Highways in Canada

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by SOSS

I agree we need proper connectivity between major centres. Not necessarily with freeways - a proper expressway with limited lights would suffice IMO. I'm definitely western focused. I think it's important to have a safe, 4-lane divided transcanada highway. We have that in the lower mainland, through to Kamloops (via Hwy 5) but need it through to Lake Louise.

It wouldn't have to be a full freeway... What they've done through most of the prairies would be fine. Most places in BC have low enough traffic volumes to have uncontrolled access.
However, if there are spots that are busy enough to need a traffic light, I think it makes sense to build it an interchange the first time around, at least along the main cross country route.

The two priorities for federal funding should be between Kamloops and the AB border, and through Northern Ontario. These two sections are lagging the farthest behind the rest of the route.


I'd really also like to see some twinning of some of the highways to territories. I don't think we are doing enough to encourage people to live in the northern part of the country, and I think better access, as well as lowering the cost of living would help.

[eemy]

I think an extension of the 427 north to Collingwood makes more sense than the 410, tbh. I envision the 410 eventually extending to Orangeville, and perhaps even beyond someday toward Owen Sound.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Nice. One more thing for NB, the province is twinning Route 11 up to Richibucto in the coming years. I would add a Super Two from there to Miramichi and possible twinning all the way to Bathurst. I would also (eventually) twin Route 8 across Princess Margaret Bridge and partway to Boiestown, and complete the Miramichi North Bypass.

That 417 Extension is huge. That would be (because of terrain and length) possibly the biggest single highway project the country has ever seen. Maybe then the TCH can finally rival the Interstate system. That Highway 411 looks like an iffy project, though.

the 411 project I described is actually in planning by the MTO, I tried to make sure my "fantasies" didn't contradict current MTO planning documents as well. MTO is actively planning to widen 11 from Barrie to Gravenhurst and upgrade it to a full freeway. They will actually probably upgrade the stretch to Orillia soon, its traffic levels are starting to reach that of a 6 lane highway (50,000 AADT). Orillia to Gravenhurst will take a bit longer, traffic levels are still too low (25,000 - 30,000 AADT). MTO has slowly been eliminating at grade intersections north of Gravenhurst as well, and has fully designed plans for the at grade sections south of Huntsville. The only section I'm not so sure they are formally planning for is the ones south of North Bay..

A lot of Haljackey's ideas directly contradict current MTO planning, which I try to stick to in my little fantasy maps. The improved connection to Collingwood is currently an upgraded highway 26, the parts around Collingwood built to 400 series standards and some parts as a simple 4 lane widening.

Similarly MTO is planning a different approach to upgrade 7/8 out to Stratford, with a dual carriageway at grade highway with a few stoplights. Same with 3 out to Leamington, at grade dual carriageway.

Highway 12 around Lake Simcoe is likely to be widened very soon, its one of the busiest highways in the province that is still only 2 lanes, peaking at over 18,000 AADT during the summer. That said, its not going to be built to 400 series standards.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Vancouver is the most congested city in Canada for the 3rd straight year. Second-worst traffic congestion in North America, behind Los Angeles for the second year in a row.

No highways means that secondary roads are congested even more. It will only get worse.

Complete incompetence at the planning department. For such a small city to have such huge traffic problems is offensive.


It's also made worse by the fact the Vancouver is the most expensive place to run your car and that will only get worse. The gas prices here are the highest in NA and tolls are already on 2 major bridges with 2 more within the decade and these are VERY hefty tolls.

Vancouver seems to have this off notion that if you simply don't build any roads then everyone will stop driving. It's this stupid idea that Vancouver should just have a good transit system which is Mickey-Mouse mentality and the opposite of all the world's greatest cities. Great cities have great TRANSPORTATION systems which includes transit but also includes great roads, bike lanes, and walkways.

Despite the talk, Vancouver's bike system second rate and far behind it's peers. The city has certainly been trying to improve the biking situation but unlike other cities, going from one end of Vancouver to the other via bike very hazardous.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Complete incompetence at the planning department. For such a small city to have such huge traffic problems is offensive.


