Red Hill Creek Expressway

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I'd rather have the money spent on widening the 403 from four to six lanes from the Meadowlands area to Aldershot instead of widening the Linc.

Most of the congestion on the Linc is because of people trying to merge onto the 403.

Because of the escarpment, it would be extremely expensive to widen the 403 through there. I have read it called 'cost prohibitive,' in fact.

I can't remember which report, but the province had a study investigating various traffic "solutions" in the western GTA, some of which were rather pie in the sky. One was to add a second deck to the 403, so expensive would it be to widen it.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by haljackey

The Linc/Red Hill's volume isn't coming from just increases in local use, but from its use for long distance traffic.

They have taken some stress off 403/QEW. I use them instead to get to Niagara Falls from London ever since the Red Hill opened.

SteelTown's right that this is a good argument for congestion pricing on the Linc and Red Hill. Or uploading. Preferably both.

Originally Posted by haljackey

I'd say that building new highways will do more to encourage sprawl rather than widening these highways.

Adding highway capacity leads to sprawl, whether from new highways or additional capacity to existing highways. And this isn't primarily a long-distance highway, but an urban expressway which largely serves sprawl.

Originally Posted by haljackey

New highways don't even necessarily encourage sprawl. Example: northern London is sprawling like a weed and there are no highways anywhere around the area.

That suggests that sprawl can happen without highway capacity, but doesn't suggest that new highway capacity doesn't exacerbate the pace of sprawl. In East Hamilton, it has been. If north (and south and west...) London had a costly urban freeway to serve car commuters, maybe it would be consuming farm land even faster than it has been.

[SteelTown]

They'll have to do something eventually, it's getting worst and worst. Traffic used to be backed up to Garth St but now I've seen it backed all the up to Upper James now. All wanting to get on the 403.

They did a great job fixing up Clappison Corners so I can't see why not on the 403. Sure it's more drilling but it's gotta be done somehow and someway.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Induced demand...

[realcity]

It's not sprawl the RedHill and especially the Linc cut through neighbourhoods from the 60s to 80s that were already there. What's new is that Hamilton is becoming a bedroom community to Mississauga and Toronto, where they used to commute to downtown or to the east end they now commute to Halton, Peel, and Toronto and need these highways. It should've been 6 lanes from the beginning.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by realcity

It's not sprawl the RedHill and especially the Linc cut through neighbourhoods from the 60s to 80s that were already there. What's new is that Hamilton is becoming a bedroom community to Mississauga and Toronto, where they used to commute to downtown or to the east end they now commute to Halton, Peel, and Toronto and need these highways. It should've been 6 lanes from the beginning.

I don't think Hamilton becoming something of a bedroom community is a new phenomenon, but is it something the city should want to promote or enable?

You can not claim that the expressways have not enabled sprawl. There's a tonne of it being created as we speak on the east mountain that depends on the Linc and RHVP. Even Binbrook would not be able to be the sprawling mess it has become without the expressways.

[realcity]

O really? Since it was planned by the City in the 50s....long before sprawl up there, and got built 60 years later, well beyond sprawl already happened. I don't think you can blame the LINC on sprawl, it was already there.

ie: sprawl happened before the highway. something the anti-sprawlers like to think that highways promote sprawl, when in fact the highways come last.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^FACT! All of it...

[urban_planner]

Originally Posted by realcity

O really? Since it was planned by the City in the 50s....long before sprawl up there, and got built 60 years later, well beyond sprawl already happened. I don't think you can blame the LINC on sprawl, it was already there.

ie: sprawl happened before the highway. something the anti-sprawlers like to think that highways promote sprawl, when in fact the highways come last.

I think your bang on here. also I remember pre Linc days driving across the mountain trying to get to the 403 and it look forever driving along Mohawk. back in those days stone church only went to upper horning then you had to cut down to Mohawk. it took a good 20mins at least. now even with traffic its much quicker on the Linc.

I hope they more forward with this sooner rather than later. I don't think tolling it going to reverse sprawl its just going to make arteries worse.

and like it or not the city is going to continue to spread out its just whether or not they dive on a highway or clog up other roads. Speaking of other roads, maybe they should just widen stone church a couple more lanes and the full length of Rymal Road, imagine that were to happen oh the madness. At least the Linc an RHVP would stay 4 lanes.

[Jon Dalton]

If only we could just pick up and move the pavement from Hamilton's thousands of kilometers of underused roadway we still pay to maintain. Otherwise we are just adding costs to an already unaffordable roads budget. Now if the drivers who beg for these roads were willing to pay user fees for an uncongested highway that would be different.

[flar]

The sprawl is going to happen regardless of the highways. It's simple. People want new homes, with yards, away from downtown/poverty/the unknown. Yes, there are growing numbers of urbanites and young people who want to live in the city, but they're still the minority. As soon as people get the pressures of family and work, they want the easiest thing. That means a suburban home that's cheap and easy to buy, with (presumably) no immediate maintenance issues. For some strange reason, people will endure ungodly commutes to achieve this dream.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by flar

The sprawl is going to happen regardless of the highways. It's simple. People want new homes, with yards, away from downtown/poverty/the unknown.

Right, but they want them only if other people will help pay for them. And the subsidies to the suburbs are unsustainable; when the true cost is borne by the people buying these houses, they will stop wanting them at that price soon enough.

In Hamilton, a condo-dweller who takes the bus to work contributes the same amount to the roads budget as someone who lives in Binbrook (or wherever) and commutes tens of kilometres each way to work, and has to get in the car and inflict wear and tear on the roads to get a loaf of bread. That can't stay that way forever.

[flar]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Right, but they want them only if other people will help pay for them. And the subsidies to the suburbs are unsustainable; when the true cost is borne by the people buying these houses, they will stop wanting them at that price soon enough.

In Hamilton, a condo-dweller who takes the bus to work contributes the same amount to the roads budget as someone who lives in Binbrook (or wherever) and commutes tens of kilometres each way to work, and has to get in the car and inflict wear and tear on the roads to get a loaf of bread. That can't stay that way forever.

Compare to Ottawa, where many people are priced out to the far-flung suburbs and commute by park and ride + express bus. Some of these people commute 4 hours a day. Despite transitway service, it's still sprawl. Ottawa sprawls worse than Hamilton, actually.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by flar

Compare to Ottawa, where many people are priced out to the far-flung suburbs and commute by park and ride + express bus. Some of these people commute 4 hours a day. Despite transitway service, it's still sprawl. Ottawa sprawls worse than Hamilton, actually.

If I'm not mistaken Ottawa has a strict urban boundary similar to the Greenbelt around Toronto and the effect is sprawl leapfrogs over that boundary and even further into the suburbs that surround it. Is that the case and does that make it worse than a city that just sprawls continually from wherever it ends?

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by flar

That means a suburban home that's cheap and easy to buy, with (presumably) no immediate maintenance issues. For some strange reason, people will endure ungodly commutes to achieve this dream.

The problem is suburban home owners, generally, are not paying the true cost of that home.

It's poor city planning that is driving that market more than true market demand because it's so heavily subsidized.

Hamilton's annual infrastructure deficit is $195 million with the total debt at around $3.3 billion.

When do we stop this trend?

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Who's the City working for, right? Well, that's pretty clear actually...

[king10]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

The problem is suburban home owners, generally, are not paying the true cost of that home.

It's poor city planning that is driving that market more than true market demand because it's so heavily subsidized.

Hamilton's annual infrastructure deficit is $195 million with the total debt at around $3.3 billion.

When do we stop this trend?

That infrastructure debt is over exaggerated though. Those numbers are run under the assumption that all roads are in pristine condition, freshly paved within the year. Which would never be the case for ALL city roads.

Sometimes numbers are skewed to drive home someones point.

Another issue impacting road conditions, isn't even the lack of funding. It's the fact there aren't enough construction crews and engineering firms available to carry out the jobs that funding has been earmarked for.

In summary, we ARE behind on infrastructure. But the numbers being stated over exaggerate the problem.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by king10

That infrastructure debt is over exaggerated though. Those numbers are run under the assumption that all roads are in pristine condition, freshly paved within the year. Which would never be the case for ALL city roads.

Can you point to something that corroborates this? I've read reports by organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, C.D. Howe, so on. Are you saying they exaggerate? If so, why, and in what specific way, and where did you read this?

It's true that the figure CaptainKirk quoted ($3.3 billion) is the cost that would be incurred to maintain or upgrade all existing infrastructure; you're right about that. It doesn't include any new infrastructure. Since the City's entire budget is less than two billion dollars, this is staggering.

And you missed his point that (by the City's own admission), it is adding to the liability at a rate of almost $200 million every year. Not only are we not making progress at reducing our infrastructure liability, we are adding to it: by undertaking inadequate maintenance on our existing assets, and actually adding more assets for which we do not have the resources to maintain.

By the way, you say "Another issue impacting road conditions, isn't even the lack of funding. It's the fact there aren't enough construction crews and engineering firms available to carry out the jobs that funding has been earmarked for." Is that true? Does Public Works at the end of each year say "we didn't spend our entire budget because there are no construction staff who can be hired, so here is some of our funding back"?

[king10]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Can you point to something that corroborates this? I've read reports by organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, C.D. Howe, so on. Are you saying they exaggerate? If so, why, and in what specific way, and where did you read this?

It's true that the figure CaptainKirk quoted ($3.3 billion) is the cost that would be incurred to maintain or upgrade all existing infrastructure; you're right about that. It doesn't include any new infrastructure. Since the City's entire budget is less than two billion dollars, this is staggering.

And you missed his point that (by the City's own admission), it is adding to the liability at a rate of almost $200 million every year. Not only are we not making progress at reducing our infrastructure liability, we are adding to it: by undertaking inadequate maintenance on our existing assets, and actually adding more assets for which we do not have the resources to maintain.

By the way, you say "Another issue impacting road conditions, isn't even the lack of funding. It's the fact there aren't enough construction crews and engineering firms available to carry out the jobs that funding has been earmarked for." Is that true? Does Public Works at the end of each year say "we didn't spend our entire budget because there are no construction staff who can be hired, so here is some of our funding back"?

The exaggerated number/ infrastructure debt i was referencing was hamilton specific. I cant comment on other municipalities and I'd assume whoever/ whatever you referenced is factual.

And the funding can be rolled over to the next year or redistributed among other city departments.

I dont argue against the notion that we are adding to our infatructure debt. What im saying is the numbers are overstated.

For example the $200 million infrastructure debt includes repaving an entire residential survey because of some potholes instead of filling them with asphalt.

we rarely rebuild pothole-ridden residential streets because most roads cash is hoarded for vital arterials and bridges.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/55...fordable-city/

The roads that are added to the backlog are most often smaller residential roads.

Im on the same side as you though. I agree something needs to be done about sprawl. It isn't a Hamilton specific thing though. Its a North American thing. And we need help from the provincial and federal government to change this trend. Hamilton won't be able to solve the infrastructure/ sprawl issue on its own.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by haljackey

New highways don't even necessarily encourage sprawl. Example: northern London is sprawling like a weed and there are no highways anywhere around the area.

Sprawl is car-dependent but it can exist without capital-H highways. Highways just reduce disincentives around the spawl model of development.

Would the situation in north London be the same if Fanshawe Park Rd (the historic Highway 22) were two lanes rather than four to six? Possibly.

BTW, Calamity Corners — where Highway 22 meets Highway 4 (aka Richmond St./Western Rd.) is an evocative name for a suburban power centre intersection — it's like they had a contest and James Howard Kunstler won.