Highways in Canada

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the 407 did ease 401 congestion. There is a lot of traffic on it.

It would not have made the 401 free flow. the 401 is the busiest highway on the planet, its beyond help.

If it were not tolled, the 407 would have much more traffic on it. Ye it did ease the traffic slightly from the 401, but it would have eased more if there were no tolls.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Singapore's system is large. They have double the population, yet triple the transit.

Precisely. Something to aim for.

I love Toronto but getting around here is the worst part about this city, and the last thing I would tell Vancouver to do transit-wise is be more like Toronto.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have lived in Nova Scotia, BC and Ontario. I have driven through all province except for NL. I have not been in the Territories.

Divided highways in Canada are a joke. Besides Ontario and Quebec, most other provinces do not have much. Even Ontario a Quebec are lacking.

Nothing in BC, or anything west of Ontario impresses me about the highways, except the Port Mann Bridge.

Vancouver, and BC on a whole is anti freeway. The upside is, it has caused them to have the longest Rapid Transit in the country - Skytrain. Currently it is larger than the TTC subway and Montreal Metro.

BC uses movable K rail for the centre median on it's freeways. Doing so in Ontario outside of being temporary is illegal.

Only one province currently has a freeway end to end of their province. That would be Highway 2 in New Brunswick. Soon Quebec will finish A 85, and then they will have a network that goes between the borders.

Ontario has the most freeways in Canada. It has the widest freeway in North America at 18 lanes wide - 401 at the Airport. It has some amazing 4 stack interchanges. Those allow you to maintain highway speed when going from one freeway to the next. And we are still building more freeways. Highway 400 is being extended north. It should be continuous to Sudbury within the next 10-20 years. Highway 417 is being extended west as well. It likely will reach Sudbury at the 400 in about 20 years. If it were built to the Manitoba border, that would mean replacing 1700km of 2 lane highway. That likely could happen in the next 50 years.

The best city to get around in by freeway is - Montreal. It has more freeways than other cities, and they go everywhere. Toronto is lacking in a few places due to the cancellation of some of it's urban freeways in the 60s and 70s.

So, people from BC, talk to me when you have a freeway over 6 lanes on one side of your freeway. Talk to me when you have a 4 stack interchange. Talk to me when you pour concrete for your barriers, instead of using temporary K rails.

Or, you could just be civil about it, and talk about new and improvements and not about how you are the best, or have the best things. Because, on this "Highways in Canada" thread, you don't.

Calm down. The claim made by Metro One was most impressive in western Canada. We all know BC is anti-freeway and that their highway standards leave a lot to be desired. Their habit of 4-laning highways and not dividing them is beyond stupid as far as I'm concerned.

AB has a lot of divided highways. Where are you getting that there isn't much? We might not have a 4 stack interchange but there's no place that I can think of where we need one. BC and AB need more urban freeways that can handle growing volumes but then so does ON. The 401 is impressive in terms of size but when it comes to other aspects not so much. ON having the most freeways isn't all that impressive either when you consider how much bigger it is in terms of population. Based on videos posted here Quebec City seems to have a great system for a city of its size. Edmonton's probably better than a lot of people think as well.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Going back to BC for a second, I'm going to further explain my point of view with a screen shot from Google Street view.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.093773,-1...neKgl8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

To me, this is such an ugly highway. The bridge rail at the top of the overpass doesn't match the dimensions of the concrete beneath it. The central pier is way too narrow, and looks flimsy compared to the thick slab of concrete that it supports. The closed end bridge abutments make the highway seem like it's in a much more constrained environment that it needs to, and the k-rail barriers are just ugly. Pre-cast barriers don't have to be as ugly as the ones BC uses, but they are.

Interesting example, appreciate the specificity.

I agree the look for the jersey barriers is not the best, but they work and are cost effective. As a taxpayer I'd rather they use the most cost effective solution. Trying to make highways beautiful is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

To be honest, I don't really see how your example is any worse than this, in fact i's almost identical:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6462494,-...llDLtcelyDcyqimyGg3bQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I would go so far as to say that ourtside of the jersey barriers I prefer the Vancouver example. And as for the abutments, I actually much prefer the constrained environment, seems more big city and urban compared the sprawling interchanges you see in a place like Dallas where land is cheap.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Precisely. Something to aim for.

I love Toronto but getting around here is the worst part about this city, and the last thing I would tell Vancouver to do transit-wise is be more like Toronto.

Comparing the transportation system in Canada to that of a Singapore is not a particularly realistic comparison. Because Singapore is an island city state, there is comparative little need for transportation demand outside of the city core. In Canada, where there is massive amounts of land to explore and make use of, there is going to be considerably more demand for more flexible transportation systems.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Interesting example, appreciate the specificity.

