[drum118]

April 8
Had a look at the new bridge at Leslie and the bridge over the Don today. From the alignment, it will become an off ramp for the DVP/404 sooner than later as well deal with the backup on the current lanes at peak time or there are problems on the the roads. It may cut down on the lane jumpers for those impassioned drivers would cannot sit in the backup like most drivers.

 

[lenaitch]

It’s a somewhat longer, more boring drive, but it’s flatter and more reliable.

The actual extra distance is only around 20-odd kilometers; although I will admit that it seems much, much longer.

11 is rarely closed; 17 is often closed along Lake Superior in winter

I don't know if it is changing weather patterns, more risk-averse crews, or what, but I've noticed over the last few years that closures of Hwy 11 as well as connecting routes like 101, 129 141 and 631 have become much more frequent. Certainly not to the level of Hwy 17 north of the Soo, but when I worked up there, a weather-related closure of 11 was almost unheard of whereas 17 was closed multiple times during any given winter.

 

[enter username]

It seems Ford is considering every highway option except for the one that would work - congestion pricing.
The province will soon be issuing a request for proposals on the tunnel — as first promised by Ford last fall, prior to the Feb. 27 provincial election — as well as “other potential infrastructure options … including elevated highways and adjacent routing” while also asking for “identification and assessment of all non-infrastructure options to maximize effectiveness of infrastructure investments (e.g. the operational and demand management strategies including peak period shoulder use, express bus service, etc.),” the report says.

 

[ARG1]

It seems Ford is considering every highway option except for the one that would work - congestion pricing.
The province will soon be issuing a request for proposals on the tunnel — as first promised by Ford last fall, prior to the Feb. 27 provincial election — as well as “other potential infrastructure options … including elevated highways and adjacent routing” while also asking for “identification and assessment of all non-infrastructure options to maximize effectiveness of infrastructure investments (e.g. the operational and demand management strategies including peak period shoulder use, express bus service, etc.),” the report says.

I struggle to understand what Congestion Pricing has to do with this. The goal is to increase how many vehicles can travel through Toronto, not get picturesque traffic free views of the 401. This would be like solving the Line 1 overcrowding problem by setting the TTC fare to $20: it would work but it misses the point.

And yes, you could make the argument that we shouldn't be building more highways and that we should focus on alternate forms of travel - however that's a separate discussion not directly tied to the government precurring a list of options to improve 401 capacity.

 

[Haljackey]

So this just dumps people off at Highway 4 and expects them to drive on the local road to the 401? Doesn't exactly seem like the smartest design decision.

The name of the game with this highway is providing a free-flowing connection to the VW Battery Plant quickly. At the end of the day, this achieves the goal of a free-flowing four-lane connection due to the fact that Sunset/Colonel Talbot Road does not have any traffic lights in this section. It is a very underutilized and overbuilt road.

Obviously, the ideal design for a full buildout would include a further extension and a proper freeway-to-freeway interchange with HWY 401, most likely near the intersection with Southminster Bourne, but that would add extra years to the project timeline.

For trucks going NB on Highway 4 to the 401, there will be a new stoplight at the 401 EB offramp at Highway 4, I would imagine? As west London grows, lots of people use the old cloverleaf ramp that is getting gutted as part of the reconstruction. However it was even busier before the Wonderland Road interchange was built.

But ya I agree full interchanges on Highway 3 are kinda excessive unless the ultimate goal is a full freeway connection continuing west to the 401. That may happen some day, but it would involve redoing the new roundabout at Highways 3 and 4.

Londoners are looking on with envy yet again that another city is getting a freeway before us, but St.Thomas had the foresight to protect a corridor in the 1970s for a possible future freeway and now it's happening. London didn't do squat- unless you count the intersection-prone VMP. During busy times it now takes me 3 light cycles to get through some intersections that should have been interchanges from the start. When the twinning happened it was after the province downloaded it to the city, and the city alone couldn't afford the interchanges- just partial twinning.

 

[nfitz]

I struggle to understand what Congestion Pricing has to do with this. The goal is to increase how many vehicles can travel through Toronto, not get picturesque traffic free views of the 401.

You can get more vehicles through Toronto on the 401 if it moved faster. So congestion pricing to get up to an 80 or 90 km/hr speed would increase capacity not reduce it. Reducing congestion.

Though the way I read the announcement, it didn't include the examination of congestion pricing. The word "economic" was there. But I can't find the release now.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I struggle to understand what Congestion Pricing has to do with this. The goal is to increase how many vehicles can travel through Toronto, not get picturesque traffic free views of the 401. This would be like solving the Line 1 overcrowding problem by setting the TTC fare to $20: it would work but it misses the point.

And yes, you could make the argument that we shouldn't be building more highways and that we should focus on alternate forms of travel - however that's a separate discussion not directly tied to the government precurring a list of options to improve 401 capacity.

Problem is, the 401 tunnel is a less malicious equivalent of Donald Trump's actions: balloon stupid ideas and keep a few floating around in public at all times. Once Doug gets an idea in his head, he won't let go of it. A Pickering-Mississauga tunnel is non-credible, and would also be massively expensive. You may as well talk about congestion pricing because it's about as serious of a suggestion.

Had he announced, say, a tunnel between Renforth and Islington to act as an Express lane to the surface Collectors and filling in a key bottleneck as a centrepiece (and some other collector-express lanes, say across Winston Churchill/the 407 in Mississauga and through Ajax), we could have a serious discussion about congestion and traffic bottlenecks and whether we want to fill them. How are we supposed to seriously discuss this tunnel fantasy?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ford has been very clear in his opposition to tolls, which have become completely politically toxic in Canada for whatever reason. Toll bridges and roads are dropping like flies right now across the country.

