Highways in Canada - Page 379

Dengler Avenue · #**7561** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 12:58 AM**

“There is never going to be a situation where congestion is eliminated completely from Toronto (or any city), but at least if you built the GTA West highway, for example, and toll it, you'd probably put some downward pressure on the 407 tolls, which I wouldn't be a bad thing for the people who actually live here.”

I fully support that. 407ETR’s such a cash cow.

Ps: Thanks for explaining why there are no HOV lanes on the 401. That’s bugged me for quite a while. Don’t get me wrong, I do get that for some people, their work involves using a car. I just wanna see good public transit take away a bulk of the people that really don’t need to use their cars.

wave46 · #**7562** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 1:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonysnob

The idea that millions of more people are going to live in the GTA but we can't build any new highway capacity for those people is irritating. As good as we make public transit, some of these new residents are going to have to drive places from time to time, and we need the highway infrastructure to support that.

There is never going to be a situation where congestion is eliminated completely from Toronto (or any city), but at least if you built the GTA West highway, for example, and toll it, you'd probably put some downward pressure on the 407 tolls, which I wouldn't be a bad thing for the people who actually live here.

Does the province have a corridor in mind for the GTA West highway?

Also, how does the Greenbelt affect highway planning? Can the province still use that land for highway building?

Dengler Avenue · #**7563** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 1:19 AM**

First question: Yes.
Second question: Probably yes...? That’s the source of all controversies about ON-413.

sonysnob · #**7564** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

Does the province have a corridor in mind for the GTA West highway?

Also, how does the Greenbelt affect highway planning? Can the province still use that land for highway building?

There is specific text in the greenbelt act that permits transportation corridors so long as they meet specific requirements.

*edit* from the act:

Quote:

Objectives
5 The objectives of the Greenbelt Plan are,

(a) to establish a network of countryside and open space areas which supports the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment;

(b) to sustain the countryside, rural and small towns and contribute to the economic viability of farming communities;

(c) to preserve agricultural land as a continuing commercial source of food and employment;

(d) to recognize the critical importance of the agriculture sector to the regional economy;

(e) to provide protection to the land base needed to maintain, restore and improve the ecological and hydrological functions of the Greenbelt Area;

(f) to promote connections between lakes and the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment;

(g) to provide open space and recreational, tourism and cultural heritage opportunities to support the social needs of a rapidly expanding and increasingly urbanized population;

(h) to promote linkages between ecosystems and provincial parks or public lands;

(i) to control urbanization of the lands to which the Greenbelt Plan applies;

(j) to ensure that the development of transportation and infrastructure proceeds in an environmentally sensitive manner;

(k) to promote sustainable resource use;

(l) any other prescribed objectives. 2005, c. 1, s. 5.

and

Same
(2) The Greenbelt Plan may set out policies with respect to the areas designated by it as Protected Countryside, including,

(a) policies prohibiting any use of land or the erection, location and use of buildings or structures for, or except for, such purposes as may be set out;

(b) policies restricting or regulating the use of land or the erection, location and use of buildings or structures;

(c) policies relating to land and resource protection and land development; and

(d) policies for the economic and physical development of the land including,

(i) the management of land and water resources,

(ii) the development of major servicing, communication and transportation systems,

(iii) the identification of major land use areas and the provision of major parks and open space, and

(iv) the development of cultural, recreational and tourism facilities;

(e) policies,

(i) prohibiting official plans and zoning by-laws from containing provisions that relate to specified matters and are more restrictive than the provisions relating to such matters that are contained in the Greenbelt Plan, and

(ii) specifying matters referred to in subclause (i);

(f) land use policies to support the long-term viability of agriculture in the Protected Countryside; and

(g) such other policies as may be prescribed. 2005, c. 1, s. 6 (2).

The Greenbelt Act requires the Government of the day to have a plan to protect the lands designated as part of the greenbelt, but just from looking at this act (and not being a lawyer), it looks like the government of the day would be free to create any plan they chose, so long as it was consistent with the broader requirements specified in the act.

wave46 · #**7565** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonysnob

There is specific text in the greenbelt act that permits transportation corridors so long as they meet specific requirements.

The Greenbelt Act requires the Government of the day to have a plan to protect the lands designated as part of the greenbelt, but just from looking at this act (and not being a lawyer), it looks like the government of the day would be free to create any plan they chose, so long as it was consistent with the broader requirements specified in the act.

Interesting. I suppose the Government could amend the law to serve its own purposes too.

I wonder if they'll run the GTA West highway from Teston Rd. at the 400 to meet up with the 410 and eventually following the new highway 7 alignment between Guelph and Kitchener.

Dengler Avenue · #**7566** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

Interesting. I suppose the Government could amend the law to serve its own purposes too.

I wonder if they'll run the GTA West highway from Teston Rd. at the 400 to meet up with the 410 and eventually following the new highway 7 alignment between Guelph and Kitchener.

I think it’s set in stone that Highway 413 will end at 401/407 interchage in the west and join 400 near King-Vaughan Road.

sonysnob · #**7567** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I think it’s set in stone that Highway 413 will end at 401/407 interchage in the west and join 400 near King-Vaughan Road.

Nothing is set in stone. That seems like a likely option because the province reserved land along that axis for a hydro corridor, but because they have to go through the EA process again more options could come back onto the table.

The province is likely going to drop any plans for High Speed Rail along the CN line through Kitchener, and that could have potential impacts on the future GTA West corridor as well.