I agree the look for the jersey barriers is not the best, but they work and are cost effective. As a taxpayer I'd rather they use the most cost effective solution. Trying to make highways beautiful is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

To be honest, I don't really see how your example is any worse than this, in fact i's almost identical:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6462494,-...llDLtcelyDcyqimyGg3bQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I would go so far as to say that ourtside of the jersey barriers I prefer the Vancouver example. And as for the abutments, I actually much prefer the constrained environment, seems more big city and urban compared the sprawling interchanges you see in a place like Dallas where land is cheap.

Completely your opinion but how does the Vancouver picture seem more big city it's out in the middle of farm land. The two pictures are quite different notice how torontos had a nice trench with grass hills on each side, lower highway means a less steep incline for the overpass. Toronto's actually looks big city, Vancouver looks constrained and cheap

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Interesting example, appreciate the specificity.

I agree the look for the jersey barriers is not the best, but they work and are cost effective. As a taxpayer I'd rather they use the most cost effective solution. Trying to make highways beautiful is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

To be honest, I don't really see how your example is any worse than this, in fact i's almost identical:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6462494,-...llDLtcelyDcyqimyGg3bQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I would go so far as to say that ourtside of the jersey barriers I prefer the Vancouver example. And as for the abutments, I actually much prefer the constrained environment, seems more big city and urban compared the sprawling interchanges you see in a place like Dallas where land is cheap.

The example you posted on the 427 is an outlier in Ontario. It's the only section of highway to use that design of pre-cast barrier, and I agree, it's ugly.

Pre-cast barriers aren't particularly common in Ontario, however something like this is much cleaner looking:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.2212389,-...34egvpMF6cei-x74e3iKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's not so much a matter of cost. Building an aesthetically ugly highway costs about the same as building an aesthetically pleasing highway. I doubt anybody would defend an ugly building, or a needlessly ugly transit station. Highways are something that thousands of people use every day, there is not spending at least some attention to detail to make something that a lot of people see everyday look decent.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by libtard

Completely your opinion but how does the Vancouver picture seem more big city it's out in the middle of farm land.

If you re-read what I wrote I just said that a solid wall abutment looks more big city to me than a graded grass slope. One screams effective use of constrained land and the other just seems spread out.

Of course the location of the 99 isn't urban at all I was merely stating my preference for the style of abutment used in the examples provided.

Originally Posted by sonysnob

The example you posted on the 427 is an outlier in Ontario. It's the only section of highway to use that design of pre-cast barrier, and I agree, it's ugly.

Pre-cast barriers aren't particularly common in Ontario, however something like this is much cleaner looking:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.2212389,-...34egvpMF6cei-x74e3iKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's not so much a matter of cost. Building an aesthetically ugly highway costs about the same as building an aesthetically pleasing highway. I doubt anybody would defend an ugly building, or a needlessly ugly transit station. Highways are something that thousands of people use every day, there is not spending at least some attention to detail to make something that a lot of people see everyday look decent.

I wasn't really talking about the barriers, I thought the ones on the 427 were temporary anyway. I was looking at the bridge. You criticized the BC bridge as having skinny unappealing columns and the rails not matching the bridges dimensions properly. The columns in the 427 example are the exact same size but for an even larger span and the rail is just as short as the BC example.

Honestly who even cares about the size of the rail on an overpass, you're driving under it at about 120km/h, I wouldn't even begin to notice something like that.

There's plenty to complain about with BC highway construction but I really don't think that bridge is it. Not planning for the future and intersections that should be interchanges... that's the painful stuff.

[urbancanadian]

What are some examples of HOV/bus-only interchanges in the GTA? I'd be interested to see how they are designed. Also which bus routes run on the freeways in Toronto?

(I would normally look around on Google Maps but I just don't have the time this week.)

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I wasn't really talking about the barriers, I thought the ones on the 427 were temporary anyway. I was looking at the bridge. You criticized the BC bridge as having skinny unappealing columns and the rails not matching the bridges dimensions properly. The columns in the 427 example are the exact same size but for an even larger span and the rail is just as short as the BC example.

Honestly who even cares about the size of the rail on an overpass, you're driving under it at about 120km/h, I wouldn't even begin to notice something like that.

There's plenty to complain about with BC highway construction but I really don't think that bridge is it. Not planning for the future and intersections that should be interchanges... that's the painful stuff.

I do? There is a forum full of people who complain about ugly transit stations? Why are highways so different?