Tolling the 401 is political suicide and just won't happen. It's not worth wasting mental bandwidth on it.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Problem is, the 401 tunnel is a less malicious equivalent of Donald Trump's actions: balloon stupid ideas and keep a few floating around in public at all times. Once Doug gets an idea in his head, he won't let go of it. A Pickering-Mississauga tunnel is non-credible, and would also be massively expensive. You may as well talk about congestion pricing because it's about as serious of a suggestion.

Had he announced, say, a tunnel between Renforth and Islington to act as an Express lane to the surface Collectors and filling in a key bottleneck as a centrepiece (and some other collector-express lanes, say across Winston Churchill/the 407 in Mississauga and through Ajax), we could have a serious discussion about congestion and traffic bottlenecks and whether we want to fill them. How are we supposed to seriously discuss this tunnel fantasy?

We should wait and see what the tunnel actually looks like - Who's to say it won't be phased? The study isn't even promising a tunnel the entire length and is to look at all options to expand capacity. We simply have no idea what the plan is even going to look like yet.

 

[ShonTron]

The St. Thomas Expressway was part of a project to protect for an east-west corridor along Highway 3 in the 1970s between Highway 401 and Niagara. Though St. Thomas needed a bypass around Talbot Street, the province envisioned a new industrial hub in Haldimand-Norfolk, complete with a brand new city to serve it. All that came out of it was Townsend and the Nanticoke industrial complex.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The St. Thomas Expressway was part of a project to protect for an east-west corridor along Highway 3 in the 1970s between Highway 401 and Niagara. Though St. Thomas needed a bypass around Talbot Street, the province envisioned a new industrial hub in Haldimand-Norfolk, complete with a brand new city to serve it. All that came out of it was Townsend and the Nanticoke industrial complex.

I'm not sure MTO ever really envisioned a full freeway from St Thomas to Niagara - but they did envision a hugely upgraded Highway 3 with bypasses around most towns and an almost entire realignment through Haldimand County and into Niagara.

MTO also had plans for Highway 6 to be freeway-ified down to the Grand River (which is now partially happening), with it then being a super-2 highway down to Nanticoke. You can see how this was protected for in the Caledonia Bypass - overpasses north of the Grand River are protected for 2 carriageways, while south of it is built for only a single carriageway.

You can see MTO's protected corridors from the era on the controlled permit areas mapping..

Highway 6 freeway extension to Caledonia:

Highway 3 bypass near Dunnville:

Highway 3 near Port Colborne:

Haldimand County's official plan also still identifies the corridors:

Highway 6 around Caledonia:

And down to Nanticoke:

Highway 3 around Dunnville:

 

[just east of the creek]

I struggle to understand what Congestion Pricing has to do with this. The goal is to increase how many vehicles can travel through Toronto, not get picturesque traffic free views of the 401. This would be like solving the Line 1 overcrowding problem by setting the TTC fare to $20: it would work but it misses the point.

And yes, you could make the argument that we shouldn't be building more highways and that we should focus on alternate forms of travel - however that's a separate discussion not directly tied to the government precurring a list of options to improve 401 capacity.

I am not sure why I can drive the 401 the DV, the Gardiner and not pay a toll. If I take rapid transit to travel tot he same locations, i pay a toll. The idea that cars should be able to move around without cost is a Ford family fantasy. Tolling does not have to be 407 in level of cost, but it should be slightly higher then a transit choice. (And no.... gas, insurance, maintenance, parking are not tolls. Those costs are your opportunity costs, the same cost choices made when you turned your nose up at a new Nissan Versa selling for $20,000 and chose the Ford F150 at $65,000).

It will be very interesting when more details of the tunnel proposal are released. I am sure the government will have the big spraybomb of whitewash out and ready to make everything more palatable to the taxpayer.

 

[Bojaxs]

I am not sure why I can drive the 401 the DV, the Gardiner and not pay a toll. If I take rapid transit to travel tot he same locations, i pay a toll. The idea that cars should be able to move around without cost is a Ford family fantasy.

But isn't this where the "gas tax" comes into play?

Drivers are funding the roads they drive on every time they fill up their vehicle.

 

[just east of the creek]

But isn't this where the "gas tax" comes into play?

Drivers are funding the roads they drive on every time they fill up their vehicle.

9 cents per litre is the current Ontario Gas tax. A) its a hidden tax and B) its miniscule. I am not speaking of funding the building of roads, I am speaking of 'transiting' them.

 

[11th]

I am not sure why I can drive the 401 the DV, the Gardiner and not pay a toll. If I take rapid transit to travel tot he same locations, i pay a toll. The idea that cars should be able to move around without cost is a Ford family fantasy. Tolling does not have to be 407 in level of cost, but it should be slightly higher then a transit choice. (And no.... gas, insurance, maintenance, parking are not tolls. Those costs are your opportunity costs, the same cost choices made when you turned your nose up at a new Nissan Versa selling for $20,000 and chose the Ford F150 at $65,000).

It will be very interesting when more details of the tunnel proposal are released. I am sure the government will have the big spraybomb of whitewash out and ready to make everything more palatable to the taxpayer.

The toll you pay for taking transit is for the service provided (operators, fuel, electricity). The infrastructures the vehicles run on were from taxes.