It's also made worse by the fact the Vancouver is the most expensive place to run your car and that will only get worse. The gas prices here are the highest in NA and tolls are already on 2 major bridges with 2 more within the decade and these are VERY hefty tolls.

Vancouver seems to have this off notion that if you simply don't build any roads then everyone will stop driving. It's this stupid idea that Vancouver should just have a good transit system which is Mickey-Mouse mentality and the opposite of all the world's greatest cities. Great cities have great TRANSPORTATION systems which includes transit but also includes great roads, bike lanes, and walkways.

Despite the talk, Vancouver's bike system second rate and far behind it's peers. The city has certainly been trying to improve the biking situation but unlike other cities, going from one end of Vancouver to the other via bike very hazardous.

Yes. IMO it's some fairly solid evidence against the theory that when you stop building roads, traffic volumes stop increasing.

Vancouver is growing, and traffic volumes are probably not going down any time soon.

There is only so much induced demand that is even possible. If a population isn't growing, traffic can only increase until everyone is on the road at the same time, all the time. Not saying that that is the goal, but if a city were to ever reach that saturation point, building more roads would reduce congestion without increasing traffic volumes.

[SOSS]

Traffic counts into Vancouver proper are actually on the decrease. These numbers will likely continue to decrease with improved transit and increased cost of car ownership. People are also working in other town centres and telecommuting.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Traffic counts into Vancouver proper are actually on the decrease. These numbers will likely continue to decrease with improved transit and increased cost of car ownership. People are also working in other town centres and telecommuting.

This is true, and I think growth of new employment centres and telecommuting is going to be important going forward. My only worry is that the CoV may start to lose its status as the main centre of the region if it restricts transportation options between it and the rest of the region.

If the city's goal is to reduce car traffic, I think it's a better approach to make transit cheaper and more convenient than to try making driving less convenient and more expensive. The reason being that either approach gets commuters out of their cars, but only one doesn't penalize businesses that rely on road transportation. No matter how expensive driving becomes, you aren't going to see business deliveries on the skytrain. You will however see businesses move out of the city.

Also, any traffic volume decreases do have to be taken with a grain of salt. Traffic capacity of say a bridge or other entry point into the city is a function of the number of lanes as well as the speed of traffic. So when congestion increases, and traffic speed slows, the statistics will show a decrease in traffic volume.
The key is being able to figure out whether the number of trips is actually falling, or whether the gridlock is getting worse.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

This is true, and I think growth of new employment centres and telecommuting is going to be important going forward. My only worry is that the CoV may start to lose its status as the main centre of the region if it restricts transportation options between it and the rest of the region.

If the city's goal is to reduce car traffic, I think it's a better approach to make transit cheaper and more convenient than to try making driving less convenient and more expensive. The reason being that either approach gets commuters out of their cars, but only one doesn't penalize businesses that rely on road transportation. No matter how expensive driving becomes, you aren't going to see business deliveries on the skytrain. You will however see businesses move out of the city.

Also, any traffic volume decreases do have to be taken with a grain of salt. Traffic capacity of say a bridge or other entry point into the city is a function of the number of lanes as well as the speed of traffic. So when congestion increases, and traffic speed slows, the statistics will show a decrease in traffic volume.
The key is being able to figure out whether the number of trips is actually falling, or whether the gridlock is getting worse.

So you are talking about the carrot vs the stick approach. It's challenging to offer a carrot to one with out giving another group the stick. All urban centres are restricted. You can't build a bike lane into an urban core without removing a vehicle lane or vehicle parking. Can't widen sidewalks without taking away from roadways etc. the exception is grade separated transit which costs a lot. CoV is part of a larger regional transit program and can't control such mass projects. They are limited to the streets and sidewalks they have. They do need to improve their public consultation process though.

Give as many carrots to pedestrians and cyclist that is reasonable. Don't built new roads (like Boston or the freeways planned of yesteryear). Also The market determines the cost of vehicle ownership, not the city.

[SOSS]

Also, the more attractive alternatives to driving are, the more they are utilized, and the more space there is for commercial vehicles on the road.

[eternallyme]

I hope a good amount of the $14B committed to infrastructure in Ontario (outside the GTA) ends up in northern Ontario. They already feel very alienated up there, no matter who is in power, and the infrastructure up there is pretty much third world-quality.

[Innsertnamehere]

I wouldn't go that far, they are simply too lowly populated for freeways to really make a lot of financial sense.

[giallo]

Wow. What a difference a few years make. It couldn't have been more than four years ago when Vancouver was routinely applauded on SSP for not having built an expressway through Gastown and Chinatown.

Vancouver's traffic woes are due to the fact that the area's two major employment centres (downtown and Broadway) are at the far northwestern reaches of the metro. This will obviously cause a lot of traffic to funnel in to a finite amount of roads.

The solution to this? TODs. It's what Metro Vancouver has been working on for close to a decade now, and we've already seen a drop in traffic in the CoV. Cities like Burnaby, New West and Surrey have been very happy to pick up the slack. All three of them have seen office and a lot of residential construction in the last 5- 10 years, and it's only the beginning. Surrey is currently building a downtown from scratch. It's pretty amazing.

It's interesting that people are showing that Vancouver has the second highest traffic congestion next to LA, yet are pushing for more lanes, expressways or freeways like......LA. Does anyone else see the problem here? The city with the most extensive freeway system on the continent is also the most congested. It's the classic "build it and they will come" scenario.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by giallo

Wow. What a difference a few years make. It couldn't have been more than four years ago when Vancouver was routinely applauded on SSP for not having built an expressway through Gastown and Chinatown.

Vancouver's traffic woes are due to the fact that the area's two major employment centres (downtown and Broadway) are at the far northwestern reaches of the metro. This will obviously cause a lot of traffic to funnel in to a finite amount of roads.

The solution to this? TODs. It's what Metro Vancouver has been working on for close to a decade now, and we've already seen a drop in traffic in the CoV. Cities like Burnaby, New West and Surrey have been very happy to pick up the slack. All three of them have seen office and a lot of residential construction in the last 5- 10 years, and it's only the beginning. Surrey is currently building a downtown from scratch. It's pretty amazing.

It's interesting that people are showing that Vancouver has the second highest traffic congestion next to LA, yet are pushing for more lanes, expressways or freeways like......LA. Does anyone else see the problem here? The city with the most extensive freeway system on the continent is also the most congested. It's the classic "build it and they will come" scenario.

in the US
1-LA
2-NY
3-CHI
etc
the suburbs are the problem, not the city itself. But Vancouver, being a city of 2.5M is the outlier.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by giallo

It's interesting that people are showing that Vancouver has the second highest traffic congestion next to LA, yet are pushing for more lanes, expressways or freeways like......LA. Does anyone else see the problem here? The city with the most extensive freeway system on the continent is also the most congested. It's the classic "build it and they will come" scenario.

Except it's not at all because sprawl is physically impossible in Vancouver. We are the one city where big highways would help.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by giallo

It's interesting that people are showing that Vancouver has the second highest traffic congestion next to LA, yet are pushing for more lanes, expressways or freeways like......LA. Does anyone else see the problem here? The city with the most extensive freeway system on the continent is also the most congested. It's the classic "build it and they will come" scenario.

Building roads obviously isn't going to do all that much for traffic congestion, but the fact that it won't fully solve the problem isn't necessarily a reason not to do some upgrades, even if just for safety's sake. A lot of the older road infrastructure in Metro Vancouver is built to a much lower standard than you'd find today. Most of the bridges into Vancouver (Oak street, Knight street, etc) leave very little distance between the centre barrier and lanes. Even the same number of lanes with an outside shoulder would help alleviate traffic as breakdowns and wrecks could more easily move off to the side and out of the way.

Another way at looking at the congestion data is to consider that we have relatively high transit usage compared to most North American cities, and the Vancouver area isn't a particularly large city by North American standards, and yet we have some of the worst traffic, nearly on par with cities 5 times the size.
We are obviously doing something wrong if that's the case, and transit certainly isn't it, as we are leading not lagging in that.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Building roads obviously isn't going to do all that much for traffic congestion, but the fact that it won't fully solve the problem isn't necessarily a reason not to do some upgrades, even if just for safety's sake. A lot of the older road infrastructure in Metro Vancouver is built to a much lower standard than you'd find today. Most of the bridges into Vancouver (Oak street, Knight street, etc) leave very little distance between the centre barrier and lanes. Even the same number of lanes with an outside shoulder would help alleviate traffic as breakdowns and wrecks could more easily move off to the side and out of the way.

Another way at looking at the congestion data is to consider that we have relatively high transit usage compared to most North American cities, and the Vancouver area isn't a particularly large city by North American standards, and yet we have some of the worst traffic, nearly on par with cities 5 times the size.
We are obviously doing something wrong if that's the case, and transit certainly isn't it, as we are leading not lagging in that.

I agree that some upgrades need to occur. Recent ones that have helped with traffic include the Powell Street overpass (grade separation over rail), Lower Level Road (road improvements with grade separated over rail). There are also planned improvements to the cut on the northshore, GMT replacement from 4 to 8 lanes, upgrade 91 to full freeway etc. The GMT, just like the Pattullo, need replacing. They won't survive a decent size earthquake. I'd like to see these massive expensive improvements like the TCH, SFPR and GMT coupled with massive investments in transit.

[ssiguy]

Giallo.....

I don't think you are getting our point.

I don't think anybody wants freeways all over the place tearing down houses and ripping up communities. At the same time cars are a reality that Vancouver has pretended that if you ignore them they will simply go away.

When a relatively small city like Vancouver has traffic levels and commute times that is does that means their "no roads plan" has been a failure. The policy wonks {who all live downtown} may feel all warm and fuzzy but for the other 2.4 million, the traffic clogged roads are ruining their quality of life.

Vancouver's mantra of taking transit is a childish one. Not everyone can take transit and Vancouver's geography makes that very difficult. these clogged roads are slowing down buses and creating huge amounts of pollution by stop and go traffic patterns.

The reality is that Vancouver has the lowest transit ridership of any of Canada's 5 biggest metros, hardly something to be proud of. Vancouver has done a good job of bringing mass transit to areas but then builds the system woefully under capacity so that taking transit is a painful experience. Freeways don't mean poor transit ridership as the large systems of Toronto and Montreal can attest.

Great cities don't have just good transit systems but rather good TRANSPORTATION systems of which transit is a part. Go to any European city {which have far higher transit ridership levels than Vancouver will ever have} and they all have excellent road networks.

Vancouver has made it an "either o" equation and that proceeds from a false assumption that roads are the problem where as the real culprit is poor long term planning.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver has made it an "either o" equation and that proceeds from a false assumption that roads are the problem where as the real culprit is poor long term planning.

I think that's a very good point. Nearly any element of the road or transit network in Vancouver is the result of a short term decision.
The Expo line was built in time for expo, the Canada line was built in time for the Olympics. Thankfully, these both happen to be good for the long run as well, but their construction wasn't really the result of a long term plan. If transit in Vancouver was effective at long term planning, we'd have a broadway line already.

The same can be said about roads in the Lower Mainland. When hwy 91 was built, they built it without thinking about the long term, and ended up upgrading the intersections to interchanges within a few years of opening. Likewise, the SFPR was built with short term cost in mind. In the long run it would have been cheaper to build it to a proper standard the first time around, especially when you consider that it is exceptionally cheap to finance projects right now, with interest rates being so low.
And while a GMT replacement is also very important for the long term, I have my doubts that it is being built for anything other than being a nice talking point for the next election in 2017.

So in a nutshell, nearly every transportation network in the area is a mishmash of short term planning.
God forbid we plan ahead to something like 2041, when the province is expected to have over 6 million people.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The reality is that Vancouver has the lowest transit ridership of any of Canada's 5 biggest metros, hardly something to be proud of. Vancouver has done a good job of bringing mass transit to areas but then builds the system woefully under capacity so that taking transit is a painful experience.

I have to agree to this. When I took the Canada Line for the first time this past summer, I was appalled at how small the stations and trains were. Sure, automatic train control reduces headways, but when each train has such a limited capacity you're still going to have capacity problems.

[GreaterMontréal]

152m in Montréal
MPM-10 = 1068 passengers