And yes, the 427 bridge is much more aesthetically pleasing. The abutments are pulled back from the edges of the freeway leading to a much more airy looking roadway, the bottom of the bridge is nicely streamlined. The parapet wall is proportional to the thickness of the girder, and the double steel rail give the bridge a nice profile. I see excellent example brutalist design on the 427 overpass.

Nothing was proportional on the overpass I posted a photo of in BC.

[LeftCoaster]

Brutalist? It's a highway bridge, not an office tower. It's designed by an engineer not an architect. Why is it different than a transit station? Because of exactly that.

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If the 407 was not a toll highway, it would have eased congestion off the 401.



Singapore's system is large. They have double the population, yet triple the transit.

Actually, Singapore is smaller than the GTA. 5.6mil vs 6.1mil. If that is the comparison you are talking about.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Brutalist? It's a highway bridge, not an office tower. It's designed by an engineer not an architect. Why is it different than a transit station? Because of exactly that.

Built form is built form. Doesn't matter who stamps the drawings.

[LeftCoaster]

So we should be equally critical of a surface parking lot as we are the Empire State Building?

infrastructure is not as feature rich as an architecturally designed building, so unless it is a feature bridge I really think that highway overpasses don't necessitate the level of design scrutiny that goes past a functional level.

Besides the overpass in question is completely symmetrical, what more could one want from a utilitarian piece of transportation infrastructure.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So we should be equally critical of a surface parking lot as we are the Empire State Building?

infrastructure is not as feature rich as an architecturally designed building, so unless it is a feature bridge I really think that highway overpasses don't necessitate the level of design scrutiny that goes past a functional level.

Besides the overpass in question is completely symmetrical, what more could one want from a utilitarian piece of transportation infrastructure.

Then why defend the Empire State building then if it's utility is just an office building?

Why hire an architect to build a school if it's only value is kids sitting in a classroom?

Beauty is never required for a structure to perform its utility. Why should public infrastructure be any different?

[LeftCoaster]

A fair point, but architects aren't hired to design highway overpasses, so clearly the public doesn't place a value on that. Critiquing the beauty of something designed by an engineer seems like critiquing the efficient use of paint in a work by an artist. It just isn't the intended medium on which the object should be judged.

Anyway, we certainly disagree on the merits of what necessitates good freeway design. You place a higher value on aesthetics and I feel to a reasonable level I am not concerned with aesthetics and simply concerned about function. Even when we discuss aesthetics we seem to disagree because I find the highway 99 example (outside of jersey barriers) to be a good looking symmetrical design, so let's just leave it at we disagree. I'm ok with that!

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

A fair point, but architects aren't hired to design highway overpasses, so clearly the public doesn't place a value on that. Critiquing the beauty of something designed by an engineer seems like critiquing the efficient use of paint in a work by an artist. It just isn't the intended medium on which the object should be judged.

Anyway, we certainly disagree on the merits of what necessitates good freeway design. You place a higher value on aesthetics and I feel to a reasonable level I am not concerned with aesthetics and simply concerned about function. Even when we discuss aesthetics we seem to disagree because I find the highway 99 example (outside of jersey barriers) to be a good looking symmetrical design, so let's just leave it at we disagree. I'm ok with that!

Roadway and freeway design does usually involve a landscape architecture component though.

And, I think it's worth noting that just because an engineer didn't go to architecture school means that they needn't pay attention to aesthetics.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by holhm22

Actually, Singapore is smaller than the GTA. 5.6mil vs 6.1mil. If that is the comparison you are talking about.

Nope. I was comparing the city of Toronto, not the GTA.

[swimmer_spe]

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.9179177,-...Al1gJGqvBsY-8uw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

This is a better idea of a pleasing highway interchange. Note, they have the poured concrete Ontario Tall Wall and the temporary K Rails. This is in prep for the area to be widened.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7842492,-...BCQIS5c8SndU4GQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

One of a couple 4 stack interchanges in the GTA. Gloriously beautiful.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

AB has a lot of divided highways. Where are you getting that there isn't much? We might not have a 4 stack interchange but there's no place that I can think of where we need one. BC and AB need more urban freeways that can handle growing volumes but then so does ON. The 401 is impressive in terms of size but when it comes to other aspects not so much. ON having the most freeways isn't all that impressive either when you consider how much bigger it is in terms of population. Based on videos posted here Quebec City seems to have a great system for a city of its size. Edmonton's probably better than a lot of people think as well.

I spent a week in Quebec City earlier this month and would agree that it has the best system of freeways of any major city in Canada. It was so easy and quick getting anywhere. None of them were very busy. In the Summer, the freeways are quite busy with tourist and Summer traffic though.