]

I don’t understand the logic of the provincial government at times. Look at the many highway options just south of us in New York. Yes it is in a completely different country, but the traffic flow of the many different highways are impressive, even just north of the big city itself, where you would have 2 or 3 parallel highways running next to each other to keep the overall traffic flow. Imagine if the 427, 400, and 404 all got extended further north connected to Highway 11, which would be upgraded and fixed to 400 series standards. Then this route would connect us with a twinned 417/17, running from Winnipeg to the Quebec border, giving Northern and Eastern Ontario a complete transportation link, and a half relief off the 401.

There could also be other considerations in mind such as extending the 115 to Ottawa, and then also making a new highway from the 7/115 junction in Peterborough to Highway 85 in Waterloo via the Bradford Bypass and a twinning of both Highway 9 with a new segment from Arthur, south to where the 85 freeway currently ends, and then extending the 7/8 expressway to the 402. All these ideas would actually amplify Ontario as an important transportation link to the various hubs and cities that these new and improved highways will offer, as well as naturally making the other half in relieving the 401. If we played the cost, opposition control and the infrastructure right, then something could actually get done about our current transportation status, and we wouldn’t have to sit here dreaming of what future potential could be done for the province..

A lot to unpack but I will just focus on the highlighted sentence. As an overall route; meaning absent certain sections, the traffic volumes on the 11 or 17 routes from border to border do not justify twinning. Certainly, there are safety aspects to separated roadways, but there are other solutions that don't gobble up billions of dollars we don't have.

I also don't understand how the northern routes can or would provide any kind of relief to Hwy 401. I would have to be convinced that commercial traffic between Quebec/Maritimes and bound for western Canada, or visa versa, do not already use the Ottawa Valley-northern routes.

 

[whydidimakethis]

I also don't understand how the northern routes can or would provide any kind of relief to Hwy 401. I would have to be convinced that commercial traffic between Quebec/Maritimes and bound for western Canada, or visa versa, do not already use the Ottawa Valley-northern routes.

If anything, Maritimes- Western Canada truck traffic probably use QC-117 and Hwy 11 or 101 (via Timmins) to get to 17.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don’t understand the logic of the provincial government at times. Look at the many highway options just south of us in New York. Yes it is in a completely different country, but the traffic flow of the many different highways are impressive, even just north of the big city itself, where you would have 2 or 3 parallel highways running next to each other to keep the overall traffic flow. Imagine if the 427, 400, and 404 all got extended further north connected to Highway 11, which would be upgraded and fixed to 400 series standards. Then this route would connect us with a twinned 417/17, running from Winnipeg to the Quebec border, giving Northern and Eastern Ontario a complete transportation link, and a half relief off the 401.

There could also be other considerations in mind such as extending the 115 to Ottawa, and then also making a new highway from the 7/115 junction in Peterborough to Highway 85 in Waterloo via the Bradford Bypass and a twinning of both Highway 9 with a new segment from Arthur, south to where the 85 freeway currently ends, and then extending the 7/8 expressway to the 402. All these ideas would actually amplify Ontario as an important transportation link to the various hubs and cities that these new and improved highways will offer, as well as naturally making the other half in relieving the 401. If we played the cost, opposition control and the infrastructure right, then something could actually get done about our current transportation status, and we wouldn’t have to sit here dreaming of what future potential could be done for the province..

Sigh, another "look at city x, we should be like them!" I am not going to go through the effort of comparing NYC's highway infrastructure vs Toronto's because there are major differences in transportation planning departments between Canada/Ontario and USA/NY. For example Canada does not have a federal inter provincial freeway system like the US does with the interstate system (which was championed and funded by the federal government). Sure the Federal government might provide funds for road projects in individual provinces, and while the Trans Canada Highway does receive federal it is more of ceremonial title than equivalent to the interstate system. Not to mention that NYC's highway network was built decades before Toronto even thought about highways, and as transportation technology evolved and awareness about the impact of highways on communities came about the expectation would be that there would be less highway construction in more recent years compared to say in the 30's and 40's

Though I mean NYC has a population of 8 million (18 million in the Metropolitan area) compared to Toronto's near 3 million population (6 million in the GTA/metropolitan area), so NYC has approx 3x the population of Toronto meaning we should be expecting 1/3 of the highway network (not considering geographic constraints). Again I'm not going to go through the effort to map every on of NYC's actual freeways/highways (not just proto highways/parkways with at grade intersections) and compare it to Toronto's network.

But hey while we are asking for a freeway network on par with NYC's why not built a subway network to rival NYC's as well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

New York's freeways also date from a different era, half of them were built before Toronto even built the 401. A lot of the old parkways date from the 1920's.

And yea, as others have mentioned, a lot are generally terribly maintained and have terrible freeway geometries that mean their overall capacities are often far lower than it may otherwise appear.

And of course there are barely any roads in the entire NYC metro over 8 lanes, with most being 6 lanes, and we know how many 10-18 lane highways the GTA has.

Per Capita honestly the GTA probably has more lane-km than NYC. Actually, it almost certainly does.

 

[whydidimakethis]

But hey while we are asking for a freeway network on par with NYC's why not built a subway network to rival NYC's as well.

And that's what so many people misunderstand. Both highways and good public transit is neccesarry. Not all trips need to be done in cars, and not all trips can be done in public transit. A mix of both equalizes the demand from the other side. In overall quality (not quantity) of our freeway network, we are well ahead of NYC. If our rapid tranist system was on par, maybe our freeways wouldn't need to be 12 lanes wide.

 

[kamira51]

If our rapid tranist system was on par, maybe our freeways wouldn't need to be 12 lanes wide.

And a proper inter-city rail network.

 

[Translude15]

There's a strong misconception in the GTA that we're in need of more highways or extensive highway/freeway networks akin to what we see in the US, as if we're missing out on something. Traffic/gridlock is not going away in this city namely because of the region's rapid growth. You could say gridlock is a healthy indicator of a vibrant or economically healthy city but saying that, there needs to be a greater focus on efficient movement of large numbers of people, meaning more higher order transit. The 20th century highway network plans would've permanently decimated Toronto and the city we know today likely wouldn't exist. Just take a look at Detroit's post WWII history. Even a relatively vibrant city with a crisscrossing freeway network like LA isn't the answer. LA's freeways are about as wide as they're going to get (4 - 8 lanes each direction) as the majority of their network is entirely landlocked. There's no room to widen or expand and without ample transit coverage, Angelinos are (pardon my French) fucked. That gridlock isn't going away so the situation in that region is a serious lesson to be learned on our part.

The problem with the GTA's development is that it occurred much more recently than many large American cities i.e. NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA. I'd argue there still remains a greater disposition towards road/highway infrastructure development despite recent efforts to bolster the transit file. The GTA in turn has a sort of half-in, half-out transit network thanks to severe underdevelopment over the last 35+ years while the road network has slowly expanded. I'm of the belief that the GTA needs better capacity for its truck and intermodal transport. The 407 being so under capacity is a major problem that's only going to get worse. Something needs to be resolved there but it will be an ugly fight. If the 413 isn't built, then at least build something like the Bradford Bypass and try creating more efficient road links between the GTA and outer municipalities beyond the Greenbelt that are growing rapidly and becoming more vital to the region. Other examples are Highway 7 between KW and Gulelph and Highway 6 from the 403 to 401 into Guelph.

 

[whydidimakethis]

Just to revive this forum-

Is there any evidence to suggest that the collector/express systems on the 427/401 would be better than lets just say, a 6x6 configuration?

 

[Undead]

^I believe a collector-express is preferred once the highway exceeds 5 lanes in either direction because there's too much weaving at that width.

 

[TRONto]

^I believe a collector-express is preferred once the highway exceeds 5 lanes in either direction because there's too much weaving at that width.

An accident in one section doesn't affect the other

 

[innsertnamehere]

collector express are used as they reduce weaving - people cutting across 6 lanes to reach an exit.

weaving lowers capacity and causes higher rates of accidents, meaning that collector-express lanes actually increase capacity over a standard 6 lane cross section.

6 lane cross sections can work on stretches without a lot of exits - which is why MTO has used wider cross sections like that on the 401 between the 427 and 409 (only 1 exit on that stretch), and the 400 from the 401 to the 407 (only 1 exit as well). They work as people don't need to weave to reach exits as there are not really any exits.

 

[lenaitch]

If I recall my history, the original thought - like back in the '50s or '60s planning, was that the core (express) would be a provincial highway and the collectors would be a city freeway. It didn't take. Notice that the overhead signs are different colours- it is my understanding that was the original basis for it.

I don't think movement between the core and collectors via the transfer lanes is inherently disruptive, but in my opinion some of the transfers lanes are too close to exits. Even if a particular exit isn't signed for a transfer lane, people that know the route will often use to closest one that gives them access, regardless of how dangerous or disruptive it is. Some have been improved over the years, but with numerous, really close interchanges, it's often difficult to place a transfer just after an exit without having it run close to the next one.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Just to revive this forum-

Is there any evidence to suggest that the collector/express systems on the 427/401 would be better than lets just say, a 6x6 configuration?

IIRC correctly yes. It was years ago but I recall reading something about each additional lane added beyond 3 increases lane jumping and thus increases odds of collisions above the additional capacity of the added lane. Though I could be mis remembering.

Anecdotally I am more comfortable driving in a 3x3 collector/express system than a full 6 lane system. Just the thought of being stuck in the middle lanes in the event of an emergency is crazy.

If I recall my history, the original thought - like back in the '50s or '60s planning, was that the core (express) would be a provincial highway and the collectors would be a city freeway. It didn't take. Notice that the overhead signs are different colours- it is my understanding that was the original basis for it.

I don't think movement between the core and collectors via the transfer lanes is inherently disruptive, but in my opinion some of the transfers lanes are too close to exits. Even if a particular exit isn't signed for a transfer lane, people that know the route will often use to closest one that gives them access, regardless of how dangerous or disruptive it is. Some have been improved over the years, but with numerous, really close interchanges, it's often difficult to place a transfer just after an exit without having it run close to the next one.

I've never heard that re the collector/express system. I was taught that the sign colours were to indicate if you were in the collector or distributor lanes of the highway. *shrug*

One thing that probably needs work is the signage for off ramps. There are a few places where the signange directing drivers to the the collectors for a subsequent off ramp does not give the driver enough space to cross the 3 lanes to access the ramp. The signs should be further up the road, for ex. Take the Leslie ramp from the EB 401, if one follows the signs they would only have 500 m to cross the 3 lanes of traffic to reach the ramp. In this case Leslie should be signed for the next crossover further up the highway.