Dengler Avenue · #**7568** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Nothing is set in stone. That seems like a likely option because the province reserved land along that axis for a hydro corridor, but because they have to go through the EA process again more options could come back onto the table.

The province is likely going to drop any plans for High Speed Rail along the CN line through Kitchener, and that could have potential impacts on the future GTA West corridor as well.

I think at this point, we should technically move the conversation to the Ontario Highway thread. But, if KWCG are back on the table as a potential terminus of this tolled freeway, can this be why Highway 7 Kitchener - Guelph Freeway remains under “line-by-line review”? I mean, could the province be looking at the possibility of joining that with 413?

sonysnob · #**7569** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 2:22 AM**

I doubt it will have too much of an implication on Highway 7 between K/W and Guelph. That highway is designed and EA approved, and preliminary work has already been undertaken for it's construction. Going back to the drawing board would be a lot of work, and involve throw away cost. There have been some updated thoughts in recent years on how best to tie in Highway 7 to Highway 6 at the Hanlon, so that's something.

And please, for my sake, don't call GTA West Highway 413. I don't know who came up with that number, but it's not something the MTO designated, and the MTO has deliberately avoided highways numbered as 13 and 113, so I think for historical reasons they'll avoid designating a Highway numbered 413 as well.

I think the 413 number came from a Toronto Star article that was decidedly not in favour of building the new highway from a couple of years ago. That was the first reference I have seen to that number.

Dengler Avenue · #**7570** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonysnob

I doubt it will have too much of an implication on Highway 7 between K/W and Guelph. That highway is designed and EA approved, and preliminary work has already been undertaken for it's construction. Going back to the drawing board would be a lot of work, and involve throw away cost. There have been some updated thoughts in recent years on how best to tie in Highway 7 to Highway 6 at the Hanlon, so that's something.

And please, for my sake, don't call GTA West Highway 413. I don't know who came up with that number, but it's not something the MTO designated, and the MTO has deliberately avoided highways numbered as 13 and 113, so I think for historical reasons they'll avoid designating a Highway numbered 413 as well.

I think the 413 number came from a Toronto Star article that was decidedly not in favour of building the new highway from a couple of years ago. That was the first reference I have seen to that number.

Oops I didn’t know. Thanks for letting me know.

craner · #**7571** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 3:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How wide of a highway is enough?

The 401 by Pearson is 18 lanes wide. When do we get to the point that wider highways are not solving anything. If they were, the 401 would be smooth sailing even in rush hour.

I get what your saying and agree it gets to be ridiculous when your talking about adding lanes to a freeway that is already 18 lanes wide.
But at the other end of the spectrum you have Vancouver where the two major highways (1 & 99) have not been expanded since they were built in the 1950s when Vancouver was 1/7th it's current population. That is ridiculous too.

* Yes I know a portion of the #1 was expanded in the last decade. I'm speaking about this current widening by one lane each direction to Langley? that was quashed by the NDP.

craner · #**7572** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 3:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonysnob

And please, for my sake, don't call GTA West Highway 413. I don't know who came up with that number, but it's not something the MTO designated, and the MTO has deliberately avoided highways numbered as 13 and 113, so I think for historical reasons they'll avoid designating a Highway numbered 413 as well.

I think the 413 number came from a Toronto Star article that was decidedly not in favour of building the new highway from a couple of years ago. That was the first reference I have seen to that number.

What is wrong with 413 ?
Just because of superstition ?

sonysnob · #**7573** Posted **Feb 19, 2019, 3:44 AM**

Back when Ontario was first numbering highways in the 1920s there was supposed to be a Highway 13. Seemingly at the last minute, a decision was made to number what was supposed to be Highway 13, as Highway 12A. Highway 12A was later renumbered to Highway 28. For whatever reason, there was a decision to skip Highway 113 as well. There is a highway numbered 613 however, and there has been a Highway 513 as well.

So yeah, it's just a silly superstition, but I do think it will have bearing on the decision to number GTA West.

Dmajackson · #**7574** Posted **Feb 21, 2019, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

NB has roughly 800 km of fully grade separated and limited access freeway for a population of only 757,000 people.

That's 1 km of freeway for every 950 people!

Beat that ratio Ontario! I dare you..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I didn't include our super twos. I only included proper freeways.

I don't have the precise figures, but I doubt there is more than 500 km of proper freeway in NS.

According to my math there is ~433km of proper expressway in Nova Scotia. That works out to 1km for every 2'100 Bluenosers.

There is at least 15km under construction right now.

Dengler Avenue · #**7575** Posted **Feb 21, 2019, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

According to my math there is ~433km of proper expressway in Nova Scotia. That works out to 1km for every 2'100 Bluenosers.

There is at least 15km under construction right now.

15 km? The twinning of 101 through Windsor and of 103 past Tentallon?

=======

Also, TCH’s shut down around Canmore, A.B. due to massive pileups.

q12 · #**7576** Posted **Feb 21, 2019, 4:27 PM**

$200 Million plus Burnside Expressway (107) is going ahead this spring. This will almost complete a nearly continuous outer ring road around Halifax from Bayers Road (102) to Pleasent Street and/or Mackay Bridge (111). This expressway will connect all freeways in the Halifax area without interruptions. (101, 102, 103, 107, 111, 118)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...-help-build-burnside-connector-1.5027668

UPDATED MAP: